THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM
By
Jens Randolff
November 10, 2008
A Christian woman was once talking to a servant of Christ about the assurance of her safety in the Saviour and said, “I have taken a single ticket to Glory, and do not intend to come back.” Whereupon the man of God replied: “You are going to miss a lot. I have taken a return ticket, for I am not only going to meet Christ in Glory, but I am coming back with him in power and great glory to the earth.”
—Sunday School Times[1]
INTRODUCTION
Few issues have caused as much controversy and debate over the centuries as has the subject of the millennium, and it will unlikely be resolved in this life. Conservative theologians generally hold to one of the three major views with regard to eschatology: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. Those who use an allegorical method generally uphold an amillennial or postmillennial view, while those who apply a literal hermeneutic embrace a premillennial view.[2] Henceforth, the controversy surrounding the issue stems from one’s interpretation of Revelation 20:4, “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” and whether or not said statement should be understood literally or symbolically. The answer determines in part one’s doctrine of last things.[3]
With the closing of the apostolic age the early church fathers began to argue over the “chiliasm” (χιλιάς (chilias), άδος (ados), ἡ (hē): group of a thousand (Lk 14:31; Ac 4:4; 1Co 10:8; Rev 5:11; 11:13; 14:1)[4], the view of the literal “thousand–year” reign of Christ on earth.
That this issue would dominate much of the theological as well as doctrinal thought over the next three centuries is evidenced by the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. The literal or pre-millennial view, once dominant in the early church, was abandoned in favor of the amillennial view championed by the leaders of the Alexandrian school, including Clement (155–216) and Origen (around 185–254), who taught that the Bible is to be understood as an extended allegory.[5] However, it was not until Augustine standardized the amillennial view that the allegorical approach to interpretation of the scriptures was firmly established. It would be the generally accepted position for nearly twelve hundred years until the emergence of the postmillennial view in the 1700s.
It is the author’s intend to provide a general, unbiased overview of the definition, development, and scriptural support of these three positions. The author’s view will be expressed at the conclusion of this paper.
I. Amillennial View
A. Basic Premises:
The amillennial interpretation has been the major eschatological view of the Catholic Church since the time of Augustine and likely is the majority view of today’s church. Amillennialists tend to discard the promise of a literal thousand year kingdom on earth with Christ reigning on the throne. However, proponents of an amillennial or non-millennial view do not all come to a consensus as to how to arrive at this conclusion.
i) Some feel, as did Augustine, that the entire present age is the millennial kingdom and that God is reigning in the hearts of men who put their trust in Him. This, of course, does not provide any literal fulfillment of the millennial kingdom.
ii) Some hold that the millennial kingdom is being fulfilled in heaven through Christ’s spiritual reign over the earth. Often they do not consider the period a literal 1,000 years, and they minimize the literal meaning of the prophecies relating to it.
iii) More recently, some now hold that the Millennium will be fulfilled in the new heaven and new earth in eternity. Therefore, it does not need to be fulfilled now.[6]
B. Points of Strength:
Stanley Grenz, a premillennialist turned amillennialist writes:
“The kingdom of God is a transcendent reality that can be confused with no earthly kingdom prior to the final transformation of creation. No earthly city can ever hope to become the New Jerusalem, except through a radical transformation both of human nature itself and of the universe that through the Fall unwillingly participates in the human predicament.”[7]
Amillennialists are quick to point out that their position dates back to the early church, as evidenced in the epistle of Barnabas, who applied to the church the Old Testament promises given to Israel.[8] Amillennialists also hint that their position was, at least in part, the position of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and in modern times G. C. Berkouwer, Floyd E. Hamilton, Stanley Grenz, Anthony Hoekema, Louis Berkhof, William E. Cog, Abraham Kuyper, Stephen Travis, Leon Morris, Michael Wilcock, G. K. Beale and Philip Hughes, as well as many other noted scholars.
According to amillennialists “the end of the ages” (cf. 1 Cor 10:11) is progressing right now. Christ has set up his kingdom in the “Body of Christ”--the church. The first resurrection has already occurred through the gift of faith, which constitutes a spiritual rising from death to life. In support of this position Amillennialists cite such verses as John 3:34–35; 5:24; Romans 6:4–5, 13; Ephesians 2:5–6; Colossians 2:13; 3:1.[9]
C. Points of Weakness:
The problem with the amillennialism approach is that it does not provide an intelligent explanation of many passages in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, both of which teach a literal kingdom. This is true also of Revelation 20. Amillennialists claim that Revelation 20:1–6 applies to Christ’s first coming, not His second coming. Furthermore, they content that Satan is bound now and that Revelation 20:5 (those who ‘come to life’) does not refer to resurrected martyrs of the tribulation but rather to people in this age who are saved.
However, understanding Revelation 20:1–6 to refer to Christ’s first appearance lacks convincing scriptural support, because it ignores the sequence of events described in Revelation 19 and 20. Beginning in 19:11 a series of prophecies are given, which start with the Greek conjunction kai, translated “and.” The word “kai” occurs more than two dozen times in Revelation 19:11–20:15, which indicates a consecutive fulfillment of the prophesied events. There are many other examples, which will not be addressed here.[10]
II. Post-millennial View
A. Basic Premises:
i) Postmillennialism is the most recent of the three major millennial views. Although some elements of postmillennialism occurred earlier, Daniel Whitby (1638–1725) is usually considered the one who introduced postmillennialism. It became the predominant view of orthodoxy in the nineteenth century.
ii) Postmillennialism, like amillennialism, adopts a non-literal or figurative interpretation of prophecy. Postmillennialism has as its background the history of amillennialism, beginning in the third century, which established for many the concept that prophecy cannot be interpreted literally. Postmillennialism was influenced partly by the fact that the predictions of some amillennialists that Christ would come relatively soon did not materialize. Though it is not entirely clear, it seems that Augustine (A.D. 354) believed that Christ would return in A.D. 650, and that the Millennium had already begun before Christ was born. When Christ did not return in 650, some believed He would come in the year 1000, somewhat similar to the modern-day interest in the next millennium in the year 2000.
iii) Forerunners of Daniel Whitby included Joachim of Fiore (1132–1202), who thought that Christ would return shortly after a new age was established in 1260. However, as stated, Whitby gave the first comprehensive presentation of postmillennialism. Like amillennialists, he taught that Revelation 20:1–6 does not portray events following the Second Coming, but that the passage refers back to Jesus’ death in which He defeated Satan. The binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–3), then, occurred at the first coming of Christ, and verse 4 refers not to the resurrection of Tribulation martyrs but to the salvation of individuals in the present age.[11]
B. Points of Strength:
Postmillennial proponents see references to a “golden age” and the triumphant reign of Christ as being fulfilled before He returns. To support their position post-millennialists cite such passages as Psalms 2:8; 22:27; 47; 72; 86:9; Isaiah 2:2–4; 11:6–9; Jeremiah 31:34; Daniel 2:35, 44; and Micah 4:1–4.
Furthermore, those who adhere to a postmillennial view argue that since the Gospel is the power of God (Rom. 1:16), it is unfathomable how anyone could suggest that the world will not be converted. God wishes all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, to pray for these events to come about to pray in the will of God.[12]
C. Points of Weakness:
To build the kingdom on the premise of the first coming of Christ produces a theological error with serious ramifications with regard to the rule of Christ on earth as promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–16). To claim that Christ established the Davidic kingdom at His first advent requires a non-literal approach to the promises made to David, resulting in confusion between the church and the kingdom, as well as the danger of promoting kingdom ethics ahead of church ethics. Thus Christians are urged to live the kingdom here and now.
That mistake was made by some during the earthly life of Christ (Luke 19:11). The truth is that the messianic kingdom will be inaugurated at the second coming of Christ. At that time the promise made to Abraham and his descendants will be fulfilled (Gen. 15:18–21). Then the promise made to David that his descendant (Messiah) will sit on the throne of the kingdom forever will be fulfilled. Without a Millennium in which all these promises can be fulfilled, the promises have to be canceled for some reason or be fulfilled in Israel’s past or in the present non-literally.[13]
III. Pre-millennial View
A. Basic Premises:
There exist various interpretations with regard to a pre-millennial approach to eschatology. Among premillennialists who view the kingdom as following the second coming of Christ, there are three schools of thought: the historical, the dispensational and the soteriological view. However, for the purpose of this paper only the first two positions will be discussed:
i) Those who follow a historical fulfillment of the Book of Revelation, believe that some events of Revelation 6–18 are being fulfilled now. They hold that the Second Advent and the kingdom that follows are literal events and that the historic premillennialists see the church, rather than ethnic Israel, as prominent in the millennial period. However, according to this view, many of the events leading up to Revelation 6–18, have already been fulfilled.[14]
ii) The majority view among premillennialist, is that after the second coming of Christ the millennial kingdom will be the fulfillment of God’s theocratic program, as well as of the promise made to David that his kingdom and throne would continue forever over Israel. Furthermore, those who interpret the prophecies literally consider Christ to be the head of this theocracy, reigning supremely over the entire world for a literal one thousand years.
In addition, it is presumed that Israel is given a special role in the redemptive work of God in the end times, resulting in a restored millennial temple in Jerusalem complete with Levitical priests and animal sacrifices. This viewpoint is often referred to as the dispensational pre-millennial view, a literal kingdom on earth. The proponents of this view take into consideration the fact that Christ literally fulfills prophesies in Scripture concerning the kingdom on earth.[15]
B. Points of Strength:
The biblical, theological, and historical basis of premillennialism stands firm. Premillennialism is rooted in the knowledge that the Bible is based in God’s unconditional covenants with Abraham and David, thus pointing to a literal, political, earthly messianic kingdom. Jesus offered this kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected it; Jesus set up a spiritual kingdom of which the church is a part, anticipating the day when He will restore the political kingdom to Israel as promised. At His Second Coming (Rev. 19), Christ will establish a thousand-year reign (20), after which God will reign for all eternity in the new heaven and new earth (21–22). Denying this view fails any consistent application of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Consequently, the allegorical method, when applied to other Scripture, would undermine the whole of evangelical Christianity.[16]
C. Points of Weakness:
Opponents of the premillennial view claim that the major weakness of premillennialism is its lack of a firm biblical basis. They further state that while the second coming of Christ is certainly part of the gospel, the millennial reign of Christ is only hinted at in a few places. Thus, the need for interpreting Revelation 20 in the light of the wider Scriptures is preferred over interpreting the Scriptures through the lens of Revelation 20, as do most premillennialists.
In addition some opponents such as reformed theologian Adrio König content that premillennialism can be rightly criticized for entertaining an overly pessimistic view of world history, sometimes bordering on fatalism. König states:
“Chiliasts simply write off the world as incorrigible, painting a one–sided picture of total decay spreading over the entire world. Little room is left in their view for a gospel that includes the promise of victory—even in this life. So it is not strange that they fail to do justice to the coming of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus.”[17]
CONCLUSION
The author holds to the dispensational pre-millennial view for the following reasons:
The basic disagreement among the three proponents previously discussed is founded on whether one’s method of biblical interpretation is literal and allegorical. The author, upon comparing the different methods, finds the allegorical approach used by amillennialists and post-millennialists to be foundationally flawed.
The allegorical method of interpretation is based on an invalid hermeneutic for all true meaning is literal meaning, Henceforth, any allegorical (non-literal) method of interpretation presupposes a literal meaning; one cannot know what is non-literal without first establishing what is literal. For that reason alone an allegorical hermeneutic is self-defeating, lacks objective criteria, defies common sense, and is inconsistent as well as unbiblical.
On the other hand, the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation is supported by several factors:
First, “the renewal of all things” (Matt. 19:28) indicates it will be in the end times, not during Jesus’ years on earth.
Second, the word “tribes” (ibid.) with regard to Israel, is never used in any context other than a reference to literal tribes of people.
Third, sitting on a throne and judging Israel, which Jesus said He would do (John 12:48–49) is a prophetic (messianic) fulfillment.
Fourth, the prophecies in Daniel, when seen in a literal political context, foretells of a time when “the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever” (7:18; cf. v. 22).[18]
Furthermore, regarding the messianic kingdom, the following should be noted:
First, from Genesis to Revelation there are promises of a literal, political kingdom in which the Ruler (Messiah) will reign on earth.
Second, this kingdom was (1) promised in the Old Testament, (2) was presented by John the Baptist, and offered by Jesus, and His disciples to the Jews in the Gospels, (3) was rejected by the Jewish authorities, (4) was, in accord with God’s eternal plan, purposely delayed while bringing Gentiles into the new body (the church), (5) will be offered again by Jesus at His Second Coming, and (6) will be accepted by the Jewish nation and fulfilled in the Millennium (Rev. 20:1–6). To allegorize away these yet unfulfilled prophecies violates the literal, historical-grammatical biblical interpretation; if the same allegorical hermeneutic were applied to the rest of Scripture, it would undermine the foundation of the historic Christian faith.[19]
END NOTES
1. Paul Lee Ten, Encyclopaedia of 7700 Illustrations: A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers (Garland TX: Bible Communications, 1996, c1979).
2. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005), 547.
3. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1989), 380.
4. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997), DBLG 5942.
5. Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1352.
6. Ibid.
7. John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, Includes Indexes (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 624.
8. Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 214.
9. D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in The Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1945), 30-40.
10. Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 99.
11. Swindoll and Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology, 1352.
12. Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1351.
13. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999), 513.
14. Ibid, 591.
15. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN.: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Rev 19:11-21.
16. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 623.
17. Ibid, 595.
18. Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory, 93.
19. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things, 480.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloesch, Donald G. The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989.
Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005.
Gregg, Steve, ed. Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Kromminga, D. H. The Millennium in The Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.
________. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995, c1972.
Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997.
Swindoll, Charles R., and Roy B. Zuck. Understanding Christian Theology. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.
Ten, Paul Lee. Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers. Garland TX: Bible Communications, 1996, c1979.
Walvoord, John F. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Includes Indexes. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990.
Jan 22, 2009
The Issue Of Tongues Spoken on the Day of Pentecost
What kinds of tongues were being spoken at Pentecost? Were any of them unknown (so-called “heavenly”) languages?
The issue of the “speaking in tongues” has been hotly debated by individuals and across the various Christian denominations alike. Each side has offered its interpretation as well as evidence in defense of its position. However, no consensus has been reached as of yet, nor is it likely to occur in this life.
At the heart of the issue lies the interpretation of Acts 2:4. Two opinions exist regarding the nature of “tongues” or languages spoken by the disciples. One side argues that the believers were uttering unintelligible sounds, or heavenly languages and that the miracle lies in the Holy Spirit’s intervention on behave of the audience and their ability to understand the words spoken, “each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). The other side argues that the miracle lies in the ability of the disciples to speak in languages, which they had not previously known, “By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me, says the Lord.” (Isa. 28:11-12, NET)
No matter, which interpretation one holds to be correct, the purpose for the “sign,” which “utterly amazed” those present, was intended for the Jews. They had required a sign of Jesus, based on established precedents such as could be found in Exodus 4:8 and Isaiah 7:11. The Apostle Paul considered “tongues” (languages) to be a “sign” for unbelievers as stated in 1 Cor. 14:22, while interpreted tongues (heavenly languages), were for the edification of the church.[1] For this reason, we cannot equate the events of Pentecost with “tongue speaking” in the Corinthian church. The believers who spoke in other tongues at Pentecost did not speak for the edification of the church and the hearers did not need interpreters because they heard and were able to understand their own languages.[2]
The majority of evangelical scholars content that the tongues spoken on Pentecost were genuine languages not previously learned rather than the ecstatic sounds Paul addressed in his first epistle to the church in Corinth. (1 Cor. 14:1–12). Two major arguments in defense of said view are as follows: (1) the use of the word διάλεκτος [dialektos /dee·al·ek·tos/] in Acts 1:6 and 8, can only refer to a language or dialect. (2) Acts 2:5-12 specifically emphasizes the fact that people of different languages understood the message of the Apostles in their own language.
As previously mentioned, some maintain that the miracle in Acts 2 was one of hearing as well as speaking. However, such view is not supported by the text and fails to do justice to those who, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues. Nonetheless, “when people filled with the Holy Spirit proclaim the gospel, a supernatural ministry always takes place. When the hearers respond, a miracle of understanding certainly follows.”[3] The Christian who is filled with the Spirit becomes the Spirit’s mouthpiece. In the case of the believers in Jerusalem, they demonstrated that the Holy Spirit controlled and enabled them by speaking in “tongues.” While unbelievers dismissed the Pentecost miracle as the ramblings of drunks, three thousand believers repented, were baptized, and joined the church.[4] (Acts 2:41)
END NOTES:
1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary On The Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1989), Acts 2:2.
2. William G. MacDonald, “Glossolalia in The New Testament,” in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research On Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 134.
3. Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 25.
4. Simon J. Kistemaker, and William Hendriksen, vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of The Acts of The Apostles . Accompanying Biblical Text Is Author's Translation., New Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 78
Note:
Source of Greek translations: Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Commentary On The Bible. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1989.
Gangel, Kenneth O. Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen. Vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of The Acts of The Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
MacDonald, William G. “Glossolalia in The New Testament.” In Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research On Glossolalia. Edited by Mills, Watson E. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
The issue of the “speaking in tongues” has been hotly debated by individuals and across the various Christian denominations alike. Each side has offered its interpretation as well as evidence in defense of its position. However, no consensus has been reached as of yet, nor is it likely to occur in this life.
At the heart of the issue lies the interpretation of Acts 2:4. Two opinions exist regarding the nature of “tongues” or languages spoken by the disciples. One side argues that the believers were uttering unintelligible sounds, or heavenly languages and that the miracle lies in the Holy Spirit’s intervention on behave of the audience and their ability to understand the words spoken, “each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). The other side argues that the miracle lies in the ability of the disciples to speak in languages, which they had not previously known, “By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me, says the Lord.” (Isa. 28:11-12, NET)
No matter, which interpretation one holds to be correct, the purpose for the “sign,” which “utterly amazed” those present, was intended for the Jews. They had required a sign of Jesus, based on established precedents such as could be found in Exodus 4:8 and Isaiah 7:11. The Apostle Paul considered “tongues” (languages) to be a “sign” for unbelievers as stated in 1 Cor. 14:22, while interpreted tongues (heavenly languages), were for the edification of the church.[1] For this reason, we cannot equate the events of Pentecost with “tongue speaking” in the Corinthian church. The believers who spoke in other tongues at Pentecost did not speak for the edification of the church and the hearers did not need interpreters because they heard and were able to understand their own languages.[2]
The majority of evangelical scholars content that the tongues spoken on Pentecost were genuine languages not previously learned rather than the ecstatic sounds Paul addressed in his first epistle to the church in Corinth. (1 Cor. 14:1–12). Two major arguments in defense of said view are as follows: (1) the use of the word διάλεκτος [dialektos /dee·al·ek·tos/] in Acts 1:6 and 8, can only refer to a language or dialect. (2) Acts 2:5-12 specifically emphasizes the fact that people of different languages understood the message of the Apostles in their own language.
As previously mentioned, some maintain that the miracle in Acts 2 was one of hearing as well as speaking. However, such view is not supported by the text and fails to do justice to those who, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues. Nonetheless, “when people filled with the Holy Spirit proclaim the gospel, a supernatural ministry always takes place. When the hearers respond, a miracle of understanding certainly follows.”[3] The Christian who is filled with the Spirit becomes the Spirit’s mouthpiece. In the case of the believers in Jerusalem, they demonstrated that the Holy Spirit controlled and enabled them by speaking in “tongues.” While unbelievers dismissed the Pentecost miracle as the ramblings of drunks, three thousand believers repented, were baptized, and joined the church.[4] (Acts 2:41)
END NOTES:
1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary On The Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1989), Acts 2:2.
2. William G. MacDonald, “Glossolalia in The New Testament,” in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research On Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 134.
3. Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 25.
4. Simon J. Kistemaker, and William Hendriksen, vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of The Acts of The Apostles . Accompanying Biblical Text Is Author's Translation., New Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 78
Note:
Source of Greek translations: Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Commentary On The Bible. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1989.
Gangel, Kenneth O. Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen. Vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of The Acts of The Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
MacDonald, William G. “Glossolalia in The New Testament.” In Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research On Glossolalia. Edited by Mills, Watson E. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Understanding the Meaning of the Feast of Tabenacles
UNDERSTANDING THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES
To truly understand the Feast of Tabernacles, one must understand that Egypt symbolically represents a state of mind that is devoid of spiritual enlightenment. The Apostle John wrote in Revelation 11:8: "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Israel was spiritually dead (in “spiritual Egypt”) during the time of Christ’s ministry (Rom. 5:12-14; Matt. 8:22). John likened Israel to the Egyptian dead (Ex. 12:30) and the dead sacrifices on the altar in the tabernacle. By the tabernacle pattern, the dead bodies of sacrificed animals were found in the Court Round About with the altar for sin sacrifices and the water laver for washing.
Christ came on earth to fulfill (Mt. 5:17-18; Lk. 24:44-45) or bring to an end the Old Covenant, including the feasts, ceremonies, and sacrificial worship of God (Rom. 10:1-4) and to establish a New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). The Feast of Tabernacles is symbolic of Christ’s fulfilling of Prophesy. The Feast was supposed to remind Israel of how they dwelt in booths on their journey out of the land of Egypt yet, to Christians, it represents a universal principle of the human soul receiving the Holy Spirit and rejoicing at its revealed presence.
The sacrificial lambs and goats slain in Egypt during the Passover released Israel from captivity (Heb. 10:1-6) as Christ’s death released us from spiritual captivity. Israel’s physical migration from Egypt to the Promised Land is representative of the believer’s journey from spiritual darkness, bondage, and ignorance into knowledge of the Holy Spirit and eternal life (Rom. 12:2). What held Israel in bondage at the time of Jesus, were the religious teachers of Israel and the Law of Moses, which condemned them (Rom. 8:1-2). Christ’s death brought an end to the law and victory over sin, for He was the atoning sacrifice (Jn. 1:29).
Solomon’s temple, which was dedicated on the Feast of Tabernacles, is a picture of Christ’s body (2 Chr. 7:8-10). Jesus made the analogy of His body being a temple when He said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Jn. 2:18-21). During a later discourse at the temple, Jesus spoke of “living water.” The Jewish audience knew the religious rituals and ceremonies performed by the priests during this day, but they did not grasp the implication of Jesus’ mention of water. Of course, Christ did not speak of the water the priest dipped with a golden pitcher from the Pool Siloam and poured out at the base of the altar on the last day of the feast. Jesus analogy foretold of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost following His death and resurrection. His words of truth represented the “living water,” which is the Holy Spirit.
In closing, the end of harvesting represents the church of believers gathering resurrected souls together into one body in Christ (Lk. 10:2; Rev. 14:5). It is also symbolic of the harvesting or gathering of spiritual principles (Rom. 5:1-5) and applying them to tribulations as one goes through life. The gathering of knowledge of these principles adds strength to one's faith in the Holy Spirit.
Resources Consulted
Geisler, Norman L. ; Nix, William E.: A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago : Moody Press, 1996, c1986
Karleen, Paul S.: The Handbook to Bible Study : With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York : Oxford University Press, 1987
Richards, Larry ; Richards, Lawrence O.: The Teacher's Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1987, S. 727
Walvoord, John F.; Zuck, Roy B.; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985, 2:301
To truly understand the Feast of Tabernacles, one must understand that Egypt symbolically represents a state of mind that is devoid of spiritual enlightenment. The Apostle John wrote in Revelation 11:8: "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Israel was spiritually dead (in “spiritual Egypt”) during the time of Christ’s ministry (Rom. 5:12-14; Matt. 8:22). John likened Israel to the Egyptian dead (Ex. 12:30) and the dead sacrifices on the altar in the tabernacle. By the tabernacle pattern, the dead bodies of sacrificed animals were found in the Court Round About with the altar for sin sacrifices and the water laver for washing.
Christ came on earth to fulfill (Mt. 5:17-18; Lk. 24:44-45) or bring to an end the Old Covenant, including the feasts, ceremonies, and sacrificial worship of God (Rom. 10:1-4) and to establish a New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). The Feast of Tabernacles is symbolic of Christ’s fulfilling of Prophesy. The Feast was supposed to remind Israel of how they dwelt in booths on their journey out of the land of Egypt yet, to Christians, it represents a universal principle of the human soul receiving the Holy Spirit and rejoicing at its revealed presence.
The sacrificial lambs and goats slain in Egypt during the Passover released Israel from captivity (Heb. 10:1-6) as Christ’s death released us from spiritual captivity. Israel’s physical migration from Egypt to the Promised Land is representative of the believer’s journey from spiritual darkness, bondage, and ignorance into knowledge of the Holy Spirit and eternal life (Rom. 12:2). What held Israel in bondage at the time of Jesus, were the religious teachers of Israel and the Law of Moses, which condemned them (Rom. 8:1-2). Christ’s death brought an end to the law and victory over sin, for He was the atoning sacrifice (Jn. 1:29).
Solomon’s temple, which was dedicated on the Feast of Tabernacles, is a picture of Christ’s body (2 Chr. 7:8-10). Jesus made the analogy of His body being a temple when He said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Jn. 2:18-21). During a later discourse at the temple, Jesus spoke of “living water.” The Jewish audience knew the religious rituals and ceremonies performed by the priests during this day, but they did not grasp the implication of Jesus’ mention of water. Of course, Christ did not speak of the water the priest dipped with a golden pitcher from the Pool Siloam and poured out at the base of the altar on the last day of the feast. Jesus analogy foretold of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost following His death and resurrection. His words of truth represented the “living water,” which is the Holy Spirit.
In closing, the end of harvesting represents the church of believers gathering resurrected souls together into one body in Christ (Lk. 10:2; Rev. 14:5). It is also symbolic of the harvesting or gathering of spiritual principles (Rom. 5:1-5) and applying them to tribulations as one goes through life. The gathering of knowledge of these principles adds strength to one's faith in the Holy Spirit.
Resources Consulted
Geisler, Norman L. ; Nix, William E.: A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago : Moody Press, 1996, c1986
Karleen, Paul S.: The Handbook to Bible Study : With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York : Oxford University Press, 1987
Richards, Larry ; Richards, Lawrence O.: The Teacher's Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1987, S. 727
Walvoord, John F.; Zuck, Roy B.; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985, 2:301
Jan 21, 2009
THE IDENTITY OF “HE” IN DANIEL 9:27
THE IDENTITY OF “HE” IN DANIEL 9:27
By
Jens Randolff
December 11, 2008
And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.
Matthew 24:4-5, ESV
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
I.Why “he” is the antichrist
A.Basic Premise
i.Argument #1
ii.Argument #2
II.Why “he” is not the Christ
A.Basic Premise
B.Weakness
i.Issue #1
i.Issue #2
III.Why “he” is not Antiochus Epiphanes
A.Basic Premise
B.Weakness
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
My Thesis Statement: In this paper I intend to offer an answer to the question: “Who is the “he” of Daniel 9:27 and on what basis do you build your argument?”
INTRODUCTION
The identity of the individual of Daniel 9:27 referred to only as “he” has been the subject of great debate. As is the case with most prophesies concerning the issue of eschatology, there exist a number of varying interpretations. Some see the “he” to be Christ himself, others see here a reference to the antichrist, while still others identify the ”he” to be a conquering, dictatorial government.
This final seven-year period in Daniel’s seventy weeks is commonly known among futurist interpreters as the “Great Tribulation” because of the suffering and severe testing which is to be endured by those living on the earth at that time. Classical interpreters, however, see the initial fulfillment of Daniel’s prophetic sections in past historical events, with the ultimate fulfillment for many prophecies to be experienced in the end times.
This final period of the “times of the Gentiles” is projected by futurists to begin when “he” makes a covenant to protect Israel for a seven-year period (Is. 28:14–17). The first three and a half years (42 months; Rev. 13:1–5) will be known to the Jews as “the beginning of sorrows” (Matt. 24:8), as “he” gathers a coalition of nations under his might and persuasion (Rev. 13:3–5).
At mid-point of Daniel’s Seventieth Week (after 31 ½ years), “he” will change his stance toward the Jews and demand that they worship him. This is the “abomination of desolation”, which Daniel and Paul refer to (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:2–4). It will include the desecration of the temple and great persecution of Israel.[1]
It is the author’s intend to demonstrate that the “he” can only refer to one person – the antichrist. The author shall attempt to introduce sufficient evidence for his position while discounting two of the most common alternative views as to the issue in question.
I. Why “he” is the antichrist
A. Basic Premise
The entire Christian dispensation, beginning with the crucifixion of Christ, is left out of Daniel 9:24-27 as it incidentally occurs between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week. Verses
9:26-27 address the events following the end of the Christian dispensation.
The judgment of God upon His people is to allow the destruction of their “city and sanctuary” (9:26). This destruction is to be brought about by the people of a Prince, who will appear and subsequently be destroyed at the end of the seventieth week.
This “Prince” is the “he” of Dan. 9:27 – the antichrist, connected with and at the head of the revived Roman Empire. The “Prince” (v. 26) should not be confused with the one who headed the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70 as this was but an illustration of a future invasion and destruction to be led by the antichrist.[2] This is evident from the fact that Dan. 9:27 infers that this Prince is to play his part in the yet future seventieth week.
Additional evidence further makes it clear that the subject of v. 27 is none other than the antichrist, “the Prince that shall come” (v. 26). By the time “he” appears on the scene, large numbers of Jews will have returned to their land (cf. Isa. 18), and it is with them the “he” makes a covenant. This will be regarded by God with indignation, as a covenant with Death,and an agreement with Sheol. But while this covenant is accepted by the majority of the Jews, God will again reserve to Himself a remnant that will refuse to bow to “Baal”. That there
will be a remnant is clear from the text, which states that the covenant will be with “many” not all.
The fact that Daniel states that “he”, after three and a half years, will issue a decree ordering the sacrifices to cease, and the worship of Jehovah to be directed to him, further underscores the identity of “he” as being the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:4).[3]
i. Argument #1
Daniel. 9:27 should be viewed in light of Revelation 13:11–15. By linking these scriptures together, the following facts come to the forefront. (a)The false Prophet will perform great wonders, and will command men to shape a likeness of the beast. The erecting of this “image” will most likely be accompanied by supernatural phenomena and the “image” itself will possess supernatural power, for it shall be able to “speak” (Rev.13:15). (b) The “image” will stand in the holy place (Matt. 24:15) - the rebuilt Temple at Jerusalem. (c) This “image” will be set up during the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week (Da 9:27; 12:11) while “he” poses as the Christ. (d) The “daily sacrifice” will cease when “he” drops his religious pretensions and defies heaven as well as earth. The image will be the object of worship, and those who refuse to worship it will be killed (Rev. 13:14, 15). (e) This “image” is termed by Christ the abomination of desolation.” The term “abomination” is an Old Testament expression connected with idolatry, and signifies some special idol or false god (see Deut. 7:26; 1 Kings 11:5-7).[4]
ii. Argument #2
Daniel 11:21-37 leads to same conclusion as it treats the analogous period in the same manner as does 9:17; From Daniel 11:21-24; 30b-37 to the end of the chapter the text provides a continuous history of the antichrist. Henceforth, it serves to solidify the claim that “he” of 9:27 is indeed one and the same – the antichrist. Beginning with 11:21, Daniel speaks of a vile person who will not be given the kingdom but who will come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries the details surrounding said person are divided into three parts This “Vile Person” is the “Prince of the Covenant,” therefore, identifying him as the “Prince” of 9:26, 27.
Verse 23 states that after he has made a covenant he will work deceitfully. This “covenant” is undoubtedly the seven-year treaty confirmed with Israel, made early on in antichrist’s reign. It is also the period during which the pollution of the sanctuary and the ceasing of the daily sacrifice culminate into the abomination of desolation. There can be little doubt that these verses are relating what will take place during the seventieth week. The mention of polluting the Sanctuary is an unmistakable reference to “the abomination of desolation,” i.e. the setting up of an idol to the antichrist in the Temple. It should be pointed out that the repeated use of the plural pronoun in this verse, the “they”, refers to the Antichrist and the False Prophet (cf. Rev 13).
Verses 23-31 address the interval from the time when “he” makes a covenant with Israel, to the taking away of the daily sacrifice and subsequently the setting up of the abomination of desolation.Following these events there will exist a brief season when “he” shows his true colors and openly defies God, while causing death and mayhem on earth (32–37 - [45]). A significant detail found in verse 32 is the allusion made to the faithful remnant—those who do know their God.[5]
The King in v. 36 and the “Vile Person” are one and the same. This is not only apparent by the absence of any break in the prophecy, but also by the connecting “and” with which the verse opens. Removing any lasting doubt is definitely established by the fact that in v. 27 (note context) the “Vile Person” is expressly termed a “king!” The contents of this thirty-sixth verse clearly connects “the king” with the Man of Sin of 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, identifies him with the “little horn” (cf. 7:23; 8:25) and refers to the “he” in 9:27.[6]
II. Why “he” is not the Christ
A. Basic Premise
Matthew Henry and others, contents that Christ is the “Prince that shall come” and that He employs either the Roman armies in His service, which are his armies (Mt. 22:7), belonging to a monarchy yet to come, or perhaps the Gentiles who, although still strangers, will become the people of the Messiah, yet later will destroy the Jews. The destruction by war and the subsequent end of that war is to be the decreed desolation (26).[7]
Preterist, Dr. Kenneth Gentry contents that the indefinite pronoun ‘he’ does not refer back to ‘the prince who is to come’ of verse 26." Fellow preterist, Gary DeMar, insists that it is Jesus who ‘will make a firm covenant with the many,’ not the antichrist. Yet, such an interpretation is not only erroneous but also violates the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew text.
B. Weakness
i. Issue #1
The above interpretations are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The text mentions a time period, and then announces what God will achieve in this period (v.24). God’s ultimate objective is of primary importance and the schedule only of secondary importance, a fact often reversed by scholars who seem to focus on the time period rather than on God’s objective. The text deals with time in relation to the Messiah in vv.25–26a and focuses on a man whom Jesus Christ would later call ‘the abomination of desolation’ (vv.26b–27; Matt 24:15, etc.).[8]
Another important fact is that in Hebrew grammar, as with most languages, a pronoun would refer to the nearest antecedent, unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise. In this instance, the nearest antecedent in agreement with "he" is "the prince who is to come" in verse 26. Only a priori theological bias could lead a scholar of ancient Hebrew to reach any other conclusion.
ii. Issue #2
Leon Wood makes some interesting observations. The unusual manner of mention regarding that “prince” in verse 26, calls for further reference such as that of verse 27. There would be no plausible reason for the earlier mention unless something further were to be said regarding him, for he does nothing nor plays any part in activities there described. In addition, the event of vv. 26-27 cannot refer to Christ for several reasons. “He” makes a covenant with “many,” however, Christ made no such covenant. God made a Covenant of Grace with man, and Christ fulfilled the requirements under it.
Amillennials suggest that Christ confirmed or fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant; however, the Gospels give no indication that Christ did with His first coming. Had Christ made a covenant with people during His lifetime, the idea of mentioning it only here in the overall thought of the passage is simply not reasonable. The idea of the seventieth week, here closely associated with “he”, does not correlate with the life and ministry of Christ, as His ministry did not last seven years. Furthermore, the fact that “he” orders "sacrifice and offering” to cease is unlikely in reference to Christ in this context, since Christ’s death did not stop sacrifices and offerings.Amillennials argue that “sacrifice and offering” ceased subsequent to Christ's atoning death. Yet, although, sacrifices and offerings are indeed of no further use, and thus cease in principle, the manner in which the alleged reference is stated here seems improbable, as it is difficult to rationalize why such a fundamental truth would be expressed in such uncertain language.[9] Henceforth, it is safe to conclude that the immediate context of this passage and the book as a whole supports the author’s view that “he” refers to none other than the antichrist.
III. Why “he” is not Antiochus Epiphanes
A. Basic Premise
Interpretations of this message vary enormously, and depend on the interpreter’s wider view of the fulfillment of prophecy. Liberal scholars, who view the writing of Daniel in the context of the second century B.C., see the period in question to stretch from the sixth century to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On that premise, the four hundred and ninety years are being either understood in round terms, or literally and, perhaps, mistakenly.
Those who hold to the view that “he” indeed refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, point out that a grave “abomination of desolation” was committed in 168 B.C. Under the reign of Antiochus, an altar was constructed on top of the great altar of burnt offerings, and a pig, considered an unclean animal by Jews, was sacrificed there; not to mention that a statue of the Greek deity “Zeus” was erected in the “Holy of Holies.” This act precipitated the Maccabean revolt, which Antiochus attempted unsuccessfully to put down with great cruelty (167-164 B.C.).
B. Weakness
The fact that this abomination does not occur until the consummation, suggests that verse 27 describes the “abomination of desolation” of the antichrist who is yet to come against the living God (cf. Matt. 24:15) and not that of Antiochus.[10] From the perspective of the NT, one can hardly arrive at any conclusion other than that the Anointed One (Da 9:25) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose death on the cross brings atonement and the end of guilt (9:24). As some conservative interpreters have demonstrated by means of various calculations, the figure of four hundred and ninety is a chronologically exact prediction of the death of Christ.[11]
CONCLUSION
In summary, Daniel 9:27 succinctly captures the horror of the path that humanity is currently following. It must have pained Daniel tremendously to learn that “he” - the antichrist, will be so convincing that he will persuade even some of the angels in Heaven to follow Satan’s earlier example and rebel against their Creator.
Verse 9:27 links the times of Daniel to the future and thus, to “he” - the antichrist, who will act on Satan’s behalf on earth. The ruler of this world, through his representative, will be granted the power to destroy life to such an extraordinary degree (v.24) that the human race will come to the brink of extinction. It will only be by divine intervention that a remnant of humanity will be saved (Mark 13:20).
This vision therefore maps the course of history to the arrival of the ultimate apostate man whose time, during the course of transgressing against God, will finally end. God will terminate his reign, put an end to the desolator and to desolation, and usher in His reign of righteousness under the Messiah.[12]
END NOTES
1. Jack W. Hayford, and Gary Curtis, Until The End of Time: Revealing The Future of Humankind: a Study of Daniel and Revelations, Spirit-Filled Life Bible Discovery Guides (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994).
2. Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993), Da 9:1.
3. Arthur Walkington Pink, The Antichrist, Reprint (Originally Published: Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, 1923. With New Foreword. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005), 154.
4. Ibid, 169.
5. Ibid, 159.
6. Pink, The Antichrist, 160.
7. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991), Da. 9:20
8. M.S. Mills, Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999), Da 9:24.
9. Leon Wood, A Commentary On Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 257.
10. The NKJV Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), Da 9:27.
11. D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. Of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited By D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th Ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994), Da 9:20.
12. M.S. Mills, Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999), Da 9:1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. Of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited By D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th Ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Darby, J. N. Synopsis of The Books of The Bible: Ezra to Malachi. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.
Hayford, Jack W., and Gary Curtis. Until The End of Time: Revealing The Future of Humankind: a Study of Daniel and Revelations. Spirit-Filled Life Bible Discovery Guides. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991.
Mills, M.S. Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel. Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999.
Pink, Arthur Walkington. The Antichrist. Reprint. Originally Published: Swengel, Pa. : Bible Truth Depot, 1923. With New Foreword. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005.
The NKJV Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993.
Wood, Leon. A Commentary On Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
By
Jens Randolff
December 11, 2008
And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.
Matthew 24:4-5, ESV
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
I.Why “he” is the antichrist
A.Basic Premise
i.Argument #1
ii.Argument #2
II.Why “he” is not the Christ
A.Basic Premise
B.Weakness
i.Issue #1
i.Issue #2
III.Why “he” is not Antiochus Epiphanes
A.Basic Premise
B.Weakness
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
My Thesis Statement: In this paper I intend to offer an answer to the question: “Who is the “he” of Daniel 9:27 and on what basis do you build your argument?”
INTRODUCTION
The identity of the individual of Daniel 9:27 referred to only as “he” has been the subject of great debate. As is the case with most prophesies concerning the issue of eschatology, there exist a number of varying interpretations. Some see the “he” to be Christ himself, others see here a reference to the antichrist, while still others identify the ”he” to be a conquering, dictatorial government.
This final seven-year period in Daniel’s seventy weeks is commonly known among futurist interpreters as the “Great Tribulation” because of the suffering and severe testing which is to be endured by those living on the earth at that time. Classical interpreters, however, see the initial fulfillment of Daniel’s prophetic sections in past historical events, with the ultimate fulfillment for many prophecies to be experienced in the end times.
This final period of the “times of the Gentiles” is projected by futurists to begin when “he” makes a covenant to protect Israel for a seven-year period (Is. 28:14–17). The first three and a half years (42 months; Rev. 13:1–5) will be known to the Jews as “the beginning of sorrows” (Matt. 24:8), as “he” gathers a coalition of nations under his might and persuasion (Rev. 13:3–5).
At mid-point of Daniel’s Seventieth Week (after 31 ½ years), “he” will change his stance toward the Jews and demand that they worship him. This is the “abomination of desolation”, which Daniel and Paul refer to (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:2–4). It will include the desecration of the temple and great persecution of Israel.[1]
It is the author’s intend to demonstrate that the “he” can only refer to one person – the antichrist. The author shall attempt to introduce sufficient evidence for his position while discounting two of the most common alternative views as to the issue in question.
I. Why “he” is the antichrist
A. Basic Premise
The entire Christian dispensation, beginning with the crucifixion of Christ, is left out of Daniel 9:24-27 as it incidentally occurs between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week. Verses
9:26-27 address the events following the end of the Christian dispensation.
The judgment of God upon His people is to allow the destruction of their “city and sanctuary” (9:26). This destruction is to be brought about by the people of a Prince, who will appear and subsequently be destroyed at the end of the seventieth week.
This “Prince” is the “he” of Dan. 9:27 – the antichrist, connected with and at the head of the revived Roman Empire. The “Prince” (v. 26) should not be confused with the one who headed the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70 as this was but an illustration of a future invasion and destruction to be led by the antichrist.[2] This is evident from the fact that Dan. 9:27 infers that this Prince is to play his part in the yet future seventieth week.
Additional evidence further makes it clear that the subject of v. 27 is none other than the antichrist, “the Prince that shall come” (v. 26). By the time “he” appears on the scene, large numbers of Jews will have returned to their land (cf. Isa. 18), and it is with them the “he” makes a covenant. This will be regarded by God with indignation, as a covenant with Death,and an agreement with Sheol. But while this covenant is accepted by the majority of the Jews, God will again reserve to Himself a remnant that will refuse to bow to “Baal”. That there
will be a remnant is clear from the text, which states that the covenant will be with “many” not all.
The fact that Daniel states that “he”, after three and a half years, will issue a decree ordering the sacrifices to cease, and the worship of Jehovah to be directed to him, further underscores the identity of “he” as being the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:4).[3]
i. Argument #1
Daniel. 9:27 should be viewed in light of Revelation 13:11–15. By linking these scriptures together, the following facts come to the forefront. (a)The false Prophet will perform great wonders, and will command men to shape a likeness of the beast. The erecting of this “image” will most likely be accompanied by supernatural phenomena and the “image” itself will possess supernatural power, for it shall be able to “speak” (Rev.13:15). (b) The “image” will stand in the holy place (Matt. 24:15) - the rebuilt Temple at Jerusalem. (c) This “image” will be set up during the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week (Da 9:27; 12:11) while “he” poses as the Christ. (d) The “daily sacrifice” will cease when “he” drops his religious pretensions and defies heaven as well as earth. The image will be the object of worship, and those who refuse to worship it will be killed (Rev. 13:14, 15). (e) This “image” is termed by Christ the abomination of desolation.” The term “abomination” is an Old Testament expression connected with idolatry, and signifies some special idol or false god (see Deut. 7:26; 1 Kings 11:5-7).[4]
ii. Argument #2
Daniel 11:21-37 leads to same conclusion as it treats the analogous period in the same manner as does 9:17; From Daniel 11:21-24; 30b-37 to the end of the chapter the text provides a continuous history of the antichrist. Henceforth, it serves to solidify the claim that “he” of 9:27 is indeed one and the same – the antichrist. Beginning with 11:21, Daniel speaks of a vile person who will not be given the kingdom but who will come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries the details surrounding said person are divided into three parts This “Vile Person” is the “Prince of the Covenant,” therefore, identifying him as the “Prince” of 9:26, 27.
Verse 23 states that after he has made a covenant he will work deceitfully. This “covenant” is undoubtedly the seven-year treaty confirmed with Israel, made early on in antichrist’s reign. It is also the period during which the pollution of the sanctuary and the ceasing of the daily sacrifice culminate into the abomination of desolation. There can be little doubt that these verses are relating what will take place during the seventieth week. The mention of polluting the Sanctuary is an unmistakable reference to “the abomination of desolation,” i.e. the setting up of an idol to the antichrist in the Temple. It should be pointed out that the repeated use of the plural pronoun in this verse, the “they”, refers to the Antichrist and the False Prophet (cf. Rev 13).
Verses 23-31 address the interval from the time when “he” makes a covenant with Israel, to the taking away of the daily sacrifice and subsequently the setting up of the abomination of desolation.Following these events there will exist a brief season when “he” shows his true colors and openly defies God, while causing death and mayhem on earth (32–37 - [45]). A significant detail found in verse 32 is the allusion made to the faithful remnant—those who do know their God.[5]
The King in v. 36 and the “Vile Person” are one and the same. This is not only apparent by the absence of any break in the prophecy, but also by the connecting “and” with which the verse opens. Removing any lasting doubt is definitely established by the fact that in v. 27 (note context) the “Vile Person” is expressly termed a “king!” The contents of this thirty-sixth verse clearly connects “the king” with the Man of Sin of 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, identifies him with the “little horn” (cf. 7:23; 8:25) and refers to the “he” in 9:27.[6]
II. Why “he” is not the Christ
A. Basic Premise
Matthew Henry and others, contents that Christ is the “Prince that shall come” and that He employs either the Roman armies in His service, which are his armies (Mt. 22:7), belonging to a monarchy yet to come, or perhaps the Gentiles who, although still strangers, will become the people of the Messiah, yet later will destroy the Jews. The destruction by war and the subsequent end of that war is to be the decreed desolation (26).[7]
Preterist, Dr. Kenneth Gentry contents that the indefinite pronoun ‘he’ does not refer back to ‘the prince who is to come’ of verse 26." Fellow preterist, Gary DeMar, insists that it is Jesus who ‘will make a firm covenant with the many,’ not the antichrist. Yet, such an interpretation is not only erroneous but also violates the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew text.
B. Weakness
i. Issue #1
The above interpretations are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The text mentions a time period, and then announces what God will achieve in this period (v.24). God’s ultimate objective is of primary importance and the schedule only of secondary importance, a fact often reversed by scholars who seem to focus on the time period rather than on God’s objective. The text deals with time in relation to the Messiah in vv.25–26a and focuses on a man whom Jesus Christ would later call ‘the abomination of desolation’ (vv.26b–27; Matt 24:15, etc.).[8]
Another important fact is that in Hebrew grammar, as with most languages, a pronoun would refer to the nearest antecedent, unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise. In this instance, the nearest antecedent in agreement with "he" is "the prince who is to come" in verse 26. Only a priori theological bias could lead a scholar of ancient Hebrew to reach any other conclusion.
ii. Issue #2
Leon Wood makes some interesting observations. The unusual manner of mention regarding that “prince” in verse 26, calls for further reference such as that of verse 27. There would be no plausible reason for the earlier mention unless something further were to be said regarding him, for he does nothing nor plays any part in activities there described. In addition, the event of vv. 26-27 cannot refer to Christ for several reasons. “He” makes a covenant with “many,” however, Christ made no such covenant. God made a Covenant of Grace with man, and Christ fulfilled the requirements under it.
Amillennials suggest that Christ confirmed or fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant; however, the Gospels give no indication that Christ did with His first coming. Had Christ made a covenant with people during His lifetime, the idea of mentioning it only here in the overall thought of the passage is simply not reasonable. The idea of the seventieth week, here closely associated with “he”, does not correlate with the life and ministry of Christ, as His ministry did not last seven years. Furthermore, the fact that “he” orders "sacrifice and offering” to cease is unlikely in reference to Christ in this context, since Christ’s death did not stop sacrifices and offerings.Amillennials argue that “sacrifice and offering” ceased subsequent to Christ's atoning death. Yet, although, sacrifices and offerings are indeed of no further use, and thus cease in principle, the manner in which the alleged reference is stated here seems improbable, as it is difficult to rationalize why such a fundamental truth would be expressed in such uncertain language.[9] Henceforth, it is safe to conclude that the immediate context of this passage and the book as a whole supports the author’s view that “he” refers to none other than the antichrist.
III. Why “he” is not Antiochus Epiphanes
A. Basic Premise
Interpretations of this message vary enormously, and depend on the interpreter’s wider view of the fulfillment of prophecy. Liberal scholars, who view the writing of Daniel in the context of the second century B.C., see the period in question to stretch from the sixth century to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On that premise, the four hundred and ninety years are being either understood in round terms, or literally and, perhaps, mistakenly.
Those who hold to the view that “he” indeed refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, point out that a grave “abomination of desolation” was committed in 168 B.C. Under the reign of Antiochus, an altar was constructed on top of the great altar of burnt offerings, and a pig, considered an unclean animal by Jews, was sacrificed there; not to mention that a statue of the Greek deity “Zeus” was erected in the “Holy of Holies.” This act precipitated the Maccabean revolt, which Antiochus attempted unsuccessfully to put down with great cruelty (167-164 B.C.).
B. Weakness
The fact that this abomination does not occur until the consummation, suggests that verse 27 describes the “abomination of desolation” of the antichrist who is yet to come against the living God (cf. Matt. 24:15) and not that of Antiochus.[10] From the perspective of the NT, one can hardly arrive at any conclusion other than that the Anointed One (Da 9:25) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose death on the cross brings atonement and the end of guilt (9:24). As some conservative interpreters have demonstrated by means of various calculations, the figure of four hundred and ninety is a chronologically exact prediction of the death of Christ.[11]
CONCLUSION
In summary, Daniel 9:27 succinctly captures the horror of the path that humanity is currently following. It must have pained Daniel tremendously to learn that “he” - the antichrist, will be so convincing that he will persuade even some of the angels in Heaven to follow Satan’s earlier example and rebel against their Creator.
Verse 9:27 links the times of Daniel to the future and thus, to “he” - the antichrist, who will act on Satan’s behalf on earth. The ruler of this world, through his representative, will be granted the power to destroy life to such an extraordinary degree (v.24) that the human race will come to the brink of extinction. It will only be by divine intervention that a remnant of humanity will be saved (Mark 13:20).
This vision therefore maps the course of history to the arrival of the ultimate apostate man whose time, during the course of transgressing against God, will finally end. God will terminate his reign, put an end to the desolator and to desolation, and usher in His reign of righteousness under the Messiah.[12]
END NOTES
1. Jack W. Hayford, and Gary Curtis, Until The End of Time: Revealing The Future of Humankind: a Study of Daniel and Revelations, Spirit-Filled Life Bible Discovery Guides (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994).
2. Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993), Da 9:1.
3. Arthur Walkington Pink, The Antichrist, Reprint (Originally Published: Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, 1923. With New Foreword. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005), 154.
4. Ibid, 169.
5. Ibid, 159.
6. Pink, The Antichrist, 160.
7. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991), Da. 9:20
8. M.S. Mills, Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999), Da 9:24.
9. Leon Wood, A Commentary On Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 257.
10. The NKJV Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), Da 9:27.
11. D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. Of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited By D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th Ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994), Da 9:20.
12. M.S. Mills, Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999), Da 9:1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. Of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited By D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th Ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Darby, J. N. Synopsis of The Books of The Bible: Ezra to Malachi. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.
Hayford, Jack W., and Gary Curtis. Until The End of Time: Revealing The Future of Humankind: a Study of Daniel and Revelations. Spirit-Filled Life Bible Discovery Guides. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991.
Mills, M.S. Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel. Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999.
Pink, Arthur Walkington. The Antichrist. Reprint. Originally Published: Swengel, Pa. : Bible Truth Depot, 1923. With New Foreword. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005.
The NKJV Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993.
Wood, Leon. A Commentary On Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
THE OCCASION AND DATE OF THE BOOK OF ROMANS
by
JENS RANDOLFF
AUGUST 20, 2008
“Our calling is not primarily to be holy men and women, but to be proclaimers of the gospel of God … Paul was not conscious of himself. He was recklessly abandoned, totally surrendered, and separated by God for one purpose—to proclaim the gospel of God.”
Oswald Chambers.[1]
Introduction
Paul’s address to the Romans is possibly the greatest example of epistolary writing in all of the New Testament (NT). Its significance is evident in that it is listed first in virtually every list of Paul’s writings, even though; it was not first in the order of composition. Paul’s audience were the citizens of the capital of the Roman empire, which further underscores the importance of Paul’s work and theme and content of his writing. The epistle to the Romans also ties neatly into the Book of Acts, in that Acts concludes rather abruptly with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Henceforth, Paul’s letter follows naturally in the order of Bible books.[2]
Questions as to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans have never been successfully challenged in, particularly in the early days of the church. All the old orthodox, as well as all the old heterodox testimonies without a single exception ascribe this epistle to Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, both confidently quoted from it. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and Irenaeus in the second century, as well as Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in the third, considered Paul’s epistle to the Romans to be genuine. Even in more recent times, the most searching investigations of modern criticism have not been able to cast any real doubt.[3]
Occasion
Although, the Founder of the church in Rome remains unknown, the Catholic Church credits the Apostle Peter, as being its founder and even proclaims him to be her original bishop. However, such claims are born of an ancient tradition, even though; the Vatican Church continues to promote such claims as a fact not to be doubted, despite clear evidence to the contrary.[4]
Paul was known only by reputation to the large Christian community in Rome; therefore, he began his letter with an introduction, which was longer than usual. It was also more theological and personal in nature than any of his previous or later epistles. Paul unapologetically stated his credentials and his message: “called by God to preach the gospel of God.”[5] He wanted to make certain that the Roman people received what he had to say—that they would not “turn him off” before they had a chance to read his arguments and learn about his theology.[6]
The Church in Rome, in Paul’s days, was comprised of Jews and Gentiles (1:5, 6, 13; 2:17ff. 7:1–6; 11:13; 15:15f.), and there existed a real propensity for conflict between the two groups. It is for that reason that Paul stressed the point that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all” (10:12).[7] Paul’s goal was to provide answers and to teach both, the unbelieving as well as the believing Jew; to confirm the Christian, while converting the non-believing Gentile; and to affirm to the Gentile convert and Jew alike, that all are equal regarding one’s religious condition, and rank in the Divine favor.
Furthermore, the forgiveness of sin by grace through faith in Christ, independent of nationality is clearly stated, contrary to the position of some proselyte Jewish Christians, who were advocating sort of a cross between law and gospel criteria for salvation and attempting to shut out the Gentiles “from any share in the blessings of salvation brought in by the Messiah.”[8]
Date
Scholars generally agree that Paul wrote Romans in March of 58, near the end of his third missionary journey, just prior his departure from Corinth (Acts 20:1–6). Paul had previously visited Corinth on his second missionary journey. He spend eighteen months there, sharing the gospel in Corinth and in Greece (Acts 18:11). On his third missionary journey, Paul stayed close to three months (Acts 20:3). He had left Philippi early in April, immediately after the Jewish Passover and departed Corinth for Jerusalem when the shipping season opened. Paul was accompanied by the eight fellow believers delegated to offer the collection of relief supplies to the famine-stricken believers in Jerusalem and Palestine (Acts 20:4; 24:17). Before Paul left Corinth on this journey, he wrote Romans.[9]
Endnotes:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boa, Kenneth, and William Kruidenier. Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.
Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 12-13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991.
Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness From Heaven. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, On The Old and New Testaments. Vol. 3 of 3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to The Romans. Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.
Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985.
Reimann, James, ed. My Utmost for His Highest: An Updated Edition in Today's Language : The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers. Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House. Reprint, Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson, 1992.
JENS RANDOLFF
AUGUST 20, 2008
“Our calling is not primarily to be holy men and women, but to be proclaimers of the gospel of God … Paul was not conscious of himself. He was recklessly abandoned, totally surrendered, and separated by God for one purpose—to proclaim the gospel of God.”
Oswald Chambers.[1]
Introduction
Paul’s address to the Romans is possibly the greatest example of epistolary writing in all of the New Testament (NT). Its significance is evident in that it is listed first in virtually every list of Paul’s writings, even though; it was not first in the order of composition. Paul’s audience were the citizens of the capital of the Roman empire, which further underscores the importance of Paul’s work and theme and content of his writing. The epistle to the Romans also ties neatly into the Book of Acts, in that Acts concludes rather abruptly with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Henceforth, Paul’s letter follows naturally in the order of Bible books.[2]
Questions as to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans have never been successfully challenged in, particularly in the early days of the church. All the old orthodox, as well as all the old heterodox testimonies without a single exception ascribe this epistle to Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, both confidently quoted from it. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and Irenaeus in the second century, as well as Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in the third, considered Paul’s epistle to the Romans to be genuine. Even in more recent times, the most searching investigations of modern criticism have not been able to cast any real doubt.[3]
Occasion
Although, the Founder of the church in Rome remains unknown, the Catholic Church credits the Apostle Peter, as being its founder and even proclaims him to be her original bishop. However, such claims are born of an ancient tradition, even though; the Vatican Church continues to promote such claims as a fact not to be doubted, despite clear evidence to the contrary.[4]
Paul was known only by reputation to the large Christian community in Rome; therefore, he began his letter with an introduction, which was longer than usual. It was also more theological and personal in nature than any of his previous or later epistles. Paul unapologetically stated his credentials and his message: “called by God to preach the gospel of God.”[5] He wanted to make certain that the Roman people received what he had to say—that they would not “turn him off” before they had a chance to read his arguments and learn about his theology.[6]
The Church in Rome, in Paul’s days, was comprised of Jews and Gentiles (1:5, 6, 13; 2:17ff. 7:1–6; 11:13; 15:15f.), and there existed a real propensity for conflict between the two groups. It is for that reason that Paul stressed the point that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all” (10:12).[7] Paul’s goal was to provide answers and to teach both, the unbelieving as well as the believing Jew; to confirm the Christian, while converting the non-believing Gentile; and to affirm to the Gentile convert and Jew alike, that all are equal regarding one’s religious condition, and rank in the Divine favor.
Furthermore, the forgiveness of sin by grace through faith in Christ, independent of nationality is clearly stated, contrary to the position of some proselyte Jewish Christians, who were advocating sort of a cross between law and gospel criteria for salvation and attempting to shut out the Gentiles “from any share in the blessings of salvation brought in by the Messiah.”[8]
Date
Scholars generally agree that Paul wrote Romans in March of 58, near the end of his third missionary journey, just prior his departure from Corinth (Acts 20:1–6). Paul had previously visited Corinth on his second missionary journey. He spend eighteen months there, sharing the gospel in Corinth and in Greece (Acts 18:11). On his third missionary journey, Paul stayed close to three months (Acts 20:3). He had left Philippi early in April, immediately after the Jewish Passover and departed Corinth for Jerusalem when the shipping season opened. Paul was accompanied by the eight fellow believers delegated to offer the collection of relief supplies to the famine-stricken believers in Jerusalem and Palestine (Acts 20:4; 24:17). Before Paul left Corinth on this journey, he wrote Romans.[9]
Endnotes:
[1]. James Reimann, ed., My Utmost for His Highest: An Updated Edition in Today's Language : The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers (Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House; reprint, Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson, 1992).
[2]. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: an Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985). 2:435
[3]. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 3 of 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008). Part two, xiii.
[4]. Ibid, xiv.
[5]. Kenneth Boa, and William Kruidenier, vol. 6, Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 16.
[6]. R. Kent Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 16
[7]. William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 12-13, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Accompanying Biblical Text Is Author's Translation. New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 2.
[8]. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991). Ro 1:1.
[9]. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to The Romans (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936), 5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boa, Kenneth, and William Kruidenier. Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.
Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 12-13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991.
Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness From Heaven. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, On The Old and New Testaments. Vol. 3 of 3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to The Romans. Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.
Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985.
Reimann, James, ed. My Utmost for His Highest: An Updated Edition in Today's Language : The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers. Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House. Reprint, Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson, 1992.
PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HIS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
by Jens Randolff
October 3, 2008
CONTENTS
TABLES iv
INTRODUCTION 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY 18
TABLES
TABLE 1. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in His Epistle to the Romans[1]
Rom 1:17 Hab 2:4 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 2:24 Isa 52:5 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 3:4 Ps 51:4 [MT= 51:6; LXX= 50:6] IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 3:10–18 Pss 14:1–3 [LXX= 13:1–3]; 5:9 [MT and LXX= 5:10]; 140:3 [MT= 140:4; LXX= 139:4]; 10:7 [MT= 9:28]; Isa 59:7–8; Ps 36:1 [MT= 36:2; LXX= 35:2] IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 4:3, 9, 22 Gen 15:6 IF: “What does the scripture say?”
Rom 4:7–8 Ps 32:1–2 [LXX= 31:1–2] IF: “as David also says.”
Rom 4:17 Gen 17:5 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 4:18 Gen 15:5 IF: “according to that which was said.”
Rom 7:7 Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21 IF: “the law said.”
Rom 8:36 Ps 44:22 [MT= 44:23; LXX= 43:23] IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 9:7 Gen 21:12 IF: “but.”
Rom 9:9 Gen 18:10, 14 IF: “this is the word of promise.”
Rom 9:12 Gen 25:23 IF: “it was said to her.”
Rom 9:13 Mal 1:2–3 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 9:15 Exod 33:19 IF: “to Moses he said.”
Rom 9:17 Exod 9:16 IF: “the scripture said to Pharaoh.”
Rom 9:25–26 Hos 2:23 [MT = 2:25], 1:10 [MT = 2:1] IF: “as he [God] said also in Hosea.”
Rom 9:27–28 Isa 10:22–23 IF: “Hosea cried out concerning Israel.”
Rom 9:29 Isa 1:9 IF:“as Isaiah said before.”
Rom 9:33 Isa 28:16; 8:14 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 10:5 Lev 18:5 IF:“Moses wrote.”
Rom 10:6–8 Deut 30:12–14 IF:“the righteousness that is by faith speaks in this manner.”
Rom 10:11 Isa 28:16 IF:“the scripture says.”
Rom 10:13 Joel 2:32 [MT and LXX= 3:5] IF:“for.”
Rom 10:15 Isa 52:7 IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 10:16 Isa 53:1 IF:“Isaiah says.”
Rom 10:18 Ps 19:4 [MT= 19:5; LXX= 18:5] IF:“yes, indeed (μενοῦνγε).”
Rom 10:19 Deut 32:21 IF:“Moses says.”
Rom 10:20–21 Isa 65:1–2 IF:“Isaiah says.”
Rom 11:3 1 Kgs 19:14 IF:“the scripture says of Elijah.”
Rom 11:4 1 Kgs 19:18 IF:“What was the divine response to him?”
Rom 11:8 Isa 29:10; Deut 29:4 [MT= 29:3] IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 11:9–10 Ps 69:22–23 [MT= 69:23–24; LXX 68:23–24] IF:“David says.”
Rom 11:26–27 Isa 59:20–21; 27:9 IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 11:34–35 Isa 40:13; Job 41:11 [MT and LXX= 41:3] IF:“for.”
Rom 12:19–20 Deut 32:35; Prov. 25:21–22 IF:“it is written … says the Lord.”
Rom 13:9 Exod 20:13–17; Deut 5:17–21 IF:“for this.”
Rom 13:9 Lev 19:18 IF:“if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word.”
Rom 14:11 Isa 45:23 IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 15:3 Ps 69:9 [MT=69:10; LXX= 68:10] IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 15:9 Ps 18:49 [MT=18:50; LXX= 17:50] IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 15:10 Deut 32:43 IF:“again he says.”
Rom 15:11 Ps 117:1 [LXX=116:1] IF:“and again.”
Rom 15:12 Isa 11:10 IF:“and again Isaiah says.”
Rom 15:21 Isa 52:15 IF:“as it is written.”
IF Introductory Formula
LXX Septuagint (A = Alexandrinus; B = Vaticanus)
MT Masoretic Text
INTRODUCTION
The epistle to the Romans is the first of three letters in the New Testament (NT) based on one verse of Scripture, "The righteous will live by his faith." (Hab. 2:4, HCSB), which is found in Rom. 1:17.[2] Here the apostle Paul is almost literally quoting Hab. 2:4b, and he could not have chosen a better prophecy from which to quote. The passage fits the situation exactly and in connection with the question, "What must I do to be accepted by God?" it remains true as well that "The righteous will live by his faith." "In quietness and confidence shall be your strength" (Isa. 30:15).[3]
Paul‘s message is nothing other than a proclamation of the scriptures. His purpose is to communicate that in the person of Jesus Christ (1:1-7; 10:1-4; 15:4; 16:25-27) the “gospel of God concerning His Son” is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT) prophesies. Paul quotes roughly 60 times from the OT, not counting his frequent use of allusions throughout the epistle, more times than in any of his other letters.[4] His quotes originate mostly from the book of Psalms and the book of Isaiah [see table 1], and his references to or quotations from the Old Testament are often paraphrased, summarized, and in some cases, such as Rom 3:10-18, a compilation of quotes from several books, paragraphs, and verses.
An interesting fact is Paul’s use of allusions, which make up the central theological vocabulary of this epistle, such as “gospel”, “promise”, “faith”, “son of God”, “Holy Spirit”, to name a few, all of which are rooted in Hebrew Scripture. Paul also uses allusions to capture broader subjects without directly quoting any text, such as his references to the “fall of man” and his godless and unrighteous nature (1:18-32), Adam’s transgressions (5:12-21), as well as human conflict with God’s law (7:7-25), which are references to the Genesis 3 narrative.
Furthermore, Paul’s ever so slight hints to the Shema’, (שְׁמַע [shâma` /shem•ah/], Heb. “hear), form the foundation on which he rests his argument through the end of Romans 11 and beyond. However, the only subtle allusion is found in Romans 3:30.[5]
Significance of the Shĕma‘
The central teaching of Judaism, the Shĕma‘, proclaims: “Listen,[6] Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” (Deut. 6:4, HCSB).[7] It was the Jewish confession of faith, proclaiming the unity of God,[8] and following the exile, became the canonic creed of the Jewish faith never to be seriously questioned again.[9] It is the best-known verse in all of Judaism and was widely used in Jewish liturgy.[10] The last letters of the first and last words of this verse are written in Hebrew Bibles in oversized script, thereby forming the Hebrew word ‘witness’ to indicate that by this verse Jews bore witness to the oneness and uniqueness of their God.[11]
Paul employs the Shĕma‘ to support his argument that if there is only one God, then this necessitates that He is the not only God of the Jews, but the God of all.[12] Jesus Himself distinguished the Shĕma‘ as the first commandment in the law (Mark 12:29).[13]
Justification by Faith
Paul, being a Jew himself and having been trained as a Pharisee, naturally had a greater understanding of Jewish thought and theology than most. It is perhaps for that reason alone, that Paul repeatedly cites the OT to make his point. He makes reference to the Patriarchs and their standing before Jehovah, to make his argument. For example, Paul destroys the wrongful use of Abraham, the Jewish model of models, as an example of the conventional "works-salvation" view. Salvation for Abraham was “sola fide” and Paul illustrates his point by quoting from the book of Genesis, "Abram believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6. HCSB)
Furthermore, Paul makes the argument that Abraham was declared righteous while still a Gentile, which he remained for some fourteen to twenty-nine years before he became a Jew! Henceforth, "sola fide" was a Gentile principle long before it became Jewish reality. Abraham is the father of uncircumcised believers and the father of circumcised believers—not on the ground of circumcision, but of faith.
If circumcision and its many blessings had nothing to do with Abraham's justification, the Law had even less to do with it. Paul explains in verse 13, "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith"
Having established the "faith alone" principle, Paul goes on to say, "Now to the one who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who declares righteous the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness." (Rom 4:4, 5, HCSB).
This must have been an enervating concept and unsettling terms to the traditional Jewish ear. First, Paul discourages working for salvation. Second, the self-contradictory description of God as a "God who justifies the wicked" (literally the ungodly) assaulted traditional sensibilities. The Old Testament repeatedly denounces the acquittal of the wicked and the condemnation of the innocent. In fact, to discourage such injustice God presented himself as an example saying, "I will not justify the guilty." (Exodus 23:7, HCSB). Thus, to say that God justifies the wicked seemed outrageous to the law-abiding Jews. However, the difference lies between law and grace. God forbids in the Law what in fact he does by grace in the gospel.[14]
Further Evidence
Having established that Abraham was regarded as righteous by faith before his good works, and having sufficiently stated the “sola fide” principle, Paul turns the attention to yet another great Old Testament saint—King David. He retells the narrative of David's blessedness and joyous relief at having his sins against Bathsheba and Uriah forgiven, an undeserved righteousness bestowed upon him, as described in Psalm 32:1, 2.
Paul explains that David states the same principle when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"How happy is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!
How happy is the man the Lord does not charge with sin, and in whose spirit is no deceit!" (Ps 32:1-2, HCSB)[15]
David had unmerited righteousness credited to him is, because of faith! He had broken three of the ten Commandments outright when he coveted Bathsheba, committed adultery, and murdered Uriah. The Old Testament sacrificial system made no provision for such premeditated sin.[16] This is why David cried in Psalm 51:16,17:
"You do not want a sacrifice, or I would give it; You are not pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifice pleasing to God is a broken spirit. God, You will not despise a broken and humbled heart."[17]
Conclusion
In conclusion, the most influential voice in Judaism was the voice of "father Abraham," so Paul suggests to his readers that they study the patriarch on the matter of faith: "What then can we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? [the matter of faith versus works]?" (Rom 4:1, HCSB) The significance of Paul's line of arguing is that the testimony of the founder of the faith would have far-reaching importance.[18]
Paul draws this magnificent conclusion: "This is why the promise is by faith, so that it may be according to grace, to guarantee it to all the descendants—not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of Abraham's faith. He is the father of us all" (Rom 4:16, HCSB). The universal principle of grace teaches us that salvation comes by faith alone.[19]
The church father Origen, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, reasoned it syllogistically (brackets added): "This is a rhetorical argument, which goes like this:
[Major Premise:] Someone who is justified by works has nothing to boast of before God.
[Minor Premise:] But Abraham did have something to glory in before God.
[Conclusion:] Therefore he was justified by faith and not by works."[20]
The final doxology in Paul’s epistle is directed at the church in Rome to remind the brethren of the guilty, idolatrous nature of man (1:18-23)
25 Now to Him who has power to strengthen you
according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the sacred secret
kept silent for long ages, 26 but now revealed and made known
through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God,
to advance the obedience of faith among all nations— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ—
to Him be the glory forever! Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27, HCSB)
Here, Paul reiterates that that the church in Rome was established by God, not man. Furthermore, Paul reminds his audience that the work of an apostle depends solely on the power of God, which is also the message of the gospel and the promulgation of Jesus Christ. The mystery of Israel’s salvation is found in Scripture (11:25-27) and in the mystery of the gospel, which was silent for long ages (16:25d). Yet, the mystery has now been “revealed and made manifest” (16:25c, 26a [cf. 1:17; 3:21]). Thus, that which was present in Scripture is now revealed.[21]
Paul’s giving glory “to the only wise God” is an expression of salvation received, as implied in his earlier allusion to Genesis 3. It shows Paul’s “gratitude for God’s revelation of His saving grace in Christ Jesus. Paul’s praise and worship of God is in response to God’s mercy and unexpected work of salvation through Jesus the Messiah. God alone is wise and “to Him be the glory forever, Amen.”
Endnotes:
[1] Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Vancouver: W.B. Eerdmans; Regent College Pub., 1999), 92.
[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993), 362.
[3] William Hendriksen, and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to The Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 63-65.
[4] G.K. Beale, and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic; reprint, Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007), 607.
[5] Ibid
[6] Some other versions render it “hear”.
[7] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 730.
[8] Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2d ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 467.
[9] Scot McKnight, Introducing New Testament Interpretation: Guides to New Testament Exegesis; 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), 40.
[10] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, 51.
[11] Beale, and Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, 607.
[12] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, c1998), 205.
[13] Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row, and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 939.
[14] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to The Romans (London: The Tyndale Press, 1966), 114.
[15] R. Kent Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 92.
[16] A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 401.
[17] Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven, 92.
[18] Kenneth Boa, and William Kruidenier, Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference, vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: Broadman amp; Holman Publishers, 2000), 127.
[19] Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven, 94.
[20] Gerald Bray, ed., Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 6 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 105.
[21] Beale, and Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, 692-93.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.
Achtemeier, Paul J., Publishers Harper & Row, and Society of Biblical Literature. Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.
Beale, G.K., and D.A. Carson, eds. Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. Reprint, Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007.
Boa, Kenneth, and William Kruidenier. Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman amp; Holman Publishers, 2000.
Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture. Vol. 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to The Romans. London: The Tyndale Press, 1966.
Corley, Bruce, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2d ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to The Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness From Heaven. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, 2d ed. Vancouver: Regent College Pub., 1999.
McKnight, Scot. Introducing New Testament Interpretation: Guides to New Testament Exegesis; 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, c1998.
Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993.
October 3, 2008
CONTENTS
TABLES iv
INTRODUCTION 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY 18
TABLES
TABLE 1. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in His Epistle to the Romans[1]
Rom 1:17 Hab 2:4 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 2:24 Isa 52:5 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 3:4 Ps 51:4 [MT= 51:6; LXX= 50:6] IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 3:10–18 Pss 14:1–3 [LXX= 13:1–3]; 5:9 [MT and LXX= 5:10]; 140:3 [MT= 140:4; LXX= 139:4]; 10:7 [MT= 9:28]; Isa 59:7–8; Ps 36:1 [MT= 36:2; LXX= 35:2] IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 4:3, 9, 22 Gen 15:6 IF: “What does the scripture say?”
Rom 4:7–8 Ps 32:1–2 [LXX= 31:1–2] IF: “as David also says.”
Rom 4:17 Gen 17:5 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 4:18 Gen 15:5 IF: “according to that which was said.”
Rom 7:7 Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21 IF: “the law said.”
Rom 8:36 Ps 44:22 [MT= 44:23; LXX= 43:23] IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 9:7 Gen 21:12 IF: “but.”
Rom 9:9 Gen 18:10, 14 IF: “this is the word of promise.”
Rom 9:12 Gen 25:23 IF: “it was said to her.”
Rom 9:13 Mal 1:2–3 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 9:15 Exod 33:19 IF: “to Moses he said.”
Rom 9:17 Exod 9:16 IF: “the scripture said to Pharaoh.”
Rom 9:25–26 Hos 2:23 [MT = 2:25], 1:10 [MT = 2:1] IF: “as he [God] said also in Hosea.”
Rom 9:27–28 Isa 10:22–23 IF: “Hosea cried out concerning Israel.”
Rom 9:29 Isa 1:9 IF:“as Isaiah said before.”
Rom 9:33 Isa 28:16; 8:14 IF: “as it is written.”
Rom 10:5 Lev 18:5 IF:“Moses wrote.”
Rom 10:6–8 Deut 30:12–14 IF:“the righteousness that is by faith speaks in this manner.”
Rom 10:11 Isa 28:16 IF:“the scripture says.”
Rom 10:13 Joel 2:32 [MT and LXX= 3:5] IF:“for.”
Rom 10:15 Isa 52:7 IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 10:16 Isa 53:1 IF:“Isaiah says.”
Rom 10:18 Ps 19:4 [MT= 19:5; LXX= 18:5] IF:“yes, indeed (μενοῦνγε).”
Rom 10:19 Deut 32:21 IF:“Moses says.”
Rom 10:20–21 Isa 65:1–2 IF:“Isaiah says.”
Rom 11:3 1 Kgs 19:14 IF:“the scripture says of Elijah.”
Rom 11:4 1 Kgs 19:18 IF:“What was the divine response to him?”
Rom 11:8 Isa 29:10; Deut 29:4 [MT= 29:3] IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 11:9–10 Ps 69:22–23 [MT= 69:23–24; LXX 68:23–24] IF:“David says.”
Rom 11:26–27 Isa 59:20–21; 27:9 IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 11:34–35 Isa 40:13; Job 41:11 [MT and LXX= 41:3] IF:“for.”
Rom 12:19–20 Deut 32:35; Prov. 25:21–22 IF:“it is written … says the Lord.”
Rom 13:9 Exod 20:13–17; Deut 5:17–21 IF:“for this.”
Rom 13:9 Lev 19:18 IF:“if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word.”
Rom 14:11 Isa 45:23 IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 15:3 Ps 69:9 [MT=69:10; LXX= 68:10] IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 15:9 Ps 18:49 [MT=18:50; LXX= 17:50] IF:“as it is written.”
Rom 15:10 Deut 32:43 IF:“again he says.”
Rom 15:11 Ps 117:1 [LXX=116:1] IF:“and again.”
Rom 15:12 Isa 11:10 IF:“and again Isaiah says.”
Rom 15:21 Isa 52:15 IF:“as it is written.”
IF Introductory Formula
LXX Septuagint (A = Alexandrinus; B = Vaticanus)
MT Masoretic Text
INTRODUCTION
The epistle to the Romans is the first of three letters in the New Testament (NT) based on one verse of Scripture, "The righteous will live by his faith." (Hab. 2:4, HCSB), which is found in Rom. 1:17.[2] Here the apostle Paul is almost literally quoting Hab. 2:4b, and he could not have chosen a better prophecy from which to quote. The passage fits the situation exactly and in connection with the question, "What must I do to be accepted by God?" it remains true as well that "The righteous will live by his faith." "In quietness and confidence shall be your strength" (Isa. 30:15).[3]
Paul‘s message is nothing other than a proclamation of the scriptures. His purpose is to communicate that in the person of Jesus Christ (1:1-7; 10:1-4; 15:4; 16:25-27) the “gospel of God concerning His Son” is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT) prophesies. Paul quotes roughly 60 times from the OT, not counting his frequent use of allusions throughout the epistle, more times than in any of his other letters.[4] His quotes originate mostly from the book of Psalms and the book of Isaiah [see table 1], and his references to or quotations from the Old Testament are often paraphrased, summarized, and in some cases, such as Rom 3:10-18, a compilation of quotes from several books, paragraphs, and verses.
An interesting fact is Paul’s use of allusions, which make up the central theological vocabulary of this epistle, such as “gospel”, “promise”, “faith”, “son of God”, “Holy Spirit”, to name a few, all of which are rooted in Hebrew Scripture. Paul also uses allusions to capture broader subjects without directly quoting any text, such as his references to the “fall of man” and his godless and unrighteous nature (1:18-32), Adam’s transgressions (5:12-21), as well as human conflict with God’s law (7:7-25), which are references to the Genesis 3 narrative.
Furthermore, Paul’s ever so slight hints to the Shema’, (שְׁמַע [shâma` /shem•ah/], Heb. “hear), form the foundation on which he rests his argument through the end of Romans 11 and beyond. However, the only subtle allusion is found in Romans 3:30.[5]
Significance of the Shĕma‘
The central teaching of Judaism, the Shĕma‘, proclaims: “Listen,[6] Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” (Deut. 6:4, HCSB).[7] It was the Jewish confession of faith, proclaiming the unity of God,[8] and following the exile, became the canonic creed of the Jewish faith never to be seriously questioned again.[9] It is the best-known verse in all of Judaism and was widely used in Jewish liturgy.[10] The last letters of the first and last words of this verse are written in Hebrew Bibles in oversized script, thereby forming the Hebrew word ‘witness’ to indicate that by this verse Jews bore witness to the oneness and uniqueness of their God.[11]
Paul employs the Shĕma‘ to support his argument that if there is only one God, then this necessitates that He is the not only God of the Jews, but the God of all.[12] Jesus Himself distinguished the Shĕma‘ as the first commandment in the law (Mark 12:29).[13]
Justification by Faith
Paul, being a Jew himself and having been trained as a Pharisee, naturally had a greater understanding of Jewish thought and theology than most. It is perhaps for that reason alone, that Paul repeatedly cites the OT to make his point. He makes reference to the Patriarchs and their standing before Jehovah, to make his argument. For example, Paul destroys the wrongful use of Abraham, the Jewish model of models, as an example of the conventional "works-salvation" view. Salvation for Abraham was “sola fide” and Paul illustrates his point by quoting from the book of Genesis, "Abram believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6. HCSB)
Furthermore, Paul makes the argument that Abraham was declared righteous while still a Gentile, which he remained for some fourteen to twenty-nine years before he became a Jew! Henceforth, "sola fide" was a Gentile principle long before it became Jewish reality. Abraham is the father of uncircumcised believers and the father of circumcised believers—not on the ground of circumcision, but of faith.
If circumcision and its many blessings had nothing to do with Abraham's justification, the Law had even less to do with it. Paul explains in verse 13, "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith"
Having established the "faith alone" principle, Paul goes on to say, "Now to the one who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who declares righteous the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness." (Rom 4:4, 5, HCSB).
This must have been an enervating concept and unsettling terms to the traditional Jewish ear. First, Paul discourages working for salvation. Second, the self-contradictory description of God as a "God who justifies the wicked" (literally the ungodly) assaulted traditional sensibilities. The Old Testament repeatedly denounces the acquittal of the wicked and the condemnation of the innocent. In fact, to discourage such injustice God presented himself as an example saying, "I will not justify the guilty." (Exodus 23:7, HCSB). Thus, to say that God justifies the wicked seemed outrageous to the law-abiding Jews. However, the difference lies between law and grace. God forbids in the Law what in fact he does by grace in the gospel.[14]
Further Evidence
Having established that Abraham was regarded as righteous by faith before his good works, and having sufficiently stated the “sola fide” principle, Paul turns the attention to yet another great Old Testament saint—King David. He retells the narrative of David's blessedness and joyous relief at having his sins against Bathsheba and Uriah forgiven, an undeserved righteousness bestowed upon him, as described in Psalm 32:1, 2.
Paul explains that David states the same principle when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"How happy is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!
How happy is the man the Lord does not charge with sin, and in whose spirit is no deceit!" (Ps 32:1-2, HCSB)[15]
David had unmerited righteousness credited to him is, because of faith! He had broken three of the ten Commandments outright when he coveted Bathsheba, committed adultery, and murdered Uriah. The Old Testament sacrificial system made no provision for such premeditated sin.[16] This is why David cried in Psalm 51:16,17:
"You do not want a sacrifice, or I would give it; You are not pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifice pleasing to God is a broken spirit. God, You will not despise a broken and humbled heart."[17]
Conclusion
In conclusion, the most influential voice in Judaism was the voice of "father Abraham," so Paul suggests to his readers that they study the patriarch on the matter of faith: "What then can we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? [the matter of faith versus works]?" (Rom 4:1, HCSB) The significance of Paul's line of arguing is that the testimony of the founder of the faith would have far-reaching importance.[18]
Paul draws this magnificent conclusion: "This is why the promise is by faith, so that it may be according to grace, to guarantee it to all the descendants—not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of Abraham's faith. He is the father of us all" (Rom 4:16, HCSB). The universal principle of grace teaches us that salvation comes by faith alone.[19]
The church father Origen, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, reasoned it syllogistically (brackets added): "This is a rhetorical argument, which goes like this:
[Major Premise:] Someone who is justified by works has nothing to boast of before God.
[Minor Premise:] But Abraham did have something to glory in before God.
[Conclusion:] Therefore he was justified by faith and not by works."[20]
The final doxology in Paul’s epistle is directed at the church in Rome to remind the brethren of the guilty, idolatrous nature of man (1:18-23)
25 Now to Him who has power to strengthen you
according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the sacred secret
kept silent for long ages, 26 but now revealed and made known
through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God,
to advance the obedience of faith among all nations— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ—
to Him be the glory forever! Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27, HCSB)
Here, Paul reiterates that that the church in Rome was established by God, not man. Furthermore, Paul reminds his audience that the work of an apostle depends solely on the power of God, which is also the message of the gospel and the promulgation of Jesus Christ. The mystery of Israel’s salvation is found in Scripture (11:25-27) and in the mystery of the gospel, which was silent for long ages (16:25d). Yet, the mystery has now been “revealed and made manifest” (16:25c, 26a [cf. 1:17; 3:21]). Thus, that which was present in Scripture is now revealed.[21]
Paul’s giving glory “to the only wise God” is an expression of salvation received, as implied in his earlier allusion to Genesis 3. It shows Paul’s “gratitude for God’s revelation of His saving grace in Christ Jesus. Paul’s praise and worship of God is in response to God’s mercy and unexpected work of salvation through Jesus the Messiah. God alone is wise and “to Him be the glory forever, Amen.”
Endnotes:
[1] Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Vancouver: W.B. Eerdmans; Regent College Pub., 1999), 92.
[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993), 362.
[3] William Hendriksen, and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to The Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 63-65.
[4] G.K. Beale, and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic; reprint, Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007), 607.
[5] Ibid
[6] Some other versions render it “hear”.
[7] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 730.
[8] Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2d ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 467.
[9] Scot McKnight, Introducing New Testament Interpretation: Guides to New Testament Exegesis; 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), 40.
[10] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, 51.
[11] Beale, and Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, 607.
[12] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, c1998), 205.
[13] Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row, and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 939.
[14] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to The Romans (London: The Tyndale Press, 1966), 114.
[15] R. Kent Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 92.
[16] A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 401.
[17] Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven, 92.
[18] Kenneth Boa, and William Kruidenier, Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference, vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: Broadman amp; Holman Publishers, 2000), 127.
[19] Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven, 94.
[20] Gerald Bray, ed., Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 6 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 105.
[21] Beale, and Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, 692-93.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.
Achtemeier, Paul J., Publishers Harper & Row, and Society of Biblical Literature. Harper's Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.
Beale, G.K., and D.A. Carson, eds. Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. Reprint, Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007.
Boa, Kenneth, and William Kruidenier. Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman amp; Holman Publishers, 2000.
Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture. Vol. 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to The Romans. London: The Tyndale Press, 1966.
Corley, Bruce, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2d ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to The Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness From Heaven. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, 2d ed. Vancouver: Regent College Pub., 1999.
McKnight, Scot. Introducing New Testament Interpretation: Guides to New Testament Exegesis; 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, c1998.
Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)