Berean Advocate

Pet Peeves about Books

2012-03-05T11:53:00.000-05:00

I have two main pet peeves about publishers of books.

Those authors and publishers who do not put indexes in their books. In this day of computers there is no excuse for not having an index.
Those authors and publishers that put footnotes in the back of their book or chapter, instead of the bottom of the page. Especially true of more academic or bible study books. It is a pain to look up a footnote in the back of a book. To me it interrupts the flow of study because of having to flip back and forth.

Thoughts on the Fifth Oracle of Malachi

2012-03-03T21:48:00.002-05:00

Malachi 3:6-12

There are two objections and responses in this oracle: (1) You have turned aside from My statues and have not kept them. Return to me…. They say, “How shall we return?” (2) You are robbing Me…. They say “How have we robbed Thee?” Both of these condemnations point to one root of the problem: Selfishness!

Selfishness reveals our attitude toward our property. Selfishness denotes that we think of our property in the terms of ownership, not stewardship. Ownership reveals a selfish heart and fortification mentality. The truth is we own nothing, we only borrow it. Selflessness recognizes that all we have is held as a sacred trust from God. We are stewards of it, not owners.

Selfishness holds back. It reveals a lack of faith. It says to God that we really do not believe Him. Small giving and small blessings go hand in hand. If we sow sparingly, we reap sparingly. Selfishness will never receive the benefit of generosity from God, and others.

Our selfishness holds things back from God. In reality, it robs God of fellowship, not our money. Selfishness robs God of our time, talent, and heart. It robs Him of our blessing, and us of His liberty to bless us.

State of the Church

2012-03-02T13:24:00.002-05:00

A recent study by the Barna Group found that almost 60% of Christian young people, 15-29 have left involvement in a church. David Kinnaman, President of Barna Group says, "Christianity has become so hip so watered-down, so about entertainment--and they are looking for something of more substance." In short the Seeker-Friendly Movement which was designed to attract this group, has driven them away. When will the Church stop dancing with the world and get back to proclaiming the Gospel?

GRACE

2012-03-01T11:56:00.000-05:00

Grace is the manifestation of unmerited favor toward us. It is God's love in action, which reaches down to us to save us. Two vital characteristics of grace: Grace is free. Grace is unconditional. Grace cannot be acheived, it can only be received.

Scripture reveals at least 4 types of Grace:

* Saving Grace (Eph. 2:8-9)

* Sustaining Grace (Rom. 5:1-2, 2 Cor. 12:9)

* Sanctifying Grace (Titus 2:11-13)

* Satisfying Grace (2 Thess. 2:16-17)

God's grace is always available at the Throne of Grace (Heb. 4:16).

Buying Books

2012-02-27T15:35:00.001-05:00

Books are expensive! It is getting more difficult for Pastors to buy their tools (i.e. books) Here are three suggestions that have worked for me buying books:

Honoraria can be invested in your library. Since this is extra money that comes in from various sources, why not invest it? When you buy books, it is not money spent—it is money invested. I had an agreement with my wife that such honoraria from weddings and funerals go to books.

Never buy a book you don’t need simply because it is cheap!

Invest wisely. This means invest in books you need in the immediate future, not the distant future. If you are going to preach on Romans this year, but plan to preach on Revelation two years from now. Do not buy books on Revelation when you need books on Romans

Malachi’s Fourth Oracle

2012-02-27T14:01:00.001-05:00

Malachi 2:17-3:5

We now come to the fourth oracle of Malachi. It begins with another statement by the prophet on behalf of God: “You have wearied the Lord with your words,” followed by the response “How have we wearied him?” By ignoring sin and allowing injustice. Craigie writes: “They have become, by their attitudes and actions, functional atheists, not bothering to deny the existence of God, but destroying any link between God and justice, or between the Almighty and good and evil” (DSB:TWELVE PROPHETS, 2:239). They saw God as either negligent or unjust. It made God weary. The word weary can mean physically tired or spent. It also means to be emotional tired, exhaustion as a result of persistent stress and sorrows. Since God cannot be physically weary, they are causing God figuratively to be weary of their unfaithfulness. In a way, it speaks of God’s passion and faithfulness for His people.

Malachi’s answer is God is not unjust, nor is He unfaithful. He will fulfill what He promises. Malachi declares:

God will fulfill His Word and send His messengers (3:1). The first is John the Baptist; the other will be the Lord Himself. This is clearly a Messianic promise. Interestingly, Malachi’s oracles are the last words of the Old Testament. Four hundred years past. Then at the opening of the New Testament we find the messengers appearing. It is no accident that John in being the forerunner, pictures the coming of Christ as refiner and judge—Matthew 3:10.-12.
The coming Messiah will have two functions: First, He will come as a refiner. He will come to purify His people. He will be the “smelter and purifier” of Israel (3:3). Second, He comes as judge that will destroy the impurities of sin and sinners (3:5).

Justice and judgment go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. The object of justice and judgment is to bring hope to the people of God. They will receive justice when judgment comes to those who oppress the nation of Israel. This will occur at the prophesied second coming of Christ.

Malachi’s Third Oracle

2012-02-17T17:18:00.000-05:00

Malachi 2:10-16

This third oracle deals with unfaithfulness. This oracle opens with the people of God being unfaithful in three areas:

Unfaithful to each other/brothers (2:10)
Unfaithful to God (2:11-12)
Unfaithful to Wives (2:15-16)

Unfaithfulness is the agent of destruction socially, spiritually, and personally. Unfaithfulness is a lack of integrity and failure to meet social, personal and spiritual obligations. It is not holding to trust. Unfaithfulness is being untrustworthy.

The key word in this oracle is “treacherously” (v. 10, 11, 14, 15, 16). It is the Hebrew verb bagad, meaning to break faith. It describes violating a covenant (Judges 9:23) and an act of betrayal or treachery in a relationship. It is an act that disrupts the fabric of relationships. It is a source of contention or trouble in a relationship. Notice he describes unfaithfulness in the strongest terms possible: abomination and profanity (v11). Unfaithfulness ruins lives, collapses hope, and is an act of betrayal.

In Malachi’s time trust (faithfulness) had largely eroded away, as it has in ours. One sign of it is the erosion of marriage in society evidenced by the increase of divorce. Divorce rate today is around 50% of all marriages. Unfaithfulness in marriage has been estimated as high as 80%. The increase is a symptom of a general increase of unfaithfulness in all types of relationships. Question: Do we take faithfulness too lightly? Israel did and it cost them greatly.

The warning of Malachi is just as applicable to us as it was to Israel: “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (v16).

“It is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy (faithful)”—1 Corinthians 4:2.

THROUGHTS ON MALACHI's SECOND ORACLE

2012-02-14T12:54:00.001-05:00

Malachi 1:6-2:9

Malachi’s oracle on love, gives way to an oracle on unfaithfulness, or to put it another way, the lack of integrity. Integrity is adherence to moral and ethical princples; soundness of moral character; honesty. In ministry it is vital for the servant of God. As I ponder Malachi’s second oracle, I see five actions that hinder and compromise the servant and his ministries integrity.

Offering God less than the best (1:7-8). The servant of God is to have a single heart, mind, and will. Our heart, mind, and will are to be acceptable to God. Forstyhe once said “The first duty of every soul is to find not its freedom but its Master.” We offer God less than the best when we serve with a divided heart, mind, and will. We are offering less than the best and our integrity is compromised.
Giving in to routine and boredom (1:13). When we minster out of routine, we lose our freshness and wonder of God and His work. This happens when care is replaced with necessity. We need love, but not our love; it is the love of Christ than compels us. God does not ask us to work up our love, but to let His love work in us (Rom. 5:5). Servants are to be channels of His love, but routine and boredom can block that love. When that happens we lose our integrity.
The lack of accountability (2:1). The lack of holding oneself accountable to God is duplicity. Duplicity is lying to oneself and can lead to rebellion. When the Word speaks simply to our head, and not our heart, we can easily rationalize away our accountability. Intellectualism is when the head does not transfer the knowledge to the heart, and we forget the commandment is for us, blinding us to our accountability and integrity.
Losing our reverence for God (2:5). Reverence is a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe. We lose it when God becomes common. We lose awe when we start looking at ourselves, not God. When we take for granted His presence and blessing in our ministry. How can we maintain our integrity when we make God common?
Showing partiality in ministry (2:9). Partiality compromises integrity and can lead to divisions.

Warren Wiersbe wrote some years ago THE INTEGRITY CRISIS. That crisis has not lessened but rather has grown in the church. Wiersbe in the book notes: “a person with integrity is not divided (that’s duplicity) or merely pretending (that’s hypocrisy)” [page 21]. Duplicity and hypocrisy are exactly what Malachi is dealing with in the second oracle.

MALACHI’S FIRST ORACLE

2012-02-02T16:39:00.000-05:00

Malachi 1:1-5

As we open the book of Malachi we are struck with his immediate declaration. There is no introduction; the prophet gets right to point. He declares: “The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi” (1:1). The phrase, “through Malachi” is literally, “by the hand of Malachi,” and reinforces authorship. As we look at the first oracle, he addresses certain things that the people of God struggle with. My purpose is not to give a detailed study of Malachi, but to point out things in this passage that we all deal with and need to be reminded of:

(1) God loves us. The subject of the oracle is the love of God. God declares His love for His people: “I have loved you.” It is stated as a matter of fact. It is clearly stated; no elaboration is needed.

(2) Complacency concerning God’s love can lead to blindness of His love. This is brought out by their reply to God’s statement. “How hast Thou loved us?” While the reply is not spoken, this is the attitude of the heart that God reads from the heart of His people. Love can be taken for granted, complacency sets in, and eventually blindness to that love. It works in every relationship. In every relationship we can take love for granted and eventually forget that it is there. Why? Our hearts are turned away from the object of our love by complacency and blindness.

(3) God’s love to us is a choice. Love is a choice! In this passage God answers by reminding His people that His love for them was a choice. He chose Jacob, not Esau. While not going into the theological significance and implications, it is clear that Israel’s election is an example of God’s love for them, as it is us (cf. John 15:19; Eph. 1:4). Because of His choice to love, He is faithful to His people (cf. Jer. 31:2-3).

(4) God reacts to our complacency and even blindness. He warns and disciplines. While Esau, who rejected God’s love, experienced God’s wrath. Israel experienced His discipline. “Whereas Judah’s devastation by the Babylonians had been a temporary situation, Edom would never return to their land” observes Clendenen (NAC: HAGGAI-MALACHI, 253).

This oracle of Malachi should speak to our heart as believers by reminding us of His love. It warns us against complacency and its danger. May it remind us we are chosen and loved. He is faithful!

THOUGHTS ON MALACHI

2012-02-01T00:09:00.001-05:00

Malachi is the final book of the Old Testament. The word Malachi means “my messenger” and some have taken it as a title, not a name. They regard the author of this book as anonymous. However, since none of the prophets compositions are not anonymous works in the Old Testament, we can safely understand it as the name of the prophet. Malachi lived up to his name, being a messenger of God. The problem that Malachi faced was that of dull spirits, despondency, and indifference in the worship and life of God’s people. It was a time of doubt and compromise. The priesthood lacked integrity. Intermarriage was common. There was a danger of intermixing faith and paganism, producing neglect of devotion in the people of God. The prophet speaks to his time. The book is made up of six oracles, with a brief introduction (1:1) and a conclusion (4:4-6). The six oracles are:

1:2-5 God’s love

1:6-2:9 Unfaithful priest

2:10-16 Divorce

2:27-3:5 Divine justice

3:6-12 Tithes

3:13-4:3 Day of judgment

There is no question we can learn from Malachi. He speaks truth that is timeless. There is a great parallel between his time and ours. E. Ray Clendenen observes: “Malachi speaks to the hearts of a troubled people whose circumstances of financial insecurity, religious skepticism, and personal disappointments are similar to those God’s people often experience or encounter today.” [NAC: HAGGAI-MALACHI, 238.] As I look at these oracles, I see six issues we all face.

1:2-5 Complacency

1:6-2:9 Integrity

2:10-16 Unfaithfulness

2:27-3:5 Injustice

3:6-12 Selfishness

3:13-4:3 Accountability

I challenge you to read Malachi. How does he speak to you on these issues?

THE DECREE OF ACTS 15

2012-01-26T18:05:00.002-05:00

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell” (Acts 15:28-29).

The words “it seemed good” should not be taken as opinion, but it is language of a formal decree.[1] This decree is significant in that:

This decree is divinely sanctioned. Note it is not just the formal decree of men, but of God the Holy Spirit.
That “no greater burden” be placed upon the Gentiles; meaning circumcision and the Law. The Greek is stronger than the English translation, it is a present infinitive, thus indicating now and in the future there will be no greater burden placed upon you.
What are conveyed to the Gentiles are the essentials. These are not mere suggestions. The Greek word is epanagkes meaning necessary things and carries the idea of compulsory things. The Greek word is found in the N.T. only here. It is necessary not only in sensibility to the Jews, but to the worship of God; to prevent offending Him.[2] It is the avoidance of idolatry and immorality, especially in reference to pagan ritual and religious practices. They are to abstain (apechesthai) from things sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled meats, and fornication. We see the fourfold repeated use of the word “from,” a genitive of separation. The prohibitions speak of sanctification, not salvation.
These will have a unifying benefit. “The idea seems to be that keeping the prohibitions would be spiritually and relationally beneficial. By keeping the prohibitions, Gentile believers would be in harmony with the Holy Spirit, the Jerusalem church and other Jewish believers.”[3] They would not offend God or the Jews if they keep these prohibitions, thus keeping the door of evangelism open to the unbelieving Jews.

[For a very good article on the decree see: “A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15” by Charles H. Savelle, BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, October-December 2004].

[1] Witherington, ACTS, 469.

[2] Bock, ACTS, 513.

[3] Sevelle, "Reexamination..." 467.

Hebrews 1:1-4

2012-01-19T20:06:00.000-05:00

I was reading from Hebrews 1 today. Hebrews opens unlike any other letter or epistle. There is no prologue, or greeting of any type. It opens with a declaration, a statement of fact. This declaration is one long sentence in the Greek (1:1-4). The structure of the sentence:

In the prophets

To the fathers

Long ago in various ways and portions

                         /
God / has spoken
                                \
                          In these last days
                                        \
                                          To us
                                                \

In His Son

| He is the radiance of His glory

                                                                | the exact representation of His nature
                                                                |
                                                                | upholds all things by the word of his power
                                                                |

| He had made purification of sins

                                                                |
                                                                | sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high
                                                                              \
                                                                               Having become better than the angels
                                                                |
                                                                | He has inherited a more excellent name
                                                                                 \
                                                                                 than they (angels)

Three things struck me about this passage and I was reading and diagramming it. First, God has spoken. This is the subject and verb of the sentence. Speaking is the action of God. This speaking is clearly progressive. Note how some of the phrases parallel each other in the passage.

In the prophets In the son

To the fathers To us (Hebrews)

Long ago… In these last days

Second, this speaking was to the Hebrews. In old days God spoke by various means through the prophets, and in these last days in the person of the Son. The Greek text reads more literally, “In the last days of these” or at the end of these days. The word these refers back to the prophets. At the end of the Old Testament prophets God spoke in His Son. Remember, Jesus lived in the Old Testament time. I believe it is a reference to the Son’s incarnation. Both phrases speak of when God spoke to the Hebrews. One was in an imperfect fashion (various ways and manners), the other is in a perfect fashion (in His Son).

Third, God is speaking through His Son Who is the superior revelation. The author makes that clear by listing the characteristics of the Son that makes Him superior.

Jesus Christ is the center of God’s revelation, the living Word.

JOHN THE BAPTIST / Part 4

2012-01-18T20:13:00.000-05:00

A Study of Matthew 3:1-12 (continued).

d. The reasons for repentance (3:10-12)

Matthew now emphasizes the reasons for repentance. He gives three clear-cut reasons.

Judgment is at hand (3:10).

Divine judgment will precede the establishment of the kingdom on earth. This is well established in the Old Testament (Isa. 1:27; 4:4; 5:16; 13:6-19; 42:1; Jer. 33:14-16; Dan. 7:27-27). John now announces that this judgment was forthcoming, for if the kingdom is at hand so must be its preceding judgments. Those who do not repent are in a serious position. The axe is at the root of the trees. Those who do not bring forth fruit will be hewn down and cast into the fire. (Picking up the imagery of verse 8). The axe “is a symbol of destruction, and lying at the root of the trees paints a grim picture of impending doom.” [France, MATTHEW, 60] It is a prophetic image of judgment (Isa. 10:15). It is noteworthy the word choice made by John. He refers to trees in addressing the Pharisees and Sadducees, the leaders of the nation, for leaders were sometimes compared to trees (Judges 9:7-16; Dan. 4:20-22). The same judgment that fell upon the nations (Isa. 10:33-34, Ezek 31; Dan. 4:14) is about to fall upon the nation (Israel). John is giving a clear warning to the leaders of the nation that judgment is a hand. They need to repent and bring forth the good fruit of repentance. Failure to do so will lead to destruction.

The coming baptism work of Christ (3:11)

John here makes a comparison between his baptism with water and the baptism that Christ will perform. The two are not the same. He indeed baptized with water unto repentance. However, he points out that the one that is coming also has a work of baptism to perform. The coming one’s work is superior to his baptism, for He is “mightier than I,” which carries the idea of higher in rank, thus superior. The coming one is superior both in his person and his work of baptism.

The verse brings out three baptisms:

First, is John’s baptism with water to prepare the way by repentance for the coming kingdom.

Second, is the baptism work of the coming Messiah with the Holy Spirit. The Bible student should be aware that the Holy Spirit here is not the agent of the baptism; rather it is the coming one, i.e. Jesus Christ. Christ, not the Holy Spirit performs this work. Chafer points out that “A certain group would force a rending…by translating the words ‘into the Spirit’ and ‘into water’; but the great majority of Scholars sustain the Authorized rendering, namely, ‘with’ the Spirit and ‘with’ water.” [Chafer, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 5:67] Christ is the performer of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This baptism is not the same as 1 Cor. 12:13, where the Holy Spirit is the performer of that baptism into Christ, not Christ. This observation has not been seen or recognized by Bible students. Chafer has and writes, “Those Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is related to baptism are to be classified in two divisions. In the one group, Christ is the baptizing agent, yet the Holy Spirit is the blessed influence that characterized the baptism. In the other group of passages, the Holy Spirit is the baptizing agent and Christ as the Head of His mystical Body is the receiving element and by so much that blessed influence which characterizes the baptism.” [Chafer, 6:141] This is an important distinction. The baptism which Christ was to perform was an empowering baptism (see Luke 24:49) of which a foretaste took place at Pentecost (Acts 2). However, its complete future fulfillment is when Israel accepts Christ as her Messiah (Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28-32). This is not the same baptism that Paul describes in 1 Cor. 12:13, which is a positional baptism of the believer by the Holy Spirit into Christ’s body, the Church. The two are not the same. Neither baptism is one that is performed by water, but rather are spiritual baptisms.

Third, is a baptism of fire. This is not a water baptism. What is this baptism of fire? Some connect it with the baptism with the Holy Spirit and indicating one aspect of this baptism as purification. The reasoning for such a view is not without merit. Did not this baptism take place at Pentecost like fiery tongues? In other words, it is taken as a different aspect of the same baptism above. Toussaint points out that, “Since the two nouns are joined by the conjunction ‘and’ (kai) and one preposition is used with both, only a baptism of the Holy Spirit is in view.” [Toussaint, BEHOLD THE KING, 70] This is mostly true, but not always. In this text, the context seems not to fit here. The three rules of Bible interpretation are context, context, and context. The context is judgment and it must be the strongest consideration in our understanding of this text. The more natural fit contextually is that this is a second baptizing work of Christ—a baptism of judgment. “The context, which speaks of blessing for the repentant but judgment for the unrepentant, tends to favor two baptisms,” observes Constable. [NOTES ON MATTHEW, 53] Fire in the New Testament is generally taken in its destructive sense of judgment when used metaphorically (Matt. 13:42; 18:8; 25:41; Mark 9:43; Luke 9:54; 12:49; 17:29; 1 Cor. 3:13, 15; 2 Thess. 1:8; 12:29; Hebrews 1:7; 10:27; 11:34; James 3:5; 2 Peter 3:7; 3:12; Jude 7, 23; Rev. 20:9, 14.) It is likely that John develops the context here from his predecessor, Malachi who pictured the coming of Messiah with fire (Mal. 3:2-3; 4:1-3). He is carrying on that prophetic theme, for in Luke 3:16-17 we find the words “the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.” The prophet Isaiah described this judgment or baptism of fire (Isa. 63:1-8). The Jews expected a time of impending judgment against the wicked and deliverance for the righteous, so it is not a stretch that the listeners would have associated the fire with judgment, rather than purification. This judgment of fire reaches it climax and realization in Revelation 16. It takes place at the second coming of Christ. Then He will come in flaming fire to judge those who do not know Him (2 Thess. 1:18). I believe Bultema is correct to say, “This baptism will be a pouring out of the fire of the wrath of the Lamb.” [BIBLE AND BAPTISM, 66]

The Separating work of Christ (3:12).

The judgment work of Christ is a separating work, separating the believers from the unbelievers; the repentant from the unrepentant. The emphasis here is on judgment, not salvation. Christ has the winnowing shovel. The winnowing shovel (that is its proper name, although it looks more like a fork) is already in his hand, ready for immediate use. This metaphor is from the common practice of harvest. On the winnowing floor was piled grain with chaff. The farmer would shovel the pile and throw the mixture in the air. The grain would fall down on the floor, and the wind blew away the chaff. The grain and chaff were separated by this process. In many areas of the world it is still done by this process. The grain is gathered up, and the chaff is burned. Many times chaff is used as fuel for domestic stoves. The thought is that since the kingdom is at hand, so is the preceding judgment. The coming Messiah will separate the grain from the chaff. When the Messiah comes to rule, he will purify His kingdom by first bringing judgment. The Greek word diakathariei means literally, “he will cleanse thoroughly.” [Nolland, MATTHEW, 148] He will remove the useless and keep the useful. The useful will be gathered into the granary or barn, signifying the kingdom. The useless will end up in “unquenchable fire.” This underlines judgments finality. In Mark 9:43 it stands in apposition to Gehenna, the place of final punishment.

The message of John the Baptist was for both personal salvation and national salvation. The nation and the people were to repent for the earthly Kingdom was at hand. If they did not repent, they could not be saved from the judgment nor enter the Kingdom.

JOHN THE BAPTIST / Part 3

2012-01-14T13:44:00.000-05:00

A study of Matthew 3:1-12 (continued)

Warning John pronounced (Matthew 3:7-12)

To whom the warning is issued 3:7a

“But” (3:7a) brings us to an important contrast. While many were responding and repenting, there were those who were not. When the spiritual leadership came to the baptism, John shows his animosity toward the Pharisees and Sadducees. Who were these people?

The Pharisees are mentioned in Matthew more than any other Gospel (29 times). They were a religious party that was strongly conservative in the Law. Their name is derived from the Hebrew word that means “separatist,” although recently it has been suggested that the word may lie in the Hebrew word for “specifies,” since they were scrupulous for exactness in observance of God’s laws. They studied the law meticulously and paid close attention to a mass of rules that was meant to help people avoid breaking them. “Physical separation was of paramount importance. Functional holiness was considered evidence of personal piety” among this sect. They saw themselves as the true proponents of the true righteousness of the law. To help others not break the law, they devised a system of rules to “fence” people from coming close to breaking the law. These laws were known as the seyag (fence). [William L. Coleman, THE PHARISEES’ GUIDE TO TOTAL HOLINESS, 8] These fence laws accumulated into the hundreds, and over time elevated to the level of the Law itself. These consisted of things like do not pick grain to eat on the Sabbath to keep you safe from breaking the Sabbath.

Although they were a small sect (around 6,000 during the time of Christ), they achieved great success, power and position. Their “claims of scrupulous piety and the preservation of ancestral laws were accorded wider circulation and support than any slogans the Sadducees or Essences could devise.” [S. Westerholm, “Pharisees,” DICTIONARY OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS, 610]. They were well liked by the common people. Coleman notes that this party had its good points. They were national heroes, who accepted the Scripture as God-given, and careful students of it, who emphasized education, kept the ceremonial laws, were sacrificial givers, evangelistic, and anticipated a coming Messiah. They also believed strongly in resurrection. However, because of all their pious and so-called righteousness to the law, they tended to think of themselves as being better than others. Their narrow view led them to be blinded to the intent of the Law, and they “fenced” themselves off from real righteousness. Their zealousness for the law drove them to externalism and legalism, forgetting the internal aspects of the Law, trading them for external public display. They were extremely self-righteous. Their philosophy by the time of Christ was, “Do we look right rather than are we right.” [Coleman, 29].

On the other hand were the Sadducees, who are mentioned only seven times by Matthew. The origin of the name has been lost in the halls of history. It is believed the name means the “righteous ones,” being from the same Hebrew word as the word righteous. [W.J. Moulder, “Sadducees,” ISBE, 4:278]. However, many scholars believe the name derived from Zadok, the high priest during the time of David. [Leon Morris, MATTHEW 57]. They regarded themselves as the true descendants of Zadok, thus seeing themselves as “Zadokites.” In contrast to the Pharisees, they rejected the oral tradition, and accepted only written Scripture as the voice of authority. Some say they accepted only the first 5 books of Moses as Scripture, but this is doubted by many. They were the liberal aristocratic party, enjoying the confidence of the wealthy, but not well accepted by the common person who saw them as heartless. They were the rationalists. They held the priestly power, while Pharisees (also Priests) held mostly the lower levels of the Priesthood. They held control of the high priesthood and the upper levels of the priesthood. Moulder says that the Sadducees “derived their power from their class, while Pharisees derived theirs from learning.” [Moulder, 4:279.]. They were the high society of the time, and worked hard at keeping the status quo, working in collaboration with the Romans, thus, having the real political power. They were power hungry and wheeled it to their best advantage. They gained wealth by their control of the temple businesses. They doctrinally differed from the Pharisees denying the resurrection, or existence after death, future rewards or punishments (Mark 12:18). They also rejected the belief in angels and spirits (Acts 2:38). They were strong on free will, and this-worldliness perspective, so that God could not be held responsible for evil.

Toussaint notes, “It is significant that this first mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospel marks them out as being hypocritical.” [Stanley Toussaint, BEHOLD THE KING, 68]. The Gospels do not present the two groups as hostile to one another probably because they are presented as united in their opposition to Christ. It is not uncommon to see different groups united against a common opponent. In Acts, we find the two groups disagreeing, especially around the issue of resurrection.

b. The description of those warned 3:7b

Matthew continues a low evaluation of the Pharisees and Sadducees throughout his Gospel. He calls them a “brood of vipers.” Here Matthew lumps them together, elsewhere he distinguishes them (22:34). Both are leaders, and John says they are a bunch of snakes. It is a term that was used by the prophets (Isa. 14:29; 30:6) to describe God‘s enemies, and will be used by Christ of the Pharisees (Matt. 12:34). It was an insult. A viper is a small poisonous snake, and points to these leaders’ deadly hypocrisy and fatal deceptions, which were poisoning the nation Israel. Keener points out that in the ancient Mediterranean it was a common thought to think of vipers as mother killers. [Keener, MATTHEW, IVP, 79-80]. It indicates moral depravity, and points out that by their hypocrisy they were killing their own motherland. A viper was not only deadly, but it was deceitful. He looked like a dead branch who suddenly would strike its victim (Acts 28:3). They were deadly and deceptive, like the serpent and the deceiver, Satan. Is it any wonder then that Christ calls their father the Devil (John 8:44).

Hypocrisy deifies the outward actions, and nullifies the Spirit within. These leaders loved themselves and their reputation, but not God. Coleman says they “were shackled to a routine of religious conformity, but their faith and sincerity were an empty hull.” [Coleman, 96]. Paul defines hypocrisy well when he declares that some have “a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). Hypocrisy does two things. First, it pretends to be what it is not. Second, it conceals and blinds us to what we are. It is marked by outward ritual harshness and inward insincerity. These two together are deadly to the soul.

c. The call to repent (3:7-9)

To these he asked, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (3:7c). The question is ironical. In really, this question deals with their coming simply as an outward form or ritual to escape the wrath to come. The call to repentance implies God’s wrath and His judgment on those who do not repent. Who gave you the idea that you could escape simply by going through the motion or ritual of baptism to escape? Verse 8 clearly points out that they did not come in true repentance. Likewise, many today are trusting in they religious rituals, or good works, or church attendance to escape the wrath to come. It will not happen. The spirit of hypocrisy is alive and well. Superficial repentance and outward reformation never saved anyone. John warns them to repent. True repentance on their part entailed:

“Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (3:8). Fruit is what people exhibit to others. Let us note at the beginning that John is not telling them to work for their salvation. Salvation in any dispensation has been by faith and not by works. In the Old Testament times, works were an expression of faith, but it was their faith that saved them. Under old dispensations, God said to offer animal sacrifices, faith offered the sacrifices, as Abel did. On there other hand, not bringing an animal sacrifice, like Cain, displayed unbelief. Here in John’s ministry, it was repenting and being baptized with water that true faith displayed itself. John is still under the Old Testament times, thus he is looking for the signs or fruit of true repentance. The fruit that John was looking for is given in Luke 3:10-14. The imagery of bearing fruit is used by Jesus (7:16-20; 12:33-37; 13:8, 22-23) and Paul (Rom. 6:22, 7:6, Eph. 5:9, cf. Gal. 5:22) which springs out of faith. It is clear from the context that there was no repentance on their part and the fruits were absent. “There was not external evidence that they desired to draw near to God in anticipation of Messiah’s appearance.” [Thomas Constable, NOTES ON MATTHEW, 51]

Do not rely on Nationality (3:9). Notice, he clearly says, “do not think” (3:9). The word indicates presumption on their part, and came to be translated, “Do not presume.” Many Jews of the time believed being a descendant of Abraham would automatically gain entrance into the Kingdom. God has no grandchildren (cf. Gal. 3:1-9). The necessarily of the new birth is without exception (cp. John 3). The physical birth can make one a member of the external nation, but not the kingdom of heaven. No bank of “merit of the fathers” exists. It was believed in rabbinic circles at the time that Abraham sat at the gate of hell (Gehenna), to deliver all Israelites from being assigned there, based on the merit of the fathers. They believed the merit of Abraham was enough to save them. (This same fallacy is seen today in the Church of Rome in the merit of the saints). Both the Gospels (here, John 8:39-40) and Paul (Rom. 9:6-8) make clear not all who were born of Abraham are his true children. The text makes clear physical descent did not grant them immunity from God’s wrath. Such presuming is wrong. Nationality is no impressive matter, for God is able to make stones into children. It is generally agreed that the reference to stones is a pun on the Hebrew or Aramaic words used (Hebrew: banim—children; ‘^abanim—stones / Aramaic: b^enayya—abnayya). [France, MATTHEW, 111] Repentance is necessary for all without exception. It is required for acceptance into Messiah’s kingdom regardless of race, position or nationality.

JOHN THE BAPTIST / Part 2

2012-01-12T15:17:00.001-05:00

A study of Matthew 3:1-12

B. What John performed (3:5-6)

John’s work in the desert was to prepare the people of Israel for their Messiah. Large numbers came to him from Jerusalem and all Judea. His work was that of baptizing in the Jordan those who confessed their sins (3:6). Contrary to what many believe, this baptism was not the first time baptism took place. In Heb. 9:10, we see the Jews practice “various baptisms.” Baptism was a part of the Mosaic system of worship (Exodus 19; Leviticus 15; Numbers 19). This was nothing new. Hudson points out that “John’s ministry centered on truth that was obviously common ground to the Jews of that day.” [Baptism in the Bible, 77] When John was confronted they did not want to know the significance of his baptism, but his authority to do so (John 1:25). They understood the meaning for it was a baptism of purification. In the Old Testament, baptism is connected with washing, cleansing or consecration. In Leviticus 15:8, the unclean had to wash to be restored into fellowship. This baptism did not equate with salvation, but was an act of purification.

The passage does not teach baptismal regeneration. Rather it was a response to faith and confession of sin of a covenant people. This baptism “was not making them God’s people; they were already that by the covenant, but was calling them back to fellowship and blessing.” [Gospels, 28] John was like the prophet Isaiah proclaiming, “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean…” (Isa. 1:16). Bultema notes that, “Since John was living under the old covenant; his baptism was an old covenant affair, Jewish mass purification for the Messiah and his rule and kingdom.” [Bible and Baptism, 40] Constable is careful to note that, “John’s baptism did not make a person a member of the church, the Body of Christ, since the church had not yet come into existence.” [Notes on Matthew, 50] It was a religious rite done in conjunction with the confession of sin that was proper for Jews to do as preparation of the kingdom under the old dispensation and covenant. Purification baptism was common in Israel, especially of Gentile converts. Some hold that John is treating the Jews as Gentiles. However, the text does not indicate that that John was making proselytes of those who responded. He was purifying them for the coming kingdom. It must have been both humiliating and humbling for a Jew to respond to John’s message of confession and baptism. In light of their departure from the covenant and in the light of the coming kingdom, was it not appropriate for them to partake in this act of purification? It is estimated that between 200,000 and 500,000 responded to the message and work of John the Baptist. Josephus reports that John was so popular that Antipas feared a popular uprising (Ant. 18.118).

SIMPLY by GRACE

2012-01-10T14:09:00.000-05:00

BOOK REVIEW

SIMPLY by GRACE

(Kregel Publications, 2009)

Charles C. Bing

The subtitle is “An Introduction to God’s Life-Changing Gift.” This is exactly that: an introduction to the great subject of grace. This is a great introduction. It is reader friendly, profound yet simple, and easy to read. No heavy theological mambo-jumbo. It is a straight forward, book on Grace with remarkable clarity that anyone can understand. “Simply by Grace” sums up the heart of Christianity, salvation, and the Christian life. Grace is the answer to all our needs as sinners and believers. Simply by Grace is the summation of the work of God today.

The book is divided up into 13 chapters. They range from the Gift of Grace; the God of all Grace; Saved by Grace; Secured by Grace; etc., to Sharing the Gift (of grace). It is a study of the work of Grace from start to finish. No matter where you are in your life, how deep your understanding may be of the Word, you will find something in this book for you. It will speak to you and lead you to personal growth in grace, as well as a new appreciation of God and His grace. It also speaks of our responsibility in grace. It motivates and shows freedom and accountability in the grace life. It would make a good Sunday School or home Bible study book. Get it. Read it. You will enjoy it.

JOHN THE BAPTIST / Part 1

2012-01-09T21:59:00.005-05:00

A study of Matthew 3:1-12

What John Preaches (3:1-4).

It is interesting that Matthew opens this section with the words, “in those days.” It is a very general term to say the least in the context. Hagner says that it “is not specific, it does indicate a special time.” [WBC:MATTHEW, 47] However the phrase is connected to the days in which Jesus lived in Nazareth. A.T. Robertson points that this phrase “usually occurs at the transition in the narrative….” [GRAMMAR, 708] Thus, it may be simply a transitional phrase to introduce a new subject. Morris says that it “may be an example of the use of “that” to indicate without precision some time in the past (cf. 24:38; Luke 2:1, etc), or perhaps better Matthew means ‘in those crucial days’ or ‘in that critical time.’ ” [MATTHEW, 51] While the phrase may be general, it speaks historically. It speaks of the days when John the Baptist was ministering. However, the emphasis of the verse is not on the time, but on the person and activity of John the Baptist. John is a very popular name, as seen from the fact there are a number of Johns in the New Testament. John is called “the Baptist” seven times in Matthew, and places emphasis on John’s activity of baptizing. It identifies which John we are talking about. However, we must not allow his title as Baptist to obscure his purpose. His main thrust of ministry is not baptism, but the announcement of judgment being near with the coming of Messiah/King. His main purpose was to prepare the way for the coming of Messiah.

John the Baptist appeared and preached in the wilderness of Judea near the mouth of the Jordan River, not the Temple nor in Jerusalem. He is Christ’s forerunner (cf. John 11:9-12). In a real sense, John is a true forerunner, in that he precedes Christ in His birth, in His appearance, and in His death.

John the Baptist came with Elijah’s spirit and power to turn hearts to God (Luke 1:15-17). He came to preach. To preach (kerysso) means to act as a herald, to proclaim or publish. John came to publish the coming of the King and His kingdom. He was like the servants of the king who were sent ahead to smooth out and straighten the road in preparation for the King to come. He was Messiah’s advance man. His message was clear and simple: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt 3:2). This consisted of two things:

First, it was a message of repentance. The word repent is the Greek word metamorphoo, compound word meaning after (meta), and the mind, or the way of thinking (noeo), thus a change of mind. It has the meaning to change one’s mind, opinion, feeling, or purpose. It is a present imperative, a voice of command. Baker notes that “the word etymologically means after-thought. It refers to reconsidering or changing the mind after an action has taken place.” [DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY, 411.]The word does not mean to feel sorry (contrast lupe meaning grief or sorrow). That idea has come in because of the Latin rendering. In Latin it was rendered as “to exercise penitence” (penitential agere), a word that suggests grief, sorrow, distress, but not necessarily change. One can feel sorry and not change either his mind or his actions. It should also be noted that sorrow can, and often is, a part of the change of mind. As Chafer comments, “It is doubtless true that often sorrow leads to repentance, but the sorrow as such is not repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9).” [Repentance,” BIB-SAC, April 1952, 131]. The emphasis of the word is on the mind, not feeling or emotion. The object of repentance is not always identified or given in Scripture (Acts 20:21), however, it is generally toward God or sin (Acts 20:21, Acts 8:22). Repentance is central to faith and a relationship with God for Jews. The context in which the word is used indicates the direction one must change his mind. Repentance is that conscious change of attitude (mind), both spiritual and moral, regarding God, on the one hand, and sin, on the other.

Repentance is not limited or equated always with personal salvation, nor is it a onetime event. “New Testament repentance is not confined to the unsaved or the moment of conversion. It may take place repeatedly within Christian experience, whenever there is a need for it” explains Hodges. [ABSOLUTELY FREE, 143] This is important to understand. In Matthew, the call of repentance is to the people of Israel to return to the covenant relationship with God. Baker reminds us, “What most students fail to recognized is that Israel as a nation was in covenant relationship with God, a relationship shared by no other nation in history.” [ACTS, 27-28]. This is clearly a prophetic theme, for it is common in the Old Testament for the nation to be called back to God (cf. Joel 2:2; Isa 55:7; Ezek. 33:11, 15). In Deuteronomy 28 is the principle of how God would deal with the covenant people. Obedience brought blessing; disobedience discipline. Deuteronomy 30 indicates that discipline would not be lifted until they “turned” back to God. Israel is not being called to repent to become a covenant people; they were already a covenant people. They were being called to repent because they had wandered away from God as a nation. John’s ministry is in conjunction with the principles of the Old Testament. Repentance was an adjustment of those who are already in covenant relation to God. Thus, this call to repent is a call to harmonious relations with God by a people who are already under the covenant. Repentance is foremost a message needed by the nation. Chafer says, “It is possible to be under the provisions of an unconditional covenant and to fail for the time being to enjoy its blessings because of sin. When sin has cast a limitation upon the enjoyment of a covenant and the covenant, being unchangeable, still abides, the issue becomes, not the remaking of the covenant, but the one issue of the sin which mars the relationship.” [SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 3:375-376] Thus, the call Israel is to repair their disastrous breach with God. During the time of Christ, they were being called back into fellowship with God within the covenant. Repentance was essential and available.

Second, Matthew clearly declares the reason John preached repentance was that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This statement is important, thus we cannot overlook it. Two things demand our attention:

What is the meaning of the kingdom of heaven? The term is clearly related to the prophecy of Daniel. The origin of the phrase is from Daniel 2:44, which declares that “God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all the kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” This is clearly not a kingdom in heaven, but one that comes from heaven and is set up on earth. It is when the God of heaven sets up His kingdom on earth. McClain notes: “since this divine Kingdom comes from “heaven” to destroy and supplant kingdoms existing on earth, it is apparent that we have here a clear correspondence of ideas between Daniel’s prophecy and Matthew’s terminology.” [GREATEST OF THE KINGDOM, 279]. Daniel 713-14 describes this kingdom coming at the coming of the Son of Man. Clearly, the term kingdom of heaven refers to the same kingdom that is described in Daniel. It is the earthly kingdom anticipated and prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. Toussaint [BEHOLD THE KING, 274-303] gives these reasons why it is evident that Daniel’s kingdom and John’s declarations are the same:

First, neither John nor Christ made any new explanation of the kingdom being different from that of the Old Testament prophets.

Second, it is seen in the restriction of the message to the Jews exclusively (Matthew 10:5-6). In the Old Testament, the reality of this kingdom is contingent upon its reception by the nation of Israel. If this is a spiritual kingdom only, why is this necessary?

Third, the anticipation of a literal kingdom on earth was held by the disciples, which Jesus never indicated that they held a mistaken notion (Matthew 20:20-21).

Based upon simple logic, the kingdom in view cannot be the church since the church was still a mystery (Eph 3:1-10). Toussaint correctly says: “The only conclusion at which one can arrive is that the proclamation of John refers to a literal, earthly kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises and prophecies.” [BEHOLD THE KING, 62]. It cannot be simply God’s universal reign over the hearts of man, or exclusively a spiritual kingdom. The significance of the announcement that it is “at hand” loses its impact, for the rule of God in the heart had been recognized among the people of God since Old Testament times (Psa. 37:31; 103:19).
This kingdom is “at hand.” What does that mean? The Greek word used is a perfect tense of eggiken, which means to draw near or literally “has come near.” The word clearly means something is near, but has not arrived. Johnson notes that, “the perfect tense, with its indication of an action in the past with present continuing results, points to the approach of the kingdom in the approach of the King. He is now here, and, therefore, the kingdom is now near.” [“The Message of John the Baptist,” BIB-SAC, January 1956, 35].

It is to be noted that while the King is present, the kingdom is near, but not in actual operation on earth. The reality of the establishment of the kingdom could not be set up until the King and his Kingdom were accepted, nor could it be accepted until it was offered. There is no indication of an offer of the kingdom during the Gospel period. This is because the events of the cross had to take place before the offer. This is evidenced in and by prophecy (sees Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Zechariah 13), which explicitly declare that the glory follows the suffering of Christ (Zechariah 12:10, 13:6). We read of no real offer of the kingdom until after the cross in Acts 3:19-21. Peter clearly makes an offer of the kingdom at Pentecost. It is an offer to the nation of Israel offering their national hope of restoration. As Baxter writes of this verse:

…is it not equally clear that these words of Peter utter the promise that the Lord Jesus would return, and the times of restoration set in without delay, upon the repentance and conversion of Israel? Here is the fact, clearly stated, that had there been a national repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Christ, on the part of Israel, the second advent of Christ in power and glory would have taken place then and there. Never was a more direct promise given. [THE STRATEGIC GRASP OF THE BIBLE, 311]

Israel rejected the Messianic King in the Gospels and the offer of the Messianic Kingdom in the book of Acts. During the Acts, we see the fall of Israel and the rise of the Church, the Body of Christ. Baxter says there are three pivotal events of rejection: The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57-60), the outbreak against Paul (22:22), and the going out to the Gentiles (28:28). [GRASP, 311] He calls the stoning of Stephen “the final indictment of the nation.” [GRASP, 312]. At that point they resisted the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). This is the final nail in the coffin of rejection. Israel rejected God the Father by rejecting the message of the prophets, they rejected Christ at the cross, and they rejected the Holy Spirit at the stoning of Stephen. In the case of John the Baptist, they permitted his death; in the case of Christ, they demanded his death; and in the case of Stephen, they murdered him. This is a clear progression of rejection. With Stephen, their rejected was complete. At this point, God brings in a new apostle, Paul, to reveal the mystery that was hid from ages past, and to declare the message of grace to all without distinction (cp Eph 3:1-11). It is a mistake to take John’s message and apply it to the church today. Gaebelein warns:

The Gospel of Grace is something different. It was not known then; it could not be fully made known and preached until after the death, the resurrection, the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. To preach the Gospel of Grace from the words of John the Baptist, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heaven has drawn nigh,” would be misleading. Still it is being done throughout Christendom. [MATTHEW, 64].

John the Baptist came in fulfillment of the Word (3:3). Isaiah had predicted one coming in the wilderness to make ready the way of the Lord. Matthew links John the Baptist to that prophecy of Isaiah 40:3, quoting the Septuagint (LXX). He identifies John as that coming one who would announce Christ is coming, and prepares the way. In John 1:23, the Baptist says of himself: “I am the voice….” He evidently knew that he fulfilled the prophecy. The emphasis here, and in the Gospels, is placed on the voice, for it is the message that is important, not so much the messenger. His work is to prepare the way for Yahweh. Clearly, Matthew, as well as the New Testament, sees Jesus as the Yahweh (Lord) of the Old Testament (compare Exodus 13:21 and 1 Cor. 10:4, Isa. 6:1 and John 12:41; Psa. 102:25-29 and Heb. 1:10-12).

The physical appearance of this messenger is unorthodox to say the least. He came not in priestly robes, even through he was a son of a priest, and was of the priestly tribe. He wears a garment of “camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Matt. 3:4). While this is typical clothes of poor people and those cut off from the mainstream of society, it links John with Elijah (2 Kings 1:8). He was an outdoorsman. According to Matthew 11:14 if they would receive John, he would be the Elijah who was to come. However, he was rejected, so it appears that one will come in the future to fulfill this to Israel (Malachi 4:6). His diet consisted of “locusts and wild honey.” Four kinds of locust were permitted as food to be eaten by man, according to Leviticus 11:22. Such a diet is common in the extreme regions of the area. An old Arabian saying says “One should not argue about taste.” Hendriksen points out that “those who enjoy shrimp, mussel, oyster, and frog-legs should not find fault with those who eat the locust.” [MATTHEW, 200].

2011-12-31T11:54:00.002-05:00

Things you will not have to worry about in 2012:

2011-12-31T00:27:00.001-05:00

1. The Bible will still have the answers.
2. Prayer will still work.
3. The Holy Spirit will still move.
4. God will still inhabit the praises of His people.
5. There will still be God-anointed preaching.
6. There will still singing of praise.
7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.
8. There will still be room at the cross.
9. Jesus will still love you.
10. Jesus will still save the lost.

Grace

2011-12-26T12:41:00.002-05:00

Bible Magazine

2011-12-16T03:45:00.000-05:00

BIBLE MAGAZINE was emailed. If you want a free e-mail copy send us your e-mail address to jimbibmag@yahoo.com In this issue is the continuing study of the Sermon on the Mount, Israel's Signs, and the Worship of God.

2011-12-08T11:38:00.003-05:00

Healing the Polluted Leper

2011-12-07T21:48:00.000-05:00

A study of Matthew 8:1-4

James R. Gray

“When He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him” (8:1). This is a transitional statement showing Jesus turning from teaching to healing. He now leaves the didactic mountain for the plain of dynamic action. He moves from His words to His works. On this plain we see a slice-of-life from Jesus ministry. In Matthew 8 and 9 are recorded half of the miracles found in Matthew.[1] Great multitudes continue to follow Him at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, as they had before the sermon (4:25). Jesus was experiencing great popularity. Now the people who listened to him were going to observe the Messiah King in action. He will display His Messianic power and compassion openly.

“And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean” (8:2). Matthew typically used the phrase kai idou (and behold) to mark the beginning of a new section.[2] Hagner says that it is a flag word in Matthew indicating an extraordinary event is about to happen.[3] The scene changes from the multitude to the man. The man was a leper. Leprosy was a horrifying and terrifying progressive disease. It began with nodules which developed into ulcers, which gave off a foul discharge. It would develop into disfigurement and desensitize the body, and eventually losing fingers, toes, and limbs. Not only was physical trauma involved, but also social isolation. They were barred from Jerusalem, and every city that had walls (Lev. 13:46). Contact with a leper was the second greatest defilement, being surpassed only by contact with a dead body. In fact, they were considered dead men walking (Num. 12:12). They had to warn people of their condition (Lev. 13:45). Any building that a leper entered was considered unclean. No one could come within 4 cubits (approx. 6 feet) of a leper, and if the wind was blowing toward from a leper, you could come no closer than 10 cubits (15 feet). People would throw things at lepers to keep them away. Barclays says, “There never has been any disease which so separated a man from his fellow-men as leprosy did.”[4] Leprosy knows no borders, race, occupation, nor climate. Little wonder leprosy is a picture of sin. Sin separates and isolates us from God without regard to person. Hagner comments:

"There is a sense in which leprosy is an archetypal fruit of the original fall of humanity. It leaves its victims in a most pitiable state: ostracized, helpless, hopeless, despairing. The cursed leper, like fallen humanity, has no options until he encounters the Messianic King who will make all things new. . . . As Jesus reached out to the leper, God in Jesus has reached out to all victims of sin.”[5]

As Jesus came off the mountain, and while traveling to the city, this leper came to him. It is in spite of Lev. 13:46. The leper came seeking the Lord in a threefold manner:

· With reverence—“worshiped Him.” The Greek word is proskunein, meaning to kneel down before, do reverence to, or homage to. The “word is never used of anything but worship of the gods.”[6] This is Matthew’s first reference to Jesus being worshiped during his public ministry; the very first time was by the Magi.

· With humility—“Lord, if You are willing.” The leper does not claim healing. He recognized Jesus authority and His sovereignty and his own position in relationship to it. He does not “name it and claim it.” Rather, he comes in humility making his request known to God. There is no presumption on the Lepers part. “It is the humble heart which is conscious of nothing but its need which finds its way to Christ.”[7]

· With confidence—“You can make me clean.” His confidence is not in God’s willingness, but in His ability. He has confident faith that Jesus was able to do what he asked. Pentecost points out that in actuality the healing did not depend upon Jesus’ willingness, “rather on the suppliant’s faith.”[8] He believed Jesus could perform a cure if He would—that’s faith. Maybe we would see more of the power of God in our life if we came to Him in worship, humility, and confidence.

The response of Jesus is threefold:

· The healing touch—“Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him” (8:3). Jesus had no fear. Jesus could have cured the leper by commanding the cure; rather he touched Him (a picture of identification). Touching a leper was a no-no (Lev. 5:3, 13:45-46). However, the touch did not make Him unclean, rather it made the unclean clean. It did so immediately. Jesus by this touch demonstrates His sympathy and cleansing power. This is the first record of cleansing in the earthly ministry of Christ. Jesus came to save sinners, and this event is a visible demonstration of His primary purpose in coming since leprosy is a type of sin. As Ryrie states:

”The act of touching the defiled man, which normally would also have defiled the one who touched him, illustrates the deep mystery involved in the Savior’s identifying Himself with sin. Who can fathom all that may be involved in the fact that He was made sin for us (2 Cor 5:21)? And yet this touching of the leper may illustrate something of that mystery.”[9]

· Declares His intent—“I am willing; be cleansed” (8:3). The action of Jesus is confirmed by the Word of Jesus. He willed to act. God’s not willing that any perish. If the Leper is willing to come, the Saviour is willing to touch Him. His touch and the cure are immediate. Notice there is a repetition of word “cleanse” in this event. It is a Matthean literary device of emphasis.

· His Command—“And Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (8:4). This command is important. First, it upholds the Law of Moses. Jesus was made under the Law in order to fulfill the law. Jesus is shown to be faithful to the stipulations of the Law. The Law demanded that a Leper appear before a priest to confirm the cure (Lev. 14). Ryrie describes the cleansing process:

“…the ritual of cleansing was as follows: two clean living birds, a cedar rod, scarlet, and hyssop were taken; one bird was then killed in an earthen vessel over running water; the hyssop was then tied to the rod with the scarlet band and it and the living bird were dipped in the blood of the dead bird; next the blood on the rod was sprinkled over the leper seven times, and the living bird was loosed. At this point the leper was pronounced clean, but more was still required of him. He had to wash his clothes, shave, bathe, stay away from his house for seven days, repeat the ablutions and shaving, and finally on the eighth day offer at the temple a sin offering, a trespass offering, a meal offering, and a burnt offering. It is evident that the law was very detailed about this procedure, and doubtless, because it had seldom if ever been used, there would have been a lot of scratching of priestly heads had the leper obeyed the Lord and gone to them. Instead, he chose to disobey and publish his miracle abroad so that it actually hindered his benefactor’s ministry.”[10]

Second, it was to be a testimony to the priest of the Savior’s power. Thus the command entails a reference for the Law, and a revelation to the priest. Remember, the priest denied whom He was, i.e., His person. By having the Leper go through the Old Testament process, the priest could not deny (although they could reject) Jesus’ healing power. By sending them to the priest, Jesus “was generating an investigation of His person and his claim.”[11] Some have pointed out that the pronoun autoi[12] may be a dative of disadvantage, thus the testimony of the leper acted as an indictment against them.

Third, the command to tell no man, but go to the priest, has troubled many a Bible student. However, the answer seems to be twofold: (1) It would have been no good for the man to go about testifying to a healing without the confirmation of the priest. Confirmation was most urgent. This idea is brought out by some of the freer translations, “Don’t stop to talk to anyone” (Living Bible). Without confirmation, he still would have been considered unclean, thereby nullifying his testimony. (2) There is an element of secrecy in Jesus’ early ministry of not disclosing things before His time had come (9:30; 12:16; 16:20; 17:9). This may have been due to the expectancy of the nation regarding the Messiah. He had not come to be a military leader to lead a revolt against Rome, as they expected. He may not have wanted to get the crowd stirred up.

In conclusion, Baker makes a keen and important observation: “Modern drugs have been found which will arrest the disease of leprosy, but these drugs have no ability to cure the patient of the effects of the disease. If fingers or toes or other parts of the body have been sloughed off, the drug cannot restore these members. The victim is still a pitiable creature. When Jesus healed the leper he was completely restored…The same principle works in God’s salvation of his deformities and scars: When He saves a person He does not merely patch up the old man, He creates a new man (cf. Col. 3:2-10).”[13]

[1] France, MATTHEW, 300.

[2] Some translations do not translate the word idou because there is no exact English equivalent, but since it has a key use in Matthew, we feel that ord should be an attempted to translate it.

[3] Hagner, MATTHEW, 1:198.

[4] Barclay, MATTHEW, 302.

[5] Hagner, 1:200.

[6] Barclay, 303.

[7] IBID, 302.

[8] Pentecost, WORDS AND WORKS OF JESUS, 150.

[9] Charles Ryrie, “The Cleansing of the Leper,” BIB-SAC, July 1956, 265.

[10] IBID, 265.

[11] Pentecost, 151.

[12] NET BIBLE footnote on Matthew 8:4.

[13] Baker, THE GOSPELS, 66.

Preaching that is needed

2011-12-01T14:18:00.000-05:00

Years ago, when I was pastor of the old First Baptist Church in Charleston, South Carolina, I preached the commencement sermon once and conducted chapel several times at the Citadel, the military college. The Commandant was General Summerall, once Chief of Staff, a fine old soldier. I remember that he turned to me after one of the services and said simply, \“You get under these boys’ skins.\” I have wished many times since to be the kind of preacher who would always do just that. Too much preaching nowadays pats the back and tickles the ear but does not get under the skin. There is no conviction and therefore no conversion. I am thinking not only of the ministry of reproof and rebuke but also of the message of inspiration, of encouragement, of comfort. People go out of church at noon with the depths unstirred, the heart untouched, the conscience unpricked. Of course, it is dangerous preaching at times. When Stephen preached, the people were cut to the heart and he died for it. He got under the skin. Paul was good at getting under the skin and world gave him no plaques or dinners in his honor. And the Greatest of all got under so many skins that the crowds crucified Him. He set the example and His gospel does no good until it gets under the skin. --Vance Havner

Barnabas and Saul Commissioned for Service

2011-11-30T20:16:00.003-05:00

A study of Acts 13:1-3

James R. Gray

Acts 13 is a natural division in the Book of Acts. Acts is divided into two parts, the first part running to the end of chapter 12, and the second from chapter 13 to the end of the book. Up to chapter 12 the major area of the working of God was centered in Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. Up to this point Luke has dealt primarily with the renewed offer of the Kingdom to the nation Israel.[1] Now a major transition is seen. The ministry unto Israel becomes less and less, while the outreach to the Gentiles becomes prominent. The rejection of the gospel of the kingdom by Israel becomes explicit—“since you [Israel] repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles” (13:46; cf. 18:6; 28:28). At this point, “partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles[2] has come in” (Rom. 11:25). Therefore Paul reaches out in the first journey to the Asia Minor. Marshall points out the importance of the event saying, “…it describes the first piece of planned ‘overseas mission’ carried out by representatives of a particular church, rather than by solitary individuals, and begun by a deliberate church decision, inspired by the Spirit, rather than somewhat more casually as a result of persecution.”[3]

I. The Missionary Commission—13:1-3

While there had been some Gentile contact by the Twelve Apostles, these served only to set up and prepare the readers for Paul’s ministry and travels to reach the Gentiles. Acts 13 officially opens the door to the Gentile mission. DeWitt makes three vital observations:

“a. Luke’s commission specifies that the world mission begin at Jerusalem ([Luke] 24:47). b. The apostles accordingly confine their mission to seeking Israel’s repentance at Jerusalem (Acts 3:18-16); even when scattering from the Stephen controversy occurs, they remain in the city (Acts 8:1). c. When Peter cites Jesus’ post-resurrection commission to the apostles, he states that Jesus commanded them to preach to ‘the people’ (Acts 10:42; Gr. Laos—Israel, in Luke’s usage). The data harmonized without exception when understood in this way: the Gentile mission was a movement of the Spirit, independent of the original mission to Israel operated by the Twelve, and independent of Israel’s law; this reality is attested by the agreement on division of labor between Paul and the Twelve according to Galatians 2.”[4]

A. Set Apart by the Spirit—13:1-2

That the call and commission of Paul was of God is clear at his conversion in Acts 9:15. Saul (a.k.a. Paul) is now one of the leaders in Antioch. Five leaders are mentioned: “Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch and Saul” (Acts 13:1). Of these five, Barnabas and Saul are well-known to most believers. The other three have been lost in the halls of history, except for the following information recorded by Luke:

Simeon, a.k.a. Niger. His name Simeon is Hebrew, and Niger is a Latin name he may have assumed. He probably received the name because of his dark complexion.[5] He was a Hellenistic Jew that evidently moved in Roman circles. It has been conjectured that he is the Simon who carried the cross (Luke 23:26), but Scripture does not make that connection. It is doubtful that they are the same because of the fact that the name is spelled differently by Luke.
Lucius of Cyrene. Lucius is a common Roman name, and he came from Cyrene. He may have ended up in Rome. Some have identified him as the “kinsmen” of Romans 16:21, possible but unprovable. He may have been one of the men who first preached to the Gentiles in Antioch (Acts 11:20) and stayed as a leader in the church. While some identified him as Luke himself, that is very improbable and not taken seriously. As Longenecker points out, “if Luke has refrained from identifying himself with Paul’s missionary journeys, except through the occasional use of the pronoun ‘we,’ it is hardly likely that he would point to himself by name.”[6]
Manaen, who was brought up with Herod Antipas. The word translated brought up is the Greek word suntrofov / suntrophos meaning nursed with another, intimate friend, or friend of the court. Bruce suggests it as a title—“foster-brother”—applied to boys of the same age brought into the court to be raised up with the son of Herod.[7] Manaen was a man of influence who had courtly and aristocratic connections. Marshall suggests he was Luke’s source of information about the Herodian family.[8] Notice, two men, the same environment and education, yet going in two different directions: one from God (Herod), the other toward God (Manaen).

The five men are a microcosm of the Church, the body of Christ. They came from different lands, nationalities, and backgrounds to join in one body, teaching both Jew and Gentile in Antioch. The Jewish remnant was nationalistic and centered in Jerusalem. Antioch becomes the center of unification of Jew and Gentile, and universal outreach. Becker says that “Antioch’s great service is, namely, to have embarked on the road to non-Jews.”[9]

These men are identified as “prophets and teachers” (13:1). These are gifts of leadership in the early church. Longenecker maintains that the Greek construction, with the particle te (untranslatable), is used to connect pairs. He says the first te to refer to those with the gift of prophecy, and the second te indicate the teachers.[10] The first group is said to be the prophets—Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius. The second, Manaen and Saul are the teachers. This may be making too much of the text. Paul gave prophecy in his ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 13:9, 14:6). Harrison points out that all five may have had the double gift of teaching and prophecy.[11] One would think that if particular pairs were indicated, and then Barnabas and Saul would have been in the same grouping, since they were identified together since coming to Antioch (11:30, 12:25). However, they are not paired together in the list of names pointing toward all five having the double gifts.

“While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’ ” (Acts 13:2). The word they most naturally refers back to the five men listed in verse 1, although some hold it probably refers to the church as a whole.[12] The verse indicates that they were active in serving the Lord. The word ministering (Leitourgountwn / leitourgeo) is a compound word combining the words public and work, thus public work or service for the benefit of others. The Greek word is the origin of the English word liturgy. Originally it referred to doing public service at one’s own expense. It means to minister or serve. In the Old Testament it is a technical word indicating priestly service to God.[13] It came to indicate not only service, but worship. Some modern versions give the loose translation of worship. It reminds us that true service is worship. For in service we are honoring our master, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is important to be aware that the object of our service is not primarily for self, nor to others, but to the Lord. Serving others is how we serve Him, but He is the object of our service. It is for His honor and glory we serve. Service is an avenue of worship.

Fasting is an interesting reference, especially since it is connected with ministering. From this connection, Petersen suggests that this service and fasting may be that of a prayer meeting.[14] He suggests that ministering to the Lord may refer to prayer. The suggestion seems to have merit in the light of the context. Pious Jews fasted twice a week, and it was carried over into many of the local believing assemblies (Acts 14:23; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27). Fasting is never commanded in the New Testament; in fact it is never commanded in the Bible. While the early church fasted, it was not a requirement. If one fasted, it was not for showing off their spirituality; rather it was for meditation and prayer in seeking understanding and closer fellowship with God. It is a personal issue, not a dispensational one. Baker notes that “Fasting becomes legalism when it is made a ritual and when it is believed to be a special work of merit. …They were so concerned that they continued in prayer without though of taking time to satisfy their own appetites. There is nothing wrong with fasting in any dispensation if it is thus motivated.”[15]

It was during this time that the Holy Spirit instructs them to set apart Barnabas and Saul (a.k.a. Paul) for the work which they were called. The Holy Spirit is the impetus of the call to separation. It is the Holy Spirit that designates the action. The word “set apart” is the Greek word Aforisate / aphorisate, which comes from the word holy, indicating being set apart for a special task and being equipped to complete the task. It is the Spirit that calls and enables us for service for His glory. The church and its leaders can only acknowledge the call by setting them apart for the task they had been called. In the Greek text is the invitatory participle[16] [dh] which is untranslated in English, but indicates immediate action (now set apart, or set apart now). The action is to be immediate. When the Spirit directs, action is to be taken.

B. Sent Out by the Church—13:3.

In obedience, the brethren commissioned Barnabas and Saul. “Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (13:3). The word then is the Greek word tote / tote, a demonstrative adverb of time, denoting at that time. The word has the implication of simultaneously, but it can be used of consequent (subsequent) events.[17] In this instance the phrase “when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them” sets up a subsequent event. It indicates that after fasting and praying for God’s blessing and guidance, then the leadership laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul. The laying on of hands was not for empowerment, but the bestowal of blessing (cf. Gen. 48:13, Matt. 19:13, 15). It was a commissioning for the purpose of service. They then released them from their duties in Antioch and sent them to fulfill their ministry. Whom God calls, He commissions; whom He commissions, He enables; whom He enables, He sends to serve.

[1] Baxter, Gasp of the Bible, 307-311.

[2] It is the author’s view is that this is not the same as the times of the Gentiles, which began in the days of Daniel. The fullness of the Gentiles is the present dispensation of Grace (or the Mystery) which will end at the rapture of the Church. At that point God will continue to deal with Israel, and all Israel will be saved, and the deliverer will come (Rom. 11:25-28).
[3] Marshall, Acts, 228.
[4] DeWitt, Dispensational Theology in America, 178.
[5] Bruce, Acts, 244.
[6] Longenecker, Acts, 416,
[7] Bruce, 245.
[8] Marshall, 228.
[9] Becker, Apostle of the Gentiles, 84.
[10] Longenecker, 416. Also Constable, Notes on Acts, 174.
[11] Harrison, Acts, 214. Bachand, Restoring the Kingdom, also holds this, 265.
[12] Constable, 175.
[13] Petersen, Acts, 375.
[14] Ibid, 375. Whereas, others feel it is a congregational worship service; Bock, 439. From reading the text it feels more like a small meeting where the leadership got together for prayer and fasting. It is reinforced by the text using “them” and “they” in verse 3, referring naturally back to the five mentioned in verse 1. However, one cannot be dogmatic. There can be no question that the congregation would be in agreement with the action.
[15] Baker, 78.
[16] Identified as such by Witherington, 393.
[17] Vine, 4:123.

Psalm 1

2011-11-28T23:22:00.000-05:00

It is a great Psalm of contrast between the godly man and the wicked man. Yet the both seem to have these characteristics in common:

Both were driven. One was driven by the Word of God and planted by the living waters. The other is driven by the wind of circumstance, profanity, and self-deception to which he yields.
Both are separated. One separates himself from the wicked. The other is separated unto wickedness.
Both live the lifestyles they have given themselves.
Both reach their destination. One is blessedness, the other is doom.

Man can live a way, a truth, and a life; but only the Way (v.1), the Truth (v.2) and the Life (v.3) are found in Jesus—John 14:6. He is the way to blessedness.

Power

2011-11-23T07:52:00.000-05:00

"We should learn to judge ourselves and to place more implicit confidence in God, to set self aside, that He might act in us, through us, and for us. This is the true secret of power" (C. H. Mackintosh)

LITTLE TONGUE

2011-11-21T15:08:00.000-05:00

This is from CHRIST THE SPARROW by Anthony Zeoli, written in 1942. On one of the little things found in Scripture is the tongue in James 3, he writes:

Little Tongue—“Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” James 3:5

The tongue is a little member, but it does great damage.

Little tongue—But it boast great things—v. 5.

Little tongue—But it is a world of iniquity—v. 6.
    Little tongue—But it defileth the whole body—v.6.
      Little tongue—But it sets Hell on fire—v. 6.
         Little tongue—But who can tame it?—v. 7.
            Little tongue—But it is an unruly member—v. 8.
               Little tongue—But it is full of deadly poison—v.8.

The little tongue can cut deeply. It is a sharp instrument. It cuts deeply into one’s spirit and into one’s soul. This little member shows no mercy when it runs wild and is loose. Beware of the little tongue!

Content of the Vision in Revelation 1

2011-11-19T12:27:00.001-05:00

Revelation 1:12-16

John’s back was turned when he heard the words and given the commission. Now he turns around to see who was behind him, or as the text says “to see the voice” (1:12). Upon turning, he sees a twofold vision:

First, we see His Position

“I saw seven golden lampstands” (1:12). A lampstand were seven gold stands for portable oil lamps (not candles). The image comes from the OT and the tabernacle and temple—Ex. 25:31-40; 1 Kings 7:48-49; Zech. 4:2, 10. John saw realities, but the realities where symbols, and symbols of the seven churches or assemblies (cf. 1:20).

“And in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man” (1:13). The second part of the vision is a person. It is the Son of Man standing in the middle of the lampstands. Evidently the lampstands form a circle, and the Son of Man is standing in the middle. (It is interesting that the location of the seven churches follow a circular pattern.) The Son of Man is a title from mainly the prophet Ezekiel (used over 100 times), and in Daniel (8:17, 7:13 cf. Mk 13:26). Christ used it of himself over 70 times in the Gospels. The title emphasizes the humanity of Christ in relation to the earth. Paul never refers to Christ as the Son of Man; that is because the term has special relationship to the King and the Kingdom.[1] Walvoord notes that “the title emphasizes His humanity and Messianic character.”[2] The Son of Man was of the line of David, Abraham, and Adam (Matt. 1:1,6; Luke 3;31, 24). The Son of Man is coming again to reap the harvest (Rev. 14:14). It relates to Jesus’ capacity as judge (cf. John 5:22, 27; Acts 17:31). Therefore, the vision, as well as these assemblies, has a special relationship to end time Messianic events, Israel, and the world. His being the Son of Man provides Him the Messianic role as kinsman-redeemer and as judge.

Second, we see His Person.

His dress—“Clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.” (1:13). There is a debate as to the robe and sash. Many take it as speaking of priestly dress. This has strong Old Testament connections. It was the priest, who dressed in the long priest robes that kept the candlesticks in order day and night (Lev 24:3-4). The Greek word poderes is used only here by Matthew in the New Testament. It is used in the OT for priestly attire, 6 out of 7 times[3] (Ex. 39:29). The girdle of the chest corresponds to the priestly girdle on the breast (Ex. 28:4; 29:5; 39:39; Lev. 16:4). This connects well with Christ standing in the midst of the candlesticks. Others take it to be the robe worn by dignitaries and rulers.[4] Support comes from Ezekiel 9:2 where a man so dressed has the task of setting the mark on good men before destruction comes. There is no connection in this passage that indicates a priestly function. “This setting of impending judgment from Ezekiel fits one of the principle thrusts of the visions to follow in the Apocalypse,” notes Thomas.[5] Both sides have merit. However, it seems to me by the word used, and the imagery of the robe and the lampstand, reminding one of the temple, it is best to take this as a priestly image here.

His Hair (1:14). “His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow” (1:14). Mounce suggest that the translation should read, “His head, that is, His hair.”[6] This translation indicates why all the elements of the head are not listed together. There is no question this phrase connects with Daniel 7:9, where it speaks of the Ancient of Days. While in the OT it describes God the Father, here John refers them to Christ. John often grants Christ the attributes and titles previously attributed to God the Father (cf. 1:18; 2:8; 5;12; 22:13).[7] The Father and the Son are one. The white hair, described as wool and snow, speaks of Christ’s sinless purity (Isa. 1:18). There is also a connection with wisdom (cf. Mic. 5:1). He is the wise and pure one.

His eyes—“and His eyes were like a flame of fire” (1:14). This is the focal point of Christ. His eyes are specifically pointed out as being like a flame of fire, penetrating eyes that look into a man’s very soul. It specifically centers upon omniscience and judgment. They are the means in which He knows their works (Rev. 2:19), searches the minds and hearts (Rev. 2:23). It is impossible to escape His piercing eyes. Those piercing eyes are an identifying mark in Rev. 19:12. Clearly Revelation illustrates the words, “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all thing are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). There is no hiding from Him.

His feet—“His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace” (1:15). Origin and meaning of the Greek uncertain. Thomas notes, “One explanation assigns it the meaning of ‘smelted’ or ‘refined,’ referring to metal that has been purified and therefore has a greater shine to it.... The defense of this meaning lies in a comparable usage of the word in Rev. 3:18 with this meaning.”[8] This is similar terminology in Daniel 10:6 which speaks of polished bronze. Garland holds that the shoe speaks of defense against the defilement of the earth.[9] Mounce points out it speaks of strength and stability.[10] Brass and fire stand for divine judgment as seen in the Old Testament types of the brazen altar and other items of brass used in connection with sacrifice for sin (Ex. 38:30). His feet went though the fire of judgment on the Cross, yet victorious.

His Voice—“and His voice was like the sound of many waters” (1:15). John knows what a loud sound that water can make being on the Aegean Sea. If you have ever been at Niagara Falls and heard the deafing sound of rushing water over the falls, you would experience the sound of many waters. It is the sound of power. It is the same voice that earlier is described as loud as a trumpet (1:10).

His Hand—“In His right hand He held seven stars” (1:16). The right hand symbolizes power and authority (Psa. 110:1; Matt. 26:64). The world held is the Greek word echon, which has the sense of to have, to hold fast, to possess, or to keep, or preserve. Some take it as a symbol of safekeeping (cf. John 10:28). However, others see it as symbol of authority and control.[11] It indicates both possessing and protecting.[12] What He is holding and protecting is the seven stars. Stars are symbols expressing three things in Scripture: Multitudes (Gen. 15:5); persons in authority (Dan. 8:10; Rev. 6:13) and subordinate powers (Gen. 37:9; Rev. 12:1). Revelation 1:20 identifies them as “the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.” They are ones in subordinate powers and authority to the Lord, who holds them in His hand.

His Mouth—“and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword” (1:16). This is clearly a reference to the Word of God (Cf. Hebrews 4:12). The image is drawn from of the prophet Isaiah (49:2) that foretells of the Messiah.[13] In Hebrews 4 the word is that of a short dagger. A different Greek word is used by John. The Greek word for sword is found in two books, Luke (2:35) and Revelation (1:16; 2:12, 16; 6:8; 19:15). The word used describes a long, heavy, broad sword used for the purpose of executing justice. In the context of Revelation, 2:16 uses the similar phrase to indicate judgment. Notice in Revelation it is identified with war (2:16), kill (6:8), strike down, and rule (19:15). Thus, the Sword is the execution of divine judgment simply by His Word. It is the instrument of His wrath. As Scott observes, “We never read of our Lord personally putting His hand on His enemies.”[14]

His Face—“His face was like the sun shining to its strength” (1:16). This speaks of His glory. It is said that the sun gives off 40,000 watts off light per square inch.[15] However, the brilliance of the sun is pale compared to the glory of Christ. Its strength speaks of the height of brilliance. Matthew tells us that on the Mount of Transfiguration, “his face shone like the sun” (Matt. 17:2). What a glorious vision of Christ. It is one of majesty and power. No longer is His deity and glory veiled as it was in the days of his incarnation. It is a vision of the glory of the exalted, resurrected Christ in the midst of His people in the time of tribulation.

[1] Bullinger, APOCALYPSE, 16.

[2] Walvoord, REVELATION, 44.

[3] This is debatable. Mounce, REVELATION, says it is seven of seven, 58.

[4] Thomas, REVELATION 1:99

[5] Ibid, 1:99

[6] Mounce, 58.

[7] Thomas, 1:101.

[8] Thomas, 1:102.

[9] Garland, REVELATION, 191.

[10] Mounce, 59.

[11] Thomas, 1:103.

[12] Osborne, REVEATION 91.

[13] Osborne, 92.

[14] Walter Scott, EXPOSITION OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, 45.

[15] Keil, REVELATION, electronic media.

THE VISION’S SETTING IN REVELATION 1

2011-11-15T18:54:00.005-05:00

Revelation 1:9-10

After the introduction (1:1-8), John continues with the prelude by giving us the details of how the book came to be written. It gives the background to the book. It was written because of a vision—the vision of the glorified Christ. Like the Old Testament prophets of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the book opens with great visions of God. John opens with the setting of the vision (1:1-10). In this vision Christ reveals Himself to John. The content of the vision reveals four things: His Command (1:11); His countenance (1:12-16); His comfort (1:17-18); and His clarification (1:19-20).

The setting of the vision reveals four things:

The receiver of the vision—“I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance [which are] in Jesus” (1:9a). The words, I John, are repeated in Rev. 22:8. Thus, the booked is framed with a declaration of authorship. There can be no doubt as to the name of the author, it was John. The phrase reminds us of Daniel and his writings (Daniel 8:15; 9:2; 10:2—“I Daniel”). What Daniel begins in his book of prophecy, concludes in John’s book. There is a close relationship between the two. Walvoord comments, “That which Daniel declared would occur ‘in the latter days’ is here described as ‘shortly’….”[1]

There are two keys words that describe John’s relationship with his readers. First, is brother. Evidence from the New Testament is that the difference between minister and laity was that of function, not status. In a day when the trend is to put ministers on a higher status, John correctly opposes such a view. Seiss reminds us, “At the time of the vision, he was the only remaining apostle, and perhaps the only survivor of those with whom Christ had personally conversed…. But he was as humble and meek as he was high in place. He gives himself no titles. He says nothing of his sublime official relations. It was enough for him to put himself on the level with the common brotherhood of believers.”[2] The term brother put him on the same level as his readers.

Second, is the term fellow partaker. The term draws upon the idea of sharing with; fellowship; joint participation. The object of the joint participation is in “the tribulation, and kingdom, and perseverance [which are] in Jesus” (1:9). Some dispensationalist hold the view that John is referring to the Great Tribulation here because of the word the before the word tribulation.[3] While at one time I also agreed with this, I no longer do so. The grammatical context and Sharp’s rule applies here, indicating that the three are interrelated and a conceptual unity. Bullinger calls this a Hendiatris, i.e. three words are used, but only one thing is meant.[4] It is unnecessary at this point to lift the words out of the context of the times in which John was living and writing. John and his readers are going through Roman persecution; John has not been spared from this affliction. It is the cup of suffering Jesus had promised in Matthew 20:23. Even Paul uses similar terms on his own ministry—Acts 12:22. Thomas notes that this reference in Paul gives an instance where “kingdom” is eschatological and “tribulation” is not, and is more general.[5] Although the tribulation or affliction of John and his readers were foreshadowing the end-times, they are not identical. However, the tribulation of their present experience gives them insight and further understanding of the visions that John will communicate about the eschatological tribulation in this book. This is a common occurrence in the life of prophets and their prophecy. Many times in prophecy the surrounding events foreshadowed the eschatological events, thus giving some insight of the coming events. In other words, it is the present events that set the stage for the visions of eschatological events, and at the same time bring comfort to John’s fellow believers who are sharing the struggle of affliction and endurance for the kingdom. It is that struggle that John and his readers share. The primary meaning is contemporary to John and his readers in the first century. However, these readers and John foreshadowed the Tribulation saints.

The term “in Jesus” is a preposition of sphere or location. It gives the location where the tribulation, kingdom, and perseverance are experienced. It marks such experiences as distinctly those of believers. This is true of all believers, for suffering affliction is perceived as participation in Jesus’ suffering, life and glory (Rom. 5:3; 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:5, 4:10; 1 Peter 4:13).

The circumstances of the vision—“on the island of Patmos[6] because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (1:9b). Eusebius, the historian, tells us that John was banished to this island in the fourteenth year of Domitian’s reign (95 AD).[7] The reason he was banished was religious, not civil. Domitian perceived Christians as atheists because they refused to worship or pay homage to Caesar and the Roman gods. Dio Casius records that atheism was identified with those who were adopting the Jewish mode of life, which would have included Christians, since it was seen as a sect within Judaism.[8] It is said he exiled his wife because she was Jewish. Both Judaism and Christians were against Emperor Worship. They refused to worship the emperor. John was neither a civil threat nor enemy of the Roman Empire. He was, as all Christians of his time, being persecuted because of what they believed—“the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” It was religious persecution.

John’s condition—“I was in the Spirit…” (1:10). The text simply reads “in Spirit,” the article is not in the text. In the book of Revelation this is a common expression (4:2; 17:3; 21:10). In each case, it is clearly a state which John found himself. The Greek word egenomen (I was), means “I came to be,” indicating a change of state. What state? “In Spirit.” But what does that mean? It could refer to John’s human spirit, but all indicators of the text and context rule this out. It is rather a reference to the power or agency of the Holy Spirit.[9] Osborne calls it a prophetic/apocalyptic state.[10] The Old Testament gives vivid examples of this prophetic state. We first meet it in Numbers 24:2 with Balaam where “the Spirit of God came upon him,” when he received his prophecy. The phrase is especially connected with Ezekiel where, like John, it involves more than inspiration, but also transportation (see Ezekiel 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5). Ezekiel, like John, was transported by the instrumentality of the Spirit into the perspective scenes (cf. Rev. 17:3, 21:10). While this transportation may have been visionary, it is no less a real transporting into the future (Ezekiel 11:24, 16-20). This prophetic experience is that “of being carried beyond normal sense into a state where God could reveal supernaturally”[11] the prophecy.

When—“on the Lord’s day” (1:10). This is the only time the phrase is used in the New Testament. There are two major views as to what this means. First and most popular view is that it refers to Sunday.[12] Those who hold this view believe that John received these visions while he was super spiritual on a Sunday morning, even some suggest it was on an Easter Sunday. They also grant this is the first use of referring to Sunday as the Lord’s Day. We do know that this term had become customary use in this area of Asia Minor by the end of the Second century.[13] The weakness of this view is that in John’s day it was not customary to call Sunday the Lord’s day. In Scripture Sunday is always referred to as “the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 19:7, 1 Cor. 16:2). The phrase in Revelation predates its use among Christians as Sunday being the Lord’s Day.[14] If that is the case it is hard to understand why more of a definition would not have been found indicating the new use. How would the readers understand this new meaning? There is no indication that they would understand it as Sunday, the first day of the week.

The second view holds that it refers to the Day of the Lord, the eschatological event that the Revelation describes.[15] Walvoord concisely expresses this view;

“There is no solid evidence, however, that the expression used by John was ever intended to refer to the first day of the week. It is rather a reference to the day of the Lord of the Old Testament, an extended period of time in which God deals in judgment and sovereign rule over the earth. The adjective form can be explained on the ground that in the Old Testament there was no Hebrew adjective form for “Lord,” and therefore the noun had to be used. The New Testament term is therefore the equivalent to the Old Testament expression “the day of the Lord.”[16]

The voice like a sound of a trumpet has eschatological significance (cf. 1 Cor. 15:54; 1 Thess. 4:16).

In light of the eschatological subject of the book of Revelation and the visions given John, this seems the best view. The day of the Lord covers both the Tribulation and the Messianic Kingdom that John describes in Revelation. It is the imperial day of the Lord. There can be little question he was transported to that time (Rev. 17:3; 21:10). The readers would be familiar with the day of the Lord, and it is doubtful that they would know that Sunday was the Lord’s Day, without some indication or redefinition of the term. By reading the book they would not likely understand the term as referring to the first day of the week without some prior understanding, of which there is no evidence; but they would understand it in the eschatological terminology of the day of the Lord since it was a common Old Testament term. That is the difference between the first century readers and modern readers. We tend to read our understanding back into the text, which is wrong. To us it is normal to read the phrase as meaning Sunday, to them it would be normal to understand it as the day of the Lord. The setting is best understood as the coming Tribulation period and the coming of the Kingdom of God.

[1] Walvoord, REVELATION, 35.

[2] Seiss, THE APOCALYPSE, 35-36.

[3] William Root, COMMENTS ON COMING THINGS, 7.

[4] Bullinger, APOCALYPSE, 149.

[5] Thomas, REVELATION, 1:86.

[6] Patmos is a small island, 10 miles long and 6 miles wide, thirty-seven miles southwest of Miletus, the harbor city of Ephesus. The historian Tacitus refers to it as a place for political banishment. Eusebius says John was there during the rule of Domitian, only to be released after Domitian’s death by the emperor Nerva.

[7] Eusebius, ECCL. HISTORY, 3.18-20.

[8] Garland, REVELATION, 183.

[9] Bullinger, 152.

[10] Osborne, REVELATION, 82.

[11] Walvoord, 42.

[12] Held by Newell, Mounce, Osborne, and Garland, to name a few.

[13] Bullinger, 10-11. He observes that it is strange that the first reference in the Church Fathers from the first day of the week is to call it Sunday by Justin Martyr (114-165), not the Lord’s day. His work is still probably the best defense of the Day of the Lord view, the second view.

[14] Garland, 184.

[15] Held most notably by Bullinger, Pentecost and Walvoord.

[16] Walvoord, 42. Also see Bullinger, 9-15.

Verse of the Week

2011-11-06T14:18:00.000-05:00

1 Year Anniversary

2011-11-06T14:16:00.000-05:00

This month marks the first year for the BEREAN ADVOCATE blog. Our high months for hits were June and October. Our low month was November 2010 and August 2011.

The top blogs were (in order)

The Importance of the Gospel of Matthew
Religious Knowledge in the U.S.
Keys to Understanding the book of Revelation
The Genre of Revelation

The top hits by country

United States (50 percent)
Russia and Canada (tied)
South Africa
Mexico
Germany
United Kingdom
Australia
Brazil and Kenya (tied)

The biggest surprise for me was the number of hits we got from Russia, which was totally unexpected. We now look forward to another year.

PAUL's CONVERSION (5)

2011-10-29T01:04:00.000-04:00

Ratification of Conversion ( Acts 9:19b-25).

Ratification of Saul’s conversion and call was neither by man nor by a committee but rather by the power of God in acts of service after his conversion. His service and message ratified his call, conversion, and commission. He later noted that he was “not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1). Luke shows the ratification of Saul’s new faith by showing the radical change it made in him.

There can be no doubt that Paul began his ministry in Damascus, outside the land of Israel. This reinforces his ministry beyond the borders of Israel, outside the land, and to the Gentiles. For a more comprehensive view of his early service, we must also rely on the book of Galatians which gives us information about this time that is not recorded by Luke in Acts. Most agree that the events of these early years are:

· Saul’s Conversion (Acts 9:1-19a). Preaching in Damascus immediately (9:19b-22).

· Prolonged visit to Arabia (Gal. 1:17).

· Return to Damascus (Acts 9:23-25).

· First visit to Jerusalem three years after conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19).

· Goes to Tarsus (Acts 9:30-31, Gal. 1:21-24).

Evangelistic Preaching the Faith (9:19b-22).

“Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus.” So begins his life as a believer. Little doubt that the several days refer to his days in the city before he went to Arabia. The narrative here suggests a very short time period (9:19-20). As soon as Paul was able, he began preaching and contending in the synagogues. He “proclaimed Jesus” (Acts 2:20). His message centered upon Jesus in a twofold manner: First, Jesus “is the Son of God.” This is the only occurrence of this full title in Acts. He will later use it in his epistles (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Col. 1:15-20; 1 Thess. 1:10). This is a “complete reversal of his previous position.”[1] It is a realization of the Sonship of Jesus, indicating both Jesus’ intimate relationship with God the Father, and His matchless unique status. Paul will indicate this status was from the beginning of creation (Rom. 8:3; Col. 1:13-20). In response, the people continue to be amazed. They could hardly believe what they were witnessing and heard. Was this not the one sent to bind them and bring them to the chief priest? (Acts 9:21). What a testimony to the Grace of God in this total transformation of Saul! Worthy are comments of Harrison:

God had done a marvelous thing. Not only had he demonstrated care for His own by halting the persecution on their very doorstep, but in the process He had gained for Himself a herald of the message of grace. Men would have counted it a great thing if the hand of God had rewarded the persecutor by striking him dead (cf. 12:1, 23). But to salvage the opponent and enlist him on behalf of the cause was a far greater victory.[2]

Second, he kept on preaching that “Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 9:22). Not only is Jesus the Son of God, but He is Israel’s Messiah. The word Christ is better understood and translated Messiah. He is contending that Jesus was the Messiah, which is his continual message in the synagogues (cf. 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8). The word proving has the idea of convincing, combining facts to show or convince of the truth.

Luke leaves out the Arabia experience of Paul, which Paul reports in Galatians. Luke’s purpose is not to give a compete accounting of Paul’s service during this time, but rather he compresses this period of time and limits it to Damascus. Omission and compression of historical accounts and chronology is a common method of editing by the Biblical writers. Luke seems to limit his comments to Damascus to contrast the purpose from persecuting believers to preaching to believers. Paul reveals he was in Arabia during this time, which would have occurred between Acts 9:22-23. Silence about the events by both Luke and Paul speaks loudly. Why he was there is not revealed. Many say it was a time of training and meditation on what was revealed to Him. However, it is hard to imagine that Paul would have been silent about Christ, and not preached during this time. In fact, 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 indicates that whatever Paul did in Arabia it displeased Aretas, who controlled the Nabathean kingdom, which was in Arabia. What set Aretas off? It is unlikely that Paul’s presence and meditation for some of spiritual retreat would have caused the reaction. It is more likely the message that he was preaching. Murphy-O’Connor correctly says, “The only explanation is that Paul was trying to made converts.”[3] There is no doubt that what Paul is referring to are his days after his conversion which began in Damascus and ended in Damascus. In Acts, Luke limits his discussion to Damascus.

Escaping the Plot (9:23-25).

“When many days had elapsed…” (Acts 9:23). While the time reference is vague, there is no doubt that it refers to the end of his ministry in Damascus. It was in two stages, with the visit to Arabia sandwiched in between. The phrase is consistent with the gap between his conversion and his first journey to Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 1:17-18). Clearly the trouble was after he came back to Damascus from Arabia. There was a plot by the Jews to exterminate him (Acts 9:24). This was the first of many plots against him (cf. Acts 9:23-24; 20:3, 19; 23:20). This plot must be seen in conjunction with 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. It may have been a conspiracy instigated by the puppet of Aretas that riled up the Jews against Saul. It is not revealed how this happen and Luke nor Paul give us enough information to clarify the situation, except that he was in danger of his life. There is clear indication that both parties had the motive to kill him and enough similarity in both accounts to see them as one event. They were guarding the city gates, an ideal place to ambush someone.

Learning of the plot, “his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket” (Acts 9:25). In this verse we learn that Paul’s ministry was extensive enough his own following, for it is no longer “the,” but “his” disciples. This indicates that his preaching had already resulted in converts to faith in Jesus. The word disciples in Acts denote that the members of the Christian community (e.g., 6:1-2, 7; 9:19; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 15:10). These disciples aid in his get away by a hamper basket. Such an escape was not uncommon (cf. spies of Jericho—Joshua 2:15; David—1 Samuel 19:12). The result is Paul now goes one to reach the Gentiles and spread the Gospel as God's ambassador to the Roman Empire.

There is a parallel between these events in Acts and the ministry of Jesus recorded by Luke in his gospel (Luke 4:16-30). There are four points of similarity:

· Jesus and Paul begin their ministry in the synagogue preaching salvation.

· The audiences react in amazement.

· The audience in both cases cannot believe who is speaking.

· Both escape a violent response to their message.[4]

(End of Series)

[1] Robertson, WORD PICTURES, 3:122.

[2] Harrison, ACTS, 164.

[3] Murphy-O’Connor, PAUL: A CRITICAL LIFE, 82. He also points out because of the political conflict between the Jews and the Nabatheans such activity would not be acceptable to Aretas. He also sees this as Paul’s first attempt to preach to pagans (Gentiles) in obedience to his commission. Also see Bruce, ACTS, 191-192; PAUL, 81, where he says, “The implication of his own narrative relates his Arabian visit rather closely to his call to preach Christ among the Gentiles.”

[4] Witherington, ACTS, 320.

PAUL'S CONVERSION (4)

2011-10-24T16:10:00.002-04:00

The rendezvous (Acts 9:10-19)

Saul is still blind and fasting. God now comes to the one with whom Saul is to rendezvous—one Ananias of Damascus. Barclay calls Ananias “one of the forgotten heroes of the Christian Church.”[1] He was a devout believing Jew (Acts 22:12). The Lord speaks to him in a vision. His name means Jehovah is gracious. There was no greater display of grace than the conversion of Saul. Ananias is the man who will be the fulfillment of verse 6. Ananias’ response was immediate, “Here I am, Lord” (9:10). These words denote availability (cf. 1 Sam. 3:4, 10; Isa. 6:8). Here is a man who is a learner (disciple) of God and one who is available for His service. It has often been said that God wants our availability instead of our ability.

This vision to Ananias had three direct functions:

· To direct Ananias to Saul. “Get up and go to the street called Straight and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying” (9:1l). It is a vision of preparation and direction. It is very specific, giving who, where, and when to Ananias. For the first time it is revealed that Saul’s hometown was Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia (now a part of Turkey). It is referred to five times in Acts (cf. 9:30; 11:25; 21:39; 22:3). There can be no doubt that Saul was a Jew of the Diaspora. The where he is staying in the city is the house of Judas on the street named Straight. To this day the street remains. We have no knowledge of Judas. His life is lost in the halls of history, but not to God. Ananias is even told that Saul is praying. Prayer plays an important role in Acts (1:14, 24; 2:42; 3:1; 6:4, 6; 8:15; 10:2, 4, 9, 32; 12:5; 13:2-3; 14:23; 16:13, 16, 25; 20:36; 21:5; 22:17-21; 27:35; 28:8). It demonstrates the vital role it plays in the life of a believer. Prayer and power go together. Saul is given a vision that this Ananias would come to him to give him sight (9:12).

· To put his fear of Saul to rest. Ananias knew Saul by reputation (cf. 9:13-14). Notice the but of objection—“But Ananias answered, ‘Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem’” (9:13). I am sure Ananias could not believe his ears. He had heard from the saints[2] of Saul’s purpose, and it was no secret to the believers in Damascus. Now God is asking him to go to this one who is the great enemy and who has the authority to arrest and drag them back to Jerusalem for torture or even death. His fear was natural. Harrison notes that this is “a testimony to the courage of Ananias that despite the threat of persecution he did not panic and resort to flight.”[3]

Notice, however, the but of objection is answered by the but of reason—“But the Lord said to him.” (9:15). The revealing of the reason, God is answering Ananias’ fear, as well as answering his objection. He tells Ananias to “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (9:15-16). To boost Ananias’ courage, God reveals His purpose in choosing Saul. He was a chosen vessel by God’s grace. The words chosen instrument (okeuov eklognv / ekeuos ekloges) is a genitive of quality, which is stronger than an adjective would be;[4] thus, an instrument that is selected. This places the emphasis on God’s election. The word instrument or vessel indicates one with a special purpose or task to carry out for God. Ananias need not fear going to Saul. The inquisitor is now an instrument. He has had a change in purpose and vocation. His role has reversed, now instead of being the inquisitor, Saul will be the object of inquisition. At this event Saul’s life made a complete turn, which was immediate. Becker captures this well:

Paul knew…that with his calling everything had changed for him from now on and for all time (1Cor. 9:16; Gal. 1:16). He himself had become someone else, and with him his entire experience of reality and his interpretation of world and history.[5]

His ministry was to be among all men. He was sent to the Gentiles, becoming the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:2, 7-8; Eph. 3:1-10). He would testify to both Jew and Gentile kings (Felix, Festus, Herod Agrippa, and the Emperor), and to Israel (Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14:1, 26:17-20; Rom. 1:16). Suffering for His name sake will become common to this man (cf. 2 Cor. Chapters 10-12). By giving this revelation to Ananias, God is revealing the foretaste of what will be theologically and historically portrayed in the rest of Acts. The Lord apparently revealed this mission to Saul on the road approaching Damascus (cf. Acts 26:15-18). This was reaffirmed to Paul by Ananias (cf. Acts 22:14-17).

· To be the instrument of Saul’s healing and filling with the Holy Spirit (9:17). At first reluctant, Ananias came to Saul in obedience to the Word. The man of doubt becomes the man of duty. He greeted Saul as brother. He is the first to call Saul a Christian brother. It denotes he believed God that Saul was now one of His. Laying his hands on and declaring to Saul his purpose in coming to him. The Lord sent him so that Saul may have his sight regained and be filled with the Holy Spirit. His purpose was not to commission Saul, for that came directly from the Lord (Gal. 1:1), although Ananias reaffirmed it (Acts 22:14-16). This event makes clear that Saul was not dependent upon the Twelve; either in conversion or his commission (cf. Gal. 1:1). These events happened outside the land of Israel. It is an indication that Paul is the chosen one to take the message of grace to the Gentiles and preach outside the land of Israel. It “is a mirror of the worldwide focus of Saul’s ministry.”[6]

The results of the rendezvous are immediate (9:18-19). First, the effects of the Damascus experience are reversed. Saul’s sight is restored: “there fell from his eyes something like scales.” Based on recent medical reports of those who had similar conditions caused being struck by lightning, it has been suggested that this may have been scar tissue caused by being struck down by the great light on the road to Damascus.[7] While sight was restored, it may well be that this experience had lasting effects on Saul. From Gal. 4:15, 6:11, we see he reports poor eyesight, and it may have been his thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7). Second, he was baptized. Bachand holds that this is not water baptism, but spiritual baptism. He says the verse should be translated, “he arose baptized,” arguing that the subject is spiritual baptism. Paul received this baptism at the time of his standing.[8] This view does not seem to hold water. This baptism was done at the instruction of Ananias (cf. Acts 22:16). No matter how Bachand tries to explain away water baptism, even in Acts 22,[9] however, the act is identified with the water baptism of Acts 2:38—for the remission of sins. This connection indicates the same type and matter of baptism. Saul was saved under the prevailing message of being baptized for the remission of sins. As Baker notes:

Baptism under the Kingdom gospel was a washing or cleansing ceremony, the same as the many baptisms of the Old Testament (Heb. 9:10). But we never read of Paul telling his Gentile converts to be baptized in order to wash away their sins, even while he was practicing baptism during the Transition period. Baptism was not a part of his commission (1 Cor. 1:17). After the Transition, Paul recognized only one baptism, that done by the Spirit (Eph. 4:5; 1 Cor. 12:13).[10]

Third, it ends his fast. Now “he took food and was strengthened” (9:19).

The theological significance of this event cannot be overstated. Included are:

· The exaltation of the earthly Jesus. The truth is dynamic and clear: The earthly Jesus is the exalted Christ. The crucified Jesus was the resurrected Christ. The resurrection is the cornerstone of the gospel. It cannot be denied. Paul experienced the Resurrected One, the vision revealed the uniqueness and deity of the One whom he doing everything to erase from human history. Now he is converted to established that person and name throughout the world.

· The reality of divine grace apart from the Law. His conversion came not by the Law, which he was serving, but in spite of it. It was an act of divine grace upon one who deserved divine judgment. His testimony becomes that God called him through His grace alone, apart from the Law (cf. Gal. 1:15). Becker remarks: “The zealot for the law becomes an apostle who, more consistently than any other, champions the cause of law-free Gentile Christianity.”[11] It is because this experience had taught him in a living and vital way that the deeds of the Law could not bring salvation, only grace could be the channel of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 2:11; 3:4-7).

· The commission to the Gentiles. The call and commission of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles cannot be denied in this event. Even the picture of the conversion points to that fact. On this road, Saul the Jew was struck down and blinded, to rise and be given a new vision of God’s message of grace to the Gentiles. His commission is given personally by the person of Christ (Acts 26:16-18) and confirmed by Ananias (9:15-16; 22:15). Paul now becomes the transitional figure from the gospel of the circumcision, the message and apostleship of the Twelve, to the gospel and apostleship of the uncircumcision for the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7). Paul would established this call on the basis of his distinctive “mystery” of inclusion of Jew and Gentile into one body of which Christ is the head (Eph. 2:11-3:12). This is his mission as an instrument of Christ, for it had been hid in God until revealed to him (Eph. 3:8-9). Ralston correctly observes: “The Damascus Road experience constituted the Apostle Paul’s theological center pin.”[12]

· The conversion of Saul marks the beginning of a radical change or transition in the administration of God. The nation of Israel will now be set aside temporarily, and a new administration of the mystery program will be revealed (Rom. 11:25 cf. Eph. 3:8-10). However, this change of doctrine, tradition, and practice would take time. This time is known as the transition period. It begins with Saul’s conversion and lasted until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD when it is impossible to carry out the old traditions. It is not simply a conflict between Jews and Gentiles, but a conflict between two programs and practices. Aldrich observes that this transition was necessary because of “the ever-present natural inertia and resistance to change. It was not an easy transition from the traditions and doctrines of Judaism to the new light and glory of grace.”[13] DeWitt correctly observes that a dispensation covers “a distinctive era of salvation history created and sustained by a newly revealed phrase of the plan of God.”[14] The conversion of Paul and the revelation given to him marks a new phrase in the plan of God. It is a new dispensation based on new revelation of what Paul calls the mystery. In point of fact, Paul calls this new development a dispensation (Eph. 3:2-3). The program now changes from a “Jews only” message (Acts 11:19) to a message of “no difference” between Jew and Gentile message (Acts 15:9; Rom. 10:12). However, the gospel continued to be preached to the Jew “first” during this period. The call of repentance will continue to be to the Jews throughout this time, as it was when they preached to the Jews only (cf. Acts 3:19; 10:43; 11:18; 17:30; 26:18, 20). Even in Paul’s ministry this is evident by the fact that in every place visited the message was begun in the synagogues, to the Jew first, only when forced did he withdraw from the synagogue.

The message of grace as the message to all caused a conflict that arose instantly and is evidenced in the first epistle of Paul—Galatians. In this epistle we see it is a conflict between the circumcision and the believing uncircumcision—their message, traditions and practices (Gal. 2:1-21). It is a conflict between a law/ritual system based on the Old Testament and a free grace system based upon the new revelation given to Paul for us today. Freedom from the Mosaic Law system was at the heart of Paul’s mission from the inception of his work and ministry. This transition from one system to the other would continue in conflict through the rest of the book of Acts. The existence of a transition period is vital for a correct understanding of the book of Acts. The transitional period is marked by three turning points in the rest of Acts:

1. The Conversion of Paul (Acts 9) marking its beginning.

2. The outbreak against Paul (Acts 22:22) showing the Jews rejecting Paul’s message.

3. The final outgoing to the Gentiles (Acts 28:28) indicating the coming final judgment upon the nation (not individual Jews).

[1] Barclay, ACTS, 74.

[2] This is the first time Luke uses the word saints for believers.

[3] Harrison, ACTS, 162.

[4] Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 87.

[5] Becker, Jurgen, PAUL: APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES, 72.

[6] Bock, ACTS, 362.

[7] Larkin, ACTS, 140.

[8] Bechand, RESTORING THE KINGDOM, 176-177

[9] Ibid, 177-178.

[10] Baker, ACTS, 53.

[11] Becker, 69.

[12] Ralston, The Theological Significance of Paul’s Conversion,” BIB-SAC, 214.

[13] Aldrich, Roy L., ”The Transition Problem in Acts,” BIB-SAC, July 1957, 236.

[14] DeWitt, DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY IN AMERICAN DURING THE 20^TH CENTURY, 179.

Verse of the Week

2011-10-21T18:07:00.000-04:00

Paul's Conversion (3)

2011-10-21T16:09:00.000-04:00

The Revelatory Vision (Acts 9:3-9).

Permission granted by the Sanhedrin and armed with letters of authority, Saul sets out for Damascus to seek out these apostates of Judaism and to arrest them. As he nears his destination he has a life changing experience.

What he sees (9:3)

“As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from haven flashed around him,” (9:3). One feature that is overlooked is the place where the revelation occurred. Luke makes a special point that it was while he was “approaching Damascus.” The question is what significance does this play? Surely this phrase could have been omitted and would not have changed the event at all. Why would Luke add this phrase if it was not worthy of mention? The phrase certainly indicates that this event happened near the city of Damascus, and may have been in sight when the event took place. The word eggizein / eggizein clearly means drawing near, to approach, and speaks on nearness to the object or place. The same word is used of Jesus before going into Jericho (Luke 18:35). These are the only two places that uses the word as an infinitive, both with the articale and the preposition. If this indicates Saul being near to Damascus when this event took place, then the significance of this event is that it took place in Gentile territory. Tradition places it as Kaukab, which is in Syria, some ten or twelve miles from Damascus.[1] This Jew was not saved in the land of Israel, but outside the camp. Could this prefigure or be connected with his ministry and mission?

Other passages tell us it was about noon, or midday (22:6, 26:13). The sun was at its brightest, but it was pale to this light. There is no question that the light suggests a glorious epiphany and a supernatural event. No natural phenomenon is taking place. It is nothing less than a revelation of the exalted resurrected Christ (9:17, 27, 22:14; 26:16, 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8). The light is a manifestation of Christ’s glory. Brilliant light is a common feature of theophanies in the Bible (Ex. 19:16; 2 Sam. 22:13, 15; Psa. 77:18; 97:4; Ezek. 1:4, 13, 14).[2] Stam correctly calls it a “divine intervention” that “was immediate and direct.”[3] This event revealed to Paul the Son of God (Gal. 1:16; cf. 2 Cor. 12:1, 7; Gal. 1:12; 2:2), through a personal appearance (1 Cor. 15:8; 15:5-7; Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:21), which was visible to him (1 Cor. 9:1; Acts 9:27).

2. What he hears (9:4-6)

As the spotlight of God’s glory shines around him, Saul “fell to the ground and heard a voice…” (9:4). The combination of light with a voice indicates that a divine revelation was taking place (Ex. 3:2, 4-5; Matt. 17:2, 5).[4] The first words that he hears are “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (9:4). Saul probably understood this as a rebuke, since in Rabbinic thought a voice from heaven was understood as either instruction or a rebuke.[5] Clearly the phrase is not an instruction. Rebuke is certainly in tune with the repeating of the name, which indicates confrontation. Saul was completely confused. The voice indicates a personal persecution against the speaker. Saul the zealot of Judaism thought of himself as doing God’s work, not persecuting God. In his mind he was defending God and the law. The question shows God’s solidarity with his people. To persecute them was to persecute Him.

In his confusion and bewilderment, Saul replies—“Who are You, Lord?” (9:5). Some debate has come by use of the term Lord. Some have taken it in the sense of sir, since the word kurie / kyrios can be used in the sense of respect, not worship. In this sense, it is used as an honorary title, equivalent to mister.[6] It is also used of God, indicating Lord in the sense of deity. Thus, some seem to take it in its full Christological sense. It is hard to determine which is meant here. The answer, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” indicates there was not a full recognition of whom Saul was dealing with in his mind. More enlightenment was needed and given. Thus, Lord could not be a full Christological confession. This is evident by the question—“Who are you?” But it seems in the light of its supernatural aspects to indicate more than an honorary title of respect. It certainly indicates he knew he was in the presence of a superior being.

The KJV has the words “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” as part of the text (9:5). Also missing is part of verse 6 that is found in the KJV, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (9:6). The words are not in the Greek text, except for the Textus Receptus. No doubt it was added when Erasmus, translating the Vulgate back into Greek, who added them to the Greek text of 1516.[7] They are not found in the Majority Text and Greek other texts. The words in verse 6 are not found in any manuscript except the Latin Vulgate. The phrases are omitted from most modern Bible versions. It is a clear case of scribal assimilation from other texts (Acts 26:14; 22:10) into this text to make the parallels uniform.[8]

While this text in Acts does not give a hint that the risen Jesus was actually seen, it is provided by addition information in Acts and the Epistles (Acts 9:17, 27; 1 Cor. 9:1l, 15:8; Gal. 1:16). It is interesting that the response of the Lord is to give only his earthly name—Jesus. This is done to link the vision with the historical Jesus, which emphasizes He is now alive and exalted. Along with the identification, Saul is told to rise and enter the city for additional instruction. The word must designates a divine necessity. He had a divine appointment, although he is not told immediately with whom.

The conversion of Saul is similar to the prophetic call of the prophets. His conversion exhibits “the marks of the prophetic inauguration.”[9] The Damascus Road encounter functions as Paul’s prophetic call as the apostle of the church, not just his salvation experience. Instantly he has a new vocation. Paul adopts prophetic language in Galatians 1:15-16 to describe his calling.[10] He, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, were called from their mother’s womb (Isa. 49:1; Jer. 1:5a). Acts 26:16-17 indicates rejection by their own people (Ezek. 3:1-9), and future revelations (Jer. 1:5-10; Ezek. 2:1-7). Paul’s very conversion experience echoes the experience of the prophets, being called by a visionary experience (Isa. 1:1, 6:1-13; Ezek 1:1, 8:4; Obad. 1; Hab. 2:2). Paul is a prophetic figure as well as an apostle.

3. What he does (9:7-9)

While Saul was having this vision, the men who were traveling with him were witnesses to the event. We are told they “stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one” (9:7). There is a seemingly conflict between this and Acts 22:9, which the KJV says they “heard not the voice.” The Greek word can mean both sound and voice. There is an ongoing debate about the syntax of the passage. Robertson says “it is perfectly proper to appeal to the distinction in the [Greek] cases in the apparent contradiction” saying the “accusative case accents to intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive calls attention to the sound of the voice without accenting the sense.”[11] However, Wallace shows a lot of exceptions to this, saying the “appeal to different cases probably ought not [to] form any part of the solution.”[12] Regardless of the syntax debate, it seems that the solution it proposes that they heard the sound but not the voice is reasonable. We see in the case of Jesus and the voice from heaven in John 12:29 that the crowd could not distinguish an articulate voice. This seems to be the case here and many modern verses reflect this view by translating Acts 22:9—“did not understand the voice” (NASB, NIV). They heard the sound of the voice, but did not understand the words. In addition, they did not see the person of the vision, simply the light (glory of God). The words of the voice were understood by Paul, as the vision of the person of Jesus was seen by him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:8). This upholds that the call and commission was personal, not a group event.

Upon getting up, “though his eyes were open, he could see nothing” (Acts 9:8) and had to be led to the city. Some see this as being the source of Paul’s eye problems (cf. Gal. 4:13-15; 6:11).[13] “He who had intended to enter Damascus like an avenging fury was led by the hand into that city, blind and helpless as a child,” observes Barclay.[14] This act of blindness has been seen in different ways: shock,[15] evidence of the prophetic call,[16] and judgment.[17] All three elements may be true in this experience. As Stam observes, “What mingled feelings of sorrow and joy, remorse and gratitude, shame and glory must have surged within Saul’s breast as he contemplated what he had just seen and heard!”[18] Believers in moments of crisis often are faced with these types of feelings, and in a sense may never completely get over them. There is evidence Paul experienced lingering shame and guilt and sense of unworthiness (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9). However, He was be able to put them behind him and look forward to a new goal of pressing toward the high calling of God. How? Only one way—by the empowering grace of God!

However, this blindness was temporary, for “he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank” (9:9). Some see significance of this as being Saul’s personal crucifixion with Christ, the darkness as his tomb experience, and on third day, he rises and is filled with the Holy Spirit.[19] There may be a parallel here, but the significance should not be overdone. There can be no question that during this time he did not eat or drink. Although the word fasting is not used in the text, certainly it was what happened. Fasting has two functions in the Old Testament: that of repentance (cf. Neh. 1:4; Jer. 14:12; Joel 1:14; Jonah 3:7-8) and/or a preparation for receiving revelation (cf. Ex. 34:28; Duet. 9:9, Dan. 9:1-3). Bruce’s suggestion that the lack of eating and drinking was the result of shock[20] seems unlikely for two main reasons: First, because this fasting is associated with prayer (cf. 9:11). Paul began as a man of prayer which continued throughout his ministry (cf. 16:25; 20:36; 22:17). Second, it is during this time, Saul received a vision concerning Ananias (cf. 9:12). Saul as a Pharisee would have been familiar with the fasting practice in the times of crisis, as well as a religious exercise in connection with prayer and revelation.

[1] Knowling, ACTS, 231.

[2] Peterson, ACTS, 303.

[3] Stam, ACTS, 2:26.

[4] Harrison, ACTS, 158.

[5] Longenecker, ACTS, 370.

[6] Zodhiates, COMPLETE WORD STUDY, 900.

[7] Utley, ACTS, 122.

[8] Peterson, fn. 23, 304., Bruce, ACTS, fn 9, 10, 11, 282,

[9] Ralston, Timothy J., ‘The Theological Significance of Paul’s Conversion,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April 1990, 201.

[10] Evans, C.A., “Paul as Prophet,” DICTIONARY OF PAUL AND HIS LETTERS, 763.

[11] Robertson, GRAMMAR, 506.

[12] Wallace, GREEK: BEYOND THE BASICS, 133-134. Also see Peterson, fn 27, 305; Harrison, 161.

[13] Utley, 122.

[14] Barclay, ACTS, 73.

[15] Bruce, ACTS, 185.

[16] Bock, ACTS, 359

[17] Peterson, 305.

[18] Stam, ACTS, 2:35.

[19] Harrison, ACTS, 161.

[20] Bruce, 185.

PAUL's CONVERSION (2)

2011-10-18T15:54:00.001-04:00

Retribution by Saul—Acts 9:1-2

Luke continues with the theme of persecution introduced in 8:1-3 with Saul’s activity against believers. Murphy-O’Connor is correct that we can assume that at this point, Paul knew: “(1) that Jesus had been a teacher to whom wonders were ascribed; (2) that he had been crucified under Pontius Pilate as the result of Jewish charges; (3) that his followers thought of him as the Messiah.”[1] Luke returns to what he mentions in 8:3, the ravaging done by Saul. Saul’s aim was to destroy the church of God (Gal. 1:13 cf. Gal. 4:1). The link to chapter 8 is brought out by the word still (eti /eti): “Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciple of the Lord…” (9:1). This is the only place that the word breathing (empnewn /empneon) is found in the NT. It means to breathe upon, to breathe of, animated with the spirit of, to be full of, ready to burst.[2] Threats and murder was the atmosphere in which Paul lived and breathed. Robertson says, “He exhaled what he inhaled.”[3] It speaks of his violent lifestyle. It is said that Benjamin “is a ravenous wolf” (Gen. 49:27). Paul had the characteristic of his forefather, being of the tribe of Benjamin. He later confesses that he was furiously enraged with these people who trusted in Jesus (Acts 26:11). He believed he was doing the godly thing by rooting out those who were apostates. He was a zealous Jew, who held fast to the Law and the traditions, and was a guardian of Jewish purity. (Gal. 1:14). He is a fulfillment of John 16:2, “an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.”

It is no mistake that the word murder is used in the text. Lenski calls the word “significant.”[4] It refers not to Stephen’s death, but his furious outrage against other disciples. Lenski articulates: “The fact that he had succeeded in having others put to death is certain, and the objection does not hold that Luke should have recorded these martyrdoms, for he recorded that of Stephen only because it marked the great turning point in the course of the history….”[5]

Saul took the initiative to pursue those who were believers in Jesus. He “went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus…” (Acts 9:1b-10a). Caiaphas would still have been High Priest, for he ruled until 36 AD. As high priest, he asserted power in the land and Jews world wide. This kind of power dates back 150 years, in which we have written evidence from a Roman ambassador to Ptolemy VII in Egypt to return fugitives from Israel to the High Priest for justice according to their law.[6] This also indicates that the High Priest had a degree of authority over synagogues in other lands, and was backed by the Roman Government. Those whom Saul was seeking were refugees from Jerusalem, not native Damascene disciples. Damascus was a great commercial center and had a very large Jewish population. It was located only 150 miles northeast of Jerusalem. We know the Jewish population was so large that under Nero, 10,000 were put to death in Damascus.[7] It was natural that it attracted refugees from Jerusalem who was fleeing the persecution of Stephen. In order to wipe out this apostasy, Saul would follow believers wherever they would flee. Notice it was Saul who sought the letters indicating his being proactive in his work.

These letters or extradition papers gave Saul authority that “if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem” (Acts 9:2b). The Way is the early common name for believers in Jesus (cf. Acts 19:9, 23; 24:14; 22). They are referred to as such only in Acts. The word way is a common word for a highway or road, an action or direction to a location, a journey. It most likely began to be used of believers because they referred to Jesus as the way. They spoke of Him as the “way of salvation,” the “way of the Lord,” and the “way of God” (Acts 16:27; 18:25, 26). And of course, Jesus referred to Himself as “the way” (John 14:6). It speaks of Christ as the path of life and salvation. These followers of the Way, being Hellenists, would migrate toward the synagogue, and thus be a special group within, both because of them being refuges and believers.

Saul was on a search and destroy mission. Gender or age did not matter. All who believed in the Way were subject to be bound and brought back to Jerusalem to be tried, beaten, and jailed, if not killed. Conversion breaks the bonds of malice and hatred. It changes attitudes, emotions, and lives.

[1] Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, PAUL: A CRITICAL LIFE, 95.

[2] Zodhiates, COMPLETE WORD DICTIONARY, 577.

[3] Robertson, WORD PICTURES, 3:113.

[4] Lenski, ACTS, 350.

[5] Ibid, 350.

[6] Bruce, ACTS, 180.

[7] Knowling, ACTS, 230.

Book Review: JAMES by Dan G. McCartney

2011-10-16T20:38:00.000-04:00

McCartney, Dan G., BAKER EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT: JAMES, (Baker, Grand Rapids) 2009, 335 pages.

I like this commentary. It is evangelical and technical in approach, yet clear, concise and reader friendly. He has a helpful and good introduction, hitting on character, authorship, structure and contextual issues. It was to me a highlight of the commentary. McCartney holds to an early date of the book (40’s) and that James, the half brother of Jesus is its author. It was written to the Jews of the Diaspora, which contains “God fearers.” By holding to an early date he does not see the book as a response or correction to the Apostle Paul. James should be read on his own terms. Paul and James addressed their readers from independent perspectives. One must listen distinctly to each man’s own “voice.” They appropriated the same Jewish heritage, vocabulary, and stories, but from different vantage points. He has a good excursus on Paul and James to show there was no contradiction. However, do not expect a dispensational argument here, and do not dismiss it because of it. It is worth reading and should be considered. He has good points.

He holds that the key concept is faith, holding that trust and faith are inseparable. Faith and endurance go together, and James presents a strong ethical call and view. Faith is eschatological in that its looks intently on the final goal, the consummation of the kingdom. He also sees James influenced by the wisdom literature, encouraging the readers toward a biblical wisdom in which to live day by day by faith and hope. He has a good excursus on both faith and wisdom as well.

This commentary is one of the top ones available on James. His exegesis is good and balanced. It deserves to be on the shelf of any one who is studying James. While aimed at Pastors and serious students, laymen would find it both useful and understandable.

PAUL’S CONVERSION (1)

2011-10-16T20:34:00.002-04:00

This begins a series on Acts 9 and the Conversion of Paul.

INTRODUCTION

History changed with the events of Acts 9. It authorizes the spread of the message of Christ from a strictly Jewish message to a worldwide message. It marks the beginning of the separation of Christianity from Judaism, from a message of exclusion to Jews only to the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles into one body. It is the gate that swings open the message of God and His grace to the world. It has been correctly observed:

Two people dominate the pages of the NT more than any others: Jesus and Paul. These two men were quite different from each other in many ways…. But both played a vital part in the establishment and early development of the Christian movement.[1]

Witherington comments, “Without question, the story of Saul’s ‘conversion’ is one of the most important events, if not the most important event, that Luke records in Acts.”[2] While there are those who hold to a new perspective on Paul, and deny that Paul experienced a conversion, but transferred to a new sect of Judaism, I disagree. The Scriptures tell us that for Jews to believe in Jesus they had to be converted (Matt. 13:15; 18:3; Mark 4:12; John 12:40; Acts 3:19). Part of the problem is we are reading back into Scripture a modern definition of conversion: i.e. “Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religion that differs from the convert's previous religion."[3] This is not the Scriptural definition of conversion. The Greek word epistreya /epistrepha means to turn to, to return or to turn about. Conversion is turning to God in a new relationship from the old relationship or lack thereof. It is the adoption of faith from unbelief. This is precisely what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus.

There can be no question that Paul holds a prominent place in the history of the New Testament and the world. More is known about him than any of the Twelve Apostles. The only thing we know about most of the Twelve are their names, with the few exceptions of Peter, James, John, and Matthew. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples offered Israel a Messiah-King; Paul will offer the world a Messiah-Saviour. To Paul will be given the revelation of the mystery, the dispensation of Grace (Eph. 1:1-10), which was hid even at this point in Acts, that the Twelve were unaware of.

Acts 9 records the conversion of Saul (a.k.a. Paul). The importance of this event is clearly indicated by it being related to us three times in Acts (Acts 9; 22:1-16; 26:9-18).[4] Acts 9 is a third person account, while in Acts 22 and 26 we have first person accounts.[5] (See Chart below). He also gives information about his conversion in his epistles (Gal. 1;13-17; 1 Cor. 15:8-10; Phil. 3:4-11). Barclay calls Saul’s conversion the most famous in all history.[6]

Acts 9 marks a new section in the book of Acts. Starting with the conversion of Saul everything changes. This Saul changes from the persecutor to the preacher. The record of the Twelve to Israel changes to Paul’s (a.k.a. Saul) ministering to the Gentiles. He becomes the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13). It must be pointed out that this change did not come because the Twelve had failed; rather, it came because the nation had failed to accept the offer of the Twelve. Sir Robert Anderson notes,

In a word, if ‘to the Jew first’ is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, ‘to the Jew only’ is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the ‘Hebraic section’ of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony.[7]

Paul’s ministry will entail two things: First, it will be directed toward the Gentiles (Acts 26:28). He will reveal that from now on there will be no difference between Jew and Gentile, which are made one in the body of Christ (Eph. 3:6). Second, he will also have a ministry to the Jews, not only to lead them to Christ, but to announce their judgment (Acts 9:13; 13:46). The conversion at this juncture prepares the readers for both. It also preceded Peter’s ministry to Cornelius. Peter’s experience will be used as validation to the Apostle that God is reaching out to the Gentiles (Acts 15). Peter’s experience with Cornelius will also be used to validate the ministry of Paul.

Paul's Damascus Road Account in Acts

       Event                                      Acts 9                  Acts 22                 Acts 26
Bright light                                      9:3                       22:13                     26:3
"I AM Jesus"                                   9:5                       22:8                       26:15
"Why Persecute Me?"                     9:4-5                    22:7-8                   26:14-15
Commission to the Gentiles                                                                     26:16-18
Ananias' Oracle                               9:10-19                22:12-16
Ananias affirms commission          9:15-16                 22:15

[1] Wenham, David, PAUL: FOLLOWER OF JEWS OR FOUNDER OF CHRISTANITY, 1.

[2] Witherington, ACTS, 303.

[3] Wikipedia.org

[4] It is recommended that all three passages be read and studied together to get all the details of the conversion.

[5] Bock, ACTS, 350.

[6] Barclay, ACTS, 71.

[7] Anderson, Sir Robert, THE SILENCE OF GOD, 76-77.