Sermon in a Nutshell

 SPIRITUAL SACRIFICES

1. Presenting our bodies  Romans 12:1-2
2. Praise  Hebrews 13:15
3. Good works   Hebrews 13:16
4. Serving God   Philippians 2:17
5. Giving   Philippians 4:18

REVIEW: BAD DADS

Review: 

BAD DADS OF THE BIBLE

Roland C. Warren

Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 2013

This book is badly needed in the church. Fatherhood has been one of the most neglected areas in most churches. Warren opens up with some facts that every Pastor needs to know. The importance of Fathers being active in their faith and churches are vital in being good dads. Studies show that Fathers active in their faith and churches greatly increases the chances that their children will remain in the church; more so than if it is just the mother. 

However, there are no perfect dads. This book reminds us clearly of that fact. Warren looks at the problems of fatherhood by giving clear examples of Dads from the Bible that had common problems experienced by families today. This includes such problems as favoritism, being paralyzed by our past, not dealing with sibling rivalry, putting down your children, doing things that destroy, discipline of children and other common problems. He looks at Bible dads that where both well-known (David, Abraham, Lot, etc) as well as mostly unknown ones (Laban, Eli, Manoah, etc).

Positively, this book shows that these problems do not have to paralyze any father. These problems can be overturned. You can move beyond your failures, and improve your relationships with your family. He gives six things a dad can do to become a better father and man. Good fathers are not perfect, but they are affirmative, physically present, being available, involved emotionally and spiritually, love and pursue the prodigal, and reach out to the fatherless.

However, I must admit I am not a father, but this book spoke to me. Every man needs to read this book. It is as much about manhood as it is about fatherhood. It is edifying and uplifting. This would make an ideal book to use in a men’s group, Sunday school class, or a preaching series.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the Bookblogger.com  book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: 

STUDY OF PHILIPPIANS 3:1-4

The Command to Rejoice—Phil. 3:1a

This chapter opens with a command—“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord.” There are two things one should consider before moving on. First, how should we take the word finally? Second, how is it connected to what follows, or does it?

The word finally is assumed to be a conclusion statement. However the Greek word loipos has a wide variety of meanings,[1] including henceforth, besides, the rest, furthermore, in addition, as well as finally. The word is used here in the present tense, which indicates continuance. It seems best to me to understand it the continuing sense, not the concluding sense. It certainly is not the start of the conclusion of the epistle, for 40% of the epistles remains from this point. Besides, the word is found again in 4:8 which is much closer to the end of the epistle.

 To me a more difficult question is how this is connected to what follows. It seems  there is disconnection between the command and what follows. While not calling it a disconnection, O’Brien points out it is an “abrupt transition.”[2] Certainly there is a change of tone in what follows. It changes from a tone of rejoicing to a tone of servere warning. Or, as Baker says: “His meek, submissive, humble tone changes to one of anger, as he warns about people he calls dogs and evil workers.”[3] Certainly there is no easy answer to the abrupt change. Some have suggested part of an earlier letter to them has been inserted into the letter. Schmithal says “Verses 3:1 and 4:4 fit together so exactly that upon sober reflection one must come to the conclusion that a later hand has pulled the two verses apart.”[4] This proposal has been rejected, as it should be. There is no evidence that such an insert was made in any of the manuscripts. Others suggest that Paul had intended to bring the letter to an end at this point and as he continued decided against it.[5]

My suggestion is that this verse goes with what went before, not what follows. I agree with Calvin who wrote it is, “The conclusion of what goes before; for as Satan never ceased to dishearten them with daily rumors.”[6] Therefore, this half of verse one is connected with the exhortation of 2:17-18, and wraps up the statement of Paul to receive Epaphroditus with all joy (2:29). It is a summary statement with all that Paul had written up to this point. It is a more natural connection than to try to connect it with what follows. It also sets up a reminder for what follows, but does not lead to what comes next.

Paul’s Warning Against Errors—Phil. 3:1b-4:1

In my opinion, chapter three should start at this point: “To write the same things [again] is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you” (3:1b). It is the natural beginning. Here Paul begins to treat the false teaching and teachers of doctrine. Also he helps them in detecting and guarding themselves doctrinally.

Warning against Legalism—Phil. 3:lb-11

He opens the warning with an introductory statement. This statement implies two things: (1) Repetition. He is not troubled to write the same things. He realizes as any good teacher that repetition is a key to learning. The same things may refer back to what Paul has written in the first two chapters, particularly the exhortation of 1:25; 2:18, 28, 29, that of rejoicing. If so, then Paul seems to see the calls to rejoice as a positive attitude that will save them from the ills and false doctrine that is making its way in the local body.[7] However, joy is not the cure for disunity, but humility is (2:3-4).[8] This phrase may imply this is not the first letter he has written to them. If so, the first letter has been lost in the halls of history. There is no evidence of such a letter. Or it could refer to the same things which he spoke to them when he was with them. This is in line with the phrase “of whom I often told you” in 3:18 and is the best option in understanding the phrase: to write the same things. (2) He writes it for their protection. He wants to safeguard them. The word translated safeguard is the Greek word asphallo, meaning to make firm; secure from falling; or sure and steady. Repeated teaching of the Word is the best option to safeguard and secure the believer.

In this section we see:

1. The nature of the warning—Phil. 3:2

Three times Paul uses the present active imperative—Beware (Greek: blepete). The present active has the idea of continual, and the imperative puts it in the voice of a command. The words give a sense of urgency. We are continually to keep on watch, or be persistent in looking out with the purpose of avoiding danger. What is this danger? That has been debated by Bible students. Some see three dangers: Gentiles, greedy teachers, and Jews. This is based on the three descriptions that follow the three bewares—“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision” (Phil 3:2). Dogs being Gentiles, evil teachers being greedy teachers, and the false circumcision being Jews.  However, it seems better to see the descriptions as the three-fold characteristics of the same people. But who? Hawthorne sees this group as unbelieving Jews.[9]  The majority see them as Judaizers. Judaizers have been defined as “Jewish Christians who wanted Gentile Christians to become Jews in practice.”[10] They were legalists and champions of circumcising Gentiles (Acts 15:1 cf. Gal. 1:11-21). They were a continual presence and disrupters of the gospel of grace. Notice the same type of language used here is found in regard to them by Paul on other occasions (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 1:8-9; 5:12; 6:12-13). 

Paul describes these men as:

• Dogs. While the term was used as a synonym for Gentiles (Matt. 15:26); Isaiah clearly used it to describe Israel’s false prophets (Isaiah 56:10-11). Here Paul likewise uses it as a metaphor for Judaizers who tried to impose the Law and legalism upon the Gentiles. There is a reversal here in that now these Judaizers had became the dogs. Paul uses a stronger word than did Jesus in Matthew 15:26. Wuest notes:

The dogs here were the mangy, flea-bitten, vicious starved scavengers of the oriental streets which the dogs our Lord referred to where the well-cared for little house pets of an oriental household.[11]

• Evil workers. This speaks of their character. They were deceitful (2 Cor. 11:13). Motivated by the flesh and pride; and legalistic in their teaching. They centered on the works of the flesh (cf. Gal. 2:4; Phil. 3:18).
• False Circumcision (cf. Gal. 6:12-13).  This speaks of their perversion. The word used here is katatomen, meaning literal “to cut up from,”[12] thus mutilation or concision. Gromacki tells us:

The descriptive title must be seen in contrast to genuine circumcision (peritome) which is based upon the same verb stem. The Judaizers were literally cutting down (kata) whereas circumcision involved a cutting around (peri). Physical mutilation, practiced in pagan idolatry, were prohibited by God through Moses (Lev. 21:5; 1 Kings 18:28).[13]

In reality they did not belong to the circumcision but to the mutilators. “When Jewish rituals are practiced in a spirit that contradicts the message of the gospel, these rituals lose their true significance and become no better than pagan practices” observes Silva.[14] Baker says, “Circumcision (peritome) as practiced by the Judizers had degenerated into concision (katatome) flesh-cutting or butchering.”[15]

2. Basis for the warning—Phil. 3:3

“For we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). The word for (gar) denotes the reason for the warnings. They (verse 2) are not the true circumcision. This word also sets up a contrast. In contrast—“we are the circumcision” (the word true is not in the Greek text). Some try to limit the word we here to believing Jews, and not to the Gentiles. I see two problems with this view: First, Paul writes directly to the Church, the Body of Christ: “in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands” (Col. 2:11). True circumcision involved the heart and the spirit (cf. Rom. 2:28-29). Second, the basis would be meaningless to the majority of the Philippians, since they were Gentiles. The reference is to spiritual circumcision and includes the believing Gentiles as well as the believing Jews.

It should be noted that Hawthorne concludes from this that the Church is the New Israel.[16] This is a wrong conclusion. There is no evidence that the two equates here in this passage, nor that a replacement has taken place. While circumcision of the heart applied to Israel and that it applies now to the church does not make them the same, or that one replaced or the two are made into one entity.  In addition, Paul uses the term Israel (3:5) in the national sense, and there is no indication in the context that old Israel has now become the New Israel of the church. “Nowhere in discussions of ‘spiritual circumcision’ does Scripture explicitly specify Gentiles as Jews or the church as a new Israel.”[17] Besides this goes against Paul’s argument for a Renewed Israel after the times of the Gentiles has ended (Rom. 11:25-27).

Likewise the context centers upon the act of circumcision. It is clearly a rebuke to those who see physical circumcision as a necessity to have a relationship with God. He is rebuking them by building on the basis of the Old Testament as to spiritual circumcision (cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:7). Paul makes clear that Gentiles “have been made partakers of their spiritual things” (Rom. 15:27, KJV), he still makes a distinction between the church and Israel by the words Gentiles and their (Israel). One of these spiritual things is spiritual circumcision, but the sharing in this does not make the two the same.

That this is in regard to true believers is reinforced by the three descriptive terms used in reference to spiritual circumcision by Paul.[18]

• “Who worship in the Spirit of God.” While some deny that this reference refers to the Holy Spirit, and refers to the human spirit, I see this as doubtful. I agree with Muller who says the translation should be “worship by the Spirit of God.”[19] It is “an instrumental dative, indicating that the worship is under the impulse and direction of the Holy Spirit.”[20] Lloyd-Jones gives three important aspects of true worship in the Spirit. He points out:

To worship God by the Spirit means that we do not have to force ourselves to worship him, but are conscious of being moved and being led, to worship.[21]

To worship by the Spirit of God is not something cold and formal, it is always warm and loving and free. …It is the warmth of the Spirit, not a cold formality.[22]

True worship of God in the Spirit can be tested in this way: the man who worships God in the Spirit does not think of God as some distant abstraction, almost a philosophical concept, away in the distance. The man who worships in the spirit realizes the presence of God; he knows that God is there at his side.[23]

• “Glory in Christ Jesus,” The Greek word behind the word glory is kauchaomai and clearly means glory or boasting. It is used both in the negative and positive sense in Scripture, determined by the context. The same Greek word is found in 1 Corinthians 1:29: “no man may boast [or glory] before God.” The Judaizers made their boast in the law (cf. Rom. 2:23). We are to make our boast—in Christ Jesus. It is a preposition of sphere or location. We boast or glory in Christ, who has made us acceptable to God (cf. 2 Cor. 10:7; 1 Cor. 1:31). Thus we boast in the person and work of Christ. As Eadie says:

“in Christ Jesus, and in Him alone-not in Him and Moses-not in Son and servant alike; gloried in Him; in His great condescension; His birth and its wonders; His life and its blessings; His death and its benefits; His ascension and its pledges; His return, and its stupendous and permanent results.”[24]

• “Put no confidence in the flesh.” This third participial phrase signifies the grounds in which we cannot boast (cf. 1 Cor. 1:29). This is in sharp contrast to the Judaizers who are putting confidence in the fleshly act of circumcision. It is in contrast to glorying in Christ. Confidence in the flesh is to trust in human attainment and works. In light of the context, Paul is rejecting ritualism as a ground for confidence before God.

This verse also should be seen as a transition verse. Paul takes the concept of boasting and confidence and carries it over to his experience. Three key phrases account for the summary of Paul’s experience.

PAUL’S EXPEREINCES

Phil 3:8	Phil 3:12	Phil 3:20
I count loss	I press on	Look for
Past	Present	Future

---

[1]  Perschbacher, NEW ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, 260

[2]  O’Brien, NIGTC: PHILIPPIANS, 347.

[3]  Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 92.

[4]  Quoted by Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 165.

[5]  Ibid, 167.

[6]  Calvin, CALVIN’S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: PHILIPPIANS, 267.

[7]  Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 124.

[8]  O’Brien, NIGTC:PHILIPPIANS, 351.

[9]   Hawthorne, WBC:PHILIPPIANS, 125.

[10]  Siliva, PHILIPPIANS 169.

[11]  Wuest, PHILIPPIANS, 87.

[12]  Perschbacher, LEXICON, 228.

[13]  Gromacki, STAND UNITED IN JOY, 135.

[14]  Silva, PHILIPPIANS, 170.

[15]  Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 93.

[16]  Hawthorne, WBC: PHILIPPIANS, 126.

[17]  Robert L. Saucy, A CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM, 205.

[18]  These are in contrast with the three descriptive terms used of the Judaizers in verse 2.

[19]  Muller, NICNT:PHILIPPIANS, 107 fn 4.

[20]  Loh and Nida, TRANSLATORS HANDBOOK: PHILIPPIANS, 92.

[21]  D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, THE LIFE OF PEACE, 28.

[22]  Ibid, 29.

[23]  Ibid, 30.

[24]  Eadie, PHILIPPIANS [3:3].

SONG OF SONGS

I have been doing some reading on the Song of Songs. In doing so, I read Daniel Estes chapter in WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORS REALLY CARED ABOUT. He gives three important points about the Song of Songs:

(1) The Author of the Song of Songs Traced the Progress of Intimacy from initial Attraction to Maturity.

(2) The Author of the Song of Songs Extolled Erotic Love Within Marriage as God’s Good Gift.

(3) The Author of the Song of Songs Described the Transforming Power of Love.

Source: Jason S. DeRouchie (Editor), WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORS REALLY CARED ABOUT, Kregel Publishing, Grand Rapids MI, 2013

REVIEW: WARFARE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

BOOK REVIEW

WARFARE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Boyd Seevers

Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2013

This book seems to be written for a double audience: Those interested in the history of the Old Testament and military history. He offers a survey of military history in the Old Testament. I must admit I was looking forward to this book, but came away somewhat mixed. It does help in understanding the biblical and military descriptions of the battles that were fought. His approach is interesting, combining fiction with reality. He opens with imaginary narratives about the historical situation and warfare from the view of the soldier on the ground. However, he does so honestly and in the spirit of the events taking place. It upholds both Biblical and Archaeological records.  He does a good job connecting the relationship of the nations to the nation of Israel.

He does a good job of giving the tactics and descriptions of the weapons involved. It is  well researched. One will learn more clearly about each of the nations involved. It is organized well and aids the reader.  It is very readable and enjoyable. He speaks of things that are vital in areas of military battles—including, logistics, psychological elements and usage; and seasons of warfare confrontation. 

However, I am disappointed in certain aspects of the book. While the layout of the book is topnotch, much of the graphics remind me of graphics we saw 50 years ago—black and white line drawings.  Computer graphics could have substantially upgraded this, and it should have been done. Second, the maps are helpful, but they are not as detailed as most battle maps. Some are hard to follow just because of the colorizing of the maps, (for example the maps of Egypt and Babylon on p 253 is hard to follow the red lines of the road because of the red coloring on the Babylonian empire.) Yet, the map of the city of Babylon is very good. Third, it would have been helpful if there were more of theological background concerning what happened militarily and historically.

As a whole this is a welcome edition to both military warfare and Bible historians. It will aid the Old Testament student to bring understanding of the Biblical record.

 I received this book free from the publisher Kregel Academic. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” 

Humility

4 Qualifications to understand the Bible

1) Salvation (1 Cor. 2:14-16)
2) Sensitivity to the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11-12)
3) Be a seeker of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15)
4) Prayer (Col. 1:9; Eph. 1:18)

A Study of Philippians 2:25-30

Examples of Humble Service—Phil. 2:19-30 (Continued)

2. Epaphroditus—Phil. 2:25-30

The next humble servant that Paul mentions is Epaphroditus. His name means lovely or charming, and not to be confused with Epaphras (Col 1:7, 4:12). It is interesting that Paul when speaking of humble service to God does so across ethnic lines: Paul was a Hebrew, Timothy was a Jew and Gentile, Epaphroditus was a Gentile.  Being a humble servant has nothing to do with lineage, but the heart.

He was being sent to them first, instead of Timothy. This should not be thought as if he was a consolation prize. Paul makes clear the reasons Epaphroditus was being sent to them right away, and not Timothy. 

·         It was needful to keep Timothy with him temporarily (2:23).

·         Epaphroditus’ concern for them (2:26).

·         Paul “thought it necessary” (2:25). Interestingly, most consider “thought” as an epistolary aorist; an action viewed as past, or from the view of the recipients when they read the letter. Paul therefore sent this letter with him to Philippi. “Epaphroditus should be viewed as the bearer of the letter,” notes Silva.^[1]  

a. His description—2:25

“But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier…” (Phil 2:25a). As Paul describes this humble servant, he does so in very descriptive terms.^[2] These describe Epaphroditus in relation to Paul. First, is that of “brother.” This speaks of their spiritual relationship. They are brothers in the Lord; members of the family of God. However, in this context in combination with the other descriptive nouns, it should be taken to mean more than just a Christian. It is evident that there is a close personal relationship between the two, forged by common work and conflict. Paul uses it here as a term of affection. Second, He is a “fellow-worker.” The Greek word here is sunergon, meaning fellow-laborer, helper, or associate. It speaks of their union in the work of God; of their working together.  Third, he is a “fellow-soldier” with Paul. He is a companion in combat.

Warren Wiersbe notes that these terms parallel with the descriptive terms in chapter one.^[3] We could diagram the parallels as such:

“my brother” (2:25)	“fellowship in the Gospel” (1:5)
“my fellow-laborer”	“furtherance of the Gospel (1:12)
“my fellow-soldier”	“the faith of the Gospel” (1:27)

Lightfoot notes that it shows their, “common sympathy, common work, common danger and toil and suffering.”^[4]

In relationship to the church at Philippi, there are two descriptive terms used of Epaphroditus: “who also is your messenger and minister to my need” (Phil 2:25b). That these terms are connected with his work with the church is indicated by the word “your.” He is their “messenger.” Here the word messenger is the word apostle (apostolon). However, it should be taken in its non-technical sense as one sent from the church at Philippi. It is “indicating someone who has been delegated by the church to carry out an assignment.”^[5] The technical sense applies only to those who have been commissioned directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. The church’s commission to Epaphroditus is to bring a gift and to be a gift to assist Paul and his ministry. Thus, the second description of Epaphroditus is “minister.” The Greek word is leitourgia, which originally indicated a person of means who performed public service as his own expense, but in the New Testament indicates on who serves—a servant or a minister.

It should be noted that humility does not mean irresponsibility. Epaphroditus was anything but irresponsible. Humility, if anything, makes one more responsible to his duty. Humility is maintained by the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ emphasizes being a servant and being task oriented. Christ came to serve and to do the will of the Father.

b. His Distress —2:26-28.

Notice the cause of his distress—“because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick” (Phil. 2:26). He is concerned not about himself, but for those who sent him to Paul. He “was longing for” them. The Greek “epipothon en” is an imperfect of the present participle, indicating a constant and intense desire for them. The source of his distress was because he was causing them concern. He, like Christ, did not look upon his own things and serve to the point of death (cf. 2:6, 8). Some suggest this is a sign of his homesickness. Nevertheless, his center of attention remains to be the Philippians. He was sorry that his sickness became a focus for them. Even though this sickness “was to the point of death” (Phil. 2:27), but God had mercy on Epaphroditus and Paul. One was spared death and the other sorrow.

c. His Return—22:28-30

“Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned [about you]”^[6] (Phil 2:28). The reasons why Paul thought it necessary to send Epaphroditus back home are:

·         Neither Paul, nor Timothy, was free to travel at this time.

·         Epaphroditus was homesick.

·         Because the Philippians were anxious concerning to know how Epaphroditus was faring.

·         Paul had anxiety over his welfare as long as Epaphroditus was with him.

·         To encourage the Philippians that they may rejoice over his return. Their joy had been marred by Epaphroditus’ sickness, and seeing him would restore their joy. 

In coming to them, they are to “Receive him then in the Lord with all joy and hold men like him in high regard” (Phil 1:29). This reminds us of the words and principles Christ gives in Matthew 10:40-41. It speaks of hospitality and the benefits of giving hospitality to the servant of God. Here the word receive has the idea of an enduring welcome. The phrase “receive him then in the Lord” reminds us of Romans 15:7. There the word accept means wholehearted acceptance. They are to receive and accept him, as we are to one another—for God’s glory. Newell tells us that this means “exercising constant careful love to one another.”^[7] The servant of God is to be held in high regard, which is really the word honor. Notice it says we are to honor them, not worship them. Honor speaks of giving respect for their position and work; worship means to place them on a higher plane than they are worthy to receive, making them a god. Many today do not see the difference.

The reason is the sacrifice Epaphroditus was willing to make: “Because he came close to death for the work of Christ risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me” (Phil. 2:30). Humility sustains sacrifice and service. No cost is too high. Humility breeds commitment. They were to honor Epaphroditus for three reasons:

·         His motivation: to do the work of Christ. The work of Christ was his passion and life.

·         His example: Christ in his humility was “obedient unto death,” and Epaphroditus came close to death. Christ was his example as Epaphroditus was their example. O’Brien points out that “the echo is deliberate.”^[8] He, as Christ, was selflessly devoted to his ministry.

·         His willingness to pay the cost. Paul says he was “risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me.” Notice carefully he was going beyond what the Philippians sent him to do. This acknowledges there was a lack (deficiency), of which Epaphroditus tried to fulfill at great personal cost (risking his life). He did so willingly. He was conscious of a need, and was willing to meet that need in spite of the cost.

           

Epaphroditus in sacrificial service dared all and did all in following Christ by obedience unto and including the possible point of death.

to be continue...

---

[1]  Siva, PHILIPPIANS, 161.

[2]  Lenski says these are arranged on an ascending scale. PHILIPPIANS, 819. Also see O’Brien, PHILIPPIANS, 330.

[3]  Wiersbe, Warren W., BE JOYFUL, 76.

[4]  Lightfoot, J.B., PHILIPPIANS 123.

[5]  Hendriksen, PHILIPPIANS, 139.

[6] Notice that in our text [about you] is not in any Greek text, but added by the translators. These words should not be in the text at all. It is clear that it was added to clarify, but in reality it simply gives an opinion. The Greek text reads: “that I may be less anxious.” There is no indication what was causing this anxiety in Paul. 

[7]  William R. Newell, ROMANS: VERSE BY VERSE, 523.

[8]  O’Brien, PHILIPPIANS, 343.

THINKING ON LUKE 1:13

THE PRAYER OF ZACHARIAS: Luke 1:13 

I was reading and studying in Luke today. My attention was on the appearance of the angel to Zacharias in the temple (Luke 1:13) and its context. He was told by the angel that “your petition has been heard.” The natural question is what prayer? The natural assumption is a prayer for a child, since the answer is bound up in the announcement he and Elizabeth will have a child. However, the text does not reveal the subject of the prayer, but only the fact of the prayer.

Things to consider are:

(1) The word prayer is singular. It refers to a specific prayer.

(2) It is doubtful at their age they would be praying for a child (cf. 1:7). Zacharias’ own words seem to rule out that he was praying for a child (1:18). The statement indicates he was beyond hope of having a child. Why would he be praying for something he did not believe would happen?

(3) It could be a prayer that he was praying at the time of the appearance of the angel.

(4) It is doubtful that he would be as a consecrated priest praying for his own interest and not that of the people.

(5) Evening prayers centered upon the nation and its hope.

There is no question that “the answer to the prayer is bound up with the birth of a son to Zacharias.”[1] Therefore, many believe the angel’s appearance was a result of a prayer that Zacharias was praying at the altar, and that the subject of the prayer was the hope of Israel in the coming of Messiah. It seems in answering the nation’s prayer “God was tackling two problems at once. He was dealing with something absent from Zechariah’s personal life, while dealing with Israel’s prayer and plea. God’s answers sometimes come at a surprising time, in a surprising place, and in a surprising way.”[2] Thus, Zacharias and Elizabeth’s role in the redemption of Israel was an act of grace.

---

[1]  I. Howard Marshall, NIGTC: COMMENTARY ON LUKE, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1978), 56.

[2]  Darrel L. Bock, BECNT: LUKE 1:1-9:50 (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1994), 82-83.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP & PAUL

Roman citizenship was important at the time of Paul when there were over 5 million Roman citizens (Tacitus, Ann. 11.25).  Roman citizenship had certain advantages:

·    The right of protection from being tortured or whipped. Claiming citizenship called for an immediate cessation of punishment until legal status of citizenship could be proven. Citizenship could be proven by having in a diploma civiitatis Romane or a copy of one’s first registration. The text does not indicate Paul used such documents, but it is a possibility.

·         The right to a legal trial in a proper court to defend oneself.

·         The right to appeal the decisions of magistrates.

Paul in Acts claims a number of times to be a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-38; Acts 22:25-28), which was bestowed by birth (Acts 22:28). The claim of the Acts record is consistent with what we know about Roman citizenship. In the providence of God the Roman citizenship helped Paul spread the gospel.