New Testament Special Topics

The following New Testament Special Topics are taken from our verse by verse commentaries. They deal with:

John’s Gospel describes a special relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son. It is a mutual intimacy based on subjection and equality. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus speaks what He hears the Father saying, does what He sees the Father doing. Jesus does not act on His own, but on the will of the Father.

This intimate fellowship and servanthood sets the pattern for the relationship between Jesus and His followers. This intimate association was not the absorption of the individual (as in eastern mysticism), but an ethical, moral lifestyle of emulation. Fellowship was (1) cognitive (the world-view of the gospel as the Word of God); (2) relational (Jesus was God’s promised Messiah to be trusted in and leaned on); and (3) Christlikeness (His character reproduced in godly believers).

Jesus is the ideal man, the true Israelite, the standard of humanity. He reveals what Adam should have, and could have been (humanly speaking). Jesus is the ultimate “image of God.” He restores the fallen image in mankind by (1) revealing God; (2) dying on our behalf (substitutionary atonement); and (3) providing humans an example to follow. The term “abiding” (menō) reflects the goal of Christlikeness (cf. Rom. 8:29), the restoration of the Fall (cf. Gen. 3).

This reunion of God and His ultimate creation, mankind, for the purpose of fellowship is the Apostle Paul’s “in Christ” and the Apostle John’s “abide in Me.”

This was one of the early views of Jesus’ relation to deity. It basically asserted that Jesus was a normal human in every way and was adopted in a special sense by God at his baptism (cf. Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11) or at His resurrection (cf. Rom. 1:4). Jesus lived such an exemplary life that God, at some point, (baptism, resurrection) adopted Him as His “son” (cf. Rom. 1:4; Phi. 2:9). This was an early church and eighth century minority view. Instead of God becoming a man (the Incarnation) it reverses this and now man becomes God!

It is difficult to verbalize how Jesus, God the Son, pre-existent deity, was rewarded or extolled for an exemplary life. If He was already God, how could He be rewarded? If He had pre-existent divine glory how could He be honored more? Although it is hard for us to comprehend, the Father somehow honored Jesus in a special sense for His perfect fulfillment of the Father’s will.

The OT prophets viewed the future by an extension of the present. For them the future will be a restoration of geographical Israel. However, even they saw a new day (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22). With the continued willful rejection of YHWH by the descendants of Abraham (even after the exile) a new paradigm developed in Jewish intertestamental apocalyptic literature (i.e. I Enoch, IV Ezra, II Baruch). These writings begin to distinguish between two ages: a current evil age dominated by Satan and a coming age of righteousness dominated by the Spirit and inaugurated by the Messiah (often a dynamic warrior).

In this area of theology (eschatology) there is an obvious development. Theologians call this “progressive revelation.” The NT affirms this new cosmic reality of two ages (i.e. a temporal dualism):

In NT theology these two Jewish ages have been overlapped because of the unexpected and overlooked predictions of the two comings of the Messiah. The incarnation of Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies of the inauguration of the new age. However, the OT also saw His coming as Judge and Conqueror, yet He came at first as the Suffering Servant (cf. Isa. 53), humble and meek (cf. Zech. 9:9). He will return in power just as the OT predicted (cf. Rev. 19). This two-stage fulfillment caused the Kingdom to be present (inaugurated), but future (not fully consummated). This is the NT tension of the already, but not yet!

A. A quote from a Christian Life Commission on “A Future for the Family,” 1973, p. 16, by L. D. Johnson, entitled “Hebrew-Christian Geriatrics”:

“Our attitude toward the aging, reflected in our behavior as opposed to our sentimental talk, suggests that we recommend the Bible more ardently than obey it.

Probably no society among civilized people demonstrates less concern for the aged than ours. We are youth worshipers. We cater to the young, pamper and overprotect them, indulge them, envy them, and make fools of ourselves trying to imitate them. Our highest value is youth, our lowest age.

Yet the absurdity of such a turned-upside-down value system ought to be obvious. One out of six of us in the western world is over sixty, and the proportion is rising.”

A. Teach your children to respect older people (you will need this one day yourself!).

B. Make it a family project to contact aged members of your family. If possible, in person, if not, call or write to older relatives, especially at holiday times.

C. Take a trip to an aged neighbor or nursing home. Encourage your church to adopt a home and visit it regularly.

D. Provide time for our younger children to be with grandparents, either natural or “adopted,”

E. Encourage our churches to develop Senior Adult Ministries. Assign a staff member to coordinate.

1. Yayin - This is the general term for wine, which is used 141 times. The etymology is uncertain because it is not from a Hebrew root. It always means fermented fruit juice, usually grape. Some typical passages are Gen. 9:21; Exod. 29:40; Num. 15:5,10.

2. Tirosh - This is “new wine.” Because of climatic conditions of the Near East, fermentation started as soon as six hours after extracting the juice. This term refers to wine in the process of fermenting. For some typical passages see Deut. 12:17; 18:4; Isa. 62:8-9; Hos. 4:11.

4. Sekar - This is the term “strong drink.” The Hebrew root is used in the term “drunk” or “drunkard.” It had something added to it to make it more intoxicating. It is parallel to yayin (cf. Prov. 20:1; 31:6; Isa. 28:7).

3. Gleuchos vinos (sweet wine, asis) - wine in the early stages of fermentation (cf. Acts 2:13).

1. Wine is a gift of God (Gen. 27:28; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; Hos. 2:8-9; Joel 2:19,24; Amos 9:13; Zech. 10:7).

2. Wine is a part of a sacrificial offering (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:7,10; 28:14; Deut. 14:26; Judg. 9:13).

4. Wine can be a real problem (Noah- Gen. 9:21; Lot- Gen. 19:33,35; Samson- Judg. 16:19; Nabal- I Sam. 25:36; Uriah- II Sam. 11:13; Ammon- II Sam. 13:28; Elah- I Kin. 16:9; Benhadad- I Kin. 20:12; Rulers- Amos 6:6; and Ladies- Amos 4).

5. Wine can be abused (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-35; 31:4-5; Isa. 5:11,22; 19:14; 28:7-8; Hosea 4:11).

6. Wine was prohibited to certain groups (Priests on duty, Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21; Nazarites, Num. 6; and Rulers, Prov. 31:4-5; Isa. 56:11-12; Hosea 7:5).

7. Wine is used in an eschatological setting (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18; Zech. 9:17).

2. The rabbis say, “Wine is the greatest of all medicine, where wine is lacking, then drugs are needed.” (BB 58b).

5. Leaders are not to be abusers. This does not mean total abstainers (I Tim. 3:3,8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; I Pet. 4:3).

7. Drunkenness is deplored (Matt. 24:49; Luke 11:45; 21:34; I Cor. 5:11-13; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; I Pet. 4:3; Rom. 13:13-14).

3. Believers in some cultures must limit their freedoms for the sake of the gospel (Matt. 15:1-20; Mark 7:1- 23; I Cor. 8-10; Rom. 14).

2. Fallen mankind has abused all of God’s gifts by taking them beyond God-given bounds.

C. Abuse is in us, not in things. There is nothing evil in the physical creation (cf. Mark 7:18-23; Rom. 14:14,20; I Cor. 10:25-26; I Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:15).

A. Fermentation begins very soon, approximately 6 hours after the grape is crushed.

B. Jewish tradition says that when a slight foam appeared on the surface (sign of fermentation), it is liable to the wine-tithe (Ma aseroth 1:7). It was called “new wine” or “sweet wine.”

D. The secondary fermentation took about 40 days. At this state it is considered “aged wine” and could be offered on the altar (Edhuyyoth 6:1).

E. Wine that had rested on its lees (old wine) was considered good but had to be strained well before use.

F. Wine was considered to be properly aged usually after one year of fermentation. Three years was the longest period of time that wine could be safely stored. It was called “old wine” and had to be diluted with water.

G. Only in the last 100 years with a sterile environment and chemical additives has fermentation been postponed. The ancient world could not stop the natural process of fermentation.

A. Be sure your experience, theology, and biblical interpretation does not depreciate Jesus and first century Jewish/Christian culture! They were obviously not total-abstainers.

B. I am not advocating the social use of alcohol. However, many have overstated the Bible’s position on this subject and now claim superior righteousness based on a cultural/ denominational bias.

C. For me, Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8-10 have provided insight and guidelines based on love and respect for fellow believers and the spread of the gospel in our cultures, not personal freedom

or judgmental criticism. If the Bible is the only source for faith and practice, then maybe we must all rethink this issue.

C. The English word, almsgiving, comes from a contraction of the Greek term eleēmosunē.

A. The concept of helping the poor was expressed early in the Torah (writings of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy).

2. “gleaning,” leaving part of the harvest for the poor, Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:20

3. “sabbath year,” allowing the poor to eat the produce of the seventh, fallow year, Exod. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:2-7.

A. The first division of the Mishnah deals with how to treat the poor, needy, and local Levites.

1. Ecclesiasticus (also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sirah) 3:30, “as water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin” (NRSV)

2. Ecclesiasticus 29:12, “store up almsgiving in your treasury and it will rescue you from every disaster” (NRSV)

3. Tobit 4:611, “for those who act in accordance with truth will proper in all their activities. To all those who practice righteousness^b ⁷give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. ⁸If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. ⁹So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. ¹⁰For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. ¹¹Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.” (NRSV)

4. Tobit 12:8-9, “⁸Prayer and fasting^d is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than wealth with wrongdoing^e. It is better

to give alms than to lay up gold. ⁹For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life.” (NRSV)

C. The last quote from Tobit 12:8-9 shows the problem developing. Human actions/human merits were seen as the mechanism for both forgiveness and abundance.

This concept developed further in the Septuagint where the Greek terms for almsgiving (eleēmosunē) became a synonym for righteousness (dikaiosun). They could be substituted for each other in translating the Hebrew terms hesed (God’s covenant love and loyalty, cf. Deut. 6:25; 24:13; Isa. 1:27; 28:17; 59:16; Dan. 4:27).

D. Human acts of compassion became a goal in themselves to achieve one’s personal abundance here and salvation at death. The act itself, instead of the motive behind the act, became theologically preeminent. God looks at the heart, then judges the work of the hand. This was the teaching of the rabbis, but it somehow got lost in the pursuit of individual self righteousness (cf. Micah 6:8).

B. Jesus addresses the traditional understanding of righteousness as (cf. II Clement 16:4) in His Sermon on the mount (cf. Matt. 5-7).

Some Jews were trusting in their actions. These actions were meant to flow out of a love for God, His word and covenant brothers and sisters, not self-interest or self-righteousness! Humility and secrecy become guidelines for proper actions. The heart is crucial. The heart is desperately wicked. God must change the heart. The new heart emulates God!

A. The term “Amen” is from a Hebrew word for truth (emeth) or truthfulness (emun, emunah) and faith or faithfulness.

B. Its etymology is from a person’s physical stable stance. The opposite would be one who is unstable, slipping (cf. Deut. 28:64-67; 38:16; Ps. 40:2; 73:18; Jer. 23:12) or stumbling (cf. Ps. 73:2). From this literal usage developed the metaphorical extension of faithful, trustworthy, loyal, and dependable (cf. Gen. 15:16; Hab. 2:4).

E. From the sense of trust or trustworthiness developed a liturgical usage which was used to affirm a true or trustworthy statement of another (cf. Deut. 27:15-26; Neh. 8:6; Ps. 41:13; 70:19; 89:52; 106:48).

F. The theological key to this term is not mankind’s faithfulness, but YHWH’s (cf. Exod. 34:6; Duet. 32:4; Ps. 108:4; 115:1; 117:2; 138:2). Fallen humanity's only hope is the merciful faithful covenant loyalty of YHWH and His promises.

Those who know YHWH are to be like Him (cf. Hab. 2:4). The Bible is history and a record of God restoring His image (cf. Gen. 1:26-27) in mankind. Salvation restores mankind’s ability to have intimate fellowship with God. This is why we were created.

A. The use of the word “amen” as a concluding liturgical affirmation of the trustworthiness of a statement is common in the NT (cf. I Cor. 14:16; II Cor. 1:20; Rev. 1:7; 5:14; 7:12).

B. The use of the term as a close to a prayer is common in the NT (cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; 6:18; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; II Thess. 3:18; I Tim. 1:17; 6:16; II Tim. 4:18).

C. Jesus is the only one who used the term (often doubled in John) to introduce significant statements (cf. Luke 4:24; 12:37; 18:17,29; 21:32; 23:43)

D. It is used as a title for Jesus in Rev. 3:14 (possibly a title of YHWH from Isa. 65:16).

E. The concept of faithfulness or faith, trustworthiness, or trust is expressed in the Greek term pistos or pistis, which is translated into English as trust, faith, believe.

The rabbis thought that the angels were jealous of God’s love and attention to fallen mankind and, therefore, were hostile to them. The Gnostic false teachers asserted that salvation was only available by secret passwords through hostile angelic spheres (cf. Col. and Eph.), which led up to the high-god.

George Eldon Ladd has a good summary of the terms used by Paul for angels in his book A Theology of the New Testament:

“Paul refers not only to good and bad angels, to Satan and to demons; he uses another group of words to designate ranks of angelic spirits. The terminology is as follows:

‘Rules’ [archai; RSV, “principalities’], Eph. 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15; Rom. 8:38

A. Used for beautification (cf. Deut. 28:40; Ruth 3:3; II Sam. 12:20; 14:2; II Chr. 28:1-5; Dan. 10:3; Amos 6:6; Mic. 6:15)

C. Used for healing (cf. Isa. 6:1; Jer. 51:8; Mark 6:13; Luke 10:34; James 5:14) [used in hygienic sense in Ezek. 16:9]

D. Used for preparation for burial (cf. Gen. 50:2; II Chr. 16:14; Mark 16:1; John 12:3,7; 19:39-40)

E. Used in a religious sense (of an object, cf. Gen. 28:18,20; 31:13 [a pillar]; Exod. 29:36 [the altar]; Exod. 30:36; 40:9-16; Lev. 8:10-13; Num. 7:1 [the tabernacle])

b. by the prophets (cf. I Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1,17; 16:3,12-13; I Kgs. 1:45; 19:15-16)

e. of Jesus as Messianic king (cf. Ps. 2:2; Luke 4:18 [Isa. 61:1]; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9 [Ps. 45:7])

A. New Testament eschatological passages reflect Old Testament prophetic insight that viewed the end-time through contemporary occurrences.

B. Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are so difficult to interpret because they deal with several questions simultaneously.

C. The genre of New Testament eschatological passages is usually a combination of apocalyptic and prophetic language which is purposely ambiguous and highly symbolic.

D. Several passages in the NT (cf. Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 17 and 21, I and II Thess. and Rev.) deal with the Second Coming. These passages emphasize:

E. There is a theological paradoxical tension between (1) the any-moment return (cf. Luke 12:40,46; 21:36; Matt.24:27,44) versus (2) the fact that some events in history must occur.

2. The great apostasy (cf. Matt. 24:10-13, 21; I Tim. 4:1; II Tim. 3:1ff.; II Thess. 2:3)

3. The revelation of the “man of sin” (cf. Dan. 7:23-26; 9:24-27; II Thess. 2:3)

G. Luke 17:26-37 is not paralleled in Mark. It does have a partial Synoptic parallel in Matt. 24:37-44.

Revelation is a uniquely Jewish literary genre, apocalyptic. It was often used in tension-filled times to express the conviction that God was in control of history and would bring deliverance to His people. This type of literature is characterized by

1. a strong sense of the universal sovereignty of God (monotheism and determinism)

3. use of secret code words (usually from the OT or intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic literature)

5. use of angelic mediation by means of visions and dreams, but usually through angelic mediation

7. use of a fixed set of symbols, not reality, to communicate the end-time message

9. non-canonical (taken from D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, pp. 37-38)

This Greek term aphistēmi has a wide semantic field. However, the English term “apostasy” is derived from this term and prejudices its usage to modern readers. Context, as always, is the key, not a preset definition.

This is a compound term from the preposition apo, which means “from” or “away from” and histēmi, “to sit,” “to stand,” or “to fix.” Notice the following (non-theological) usages:

4. to remove legally (divorce), Deut. 24:1,3 (LXX ) and NT, Matt. 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4; I Cor. 7:11

1. to cancel, pardon, remit the guilt of sin, Exod.32:32 (LXX); Num. 14:19; Job 42:10 and NT, Matt. 6:12,14-15; Mark 11:25-26

b. the faith, Ezek. 20:8 (LXX ); Luke 8:13; II Thess. 2:3; I Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:13

Modern believers ask many theological questions that the NT writers would have never thought about. One of these would relate to the modern tendency to separate faith from faithfulness.

There are persons in the Bible who are involved in the people of God and something happens.

A. This Greek term is literally apostasize. The Old and New Testaments both confirm an intensification of evil and false teaching before the Second Coming (cf. Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; Acts 20:29,30; II Thess. 2:9-12; II Tim. 4:4). This Greek term may reflect Jesus’ words in the Parable of the Soils found in Luke 8:13. These false teachers are obviously not Christians, but they came from within (cf. Acts 20:29-30; I John 2:19); however, they are able to seduce and capture true, but immature, believers (cf. Heb. 3:12).

The theological question is were the false teachers ever believers? This is difficult to answer because there were false teachers in the local churches (cf. I John 2:18-19). Often our theological or denominational traditions answer this question without reference to specific Bible texts (except the proof-text method of quoting a verse out of context to supposedly prove one’s bias).

We rarely think about these texts because our systematic theology (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc. dictates the mandated response. Please do not pre-judge me because I bring up this subject. My concern is proper hermeneutical procedure. We must let the Bible speak to us and not try to mold it into a preset theology. This is often painful and shocking because much of our theology is denominational, cultural or relational (parent, friend, pastor), not biblical. Some who are in the People of God turn out to not be in the People of God (e.g. Rom. 9:6).

A. the place where YHWH dwelt with His people, between the wings of the cherubim

B. the place of forgiveness of sin, for all peoples (cf. Israel, Lev. 16 and I Kgs. 8:30-30; foreigners, 8:41,43,60)

1. the two tablets of stone on which YHWH wrote the decalog (cf. Exod. 31:18; 32:15-16)

3. the fragments of the original two tablets which were broken by Moses because of Israel’s (Aaron) making and worshiping the golden calf (cf. Exod. 32:19; Deut. 9:17; 10:2)

B. biblical references as to the contents (uncertain if these refer to things inside the ark or beside it)

3. the guilt offerings of the Philistines (5 golden mice and golden hemorrhoids, cf. I Sam. 6:3-4,8)

C. at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple in I Kgs. 8 the ark is said to have only contained the Torah (cf. 8:9)

1. taken to Egypt by Shishak (935-914 b.c.) when he invaded Judah in the fifth year (926) of Rehoboam’s (son of Solomon) reign (cf. I Kgs. 14:25-26; I Chr. 12:9).

2. taken to Egypt (Zoan, Tanis, Avaris—different names for the delta capital of Seti I) by Pharaoh Necco II, who also exiled the Davidic seed Jehoahaz (Josiah’s son) in 597 b.c. (cf. II Kgs.23:31-35; II Chr. 36:1-4)

3. taken to Babylon to the temple of Marduk by Nebuchadnezzar II when Zedekiah was exiled (586 b.c.) and the Temple burned (cf. II Kgs. 25:9,13-17; II Chr. 36:18).

3. hidden by unknown means, but will be returned by Elijah just before the Messiah comes (cf. Mal. 4:5)

4. hidden on Mt. Gerizim (Shechem) where the Samaritans built their temple to YHWH

This passage is a balance to other NT passages on election. I thought it might be theologically helpful to provide my commentary notes from Rom. 8:29 and 9, as well as Eph. 1.

I. Romans 8:29 - Paul uses “foreknew” (proginōskō, “to know before”) twice, here and 11:2. In 11:2 it refers to God’s covenant love for Israel before time began. Remember that the term “know” in Hebrew related to intimate, personal relationship, not to facts about someone (cf. Gen. 4:1; Jer. 1:5). Here it was included in a chain of eternal events (cf. Rom. 8:29-30). This term was linked with predestination. However, it must be stated that God’s foreknowledge is not the basis of election because if that were so, then election would be based on fallen humanity’s future response, which would be human performance. This term is also found in Acts 26:5; I Pet. 1:2,20 and II Pet. 3:17.

texts obviously stress that God is sovereign. He is in total control of all things. These is a preset divine plan being worked out in time. However, this plan is not arbitrary or selective. It is based not only on God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge, but on His unchanging character of love, mercy, and undeserved grace.

We must be careful of our western (American) individualism or our evangelical zeal coloring this wonderful truth. We must also guard against being polarized into the historical, theological conflicts between Augustine versus Pelegius or Calvinism versus Arminianism.

Predestination is not a doctrine meant to limit God’s love, grace, and mercy nor to exclude some from the gospel. It is meant to strengthen believers by molding their world-view. God is for all

mankind (cf. I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9). God is in control of all things. Who or what can separate us from Him (cf. Rom. 8:31-39)? God views all history as present. Humans are time bound. Our perspective and mental abilities are limited. There is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will. It is a covenantal structure. This is another example of truth given in dialectical tension. Biblical doctrines are presented from different perspectives. They often appear paradoxical. The truth is a balance between the seemingly opposite pairs. We must not remove the tension by picking one of the truths. We must not isolate any biblical truth into a compartment by itself.

It is also important to add that the goal of election is not only heaven when we die, but Christlikeness now (cf. Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; 2:10). We were chosen to be “holy and blameless.” God chooses to change us so that others may see the change and respond by faith to God in Christ. Predestination is not a personal privilege, but a covenantal responsibility. This is the major truth of the passage. This is the goal of Christianity. Holiness is God’s will for every believer. God’s election is to Christlikeness (cf. Eph. 1:4), not a special standing. The image of God, which was given to man in creation (cf. Gen. 1:26; 5:1,3; 9:6), is to be restored.

C. “conformed to the image of His Son”—God’s ultimate goal is the restoration of the image lost in the Fall. Believers are foreordained to Christlikeness (cf. Eph. 1:4).

A. Chapter 9 is one of the strongest NT passages on God’s sovereignty (the other being, Eph. 1:3-14), while Romans 10 states humans’ free will clearly and repeatedly (cf. “everyone” v. 4; “whosoever” vv. 11,13; “all” v. 12 [twice]). Paul never tries to reconcile this theological tension. They are both true! Most Bible doctrines are presented in paradoxical or dialectical pairs. Most systems of theology are logical half-truths. Augustinianism and Calvinism versus semi-Pelegianism and Arminianism have elements of truth and error. Biblical tension between doctrines is preferable to a proof-texted, dogmatic, rational, theological system that forces the Bible onto a preconceived interpretive grid.

B. This same truth (found in Rom. 9:23) is stated in Rom. 8:29-30 and Eph. 1:4,11. This chapter is the strongest expression of God’s sovereignty in the NT. There can be no dispute that God is in total charge of creation and redemption. This great truth should never be softened or diminished.

However, it must be balanced with God’s choice of covenant as a means of relating to human creation, made in His image. It is surely true that some OT covenants, like Gen. 15, are unconditional and do not relate at all to human response, but other covenants are conditioned on human response (e.g. Eden, Noah, Moses, David). God has a plan of redemption for His creation;

no human can affect this plan. God has chosen to allow individuals to participate in His plans. This opportunity for participation is a theological tension between sovereignty (Rom. 9) and human free will (Rom. 10).

It is not appropriate to select one biblical emphasis and ignore another. There is tension between doctrines because eastern people present truth in dialectical or tension-filled pairs. Doctrines must be held in relationship to other doctrines. Truth is a mosaic of truths.

it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).

The key to this theological tension may be found in 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven only, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as immanent; security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father; Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner, etc).

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the

initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from man. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology.

B. “He chose us” in Eph. 1:4 is an AORIST MIDDLE INDICATIVE which emphasizes the subject. This focuses on the Father’s choice before time. God’s choice must not be understood in the Islamic

sense of determinism, nor in the ultra-Calvinistic sense as some versus others, but in the covenantal sense. God promised to redeem fallen mankind (cf. Gen. 3:15). God called and chose Abraham to choose all humans (cf. Gen. 12:3; Exod. 19:5-6). God Himself elected all persons who would exercise faith in Christ. God always takes the initiative in salvation (cf. John 6:44,65). This text and Rom. 9 are the biblical basis for the doctrine of predestination emphasized by Augustine and Calvin.

God chose believers not only to salvation (justification), but also to sanctification (cf. Co1:12). This could relate to (1) our position in Christ (cf. II Cor. 5:21) or (2) God’s desire to reproduce His

character in His children (cf. 2:10; Rom. 8:28-29; Gal. 4:19). God’s will for His children is both heaven one day and Christlikeness now!

“In Him” is a key concept of Eph. 1:4. The Father’s blessings, grace, and salvation flow through Christ (cf. John 14:6). Notice the repetition of this grammatical form (LOCATIVE of sphere) in v. 3, “in Christ”; vs. 4, “in Him”; v. 7, “in Him”; v. 9, “in Him”; v. 10, “in Christ,” “in Him”; v. 12, “in Christ” and v. 13, “in Him” (twice). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind (Karl Barth). Jesus

is the elect man and all are potentially elect in Him. All of God the Father’s blessings flow through Christ.

The phrase “before the foundation of the world” is also used in Matt. 25:34; John 17:24; I Pet. 1:19-20 and Rev. 13:8. It shows the Triune God’s redemptive activity even before Gen. 1:1.

Humans are limited by their sense of time; everything to us is past, present and future, but not to God.

The goal of predestination is holiness, not privilege. God’s call is not to a selected few of Adam’s children, but to all! It is a call to be what God intended mankind to be, like Himself (cf. I Thess. 5:23; II Thess. 2:13); in His image (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). To turn predestination into a

theological tenet instead of a holy life is a tragedy. Often our theologies speak louder than the biblical text.

The term “blameless” (amōmos) or “free from blemish” is used of (1) Jesus (cf. Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 1:19); (2) Zachariah and Elizabeth (cf. Luke 1:6); (3) Paul (cf. Phil. 3:6); and (4) all true Christians (cf. Phil. 2:15; I Thess. 3:13; 5:23). God’s unalterable will for every Christian is not only heaven later, but Christlikeness now (cf. Rom. 8:29-30; Gal. 4:19; I Pet. 1:2). Believers are to reflect God’s characteristics to a lost world for the purpose of evangelism.

Grammatically the phrase “in love” in this verse could go with either v. 4 or v. 5. However, when this phrase is used in other places in Ephesians it always refers to human love for God (cf. 3:17; 4:2,15,16).

C. In Eph. 1:5 the phrase “He predestined us” is an AORIST ACTIVE PARTICIPLE. This Greek term is a compound of “before” and “mark off.” It refers to God’s predetermined redemptive plan (cf. Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 17:31; Rom. 8:29-30). Predestination is one of several truths related to mankind’s salvation. It is part of a theological pattern or series of related truths. It was never meant to be emphasized in isolation! Biblical truth has been given in a series of tension-filled, paradoxical pairs. Denominationalism has tended to remove the biblical tension by emphasizing only one of the dialectical truths (predestination vs. human free will; security of the believer vs. perseverance of the saints; original sin vs. volitional sin; sinlessness vs. sinning less; instantaneously declared sanctification vs. progressive sanctification; faith vs. works; Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility; transcendence vs. immanence).

Titus 2:11; II Pet. 3:9). God’s grace (God’s character) is the theological key to this passage (cf. vv. 6a, 7c, 9b), as God’s mercy is the key to the other passage on predestination, Rom. 9-11.

Fallen mankind’s only hope is the grace and mercy of God (cf. Isa. 53:6 and several other OT texts quoted in Rom. 3:9-18). It is crucial in interpreting these first theological chapters to realize that Paul emphasizes those things which are totally unrelated to human performance: predestination (chap. 1), grace (chap. 2), and God’s eternal plan of redemption (mystery, 2:11- 3:13). This was to counterbalance the emphasis of the false teachers on human merit and pride.

A. Can Christians know they are saved (cf. 5:13)? I John has three tests or evidences:

1. John Calvin based assurance on God’s election. He said that we can never be certain in this life.

2. John Wesley based assurance on religious experience. He believed that we have the ability to live above known sin.

3. Roman Catholics and the Church of Christ base assurance on an authoritative Church. The group to which one belongs is the key to assurance.

4. Most evangelicals base assurance on the promises of the Bible, linked to the fruit of the Spirit in the life of the believer (cf. Gal. 5:22-23).

C. I think fallen mankind’s primary assurance is linked to the character of the Triune God

D. But humans must respond to God’s covenant offer (both initially and continually)

3. often believers continue to willfully sin (cf. I Cor. 3:10-15; 9:27; I Tim. 1:19-20; II Tim. 4:10; II Pet. 1:8-11)

4. certain personality types (i.e. perfectionists) can never accept God’s unconditional acceptance and love

5. in the Bible there are examples of false professions (cf. Matt. 13:3-23; 7:21-23; Mark 4:14-20; II Pet. 2:19-20; I John 2:18-19)

It is interesting in observing Luke’s use of exousia (authority, power, or legal right).

2. In 4:32,36 the Jewish people were amazed at how Jesus taught using His personal authority.

Although not in Luke, Matthew’s introduction to the Great Commission is a marvelous statement, “all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).

4. His resuscitations of the dead showed His power over physical life and death.

5. His miracles all reveal His power and authority over the temporal, spacial, and physical.

1. sold his property and gave all the money to the Apostles to help the poor (cf. Acts 4:37)

2. He went to Tarsus find Paul and get him to help with the new church in Antioch (cf. Acts 11:24-26).

3. The church at Antioch sent Barnabas and Saul to the church in Jerusalem with a contribution for the poor (cf. Acts 11:29-30).

5. Barnabas was the team leader on Cyprus (his home island), but soon Paul’s leadership was recognized (cf. Acts 13:13)

6. They reported to the church in Jerusalem to explain and document their mission work among the Gentiles (cf. Acts 15, called the Jerusalem Council).

7. Barnabas and Paul had their first disagreement about Jewish food laws and Gentile fellowship recorded in Gal. 2:11-14.

8. Barnabas and Paul planned a second missionary journey, but a dispute broke out over Barnabas’ cousin, John Mark (cf. Col. 4:10), who deserted the work on the first mission trip (cf. Acts

13:13). Paul refused to take him on the second mission trip, so the team broke up (cf. Acts 15:36-41). This resulted in two teams (i.e. Barnabas and John Mark and Paul and Silas).

D. Clement of Alexandria says he wrote the non-canonical book of the Epistle of Barnabas.

The gospel is for all humans, but believing is one of the conditions for acceptance. The other is repentance (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19,; 20:21). God deals with mankind by means of covenant. He always takes the initiative and sets the agenda. There are, however, several reciprocal conditions. See note at 1:5.

The Greek term, here translated “believe,” can also be translated in English by the terms “faith” or “trust.” The Greek word has a wider connotation than any one English word. Saving faith is continuing faith (cf. I Cor. 1:18; 15:2; I Cor. 2:15; I Thess. 4:14).

Originally the related Hebrew terms behind this Greek term for “faith” meant a stable stance, a man with his feet apart so that he could not be easily moved. The opposite OT metaphor would be “my feet were in the miry clay” (Ps. 40:2), “my feet almost slipped” (Ps. 73:2). These Hebrew related roots, emun, emunah, aman, came to be used metaphorically of someone who was trustworthy, loyal, or dependable. Saving faith does not reflect fallen mankind’s ability to be faithful, but God’s! Believers’ hopes do not reside in their abilities, but in God’s character and promises. It is His trustworthiness, His faithfulness, His promises!

A. This is such an important term in the Bible (cf. Heb. 11:1,6). It is the subject of Jesus’ early preaching (cf. Mark 1:15). There are at least two new covenant requirements: repentance and faith (cf. 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).

1. The term “faith” in the OT meant loyalty, fidelity, or trustworthiness and was a description of God’s nature, not ours.

2. It came from a Hebrew term (emun, emunah), which meant “to be sure or stable.” Saving faith is mental assent (set of truths), moral living (a lifestyle), and primarily a relational (welcoming of a person) and volitional commitment (a decision) to that person.

It must be emphasized that Abraham’s faith was not in a future Messiah, but in God’s promise that he would have a child and descendants (cf. Gen. 12:2; 15:2-5; 17:4-8; 18:14). Abraham responded to this promise by trusting in God. He still had doubts and problems about this promise, which took thirteen years to be fulfilled. His imperfect faith, however, was accepted by God. God is willing to work with flawed human beings who respond to Him and His promises in faith, even if it is the size of a mustard seed (cf. Matt. 17:20).

The term “believed” is from the Greek term (pisteuō) which can also be translated “believe,” “faith,” or “trust.” For example, the noun does not occur in the Gospel of John, but the verb is used often. In John 2:23-25 there is uncertainty as to the genuineness of the crowd’s commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Other examples of this superficial use of the term “believe” are in John 8:31-59 and Acts 8:13, 18-24. True biblical faith is more than an initial response. It must be followed by a process of discipleship (cf. Matt. 13:20-22,31-32).

1. eis means “into.” This unique construction emphasizes believers putting their trust/faith in Jesus

b. into Him (John 2:11; 3:15,18; 4:39; 6:40; 7:5,31,39,48; 8:30; 9:36; 10:42; 11:45,48; 17:37,42; Matt. 18:6; Acts 10:43; Phil. 1:29; I Pet. 1:8)

3. epi means “in” or upon, as in Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5,24; 9:33; 10:11; I Tim. 1:16; I Pet. 2:6

4. the DATIVE CASE with no PREPOSITION as in Gal. 3:6; Acts 18:8; 27:25; I John 3:23; 5:10

i. Jesus identified Himself in the covenant name of the Father, “I Am” (John 8:24; 13:19)

1. eis means “into.” This unique construction emphasizes believers putting their trust/faith in Jesus

b. into Him (John 2:11; 3:15,18; 4:39; 6:40; 7:5,31,39,48; 8:30; 9:36; 10:42; 11:45,48; 12:37,42)

4. hoti, which means “believe that,” gives content as to what to believe. Some examples are

i. Jesus identified Himself in the covenant name of the Father, “I am” (8:24; 13:19)

Biblical faith is in both a person and a message! It is evidenced by obedience, love, and perseverance.

2. She was the sister of Agrippa II, and for a period of time was his incestuous lover. Later she was a mistress to Titus while he was a general.

4. She was married to Herod Chalcis (Herod Agrippa I’s brother, her uncle), but when he died she moved in with her brother.

5. She later married Polemon, King of Cilicia, but left him to return to her brother who had just been given the title of “King.”

1. This concept theologically describes mankind’s original state (i.e. Gen. 1, the Garden of Eden).

2. Sin and rebellion have decimated this condition of perfect fellowship (i.e. Gen. 3).

3. Humans (male and female) long for the restoration of fellowship with God because they are made in His image and likeness (i.e. Gen. 1:26-27).

c. the goal of Christianity is Christlikeness (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; Eph. 1:4), which in reality, is the restoration of the image of God lost in the fall of Adam and Eve

7. Heaven is a restoration of the perfect fellowship of the Garden of Eden. Heaven is the New Jerusalem coming down out of God’s presence (cf. Rev. 21:2) to a purified earth (cf. II Pet. 3:10). The Bible begins and ends on the same themes.

c. by prophetic statement, the presence and companionship of animals (cf. Isa. 11:6-9).

1. There are so many different Hebrew words that carry the concept of perfection, blamelessness, innocence that it would be hard to name and show all the intricate relationships.

2. The main terms carrying the concept of perfection, guiltlessness, or innocence (according to Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 94-99) are:

3. The Septuagint (i.e. the Bible of the early church) translates many of these concepts into Koine Greek terms used in the NT.

a. Hebrew legal cultic connotation is translated by amōmos (cf. Eph. 5:27; Phil. 2:15; I Pet. 1:19)

2. Christ is the sinless, blameless, innocent One (amōmos) (cf. Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 1:19)

3. Christ’s followers must emulate Him (amōmos, cf. Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Phil. 2:15; Col. 1:22; II Pet. 3:14; Jude 24; Rev. 14:5)

b. anepileptos, “above criticism” or “no handle for reproach” (cf. I Tim. 3:2; 5:7; 6:14; Titus 2:8)

6. The concept of “wholeness” or “soundness” (holoklēria) (cf. Acts 3:16; I Thess. 5:23; James 1:4)

7. The concept of “without fault,” guiltless innocence is conveyed by amemptos (cf. Luke 1:6; Phil. 2:15; 3:6; I Thess. 2:10; 3:13; 5:23)

8. The concept of “not subject to blame” is conveyed by amōmētos (cf. I Pet. 3:14)

9. The concept of “spotless,” “unblemished” is often used in passages that have one of the above terms also (cf. I Tim. 6:14; James 1:27; I Pet. 1:19; II Pet. 3:14)

D. The number of words in Hebrew and Greek which convey this concept shows its importance. God has provided our need through Christ and now calls on us to be like Him.

Believers are positionally, forensically declared “right,” “just,” “blameless” by the work of Christ. Now believers are to possess their position. “Walk in the light as He is in the light” (cf. I John 1:7). Walk worthy of the calling (cf. Eph. 4:1,17; 5:2,15). Jesus has restored the image of God. Intimate fellowship is now possible, but remember God wants a people who reflect His character,

as His Son did. We are called to nothing less than holiness (cf. Matt. 5:20,48; Eph. 1:4; I Pet. 1:13-16). God’s holiness, not only legally, but existentially!

Body and Spirit are not an ontological dichotomy in mankind, but a dual relationship to both this planet and to God. The Hebrew word nephesh (i.e. soul) is used of both mankind and the animals in Genesis, while “spirit” (ruah) is used uniquely of mankind. This is not a proof-text on the nature of mankind as a two-part (dichotomous, cf. I Cor. 7:34; Heb. 4:12) or a three-part (trichotomous) being (cf. I Thess. 5:23). Mankind is primarily represented in the Bible as a unity (cf. Gen. 2:7; I Cor. 2:1). For a good summary of the theories of mankind as trichotomous, dichotomous, or a unity see Millard J. Erickson’s Christian Theology (second edition), pp. 538-557 and Frank Stagg’s Polarities of Man’s Existence in Biblical Perspectives.

This Greek term is a compound of “all” (pan) and “speech” (rhēsis). This freedom or boldness in speech often had the connotation of a boldness amidst opposition or rejection (cf. John 7:13; I Thess. 2:2).

In John’s writings (used 13 times) it often denotes a public proclamation (cf. John 7:4, also in Paul’s writings, Col. 2:15). However, sometimes it simply means “plainly” (cf. John 10:24; 11:14; 16:25,29).

In Acts the Apostles speak the message about Jesus in the same manner (with boldness) as Jesus spoke about the Father and His plans and promises (cf. Acts 2:29; 4:13,29,31; 9:27-28; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26; 28:31). Paul also asked for prayer that he might boldly preach the gospel (cf. Eph. 6:19; I Thess. 2:2) and live the gospel (cf. Phil. 1:20).

Paul’s eschatological hope in Christ gave him boldness and confidence to preach the gospel in this current evil age (cf. II Cor. 3:11-12). He also had confidence that Jesus’ followers would act appropriately (cf. II Cor. 7:4).

There is one more aspect to this term. Hebrews uses it in a unique sense of boldness in Christ to approach God and speak to Him (cf. Heb. 3:6; 4:16; 10:19,35). Believers are fully accepted and welcomed into intimacy with the Father through the Son!

These Greek terms kauchaomai, kauchēma, and kauchēsis are used about thirty five times by Paul and only twice in the rest of the NT (both in James). Its predominate use is in I and II Corinthians.

B. believers should glory in the Lord (cf. I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17, which is an allusion to Jer. 9:23-24)

Therefore, there is appropriate and inappropriate boasting/glorying (i.e. pride).

c. in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. Paul’s main theme, cf. I Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 6:14)

(3) his not boasting in other men’s labor (as some at Corinth were, cf. II Cor. 10:15)

(4) his racial heritage (as others were doing at Corinth, cf. II Cor. 11:17; 12:1,5,6)

B. An example of a Mesopotamian curse is, “May the earth not receive your corpses.”

B. It was done very quickly (cf. Sarah in Gen. 23 and Rachel in Gen. 35:19 and notice Deut. 21:23).

E. There was no embalming, like in Egypt. Mankind came from dust and must return to dust (ex. Gen. 3:19; Ps. 103:14; 104:29).

F. In rabbinical Judaism it was difficult to balance a proper respect and handling of the body with the concept of ceremonial defilement connected to dead bodies.

A. Burial quickly followed death, usually within twenty-four hours. The Jews often watched the grave for three days, believing that the soul could return to the body within that time frame (cf. John 11:39).

B. Burial involved the cleaning and wrapping of the body with spices (cf. John 11:44; 19:39-40).

C. There were not distinctive Jewish or Christian burial procedures or items placed in the grave in first century Palestine.

1. This spice is mentioned twelve times in the OT, mostly in wisdom literature as a perfume

c. used to anoint Jesus at His burial (cf. John 19:39 and symbolically in John 11:2). This was according to Jewish customs described in the Talmud (i.e. Berakhoth 53a).

1. connected to fragrant perfume (cf. Num. 24:6; Ps. 45:8; Pro. 7:17; Song of Songs 4:14)

2. it was used, mixed with myrrh, by the Egyptians as part of the embalming process

3. Nicodemus brought a large amount of this to Jesus’ burial and anointed Him with it (cf. John 19:39). This was according to Jewish customs described in the Talmud (i.e. Betsah 6a).

The Hebrew Bible is divided into three divisions (the English Bible follows the order of the Septuagint).

God always takes the initiative in calling, electing, and wooing believers to Himself (cf. v. 12; John 6:44,65; 15:16; Eph. 1:4-5,11). The term “calling” is used in several theological senses:

A. Sinners are called to salvation by the grace of God through the finished work of Christ (i.e. klētos, cf. Rom. 1:6-7, which is theologically similar to I Cor. 1:1-2 and II Tim. 1:9; II Pet. 1:10).

B. Sinners call on the name of the Lord to be saved (i.e. epikaleō, cf. Acts 2:21; 22:16; Rom. 10:9-13). This statement is a Jewish worship idiom.

C. Believers are called to live Christlike lives (i.e. klēsis, cf. I Cor. 1:26; 7:20; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 3:14; II Thess. 1:11; II Tim. 1:9).

D. Believers are called to ministry tasks (cf. Acts 13:2; I Cor. 12:4-7; Eph. 4:1).

This passage is a balance to other NT passages on election. I thought it might be theologically helpful to provide my commentary notes from Rom. 8:29 and 9, as well as Eph. 1.

perspective and mental abilities are limited. There is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will. It is a covenantal structure. This is another example of truth given in dialectical tension. Biblical doctrines are presented from different perspectives. They often appear paradoxical. The truth is a balance between the seemingly opposite pairs. We must not remove the tension by picking one of the truths. We must not isolate any biblical truth into a compartment by itself.

C. “conformed to the image of His Son”—God’s ultimate goal is the restoration of the image lost in the Fall. Believers are foreordained to Christlikeness (cf. Eph. 1:4).

A. Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others’ redemption! In the OT the term was used primarily for service; in the NT it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good

example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the

B. “He chose us” in Eph. 1:4 is an AORIST MIDDLE INDICATIVE which emphasizes the subject. This focuses on the Father’s choice before time. God’s choice must not be understood in the Islamic

character in His children (cf. 2:10; Rom. 8:28-29; Gal. 4:19). God’s will for His children is both heaven one day and Christlikeness now!

The phrase “before the foundation of the world” is also used in Matt. 25:34; John 17:24; I Pet. 1:19-20 and Rev. 13:8. It shows the Triune God’s redemptive activity even before Gen. 1:1.

Humans are limited by their sense of time; everything to us is past, present and future, but not to God.

theological tenet instead of a holy life is a tragedy. Often our theologies speak louder than the biblical text.

The term “blameless” (amōmos) or “free from blemish” is used of (1) Jesus (cf. Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 1:19); (2) Zachariah and Elizabeth (cf. Luke 1:6); (3) Paul (cf. Phil. 3:6); and (4) all true Christians (cf. Phil. 2:15; I Thess. 3:13; 5:23). God’s unalterable will for every Christian is not only heaven later, but Christlikeness now (cf. Rom. 8:29-30; Gal. 4:19; I Pet. 1:2). Believers are to reflect God’s characteristics to a lost world for the purpose of evangelism.

Titus 2:11; II Pet. 3:9). God’s grace (God’s character) is the theological key to this passage (cf. vv. 6a, 7c, 9b), as God’s mercy is the key to the other passage on predestination, Rom. 9-11.

A. This chapter tries to balance the paradox of Christian freedom and responsibility. The literary unit runs through 15:13.

B. The problem which precipitated this chapter was possibly the tension between Gentile and Jewish believers in the church of Rome. Before conversion the Jews tended to be legalistic and the pagans tended to be immoral. Remember, this chapter is addressed to sincere followers of Jesus. This chapter does not address carnal believers (cf. I Cor. 3:1). The

highest motive is ascribed to both groups. There is danger in the extremes on both sides. This discussion is not a license for nit-picking legalism or flaunting liberality.

C. Believers must be careful not to make their theology or ethics the standard for all other believers (cf. II Cor. 10:12). Believers must walk in the light they have, but understand that their theology is not

automatically God’s theology. Believers are still affected by sin. We must encourage, exhort, and teach one another from the Scriptures, reason, and experience, but always in love. The more one knows the more one knows he does not know (cf. I Cor. 13:12)!

D. One’s attitude and motives before God are the real keys in evaluating his/her actions. Christians will stand before Christ to be judged on how they treated one another (cf. vv. 10,12 and II Cor. 5:10).

E. Martin Luther said, “A Christian man is a most free Lord of all, subject to none; the Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Biblical truth is often presented in a tension-filled paradox.

F. This difficult but crucial subject is dealt with in the entire literary unit of Romans 14:1-15:13 and also in I Corinthians 8-10 and Colossians 2:8-23.

G. However, it needs to be stated that pluralism among sincere believers is not a bad thing. Each believer has strengths and weaknesses. Each must walk in the light he/she has, always open to the Spirit and the Bible for more light. In this period of seeing through a glass darkly (I Cor. 13:8-13) one must walk in love (v. 15), and peace (vv. 17,19) for mutual edification.

H. The titles “stronger” and “weaker” which Paul gives to these groups prejudices them to us. This was certainly not Paul’s intent. Both groups were sincere believers. We are not to attempt to mold other Christians into ourselves! We accept one another in Christ!

2. do not judge one another because Christ is our only Master and Judge (cf. 14:3-12);

4. follow Christ’s example and lay down your rights for others’ edification & good (cf. 15:1-13).

B. The term “saint” is always PLURAL (except Phil. 4:21, but even there it is also corporate)

C. The Reformation emphasis of Martin Luther on the “priesthood of the believer” is not truly biblical. It is the priesthood of believers (cf. Exod. 19:6; I Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

E. Only in cooperation can the people of God be effective. Ministry is corporate (cf. Eph. 4:11-12).

C. assarion - a Roman copper coin with about 1/16 of a dēnarius (cf. Matt. 10:29)

D. kodrantes - a Roman copper coin worth 1/64 of a dēnarius (cf. Matt. 5:26)

E. lepton - a Jewish copper coin worth about 1/128 of a dēnarius (cf. Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2)

A. arguros (“silver coin”) - much more valuable than copper or bronze coins (cf. Matt. 10:9; 26:15)

B. dēnarius - a Roman silver coin worth a day’s labor (cf. Matt. 18:28; Mark 6:37)

C. drachmē - a Greek silver coin equivalent in value to a dēnarius (cf. Luke 15:9)

D. di-drachmon - a double drachmas equaled a Jewish ½ shekel (cf. Matt. 17:24)

III. Gold coins - chrusos (“gold coins”) - most valuable coins (cf. Matt. 10:9)

A. mnaa - Latin mina, a weight of metal equivalent to 100 dēnarii (cf. Luke 19:13)

“‘comfort’ This term, paraklēsis, in its different forms, is used ten times in vv. 3-11. It is the key term throughout the entire passage and also in chapters 1-9, where it is used twenty-five times. The word means “to call alongside.” It was often used in a judicial sense of an advocate who rendered legal aid, comfort, and guidance.

In this context it is used in the sense of encouragement and consolation. A related term, paraklētos, is used of the Holy Spirit in John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7; and of Jesus in I John 2:1. In this context it is used of the Father.

2. comfort, Gen. 24:67; 37:35; Ps. 119:50 (in a Messianic sense in Isa. 40:1; 49:13; 51:3; 61:2)

1. exhort, I Cor. 1:10; 4:16; 14:30-31; 16:15-16; II Cor. 2:8; 5:20; 6:1; 8:4,6; 10:1

A. There are two forms of the same Greek root used for confession or profession, homolegeō and exomologeō. The compound term James uses is from homo, the same; legō, to speak; and ex, out of. The basic meaning is to say the same thing, to agree with. The ex added to the idea of a public declaration.

These may have developed from mankind’s sense of the holiness of God and its own sinfulness. To acknowledge one truth is to acknowledge both. This may also explain the opening three

questions: the first and third deal with suffering and sickness (possibly caused by sin) and the second, cheerful praise.

2. to agree or consent to something (cf. John 1:20; Thess. 22:6; Acts 24:14; Heb. 11:13)

a. a person (cf. Matt. 10:32; Thess. 12:8; John 9:22; 12:42; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11; Rev. 3:5)

5. to make a public declaration of (legal sense developed into religious affirmation, cf. Acts 24:14; I Tim. 6:13)

b. with an admission of guilt (cf. Matt. 3:6; Acts 19:18; Heb. 4:14; James 5:16; I John 1:9)

These Greek terms kauchaomai, kauchēma, and kauchēsis are used about thirty-five times by Paul and only twice in the rest of the NT (both in James). Its predominate use is in I and II Corinthians.

2. believers should glory in the Lord (cf. I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17, which is an allusion to Jer. 9:23-24)

B. Therefore, there is appropriate and inappropriate boasting/glorying (i.e. pride).

c. in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. Paul’s main theme, cf. I Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 6:14)

(3) his not boasting in other men’s labor (as some at Corinth were, cf. II Cor. 10:15)

(4) his racial heritage (as others were doing at Corinth, cf. II Cor. 11:17; 12:1,5,6)

A. Winter shipping lanes around the southernmost point of Greece (i.e. Cape Malea) were very dangerous. Therefore, a land route of the shortest possible length was crucial. The geographical location of Corinth on the four mile isthmus between the Gulf of Corinth (i.e. Adriatic Sea) and the Saronic Gulf (i.e. Aegean Sea) made the city a major commercial (i.e. shipping and trading center specializing in types of pottery and a special type of brass) and military center. In Paul’s day this was literally where the cultures of the East and West met.

B. Corinth was also a major cultural center of the Greco-Roman world because it hosted the bi-annual Isthmian Games which began in 581 b.c. (at the Temple of Poseidon). Only the Olympic Games in Athens, every four years, rivaled them in size and importance (Thucydides, Hist. 1.13.5).

C. In 146 b.c. Corinth was involved in a revolt (i.e. the Achaean League) against Rome and was destroyed by the Roman General Lucius Mummius and the population dispersed. Because of its economical and military importance, it was rebuilt in either 46 or 48 b.c. by Julius Caesar. It became a Roman colony where Roman soldiers retired. It was a mimic of Rome in architecture and culture and the administrative center of the Roman (i.e. Senatorial) province of Achaia in 27 b.c. It became an Imperial Province in a.d. 15.

D. The acropolis of Old Corinth, rising more than 1880 feet above the plain, was the site of the temple to Aphrodite. To this temple were attached 1,000 prostitutes (Strabo, Geography, 8.6.20-22). To be called “a Corinthian” (i.e. Korinthiazesthai, coined by Aristophanes [450-385 b.c.]) was synonymous to loose, riotous living. This temple, as most of the city, was destroyed in an earthquake about 150 years before Paul arrived, as it was again in a.d. 77. It is uncertain whether the fertility cult continued in Paul’s day. Since the Romans destroyed the city in 146 b.c. and killed or enslaved all of its citizens, the Greek flavor of the city was superseded by its Roman colonial status (Pausanias, II.3.7).

A. The concept of a stone as a hard durable item which made a good foundation was used to describe YHWH (cf. Ps. 18:1).

B. It then developed into a Messianic title (cf. Gen. 49:24; Ps. 118:22; Isa. 28:16).

C. It came to represent a judgment from YHWH by the Messiah (cf. Isa. 8:14; Dan. 2:34-35,44-45).

1. a foundation stone, the first placed, which was secure and set the angles for the rest of the building, called “the cornerstone”

2. it could also refer to the final stone put in place, which holds the walls together (cf. Zech. 4:7; Eph. 2:20,21), called “the cap stone” from the Hebrew rush (i.e. head)

3. it could refer to the “key stone,” which is in the center of the doorway arch and holds the weight of the entire wall.

A. Jesus quoted Ps. 118 several times in reference to Himself (cf. Matt. 21:41-46; Mark 12:10-11; Luke 20:17)

B. Paul uses Ps. 118 in connection with YHWH’s rejection of faithless, rebellious Israel (cf. Rom. 9:33)

C. Paul uses the concept of a “cap stone” in Eph. 2:20-22 in reference to Christ

D. Peter uses this concept of Jesus in I Pet. 2:1-10. Jesus is the cornerstone and believers are the living stones (i.e. believers as temples, cf. I Cor. 6:19), built on Him (Jesus is the new Temple, cf. Mark 14:58; Matt. 12:6; John 2:19-20).

The Jews rejected the very foundation of their hope when they rejected Jesus as Messiah.

A. YHWH allowed David/Solomon to build a temple. He told them that if they kept the covenant He would bless them and be with them, but if they did not the temple would be in ruins (cf. I Kgs. 9:1-9)!

B. Rabbinical Judaism focused on form and ritual and neglected the personal aspect of faith (this is not a blanket statement; there were godly rabbis). God seeks a daily, personal, godly relationship with those created in His image (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). Luke 20:17-18 contains frightening words of judgment.

C. Jesus used the concept of a temple to represent His physical body. This continues and expands the concept of personal. Faith in Jesus as the Messiah is key to a relationship with YHWH.

D. Salvation is meant to restore the image of God in human beings so that fellowship with God is possible. The goal of Christianity is Christlikeness now. Believers are to become living stones built on/patterned after Christ (the new temple).

E. Jesus is the foundation of our faith and the cap stone of our faith (i.e. the Alpha and Omega). Yet also the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense. To miss Him is to miss everything. There can be no middle ground here!

The OT term berith, covenant, is not easy to define. There is no matching VERB in Hebrew. All attempts to derive an etymological definition have proved unconvincing. However, the obvious centrality of the concept has forced scholars to examine the word usage to attempt to determine its functional meaning.

Covenant is the means by which the one true God deals with His human creation. The concept of covenant, treaty, or agreement is crucial in understanding the biblical revelation. The tension between God’s sovereignty and human free-will are clearly seen in the concept of covenant. Some covenants are based on God’s character, actions, and purposes.

1. by faith Adam must obey God and not eat of the tree in the midst of Eden (cf. Gen. 2)

2. by faith Abraham must leave his family, follow God, and believe in future descendants (cf. Gen. 12,15)

3. by faith Noah must build a huge boat far from water and gather the animals (cf. Gen. 6-9)

4. by faith Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt and received specific guidelines for religious and social life with promises of blessings and cursings (cf. Deut. 27-28)

This same tension involving God’s relationship to humanity is addressed in the “new covenant.” The tension can be clearly seen in comparing Ezek. 18 with Ezek. 36:27-37. Is the covenant based on God’s gracious actions or mandated human response? This is the burning issue of the Old Covenant and the New. The goals of both are the same: (1) the restoration of fellowship lost in Gen. 3 and (2) the establishment of a righteous people who reflect God’s character.

The new covenant of Jer. 31:31-34 solves the tension by removing human performance as the means of attaining acceptance. God’s law becomes an internal desire instead of an external performance. The goal of a godly, righteous people remains the same, but the methodology changes. Fallen mankind proved themselves inadequate to be God’s reflected image (cf. Rom. 3:9-18). The problem was not the covenant, but human sinfulness and weakness (cf. Rom. 7; Gal. 3).

The same tension between OT unconditional and conditional covenants remains in the NT. Salvation is absolutely free in the finished work of Jesus Christ, but it requires repentance and faith (both initially and continually). It is both a legal pronouncement and a call to Christlikeness, an indicative statement of acceptance and an imperative to holiness! Believers are not saved by their performance, but unto obedience (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). Godly living becomes the evidence of salvation, not the means of salvation.

A. from I Kings 6:1, which says, “480 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’s Temple”

1. Solomon began to reign in 970 b.c. This is figured by using the battle of Qarqar (853 b.c.) as a certain starting date.

2. The Temple was built in his fourth year (965 b.c.), so the Exodus occurred about 1445/6 b.c.

(1) Some believe evidence from Jericho based on the fact that no diplomatic correspondence occurred between Jericho and Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III (1413-1377 b.c.).

(2) The Amarna texts record diplomatic correspondence written on ostraca about the Habiru overrunning the land of Canaan in the reign of Amenhotep III. Therefore, the Exodus occurred in the reign of Amenhotep II.

(3) The period of the Judges is not long enough if the 13^th century is the date of the Exodus.

b. It is possible that 480 years is representative of twelve generations of forty years each (therefore, a figurative number).

c. There are twelve generations of priests from Aaron to Solomon (cf. I Chr. 6), then twelve from Solomon to the Second Temple. The Jews, like the Greeks, reckoned a generation as forty years. So, there is a 480 year period back and forward (symbolic use of numbers, cf. Bimson’s Redating the Exodus and Conquest).

c. Judges 11:26 - 300 years between Jephthah’s day and the conquest (supports 1445 date)

6. The author of Kings used specific historical references and did not round numbers (Edwin Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings, pp. 83-85

B. The tentative evidence from archaeology seems to point toward a date of 1290 b.c. or the nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty.

1. Joseph was able to visit his father and Pharaoh in the same day. The first native Pharaoh who began to move the capital of Egypt from Thebes back to the Nile Delta, to a place called Avaris/Zoan/Tanis, which was the old Hyksos capital, was Seti I (1309-1290 b.c. ). He would be the Pharaoh of the oppression.

(1) a stele has been found from the time of Ramesis II that commemorates the founding of Avaris four hundred years earlier (1700's b.c. by the Hyksos)

b. This implies that Joseph’s rise to power was under a Hyksos (Semitic) Pharaoh. The new Egyptian dynasty is referred to in Exod. 1:8.

2. The Hyksos, an Egyptian word meaning “rulers of foreign lands,” who were a group of non-Egyptian Semitic rulers, controlled Egypt during the 15^th and 16^th Dynasties (1720-1570 b.c.). Some want to relate them to Joseph’s rise to power. If we subtract the 430 years of Exod. 12:40 from 1720 b.c., we get a date of about 1290 b.c.

3. Seti I’s son was Rameses II (1290-1224 b.c.). This name is mentioned as one of the store cities built by the Hebrew slaves, Exod. 1:11. Also this same district in Egypt near Goshen

4. is called Ramesis, Gen. 47:11. Avaris/Zoan/Tanis was known as “House of Rameses” from 1300-1100 b.c.

7. Archaeology has shown that most of the large walled cities of Canaan (Hazor, Debir, Lachish) were destroyed and rapidly rebuilt around 1250 b.c. In allowing for a thirty-eight year wilderness wandering period, this fits a date of 1290 b.c.

8. Archaeology has found a reference to the Israelis being in southern Canaan on a memorial stele of Rameses’ successor, Merneptah (1224-1214 b.c., cf. The Stele of Merneptah, dated 1220 b.c.).

9. Edom and Moab seem to have attained strong national identity in the late 1300's b.c. These countries were not organized in the fifteenth century (Glueck).

10. The book, Redating the Exodus and Conquest by John J. Bimson, published by the University of Sheffield, 1978, argues against all of the archaeological evidence for an early date.

A. All humans go to She’ol (etymology uncertain), which is a way of referring to death or the grave, mostly in Wisdom Literature and Isaiah. In the OT it was a shadowy, conscious, but joyless existence (cf. Job 10:21-22; 38:17; Ps. 107:10,14).

3. associated with Abaddon (destruction), but also open to God, Job 26:6; Ps. 139:8; Amos 9:2

6. personified often as an animal with a large mouth, Num. 16:30; Isa. 5:14; 14:9; Hab. 2:5

3. often analogous to the place of permanent punishment (Gehenna), Matt. 11:23 (OT quote); Luke 10:15; 16:23-24

1. righteous part called paradise (really another name for heaven, cf. II Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7), Luke 23:43

2. wicked part called Tartarus, II Pet. 2:4, where it is a holding place for evil angels (cf. Gen. 6; I Enoch)

1. Reflects the OT phrase, “the valley of the sons of Hinnom,” (south of Jerusalem). It was the place where the Phoenician fire god, Molech was worshiped by child sacrifice (cf. II Kgs. 16:3; 21:6; II Chr. 28:3; 33:6), which was forbidden in lev. 18:21; 20:2-5

2. Jeremiah changed it from a place of pagan worship into a site of YHWH’s judgment (cf. Jer. 7:32; 19:6-7). It became the place of fiery, eternal judgment in I Enoch 90:26-27 and Sib. 1:103.

3. The Jews of Jesus’ day were so appalled by their ancestors’ participation in pagan worship by child sacrifice, that they turned this area into the garbage dump for Jerusalem. Many of Jesus’ metaphors for eternal judgment came from this landfill (fire, smoke, worms, stench, cf. Mark 9:44,46). The term Gehenna is used only by Jesus (except in James 3:6).

g. the concept of Gehenna is parallel to the second death (cf. Rev. 2:11; 20:6,14) or the lake of fire (cf. Matt. 13:42,50; Rev. 19:20; 20:10,14-15; 21:8). It is possible the lake of fire becomes the permanent dwelling place of humans (from She’ol) and evil angels (from Tartarus, II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6 or the abyss, cf. Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1-10; 20:1,3).

E. It is possible, because of the overlap of She’ol, Hades, and Gehenna that

2. their experience there (good or bad) is exacerbated after Judgment Day, but the place of the wicked remains the same (this is why the KJV translated hades (grave) as gehenna (hell).

3. only NT text to mention torment before Judgment is the parable of Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus and the Rich Man). She’ol is also described as a place of punishment now (cf. Deut. 32:22; Ps. 18:1-5). However, on can not establish a doctrine on a parable.

A. The NT does not teach the “immortality of the soul,” which is one of several ancient views of the after life.

3. often the physical body is seen as a prison and death as release back to pre-existent state

4. Paul asserts that at the Second Coming the souls with Christ will get their new bodies first, II Thess. 4:13-18

5. Paul asserts that believers get their new spiritual bodies on Resurrection Day, I Cor. 15:23,52

6. Paul asserts that believers do not go to Hades, but at death are with Jesus, II Cor. 5:6,8; Phil. 1:23. Jesus overcame death and took the righteous to heaven with Him, I Pet. 3:18-22.

3. the place of God’s throne, Deut. 10:14; I Kgs. 8:27; Ps. 148:4; Eph. 4:10; Heb. 9:24 (third heaven, II Cor. 12:2)

B. The Bible does not reveal much about the afterlife. Probably because fallen humans have no way or capacity to understand (cf. I Cor. 2:9).

C. Heaven is both a place (cf. John 14:2-3) and a person (cf. II Cor. 5:6,8). Heaven may be a restored Garden of Eden (Gen. 1-2; Rev. 21-22). The earth will be cleansed and restored (cf. Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:21; II Pet. 3:10). The image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) is restored in Christ. Now the intimate fellowship of the Garden of Eden is possible again.

However, this may be metaphorical (heaven as a huge, cubed city of Rev. 21:9-27) and not literal. I Corinthians 15 describes the difference between the physical body and the spiritual body as the seed to the mature plant. Again I Cor. 2:9 (a quote from Isa. 64:4 and 65:17) is a great promise and hope! I know that when we see Him we will be like Him (cf. I John 3:2).

A. Ancient peoples were animists. They attributed personality to forces of nature, animals, natural objects, and traits of human personality. Life is explained through the interaction of these spiritual entities with mankind.

B. This personification became polytheism (many gods). Usually the demonic (genii) were lesser gods or demigods (good or evil) that impacted individual human lives.

3. Canaan, see W. F. Albright’s Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Fifth Edition, pp. 67-92

C. The OT does not dwell on or develop the subject of lesser gods, angels, or the demonic, probably because of its strict monotheism (cf. Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 33:26; Ps. 35:10; 71:19; 86:6; Isa. 46:9; Jer. 10:6-7; Mic. 7:18). It does mention the false gods of the pagan nations (Shedim, cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37) and it does name some of them.

3. Mavet (Hebrew term for death used for Canaanite god of the underworld, Mot, cf. Isa. 28:15,18; Jer. 9:21; and possibly Deut. 28:22)

6. Az'azel (name uncertain, but possibly a desert demon or place name, cf. Lev. 16:8,10,26)

However, there is no dualism or angelic independence from YHWH in the OT. Satan is a servant of YHWH (cf. Job 1-3; Zech. 3), not an enemy (cf. A. B. Davidson, A Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 300-306).

D. Judaism developed during the Babylonian exile (586-538 b.c.) And was theologically influenced by the Persian personified dualism of Zoroastrianism, a good high god called Mazda or Ormazd and an evil opponent called Ahriman. This allowed within post-exilic Judaism the personified dualism between YHWH and His angels and Satan and his angels or demons.

Judaism’s theology of personified evil is explained and documented well in Alfred Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2, appendix XIII (pp. 749-863) and XVI (pp. 770-776). Judaism personified evil in three ways.

Edersheim characterizes these as (1) the Accuser; (2) the Tempter; and (3) the Punisher (vol. 2, p. 756). There is a marked theological difference between post-exilic Judaism and the NT presentation and explanation of evil.

E. The NT, especially the Gospels, asserts the existence and opposition of evil spiritual beings to humanity and to YHWH (in Judaism Satan was an enemy to mankind, but not to God). They oppose God’s will, rule, and kingdom.

Jesus confronted and expelled these demonic beings (also called (1) unclean spirits (cf. Luke 4:36; 6:18) or (2) evil spirits (cf. Luke 7:21; 8:2) from human beings. Jesus clearly made a distinction between illness (physical and mental) and the demonic. He demonstrated His power and spiritual insight by recognizing and exorcizing these evil spirits. They often recognized Him and attempted to address Him, but Jesus rejected their testimony, demanded their silence, and expelled them. Exorcisms are a sign of the defeat of Satan’s kingdom.

There is a surprising lack of information in the NT Apostolic letters on this subject. Exorcism is never listed as a spiritual gift nor is a methodology or procedure given for future generations of ministers or believers.

F. Evil is real; evil is personal; evil is present. Neither its origin nor purpose is revealed. The Bible asserts its reality and aggressively opposes its influence. There is no ultimate dualism in reality. God is in total control; evil is defeated and judged and will be removed from creation.

G. God’s people must resist evil (cf. James 4:7). They cannot be controlled by it (cf. I John 5:18), but they can be tempted and their witness and influence damaged (cf. Eph. 6:10-18). Evil is a revealed part of the Christian’s world-view. Modern Christians have no right to redefine evil (the demythologizing of Rudolf Baltmann); depersonalize evil (the social structures of Paul Tillich), nor attempt to explain it completely in psychological terms (Sigmund Freud), but its influence is pervasive, but defeated. Believers need to walk in the victory of Christ!

This term has a wide semantic field, which has caused great confusion in relation to the theological concepts of eternal judgment vs. annihilation. The basic literal meaning is from apo plus ollumi, to ruin, to destroy.

The problem comes in this term’s figurative usages. This can be clearly seen in Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based On Semantic Domains, vol. 2, p. 30. It lists several meanings of this term.

1. destroy (ex. Matt. 10:28; Luke 5:37; John 10:10; 17:12; Acts 5:37; Rom. 9:22 from vol. 1, p. 232)

Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 394, tries to delineate the different usages by listing four meanings.

1. to destroy or kill (ex. Matt. 2:13; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9:22; Luke 6:9; I Cor. 1:19)

3. to perish (ex. Matt. 26:52; Mark 4:38; Luke 11:51; 13:3,5,33; 15:17; John 6:12,27; I Cor. 10:9-10)

4. to be lost (ex. Matt. 5:29-30; Mark 2:22; Luke15: 4,6,24,32; 21:18; Acts 27:34)

“in general we may say that #2 and #4 underlie statements relating to this world as in the Synoptics, whereas #1 and #3 underlie those relating to the next world, as in Paul and John” (p. 394).

Herein lies the confusion. The term has such a wide semantic usage that different NT authors use it in a variety of ways. I like Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 275-277. He relates the term to those humans who are morally destroyed and waiting eternal separation from God versus those humans who know Christ and have eternal life in Him. The latter group is “saved,” while the former group is destroyed.

I personally do not think that this term denotes annihilation. The term “eternal” is used of both eternal punishment and eternal life in Matt. 25:46. To depreciate one is to depreciate both!

A. A warning against being misled, by false prophets or great calamities, into thinking that this is the end

C. An answer to the first question, relating to the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of its inhabitants

E. An exhortation to watchfulness in the situation leading up to the fall of Jerusalem

This term oikodomeō and its other forms are used often by Paul. Literally it means “to build a house” (cf. Matt. 7:24), but it came to be used metaphorically for:

d. limiting speakers in worship services (singers, teachers, prophets, tongue speakers, and interpreters), I Cor. 14:3-4,12

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).

The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as immanent. Ex.: Security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father; Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from man (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21). Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!

The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as immanent. e.g. security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father; Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from humans (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts3:16,19; 20:21). Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!

a. (Jesus) to perfect the author of their salvation through suffering (cf. 2:10)

Jesus brings the maturity and completion that the Mosaic Covenant could never do!

All prayer is answered, but not all prayer is effective. Prayer is a two-way relationship. The worst thing God could do is grant believers’ inappropriate requests.

Through the years of my study of eschatology I have learned that most Christians do not have or want a developed, systematized, end-time chronology. There are some Christians who focus or major on this area of Christianity for theological, psychological, or denominational reasons. These Christians seem to become obsessed with how it will all end, and somehow miss the urgency of the gospel! Believers cannot affect God’s eschatological (end-time) agenda, but they can participate in the soteriological (the doctrine of salvation) mandate (cf. Matt. 28:19-20). Most believers affirm a Second Coming of Christ and an in-time culmination of the promises of God. The interpretive problems arising from how to understand this temporal culmination come from several sources:

1. the tension between Old Covenant prophetic models and New Covenant apostolic models

2. the tension between the Bible’s monotheism (one God for all) and the election of Israel (a special people)

3. the tension between the conditional aspect of biblical covenants and promises (“if. . .then”) and the unconditional faithfulness of God to fallen mankind’s redemption

4. the tension between Near Eastern literary genres and modern western literary models

6. the tension between belief in the imminent return of Christ and the belief that some events must happen first

FIRST TENSION: The tension between Old Covenant prophetic models and New Covenant apostolic models.

The OT prophets predict a restoration of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine centered in Jerusalem where all the nations of the earth gather to praise and serve a Davidic ruler, but the NT Apostles never focus on this agenda. Is not the OT inspired (cf. Matt. 5:17-19)? Have the NT authors omitted crucial end-time events?

Do these all clearly teach an end-time agenda (events, chronology, persons)? If not, why? Are they not all inspired (except the Jewish intertestamental writings)?

The Spirit revealed truths to the OT writers in terms and categories they could understand. However, through progressive revelation the Spirit has expanded these OT eschatological concepts to a universal scope.

1. The city of Jerusalem is used as a metaphor of the people of God (Zion) and is projected into the NT as a term expressing God’s acceptance of all repentant, believing humans (the new Jerusalem of Revelation 20-22). The theological expansion of a literal, physical city into the people of God is foreshadowed in God’s promise to redeem fallen mankind in Gen. 3:15, before there even were any Jews or a Jewish capital city. Even Abraham’s call (cf. Gen. 12:3) involved the Gentiles.

2. In the OT the enemies are the surrounding nations of the ancient Near East, but in the NT they have been expanded to all unbelieving, anti-God, Satanically-inspired people. The battle has moved from a geographical, regional conflict to a cosmic conflict.

3. The promise of a land which is so integral in the OT (the Patriarchal promises) has now become the whole earth. New Jerusalem comes to a recreated earth, not the Near East only or exclusively (cf. Rev. 20-22).

4. Some other examples of OT prophetic concepts being expanded are (1) the seed of Abraham is now the spiritually circumcised (cf. Rom. 2:28-29); (2) the covenant people now include Gentiles (cf. Hos. 1:9; 2:23; Rom. 9:24-26; also Lev. 26:12; Exod. 29:45; II Cor. 6:16-18 and Exod. 19:5; Deut. 14:2; Titus 2:14); (3) the temple is now the local church (cf. I Cor. 3:16) or the individual

believer (cf. I Cor. 6:19); and (4) even Israel and its characteristic descriptive phrases now refer to the whole people of God (cf. Gal. 6:16; I Pet. 2:5, 9-10; Rev. 1:6).

The prophetic model has been fulfilled and expanded, and is now more inclusive. Jesus and the Apostolic writers do not present the end-time in the same way as the OT prophets (cf. Martin Wyngaarden, The Future of The Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment). Modern interpreters who try to make the OT model literal or normative twist the Revelation into a very Jewish book and force meaning into atomized, ambiguous phrases of Jesus and Paul! The NT writers do not negate the OT prophets, but show their ultimate universal implication. There is no organized, logical system to Jesus’ or Paul’s eschatology. Their purpose is primarily redemptive or pastoral.

However, even within the NT there is tension. There is no clear systemization of eschatological events. In many ways the Revelation surprisingly uses OT allusions, instead of the teachings of Jesus, in describing the end (cf. Matt. 24; Mark 13)! It follows the literary genre developed during the intertestamental period (Jewish apocalyptic literature). This may have been John’s way of linking the Old and New Covenants. It shows the age-old pattern of human rebellion and God’s commitment to redemption! But it must be noted that although Revelation uses OT language, persons, and events, it reinterprets them in light of first century Rome.

SECOND TENSION: The tension between the Bible’s monotheism (one God for all) and the election of Israel (a special people) .

The biblical emphasis is on one personal, spiritual, creator-redeemer, God. The OT’s uniqueness in its own day was its monotheism. All of the surrounding nations were polytheists. The oneness of God is the heart of OT revelation (cf. Deut. 6:4). Creation is a stage for the purpose of fellowship between God and mankind, made in His image and likeness (cf. Gen.1:26-27). However, mankind rebelled, sinning against God’s love, leadership, and purpose (cf. Gen. 3). God’s love and purpose was so strong and sure that He promised to redeem fallen humanity (cf. Gen. 3:15)!

The tension arises when God chooses to use one man, one family, one nation to reach the rest of mankind. God’s election of Abraham and the Jews as a kingdom of priests (cf. Exod. 19:4-6) caused pride instead of service, exclusion instead of inclusion. God’s call of Abraham involved the blessing of all mankind (cf. Gen. 12:3). It must be remembered and emphasized that OT election was for service, not salvation. All Israel was never right with God, never eternally saved based solely on her birthright (cf. John 8:31-47), but by personal faith and obedience. Israel lost her mission, turned mandate into privilege, service into a special standing! God chose one to choose all!

THIRD TENSION: The tension between the conditional aspect of biblical covenants and promises (“if. . .then”) and the unconditional faithfulness of God to fallen mankind’s redemption.

There is a theological tension or paradox between conditional and unconditional covenants. It is surely true that God’s redemptive purpose/plan is unconditional (cf. Gen. 15:12-21). However, the human response is always conditional!

The “if. . .then” pattern appears in both OT and NT. God is faithful; mankind is unfaithful. This tension has caused much confusion. Interpreters have tended to focus on only one “horn of the dilemma,” God’s faithfulness or human effort, God’s sovereignty or mankind’s free will. Both are biblical and necessary.

This relates to eschatology, to God’s OT promises to Israel. If God promises it, that settles it, yes? God is bound to His promises; His reputation is involved (cf. Ezek. 36:22-38). However, mankind is God’s instrument of blessing! The unconditional and conditional covenants meet in Christ (cf. Isa. 53), not Israel! God’s ultimate faithfulness lies in the redemption of all who will repent and believe, not in who was your father/mother! Christ, not Israel, is the key to all of God’s covenants and promises. If there is a theological parenthesis in the Bible, it is not the Church, but Israel (cf. Gal. 3).

The world mission of redemption has passed to the Church (cf. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). This is not to imply that God has totally rejected the Jews (cf. Rom. 9-11). There is surely, but not exclusively, a place and purpose for end-time, believing Israel (cf. Zech. 12:10).

FOURTH TENSION: The tension between Near Eastern literary genres and modern western literary models.

Genre is a critical element in correctly interpreting the Bible. The Church developed in a western (Greek) cultural setting. Eastern literature is much more figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic than modern, western culture’s literary models. Christians have been guilty of using their history and literary models to interpret biblical prophecy (both OT and NT). Each generation and geographical entity has used its culture, history, and literalness to interpret Revelation. Every one of them has been wrong! It is arrogant to think that modern western culture is the focus of biblical prophecy!

The genre in which the original, inspired author chooses to write is a literary contract with the reader. The book of Revelation is not historical narrative. It is a combination of letter (chapters 1-3), prophecy, and mostly apocalyptic literature. It is as wrong to make the Bible say more than the original author intended as it is to make it say less! Interpreters’ arrogance and dogmatism are even more inappropriate in a book like Revelation.

The Church has never agreed on a proper interpretation. I am a dialectical (paradoxical) interpreter. My concern is for the whole Bible, not some selected part(s). The Bible’s eastern mindset presents truth in tension-filled pairs. Our western trend toward propositional truth is not invalid, but unbalanced! I think it is possible to remove at least some of the impasse in interpreting Revelation by noting its changing purpose to successive generations of believers. It is obvious to most interpreters that Revelation must be interpreted in light of its own day and its genre. A historical approach to Revelation must deal with what the first readers would have, and could have, understood. In many ways modern interpreters have lost the meaning of many of the symbols of the book. Revelation’s initial main thrust was to encourage persecuted believers. It showed God’s control of history (as did the OT prophets); it affirmed that history is moving toward an appointed terminus, judgment, or blessing (as did the OT prophets). It affirmed, in first century Jewish apocalyptic terms, God’s love, presence, power, and sovereignty!

It functions in these same theological ways to every generation of believers. It depicts the cosmic struggle of good and evil. The first century details may have been lost to us, but not the powerful, comforting truths. When modern, western interpreters try to force the details of Revelation into their contemporary history, the pattern of false interpretations continues!

It is quite possible that the details of the book may become strikingly literal again (as did the OT in relation to the life of Christ) for the last generation of believers as they face the onslaught of an anti-God leader (cf. II Thess. 2) and culture. No one can know these literal fulfillments of the Revelation until the words of Jesus (cf. Matt. 24; Mark.13; Luke 21) and Paul (cf. II Thess. 2) also become historically evident. Guessing, speculation, and dogmatism are all inappropriate. Apocalyptic literature allows this flexibility. Thank God for images and symbols that surpass historical narrative! God is in control; He reigns; He comes!

Most modern commentaries miss the point of the genre! Modern western interpreters often seek a clear, logical system of theology rather than being fair with an ambiguous, symbolic, dramatic genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature. This truth is expressed well by Ralph P. Martin in his article, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in the book New Testament Interpretation, edited by J. Howard Marshall:

“Unless we recognize the dramatic quality of this writing and recall the way in which language is being used as a vehicle to express religious truth, we shall grievously err in our understanding of the Apocalypse, and mistakenly try to interpret its visions as though it were a book of literal prose and concerned to describe events of empirical and datable history. To attempt the latter course is to run into all manner of problems of interpretation. More seriously it leads to a distortion of the essential meaning of apocalyptic and so misses the great value of this part of the New Testament as a dramatic assertion in mythopoetic language of the sovereignty of God in Christ and the paradox of his rule which blends might and love (cf. 5:5,6; the Lion is the Lamb)” (p. 235).

“No other genre of the Bible has been so fervently read with such depressing results as apocalypse, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation. This genre had suffered from a disastrous history of misinterpretation due to a fundamental misunderstanding of its literary forms, structure, and purpose. Because of its very claim to reveal what is shortly to happen, apocalypse has been viewed as a road map into and a blueprint of the future. The tragic flaw in this view is the assumption that the books’ frame of reference is the reader’s contemporary age rather than the author’s. This misguided approach to apocalypse (particularly Revelation) treats the work as if it were a cryptogram by which contemporary events can be used to interpret the symbol of the text. . .First, the interpreter must recognize that apocalyptic communicates its messages through symbolism. To interpret a symbol literally when it is metaphoric is simply to misinterpret. The issue is not whether the events in apocalyptic are historical. The events may be historical; they may have really happened, or might happen, but the author presents events and communicates meaning through images and archetypes” (p. 137).

From Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, edited by Ryken, Wilhost and Longman III:

“Today’s readers are often puzzled and frustrated by this genre. The unexpected imagery and out-of-this-world experiences seem bizarre and out of sync with most of Scripture. Taking this literature at face value leaves many readers scrambling to determine ‘what will happen when,’ thus missing the intent of the apocalyptic message” (p. 35).

The kingdom of God is both present, yet future. This theological paradox becomes focused at the point of eschatology. If one expects a literal fulfillment of all OT prophecies to Israel then the Kingdom becomes mostly a restoration of Israel to a geographical locality and a theological pre-eminence! This would necessitate that the Church is secretly raptured out at chapter 5 and the remaining chapters relate to Israel.

However, if the focus is on the kingdom being present at Christ’s first coming, then the focus becomes the incarnation, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ. The theological emphasis is on a current salvation. The kingdom has come; the OT is fulfilled in Christ’s offer of salvation to all, not His millennial reign over some!

It is surely true that the Bible speaks of both of Christ’s comings, but where is the emphasis to be placed? It seems to me that most OT prophecies focus on the first coming, the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Dan. 2). In many ways this is analogous to the eternal reign of God (cf. Dan. 7) and the millennial reign of Christ (cf. Rev. 20). In the OT the focus is on the eternal reign of God, yet the mechanism for that reign’s manifestation is the ministry of the Messiah (cf. I Cor. 15:26-27). It is not a question of which is true; both are true, but where is the emphasis? It must be said that some interpreters become so focused on the millennial reign of the Messiah that they miss the biblical focus on the eternal reign of the Father. Christ’s reign is a preliminary event. As the two comings of Christ were not obvious in the OT, so too, the temporal reign of the Messiah!

The key to Jesus’ preaching and teaching is the kingdom of God. It is both present (in salvation and service), and future (in pervasiveness and power). Revelation, if it focuses on a Messianic millennial reign (cf. Rev. 20), is preliminary, not ultimate (cf. Rev. 21-22). It is not obvious from the OT that a temporal reign is necessary; as a matter of fact, the Messianic reign of Daniel 7 is eternal, not millennial.

SIXTH TENSION: The tension between belief in the imminent return of Christ and the belief that some events must happen first.

Most believers have been taught that Jesus is coming soon, suddenly, and unexpectedly (cf. Matt. 10:23; 24:27,34,44; Mark 9:1; 13:30). But every generation so far has been wrong! The soonness (immediacy) of Jesus’ return is a powerful promised hope of every generation, but a reality to only one (and that one a persecuted one). Believers must live as if He was coming tomorrow, but plan and implement the Great Commission (cf. Matt. 28:19-20) as if He tarries.

Some passages in the Gospels (cf. Mark 13:10; Luke 17:2; 18:8) and I and II Thessalonians are based on a delayed Second Coming (Parousia). There are some historical events that must happen first:

2. the revelation of “the man of Sin” (cf. Matt. 24:15; II Thess. 2; Rev.13)

There is a purposeful ambiguity (cf. Matt. 24:42-51; Mark 13:32-36)! Live every day as if it were your last but plan and train for future ministry!

The different schools of modern eschatological interpretation all contain half truths. They explain and interpret some texts well. The problem lies in consistency and balance. Often there is a set of presuppositions which use the biblical text to fill in the pre-set theological skeleton. The Bible does not reveal a logical, chronological, systematic eschatology. It is like a family album. The pictures are true, but not always in order, in context, in a logical sequence. Some of the pictures have fallen out of the album and later generations of family members do not know exactly how to put them back. The key to proper interpretation of Revelation is the intent of the original author as revealed in his choice of literary genre. Most interpreters try to carry their exegetical tools and procedures from other genres of the NT into their interpretations of Revelation. They focus on the OT instead of allowing the teachings of Jesus and Paul to set the theological structure and let Revelation act as illustrative.

I must admit that I approach this commentary with some fear and trepidation, not because of Rev. 22:18-19, but because of the level of controversy the interpretation of this book has caused and continues to cause among God’s people. I love God’s revelation. It is true when all men are liars (cf. Rom. 3:4)! Please use this commentary as an attempt to be thought provoking and not definitive, as a sign post and not a road map, as a “what if,” not a “thus says the Lord.” I have come face to face with my own inadequacies, biases, and theological agenda. I have also seen those of other interpreters. It almost seems that people find in Revelation what they expect to find. The genre lends itself to abuse! However, it is in the Bible for a purpose. Its placement as the concluding “word” is not by accident. It has a message from God to His children of each and every generation. God wants us to understand! Let us join hands, not form camps; let us affirm what is clear and central, not all that may be, might be, could be true. God help us all!

1. The character of the Father (cf. John 3:16), the work of the Son (cf. II Cor. 5:21), and the ministry of the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:14-16) not on human performance, not wages due for obedience, not just a creed

4. It is knowledge (the gospel), fellowship (faith in and with Jesus), and a new lifestyle (spirit-led Christlikeness) all three, not just any one by itself

1. The term “faith” in the OT meant loyalty, fidelity, or trustworthiness and was a description of God’s nature, not ours.

2. It came from a Hebrew term (emun, emunah) which meant “to be sure or stable.” Saving faith is mental assent (set of truths), moral living (a lifestyle), and primarily a relational (welcoming of a person) and volitional commitment (a decision) to that person.

1. eis means “into.” This unique construction emphasizes believers putting their trust/faith in Jesus

b. into Him (John 2:11; 3:15,18; 4:39; 6:40; 7:5,31,39,48; 8:30; 9:36; 10:42; 11:45,48; 17:37,42; Matt. 18:6; Acts 10:43; Phil. 1:29; I Pet. 1:8)

3. epi means “in” or upon, as in Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5,24; 9:33; 10:11; I Tim. 1:16; I Pet. 2:6

4. the DATIVE CASE with no PREPOSITION as in Gal. 3:6; Acts 18:8; 27:25; I John 3:23; 5:10

i. Jesus identified Himself in the covenant name of the Father, “I Am” (John 8:24; 13:19)

The theology question is were these ever believers? Often our theological or denominational traditions answer this question without reference to specific Bible texts (except the proof-text method of quoting a verse out of context to supposedly prove one’s bias).

There are persons in the Bible who are involved in the people of God and something happens.

We rarely think about these texts because our systematic theology (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc). dictates the mandated response. Please do not pre-judge me because I bring up this subject. My concern is proper hermeneutical procedure. We must let the Bible speak to us and not try to mold it into a preset theology. This is often painful and shocking because much of our theology is denominational, cultural or relational (parent, friend, pastor), not biblical. Some who are in the People of God turn out to not be in the People of God (e.g. Rom. 9:6).

The OT introduces the intimate familial metaphor of God as Father: (1) the nation of Israel is often described as YHWH’s “son” (cf. Hos. 11:1; Mal. 3:17); (2) even earlier in Deuteronomy the analogy of God as Father is used (1:31); (3) in Deut. 32 Israel is called “his children” and God is called “your father”; (4) this analogy is stated in Ps. 103:13 and developed in Ps. 68:5 (the father of orphans); and (5) it was common in the prophets (cf. Isa. 1:2; 63:8; Israel as son, God as Father, 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4,19; 31:9).

Jesus spoke Aramaic, which means that many of the places where “Father” appears as the Greek Pater may reflect the Aramaic Abba (cf. 14:36). This familial term “Daddy” or “Papa” reflects Jesus’ intimacy with the Father; His revealing this to His followers also encourages our own intimacy with the Father. The term “Father” was used sparingly in the OT for YHWH, but Jesus uses it often and pervasively. It is a major revelation of believers’ new relationship with God through Christ (cf. Matt. 6:9).

It must be remembered that Father is a metaphor of family, not of generation or previous existence. There has never been a time when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit were not together and of one essence!

Fasting, though never commanded in the NT, was expected at the appropriate time for Jesus’ disciples (cf. Matt. 6:16,17; 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:35). Proper fasting is described in Isa. 58. Jesus set the precedent Himself (cf. Matt. 4:2). The early church fasted (cf. Acts 13:2-3; 14:23; II Cor. 6:5; 11:27). The motive and manner are crucial; the timing; the length and frequency are optional. OT fasting is not a requirement for NT believers (cf. Acts 15:19-29). Fasting is not a way of showing off one’s spirituality, but of drawing closer to God and seeking His guidance. It can be spiritually helpful.

The early church’s tendencies toward asceticism caused scribes to insert “fasting” in several passages (i.e. Matt. 17:21; Mark 9:29; Acts 10:30; I Cor. 7:5). For further information on these questionable texts consult Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, published by United Bible Societies.

4. purifies (cf. Num. 31:22-23; Prov. 17:3; Isa. 1:25; 6:6-8; Jer. 6:29; Mal. 3:2-3)

4. eschatological judgment (cf. Matt. 3:10; 13:40; John 15:6; II Thess. 1:7; II Pet. 3:7-10; Rev. 8:7; 13:13; 16:8)

D. Like so many metaphors in the Bible (i.e. leaven, lion) fire can be a blessing or a curse depending on the context.

i. a moral pattern (cf. Phil. 3:17; I Thess. 1:7; II Thess. 3:9; I Tim. 4:12; I Pet. 5:3)

2. He is knows as “the elder” or Gamaliel I to distinguish him from a later relative, also very active in Jewish leadership.

2. Other traditions say he had ties to the royal family of Herod (i.e. Agrippa I).

3. Tradition says he was president of the Sanhedrin, but this probably refers to Gamaliel II.

2. He was known for caring for and staying in control with the scattered Jews of the Diaspora.

3. He was also known for his concern for the socially disenfranchised (his Takkonot often began with “for the benefit of humanity”).

5. In Acts 5:33-39 he gives sage wisdom about how to handle the early church in Palestine.

6. This rabbi was so highly thought of that at his death it was said, “When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died the glory of the Torah ceased and purity and saintliness (lit. ‘separation’) perished” (Sot. 9:15, taken from Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 7, p. 296).

7. It must be stated that Gamaliel’s motivation in this case is uncertain. He may have been asserting the wisdom of Pharisees against the impulsiveness of the Sadducees. These two powerful Jewish sects exploited each other at every opportunity!