The Unseen Realm, Part 1

December 22, 2023 at 4:33 pm (Difficult Scripture, John, OT-Psalms, the Devil)

As lately as twenty years ago or so, if you had asked me what I thought about demon possession in the West, I would have said Satan doesn’t need it since he has the entire entertainment industry, greed, and substance abuse to carry out everything he wants, while he and his ilk are pushed off into the shadows and thus ignored. Remember (via Lewis’s Screwtape Letters) that he likes either to be ignored or to be put on equal footing with God. What he doesn’t like is to be warred against by prayer warriors who know that he exists, and is very powerful (much more powerful than we are), but still infinitely below God Himself.

So in today’s world, with paganism on the rise, witchcraft becoming intriguing to people, and Satan worship also becoming appealing, more attention needs to be paid to these kinds of issues in the West. Incidentally, I came up with a syllogism recently concerning Satan worship that seems powerful to me. Firstly, Satan is a murderer (John 8:44). By means of his deception, he murdered Adam and Eve (which is not to absolve them of guilt, but still, Satan’s part is diabolically murderous). Secondly, Adam represented the whole human race. Therefore, Satan worshipers are bowing down to their own murderers.

The demonic world is not the only part of the unseen realm getting new attention, however. Enter Michael Heiser, who died last year at the age of 60. Before he died, he wrote several books related to these topics, and the one that seems to have gotten the most traction in the scholarly and evangelical world is The Unseen Realm. I believe, that while he has some very interesting and helpful things to contribute to the topic, he does not prove, in the end, to be a reliable guide. I propose to go through this book chapter by chapter and evaluate his arguments and conclusions.

Chapter 1 is entitled “Reading Your Bible Again-for the First Time.” He describes the pathway by which he arrived at the conclusion that there is a pantheon of divine, supernatural, yet created “gods” (Hebrew Elohim). A friend of his handed him a Hebrew Bible open to Psalm 82, verse 1, which he translates in the book as follows: “God (elohim) stands in the divine assembly; he administers judgment in the midst of the gods (elohim).” Noting that the word elohim occurs twice in the verse, he noted that the first instance refers to Yahweh, but the second verse says “plain as day: The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly-a pantheon-of other gods” (p. 11).

He dismisses the classical interpretation of the elohim as human judges quite dismissively (he does this with most interpretations he disagrees with) by saying that it was “disturbingly weak.” He knows that they could not be correct because “Psalm 82 states that the gods were being condemned as corrupt in their administration of the nations of the earth” (12). This is not a given in the text of Psalm 82. The foundations of the earth in verse 5 could simply mean that justice is problematic everywhere if it is problematic in Israel. The call for God to judge the earth in verse 8 could simply mean that God’s justice everywhere will ensure justice in Israel. The elohim are therefore not explicitly said to be corruptly governing the nations of the earth in Psalm 82.

There are huge problems with Heiser’s interpretation of Psalm 82. The first problem is a simple one. The question of verse 2 hardly seems likely on a divine being interpretation. The “wicked” are surely wicked humans. How then could the elohim, if they are divine beings, be showing partiality to the wicked? How does the divine-to-human partiality work in this situation?

Secondly, as Richard Phillips notes in his commentary on the passage, why would God entrust justice of the weak, fatherless, afflicted, and destitute to these elohim in verse 3?

Thirdly, Jesus interprets verse 6 authoritatively in John 10:31-36. Jesus’ point is that He should not be accused of blasphemy simply by claiming to be the Son of God, since even humans could be called elohim on occasion. Heiser has an extremely convoluted attempt to circumvent the meaning of this passage in footnote 3 on p. 268. He says modern commentators fail to give due place to the original context of Psalm 82 “which has the divine council as its focus.” This is doubtful. He misses the point of Jesus’ words entirely when he says that Jesus was trying to argue about Himself. He wasn’t. He was arguing about the Jews’ injustice in charging Him with blasphemy. He begs the question of Psalm 82’s focus as well. Jesus’ words plainly challenge the “divine council” interpretation of Psalm 82, to which Heiser basically says, “but Psalm 82 is about the divine council, therefore John 10 can’t be saying what commentators think it is saying.” It is difficult to see how this interpretation of Psalm 82 as referring to humans could undermine Jesus’ claim to be God, when, as Andreas Kostenberger says, “In essence, Jesus is saying that there is OT precedent for referring to humans as ‘gods'” (CNTUOT, 465). Kevin Bauder (in an article cited below) adds an intriguing layer to this interpretation, since He is standing among people who are setting themselves up to be His judges!

The other, more serious objection to the “human judge” interpretation is verse 7, which seems to put distance between men and gods: “nevertheless, like men you shall die.” However, Kevin Bauder has an excellent answer to this objection in his article “Who Judges the Judge? Psalm 82” in the volume The Old Testament Yesterday and Today: Essays in honor of Michael P.V. Barrett, pp. 153ff. His argument is that these unjust judges became arrogant to the point of thinking they were superhuman (pp. 176ff). So the stricture in verse 7 says that they have not progressed or evolved beyond humanity nearly as much as they think they have.

A further objection to the divine council interpretation is the ignorance ascribed in verse 5. This seems unlikely on a divine council interpretation (see Bauder, 177).

Despite Heiser’s attempts to reboot the divine council interpretation of Psalm 82 on a footing independent of the history of religions basis most liberal scholars used before, his case is ultimately unconvincing here.

3 Comments

“The Third Day He Rose Again from the Dead”

June 7, 2022 at 10:00 am (1 Corinthians, Apostles' Creed, Christology, Jesus, John, Philippians)

posted by R. Fowler White

As we continue to work our way through the Apostles’ Creed, examining its articles in the light of Scripture, we come now to Article 5: The third day He rose again from the dead.

There is no doubt that this is what Scripture teaches. Moreover, this is what the church of Jesus Christ, following Scripture, has confessed throughout its history. That is, with Scripture, the true church continues to confess that Christ really and truly did rise from the dead, and in rising His soul was really and truly reunited with His body, inasmuch as the two had been separated at death. He really and truly did come out of His tomb in which He had been buried, despite the steps that the Roman guards had taken to make the tomb secure. He rose again the same Person, the same Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man—only now glorified! The same body, the one that had fallen victim to death and burial, rose again—only now it was a glorious body (Phil 3:21).

The particular phrase that the Creed uses to affirm Christ’s resurrection is noteworthy: He rose again. Elsewhere we read that He was raised again. What’s the difference? The Creed’s word choice puts an emphasis on Christ’s power to rise from the dead, to raise His body from the grave. In other words, the Creed bears witness that Christ rose again from the dead because Scripture teaches that, as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26). In this connection, we remember that Jesus had declared, speaking of His body: Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days (John 2:19). He had also proclaimed: I have authority to lay down My life, and I have authority to take it up again (John 10:18).

It’s equally noteworthy that the Creed specifies that Jesus Christ rose again on the third day. The Apostles’ gospel (e.g., 1 Cor 15:4), to which the Creed bears witness, was (and is) not a novelty. The resurrection that they preached and documented was the NT fulfillment of the promises of God in the OT Scriptures. Moses, the Prophets after him, and the Psalms testified that the Christ would suffer and rise again from death on the third day. Strikingly, Scripture provides many pictures (foreshadowings) of resurrection, including birth from barrenness, return from exile, release from a death sentence, release from prison, deliverance from the waters of death, deliverance from thirst, hunger, sickness; deliverance from the sting of the viper, and the raising up of a fallen tabernacle. In the places where we find these themes, we find that life comes from death after three days, on the third day. The Apostles’ gospel, then, was the OT gospel. 

So what difference does Christ’s resurrection make? How does it benefit us? First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, so that believers share in the righteousness that He obtained for them by His death. In other words, through faith, God reckons to sinners Christ’s righteousness in exchange for our sins. By Christ’s resurrection, God our Judge declares: “Debt paid in full!” And not only that. By Christ’s resurrection our Divine Judge declares to us who believe: “Accepted as righteous in Christ; in Him you have all the righteousness I require.” Second, by His power we are raised up to live a new life of obedience to God. United to the resurrected Christ by faith, we have been raised from death in sins to a new life of seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Third, Christ’s bodily resurrection is to us believers God’s sure pledge of our own glorious bodily resurrection. Christ is the firstfruits of those who have died (1 Cor 15:20), the first one to have been raised from the dead to die no more. Christ is God’s down payment in guarantee of more to come, the assurance of a full harvest. For believers, then, their resurrection is as sure as Christ’s resurrection. Particularly as believers get older, the more they appreciate God’s pledge of their own resurrection, a pledge that holds true because Christ is the firstfruits of the full resurrection-harvest to come.

Of course, our pagan culture is flooded with skepticism of the miraculous, particularly about the resurrection of Christ. Yet we forget that the original skeptics of His resurrection were His first disciples. Some folks like to portray them as a gullible, superstitious group that simply took resurrection as a given. But that portrait is fake news. For example, the NT Gospel writers make a considerable effort to show their readers that Jesus’ earliest followers did not go to His tomb believing in His resurrection or presuming His resurrection. No, they went to His tomb with spices because they expected to find a decaying dead body there. There was no hint that they anticipated His resurrection. In fact, it was a surprise to them. Now don’t get me wrong: the resurrection of Jesus should not have been the surprise to His disciples that it was. After all, what they found at His tomb was exactly what He had predicted on at least six different occasions. In fact, what they found at the sepulchre was exactly what they had been told they would find and what they could and should have remembered and expected. But they did neither of these things. In truth, so-called “Doubting Thomas” turned out to represent, to some degree, all of Jesus’ earliest followers when he said: Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.

The point is, Jesus’ initial followers became convinced of His resurrection as God bore witness to them in word and deed and as they saw Him, heard Him, and touched Him (1 John 1:1-3). The first followers of Jesus became what they were not at first. They became eyewitnesses of His resurrection. This is why the message of the Apostles, documented in the Scriptures, is what it is. Of the resurrected Christ, the Apostles all ended up confessing with Thomas, My Lord and my God! Readers and hearers of Scripture, then, are not expected to be gullible. No, they are expected to take seriously what the historic church of Christ persists in confessing forthrightly with the Apostles’ Creed, following the Scriptures of the Prophets and the Apostles: the third day Jesus Christ rose again from the dead.

Our meditations turn to Article 6 of the Creed here.

1 Comment

Eschatology Outlines: No. 7D Interpreting Rev 20:4-6

November 22, 2021 at 4:35 pm (Difficult Scripture, Eschatology, John, Revelation)

Posted by R. Fowler White

In an earlier post, I indicated that my aim here is to point the way to an interpretation of Rev 20:1-6 that takes full account of what we know from Scripture about God’s combat with beasts and His building work. While appreciating the work of many others, my approach at this moment is to apply the biblical themes of “victory over the dragon followed by house building” to the interpretation of this controversial passage. Since I’ve applied the combat theme to help in understanding Rev 20:1-3, we’ll turn to Rev 20:4-6 in this post.

I. The overall context of 20:1–21:8—Recall what we said before: the sequence of visions in this passage twice repeats the pattern of “victory followed by house [temple] building.”

A. 20:1-3, capture of the serpent = victory over the serpent

B. 20:4-6, first resurrection = temple building

C. 20:7-10, death of the serpent = victory over the serpent

D. 20:11–21:8, resurrection = temple building

Having applied the victory theme to the interpretation of Rev 20:1-3, we can turn to Rev 20:4-6 and the theme of temple (house) building.

II. Rev 20:4—Here we find a vision of that session of the Divine Council in which the heavenly court is authorized to avenge the blood of the martyred saints who, with the living saints (see Rev 20:9), had been built into God’s kingdom-city-encampment of priests through their participation in the first resurrection.

III. Rev 20:5—In this verse John distinguishes the first resurrection from the (second) resurrection in Rev 20:12-13. He makes the distinction by identifying the non-Christian dead as participants only in the (second) resurrection and the Christian dead as the only participants in the first resurrection. In other words, Rev 20:5 is profoundly important: it instructs us readers not to confuse the first resurrection, in which Christians are the only participants, with the (second) resurrection, in which non-Christians and Christians are both participants.

Some interpreters claim that Christians have no part in the resurrection of the dead in Rev 20:13, but they must then explain what Rev 20:5 contributes to this context where two resurrections are presented. We cannot say that because only Christians take part in the first resurrection, they have no part in the second. Nor can we say that because non-Christians take part only in the (second) resurrection, Christians do not take part in it. For either of these statements to be true, we must establish that both resurrections deliver from physical death—and the evidence for such a claim is lacking.

IV. Rev 20:6—A beatitude for the Christian dead. Here we notice that the blessings that belong to those who take part in the first resurrection are described elsewhere as the benefits of Christ’s redeeming work applied to believers before they die.

A. The first phrase of the beatitude: “the second death has no power over them.” According to Rev 20:12-15; 21:8, 27; and 22:15, the second death has power over the resurrected dead who died in bondage to their sins. To say, then, that “the second death has no power” over those who take part in the first resurrection is simply to say that Christ has freed them from their sins by His blood (1:5). In other words, such freedom is a benefit of redemption indisputably applied to believers before they die. To put this truth in the words of Rev 20:4, we say that God’s heavenly court will avenge those who had come to life in the first resurrection and had thereby been freed from the second death’s power, for Christ had freed them from their sins by His blood.

B. The second and third phrases of the beatitude—“they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years”—also reaffirm benefits of Christ’s work applied elsewhere to believers before they die.

1. The beatitude affirms truths that are the equivalent of “he has made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” in Rev 1:6 and of “you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” in Rev 5:10. The beatitude, together with the new song of 5:10, doesn’t merely view the kingdom as future from the vantage point of the believer’s death. Nor does it view the kingdom’s reign as future from standpoint of the believer’s resurrection from the dead. Rather, the beatitude views the kingdom’s reign as certain from the standpoint of its establishment with Christ’s redemption of many from their sins and from the second death (5:9; 1:5).

2. Because the kingdom is established by Christ’s redemptive work, we may say both that the redeemed will reign in glory on the new earth (Rev 22:5) and that they will reign now on this earth and in heaven, even as Christ Himself has been doing (Heb 2:10, 13a). Still, it is fair to ask, how do the redeemed reign now? They reign now on earth by persevering in faith despite suffering and death. They also reign after death in heaven as they rest in glory from their earthly labors. Again, to put these things in the words of Rev 20:4, we affirm that Heaven’s court will avenge those who had come to life had reigned with Christ for a thousand years, for He had made them a kingdom of priests to His God and Father.

V. Death, resurrection, and temple in the Gospel of John

It is instructive to see the harmony between the Revelation to John and the Gospel of John as it relates the topics of death, resurrection, and temple.

A. John 2:13-22: In this text, John the Evangelist, who is author of the Revelation, portrays Jesus’ death and resurrection as the destruction and construction of the true temple. The death and resurrection of those united with Jesus should be interpreted similarly. That is, the death and resurrection of those in Jesus is the destruction and construction of a temple. In the resurrection of Jesus and the first resurrection (from the second death) and the resurrection (from death) of those in Him, something better than the temple is here.

B. John 5:24-29: Notice here that Jesus speaks of two resurrections, not one. First comes the spiritual resurrection, then the physical resurrection.

1. There is a resurrection in an hour that now is, 5:24-25: it is now ongoing and is seeing the Son’s own raised from spiritual death to spiritual life.

2. There is another resurrection at the last day (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:54), in an hour that is to come, 5:28-29. That resurrection will, in the future, raise “all who are in the tombs” from physical death: some to everlasting life, others to everlasting death.

3. Relevance of this point to the two resurrections of Rev 20:4–21:8

a. Participation in the first resurrection from the second death (20:4-6) is the building of the church as the spiritual temple.

b. Participation in the resurrection from death (20:12-13) is the building of the church as the physical temple-city (21:2-3, 9-27).

c. Note: Whether we interpret the first resurrection as spiritual or physical, the concept of resurrection as a divine building project in John’s theology should tell us that the first resurrection marks the building of a holy place.

Certainly, much more could be said. Not least we could show how the victory and house building themes appear in Ezekiel 36–48 and are used by John to help us understand the reimagined depiction of Christ’s work between His two comings and at His second coming and beyond in the visions of Rev 20:4–21:8. All this works together to inspire our confidence in our Lord Christ’s purpose and power to triumph over His enemies and ours as He works invincibly to finish His redemptive mission and to establish His righteous rule. For now, we’ll settle for noticing that when it comes time for the Heavenly Court of God to avenge the saints, martyred or living, those saints will have been built into God’s temple-kingdom-city-encampment through their participation in the first resurrection.

Eschatology Outlines: No. 7E More on Interpreting Rev 20:4-6

2 Comments

Jesus, Judas, and Leaven in 1 Cor 5:6-13

December 29, 2020 at 6:30 pm (1 Corinthians, Church, Discipline, John, OT-Exodus, Sacraments)

Posted by R. Fowler White

While reading L. Michael Morales’s terrific new book, Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP, 2020), a few thoughts came to mind in reaction to his discussion of the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread in Exod 12 and of Paul’s linking of our Passover celebration with “leaven removal” by church discipline in 1 Cor 5:6-13. Specifically, I wondered if we could see in the NT how Jesus complied with the feast regulations given by Moses in Exod 12. In this light, I turned to the accounts of the celebrations of those feasts in the book of Exodus and in the Gospels and then back to 1 Cor 5.

Looking through the regulations for observing those feasts in Exod 12, the Passover feast and the Unleavened Bread feast were scheduled back to back, and they were usually regarded as one. To keep the Passover observance, the people of the OT church were called to remove all traces of leaven from their houses. Then, to keep the Unleavened Bread ordinance, they would eat only unleavened bread. Underlining the gravity of these ordinances, the OT church was also to remove from their midst those who did not remove leavened bread from their houses (12:15, 19). In the latter feast in particular, God signified the new life with Him that His people should live after their exodus from Egypt. As Ryken puts it, “In spiritual terms, the last thing He wanted them to do was to take a lump of dough from Egypt that would eventually fill them with the leaven of idolatry. … God wanted to do something more than get His people out of Egypt; He wanted to get Egypt out of His people.” Thus, they were not just to eat unleavened bread; they were to be an unleavened people.

Understandably, in the Apostle’s eyes, these conjoined feasts prefigured the church’s life: the Christian Passover (1 Cor 5:7) and its recurring celebrations (1 Cor 11:26) were to be matched by ongoing celebration of the new Unleavened Bread feast (1 Cor 5:7-8). In other words, in addition to dining at the Lord’s Table, the NT congregation was to be an unleavened people living an unleavened life of purity and integrity. And, significantly, for the NT church to keep the feasts faithfully, Paul points out that their duty is what the OT church’s duty was: as an unleavened people (5:7), they were to clean out the leaven from their midst (5:7), including those who neglected that duty in their own lives (5:11-13).

Formative as the OT was for the NT church’s life, it stands to reason that Jesus’ own (final) celebration of the Passover/Unleavened Bread feasts was an example for His church. From the Gospel accounts, we’re justified in concluding that the Evangelists wished to document not only the institution of the Lord’s Supper but also how Jesus complied with the feast regulations given by Moses. We’re told, for instance, that as Jesus was preparing for His own exodus (Luke 9:31) to go back to His Father (John 13:1, 3), He had sent Peter and John to prepare the feasts to be celebrated (Matt 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13). Since we’re told nothing to the contrary, we rightly suppose that the meal and the house with the Upper Room were both prepared as required. In fact, two Evangelists say that they found the room furnished and ready (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12), and doubtless readiness would include the removal of all leaven and leavened bread. Yet, as Exod 12:15, 19 had alerted us, cleaning out the leaven for the feast would not and could not stop there, but would extend to the feast participants themselves.

Strikingly, as Jesus cleans the Twelve’s feet, He effectively fences the Table, announcing that one of them is unclean (John 13:6-11; cf. John 18:28). The identity of Judas the betrayer was hidden from all but Jesus. When Jesus disclosed the betrayer’s presence at the Table, none of them so much as looked at Judas, much less said, “Lord, is it Judas?” Like his father the devil, he was a deceiver and an accomplice to murder. Knowing His betrayer’s identity, however, Jesus has to comply with God’s requirements and clean out the leaven of hypocrisy, theft, and greed (Mark 8:15; John 12:4-5) from the house. Having exposed him as unfit for the feast, Jesus tells Judas to leave, and in a tragically ironic replay of the first Passover, he goes out quickly, even immediately (John 13:27, 30; cf. Exod 12:11, 33) into the night (John 13:30; cf. Exod 12:12, 31, 42). Exiting as he does, Judas self-identifies as one who walks by night and stumbles because the light is not in him (John 11:10); he is a child “of the night [and] darkness” (1 Thess 5:5). Be that as it may, what Jesus did at His own final feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread was what His Apostle instructs the church to do in 1 Cor 5:6-13. Having removed the leaven of Judas from the fellowship of His Table, Jesus had acted so as not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a person. Even on the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus acted so that those who ate at His Table would not just eat unleavened bread, but be an unleavened people.

1 Comment

Jesus Wrote With His Finger

July 5, 2020 at 12:17 pm (Christology, Difficult Scripture, Jesus, John, Mosaic Law)

Posted by R. Fowler White

John 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” [NASB95]

As we see above, the Evangelist reports that, when Jesus was responding to the accusers of the woman caught in adultery, He stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. … Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground (vv 6, 8). If you agree as I do with those who affirm the historicity of John 7:53–8:11 (even though ancient manuscripts and our English translations aren’t sure where it should appear in the NT text), we’ve all had to puzzle over those two statements in verses 6 and 8. We want to know: what did Jesus write with His finger?

Yes, there are texts in “the Law Moses commanded” (v 5) that applied to the woman and her accusers (e.g., Exod 23:1b; Lev 20:10; Deut 17:7; 22:22–24). It makes really good sense to say that those passages are at least relevant parts of this episode’s backdrop. Perhaps Jesus wrote out a quotation taken from among them. It remains, however, that the Evangelist tells us not one word of what Jesus wrote. So, we keep asking: since we’re not told what Jesus wrote, what is the narrator’s point? I have a suggestion, but it has to be only tentative since I haven’t found a presentation or defense of it yet in the commentaries (not least because they skip over the passage as inauthentic to the Gospel of John). If you have seen it somewhere (and especially if you’ve seen it developed better than it is here), please don’t hesitate to let us know.

I suggest that the Evangelist’s point is not what Jesus wrote, but that Jesus wrote and did so with His finger. The act itself might be seen, then, as an acted-out, unspoken reminder that “the Law Moses commanded” was written by the very finger of God (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10). Yet further, the fact that Jesus wrote with His finger was arguably tantamount to saying, “That Law cited by you scribes and Pharisees? It was My finger that wrote it.” For the narrator, it was the act itself that was revealing. After all, in keeping with the unfolding historical-canonical context, that finger was the very finger of God incarnate. In that light, we readers can recognize in Jesus’ act a pointed disclosure of His identity as God the Son to whom God the Father has committed all judgment (John 5:22-23, 27). In reporting, therefore, that (not what) Jesus wrote on the ground with His finger, the Evangelist wants his readers to know that Jesus is the Judge who frames His declarations and His questions to bring conviction of sin, to stir the conscience. His is the word that discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart, not just to punish but also to seek and save that which is lost. Writing on the ground with His finger, Jesus made known that He is the Judge who will punish or pardon all who appear before Him (cf. John 5:28-29), whether they appear as offenders, like this woman caught in adultery, or as accusers, like these scribes and Pharisees, who in passing judgment on others condemned themselves. 

16 Comments

A Chronology of Jesus

November 19, 2015 at 9:01 am (Biblical Theology, Instructing the Body, Jesus, John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, New Testament, Pictures)
Tags: , ,

(Posted by Paige)

In a bid to enhance biblical literacy in our congregation, I’ve dabbed many a brushstroke onto the walls of one room in our building to provide our Bible teachers with enormous maps and timelines to illustrate their lessons. I’ve just embarked on the most complex of the timelines, an attempt to sort out the events of Jesus’ ministry years into more-or-less chronological order; but I’m finding that I need to do some homework here before I commit myself in acrylics. Maybe some of you redemptive-history buffs can help.

First off, where do we get the idea that Jesus’ ministry was three years long? Is this simply implied in his parable about the barren fig tree in Luke 13:7 – “Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none”?

Second, have any of you ever seen a decent attempt to harmonize the events in the Synoptics with Jesus’ several visits to Jerusalem as described in John? I’m thinking of grouping the events from the Synoptics above the timeline, and adding the punctuation of the holiday visits to Jerusalem from John’s account below it.

Not to mention the Lazarus event – am I correct to read this as the unnamed catalyst that turned Jesus southward from Galilee towards Jerusalem late in the Synoptic accounts? (Though John maybe implies that Jesus was in Perea just prior to that cataclysmic miracle – “He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing at first, and there he remained,” Jn. 10:40. So was he in Galilee or Perea when the message reached him [Jn. 11:6,“he stayed in the place where he was”]?)

I realize that the best we can do here is make educated guesses, so I’m hoping that some of your education in this area exceeds mine. Thanks in advance for your expertise!

If you’d like to see some of the murals from our Chart Room, check out the wall of my biblical literacy site. I have yet to figure out how to photograph the 20-foot timeline of redemptive history, but you can at least take a look at the maps. (The full-map JPEGs work great as Power Point slides, by the way – so I take my walls with me when I teach elsewhere! You’re welcome to borrow them too, if you’d like.)

10 Comments

John 1:15-18

March 23, 2015 at 10:48 am (John)

15-16. Hutcheson argues that this passage (through verse 18 actually) tells us of the magnificence of Christ; that He has more magnificence than John (15), believers (16), Moses (17), and all men (18). Godet says that v. 16 is grace, v. 18 is truth, and v. 17 connects grace to truth.

15. Morris notes that “People were humble about their own generation and really thought that their fathers were wiser than they—incredible as this may sound to our generation.” John therefore indicates here a reversal of the normal pattern. The word “testifies” is in present tense, indicating that this doctrine is still in full force (Calvin). Ryle notes that it was John’s habitual testimony. Lenski calls this verse a riddle (not in the sense of incomprehensible, but in the sense of the form of a riddle). “The one who came after me has stepped ahead of me” (Augustine). Beasley-Murray notes that the status accords with priority in time. John understood Christ’s pre-existence. Some people tend to think ill of John’s level of knowledge, but John did know this (Ryle). Plainly the last clause of the riddle explicitly states the pre-existence of Christ. Christ is both before and after John, and therefore ranks higher than John.

16. Is John the Baptist still speaking, or is this John the evangelist? Who is the “we?” Probably the congregation (Bultmann).The “all” hints at the infinite resources (Morris). On the phrase “Grace for grace,” does John mean NT vs. OT, or grace piled on top of grace? Given verse 17, the former is more likely, as long as vs 17 is not understood in an adversarial way. Actually, both could be understood together. Keddie says that the grace acts “Like waves of the sea.” Kostenberger notes “It is as though, when the incarnation finally arrived, full of covenant love, the OT stood up and cheered.”

17-18. The connection of the two verses is well stated by Augustine: “And in case anyone should say, ‘Did not both grace and truth come about through Moses, who saw God?’ he immediately added, no one has ever seen God.” Moses did not have the law in and of himself, but Jesus does have grace and truth in and of Himself (Bengel).

17. Notice the contrast between “given” and “came” (Tasker). Carson says that there is nothing in this verse that requires antithesis. Schnackenburg notes the eschatological character of salvation pointed out in this verse. The revelation of Christ surpassed that of Moses because Moses did not really see God. Only Jesus has seen God (Kruse).

18. The first phrase of this verse “denies that God is directly accessible to men. At the same time it assumes that it is natural for man to wish to see God and to be able to approach him” (Bultmann). Only God can reveal God (Lindars). On the “bosom” of the Father: “So intimately close to the Father that He is reliably informed about the decisions of His Father’s heart” (Luther). Bultmann says it this way: “it stresses the absoluteness and sufficiency of the revelation, because the Revealer as the Son of the divine love stands in perfect communion with the Father.” Note the word “exegesato.” It means “narration” or “exegesis.” Jesus is the “exegesis” of the Father. He explains the Father to us.

2 Comments

John 1:14

January 28, 2015 at 11:43 am (John)

Whole Verse: Notice the contrast with verse 1: “WAS in the beginning” versus “became”; “God” versus “flesh”; “With God” versus “among us” (Schaff, in Lange, p. 71). Pink has a very helpful comment on the verse as a whole:

Verse 14 is really an explanation and amplification of verse 1. there are three statements in each which exactly correspond, and ht elatter throw light on the former. First, “in the beginning was the word,” and that is something that transcends our comprehension; but “and the word became flesh” brings him within reach of our sense. Second “and the word was with God,” and again we are unable to understand; but the Word “tabernacled among us,” and we may draw near and behold. Third, “and the word was God,” and again we are in the realm of the Infinite; but “full of grace and truth,” and here are two essential facts concerning God which come within the range of our vision (Pink, p. 42)

Chrysostom says “God’s own Son was made the Son of men so that he might make the sons of men the sons of God.” “He who was the express image of the Father should be the repairer of the image of God in us” (Hutcheson).

“And the Word became flesh” This phrase would astonish the Greek (Burge). The word “became” implies pre-existence (Barnes). O’Day says that this is the first time the word “become” has been used of the Logos (previously, it was only “was,” this is the indicator that the Logos has moved from the eternal to the temporal). The term “flesh” is not corrupt flesh, but mortal man (Calvin). Yet, it is still a synechdoche for the whole of human nature (Calvin). Remember, whatever is not assumed is not healed (Gregory of Nazianzen). Why the term “flesh” then? Schaff answers, “Of all the words which express human nature, John chooses the meanest and most contemptible, viz.: flesh, which, in the O.T., denotes the lower, perishing, corruptible part of man; but even this the Logos did not despise, and thus He became man in the fullest sense of the term” (in Lange). This does not mean “changed” into flesh, but rather took on a new existence in a new form, or “added” a new nature. As Calvin says, “The Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still continues to be that eternal Speech who had no beginning of time.” Practical benefit is clear in Luther’s answer to Satan, “I am a Christian, of the same flesh and blood as my Lord Christ, the Son of God. You settle with Him, devil!”

“And tabernacled among us” This phrase would astonish the Jew (Burge, p. 59).“And the Son of God thus incarnate is the trysting place wherein sinners may draw near unto, and meet with God, as of old they sought him in the tabernacle” (Hutcheson). Note also that the body is the habitation of pilgrims (Hutcheson). Michaels notes that this world is not the home of the Logos, but is rather a “home away from home.” Henry says, “That as of old God dwelt in the tabernacle of Moses, by the shechinah between the cherubim, so now he dwells in the human nature of Christ; that is now the true shechinah, the symbol of God’s peculiar presence.” Even further, the “among us” implies that the disciples were also part of this tabernacle (Lange).

“And we beheld His glory” Almost certainly a reference to the Transfiguration (Barnes). Don’t forget that Peter wanted to make some tents for them. Maybe his thought was better than he knew!

“Glory as of the Unique One from the Father” The word “as” does not express inappropriate comparison, but rather true and hearty approbation (Calvin). Hutcheson is even clearer: “for ‘as’ here is not a note of similitude or likeness, as when we say of a beggar, he goeth as (or like) a king, but a note of suitableness, as when we say of a king, he goeth as (or as becometh) a king.” The word “monogenes” implies that Jesus’ Sonship is unique (as opposed to Israel, Keener), and is the ground of our sonship (Hengstenberg, p. 46). Lincoln notes the background of this term as being that honor and glory was tied to lineage, and an only son would have an incomparably privileged status in the family. As Köstenberger says, “This designation also provides the basis for Jesus’ claim that no one can come to the Father except through him (14:6).”  Schaff is helpful: “The term refers back to ‘children of God,’ verse 12, and marks the difference between Christ and the believers: 1. He is the only Son in a sense in which there is no other; they are many; 2. He is Son from eternity; they become children in time; 3. He is Son by nature; they are made sons by grace and by adoption; 4. He is of the same essence with the Father; they are of a different substance” (in Lange).

“Full of grace and truth” That the coming of God would not be a source of anxiety, but a source of salvation.

1 Comment

John 1:9-13

January 22, 2015 at 12:31 pm (John)

9-13. John’s Gospel is a Gospel of rejection. The foundational irony is that Jesus came to the very people expecting Him, and they rejected Him (Köstenberger). We might have expected the opposite: that the Jews would not have shared Jesus with the world. The great tragedy is their rejection of Him (Lenski). It is better to be the poorest child of God than the richest child of Abraham.

9. The word “true” is probably contrasted with the imperfect light of John the Baptist (Barrett). The word “gives light to” can also mean “expose” or “reveal.” This does not mean what the Quakers said it was (some kind of inner light of revelation). Rather, the true Light divides the race (Carson). The phrase “coming into the world” is to be taken with the Light, not with “man.” It is the light coming into the world in this verse, not man coming into the world.

10-11. Isaiah 1:2-3 is a good commentary here: nature knows God, but the people do not.

10. The first two clauses of the verse refer to the time before the Incarnation. The point, then, of verses 9-10 is that both before and after the Incarnation, there was both light and the rejection of light. The bare fact of the Incarnation is not enough to prevent people from rejecting the light. We are not saved by the Incarnation of Christ alone, as important as that doctrine is. “Knowledge” is another important theme in John’s Gospel. Knowledge of God, of course, does not refer merely to knowing things about God, but includes also knowing Him personally. Cf. the biblical use of a husband “knowing” his wife. Not knowing means rejection (Lenski).

11. The first “His own” refers to His own possessions, which could refer either to the entire world, or to the land of Israel. “His own people,” however, refers most definitely to the Jews, who rejected Him. This would favor the latter interpretation for the first “His own.”

12. There is always a remnant (Carson). “Believing in the name” means believing in that person (Morris). The word for “power” means “right” or “authority.” Now this does not refer merely to a possibility being created, but refers to a change in the person.

13. The three negations have in common human agency. The Jews would be the group most likely to see bloodlines and human agency as what constitutes us as children of God (see especially chapter 8). It is probable that John has in mind here an allusion (not explicit) to the Virgin Birth, such that our spiritual births follow the pattern of Christ’s physical birth in being initiated and empowered by God alone, quite apart from any human agency (Barrett). The first negation probably refers to bloodlines (plural for the father and mother). The second negation seems to refer to the sexual urge. The third negation refers to any possible human volition. Chapter 3, of course, is the big commentary on being born of God, which happens through regeneration and adoption. We can then truly say “Our Father.”

2 Comments

John 1:6-8

November 14, 2012 at 5:25 pm (John)

Verses 6-8 as a whole: Keddie notes the importance of fanfare to the introduction of heads of state. This is Jesus’ fanfare: the ministry of John the Baptist. This passage introduces us to the forerunner of Jesus Christ. Godet well describes the connection to verse 5: “There appeared a man…,” can only be thus mentioned with the design of giving through history the proof of the thought declared in ver. 5.” The outline of the passage is given by Dodd (quoted in Boice): 1. John is not the Light; 2. John was sent to bear witness about the Light so that 3. all might believe through him. This is the outline of John’s testimony in the rest of chapter 1: verses 19-28- John is not the light; 2. verses 29-34- John points to the Light; 3. verses 35-51- John’s witness produces the first disciples. Note also the contrast between John the Baptist and the Word (see Hendriksen, p. 76): “was” verses “came;” “Word” versus “man;” “is God” versus “commissioned by God;” “is the real light” versus “testifying about the light;” “is the object of trust” versus “being the agent through whose testimony people might come to trust God.” The Word is the truth, but it becomes known to us through witnesses (Keener). Note the differences between the John of John’s Gospel and the John of the Gospels: his sole task was witnessing, in the eyes of the apostle John (McHugh). Luther writes: “It has always been the world’s misfortune to be infested with wiseacres and smart alecks, self-styled lights who explore their own way to heaven and presume to be the lights of the world, to teach it, and lead it to God. John warns against this.” This passage shows the immense important of the ministerial office, and yet also its limitations (Schaff). Ministers aren’t doing their job unless they point to Christ.

6. The verb “there came” has as its prime significance the fact that it places John’s ministry among those “all things” that have come about through the Word (McHugh). It is a continuation of the plan of creation (Michaels). The fact that John was sent is the main thing behind the significance of John. This word has in its focus a specific task, and the idea of authority of the (divine!) sender is also present (McHugh). This also establishes his credentials (Keddie). He was sent as a forerunner. Of course, he was the first prophet that God had sent in quite a long time (Godet). Hengstenberg notes that the name of John is significant here (the Lord is gracious). From the other gospels we know that his testimony started even in the womb (Origen).

7. John’s sphere of concern narrows here from all creation to the world of humanity (Brown). The concept of witness is exceptionally important to John. In fact, the entirety of John’s Gospel could be viewed as a trial narrative. The idea of a witness is that it is competent testimony concerning firsthand experience (Lenski). There is also the idea of commitment: a witness commits himself to a certain interpretation of the events: no commitment, no witness (Morris). Schnackenburg notes that John sees all faith as a result of testimony. It is pathetic that the world would need to be told about the light. Only the blind have to be told that the sun is shining (Pink)! It is not Christ who needs human testimony, but rather the world’s darkness (Henry). Henry says, “John was like the night watchman that goes round the town, proclaiming the approach of the morning light to those that have closed their eyes, and are not willing themselves to observe it.” Bultmann notes that here it is simply the purpose of the witness that receives stress. Only later on will there be a discussion of its content. The world’s witnesses are only false witnesses. However, Jesus’ witnesses not only clear Jesus of any wrong-doing, but actually put the entire world under judgment (Painter, quoted in Keener). The Samaritan woman (4:39), the works of Jesus (5:36, 10:25), the Old Testament (5:39), the multitude (12:17), the Holy Spirit and the apostles (15:26ff), and God the Father Himself (5:37, 8:18) are all witnesses to the Christness of Jesus (Barrett). There are 7 witnesses, just as there are 7 signs and 7 “I Am” statements. There are also 7 discourses. Imagine then, the courtroom scene, with John calling his witnesses, one after another, in order to testify as to the status of Jesus Christ. This directly serves John’s purpose (20:31). John’s purpose in witnessing to Christ is that all might believe in Jesus through his testimony. Many authors have noted that since several of Jesus’ disciples came to faith through John the Baptist’s ministry, and also since John’s ministry prepared the way for Jesus’ ministry, it could, with only a little exaggeration, be said that all Christians can trace their spiritual ancestry through the ministry of John the Baptist (Tasker).

8. John’s witness to Christ is vitally important when it is recalled that many in that day thought that John was the light. John himself knew that he wasn’t the Light, and he was constantly bearing witness to the otherness of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus was the one true Light. John was a lamp, not the light (5:35). Hendriksen notes that Christ is the light whereas the Baptist is only the reflector. John is like the moon, whereas Jesus is like the sun. John the apostle was himself a disciple of John the Baptist at one time (Bernard). Hutcheson notes the importance of having a calling that is sent from God, and also that the minister’s job is to point out Christ, not to draw attention to themselves. Keddie notes that it is quite possible to follow the wrong man, even if that man is on the right track (Acts 18-19). All true possessors of the Holy Spirit function as witnesses to the grace of God, as John did (and as his name signified). Boice notes that “God regards your testimony as being important enough to be included among all those other monumental testimonies to the person and work of the glorious Lord Jesus Christ.” What are we doing as witnesses?

Leave a Comment

« Older entries