The post Filled Up (And Running Over) – Ephesians 3:14-21 appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Joel Richardson’s theory that the coming Antichrist will be an Islamic ruler has been stirring up all kinds of interest in the evangelical Christian world recently.  I’ve had several conversations, emails and comments on our website about Richardson’s books, especially in light of an article I published recently arguing that the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 2, the 4^th beast of Dan. 7 and the goat of Dan. 8 are all referring to Alexander the Great’s Greek empire.

If it is the case that these three prophetic descriptions are all focused on the Greek empire – and I believe that the biblical evidence for this is quite substantial – then it would be a significant mistake to infer from Daniel specific statements about the nature and circumstances of the coming Antichrist.  However, Richardson’s arguments depend in part on reading Daniel in precisely the way I am saying they cannot be read.

If the portions of Daniel which are being taken as predictions of the coming Antichrist were actually describing the Greek empire (or even the Roman), then these prophecies were giving specific details about events that were fulfilled before Jesus’ birth rather than about events that are still to come in our future.   This does not necessarily mean that Daniel has nothing at all to say about “end times.”  I am not arguing for what is called, in technical terms, a strictly preterist interpretation.  On the contrary, I believe that many prophesied events from the Bible – and from the book of Revelation particularly – have not yet come to pass.  But I do not think that the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation are necessarily speaking of precisely the same events, in spite of the fact that the book of Revelation uses a fair amount of language that is quite similar to that of Daniel.

It is my belief that when the book of Revelation uses similar language to that found in Daniel it is not referring to precisely the same prophesied events but rather to prophetic patterns that recur at significant points in history; that is, when Daniel foresaw coming events in which the enemies of God’s people did certain kinds of things, he was foreseeing real events that happened over the next few centuries but which were completed (or mostly completed) by the time of the coming of Christ.   However, several of these events followed a certain pattern that will be repeated again before Christ’s return.  Therefore, knowing that these patterns would be repeated, the book of Revelation borrows language from Daniel not because it is describing precisely the same events but because it is saying that the same sorts of things which preceded the first coming of Christ will also happen before his second coming.

Richardson, on the other hand, along with many other Christian teachers like him, believes that much or even most of Daniel is directly describing historical events that are still in the future even from our perspective; that is, most of Daniel has not yet been fulfilled and will only be fulfilled in the “end times” before Jesus returns.  In Richardson’s opinion, Daniel and Revelation use similar language because they are describing precisely the same events…events which have not yet happened.  Operating from this perspective, Richard interprets much of the book of Daniel in light of the book of Revelation.  For instance, he interjects the language of “Antichrist” back into Daniel, though the book of Daniel never uses that term or any other term with a similar meaning.  While it is possible that Daniel was describing the Antichrist, it is also just as possible that he was describing an individual who arrived on the scene before Jesus and acted in certain ways that the coming Antichrist will later emulate.  It is my considered opinion that what Daniel predicted about this individual was clearly fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes.  As I have detailed in my recent article on the kingdom prophecies in Daniel, the internal and external evidence most strongly supports the interpretation which identifies Daniel’s 4^th kingdom as Alexander the Great’s empire…an empire which fragmented into four factions, multiple kings and even a North and South kingdom (Dan 11).  One of these kings that emerged from the divided kingdom was Antiochus Ephiphanes, whom Daniel describes as the blasphemous “little horn” (Dan 7 & 8).  Again, however, it is quite likely that the coming Antichrist will act in similar ways, which is precisely why Revelation borrows much of Daniel’s language when speaking of the Antichrist.

To read Daniel’s predictions as being almost entirely focused on the still-to-come Antichrist rather than on Antiochus Epiphanes does two things.:

First, it removes our ability to affirm the clearly miraculous nature of Daniel’s prophecy.  The details Daniel gives which were fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes are numerous and precise.  The fact that Daniel wrote these details several centuries before the events he described is very strong evidence of the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel.  On the other hand, if these details are understood to be pointing only to the coming Antichrist, then we lose our ability to offer such evidence because, in point of fact, very few of Daniel’s most specific prophecies have actually been fulfilled yet.

Second, reading Daniel in this way fosters what I believe to be an improper –and ultimately dangerous – hermeneutic.  The arguments I have advanced in my previous article are based first on careful reading of Daniel in its entirety along with consideration of its cultural context and only secondarily checked against the historical events that interpretation seemed to be pointing to.  The arguments Richardson advances appear to be based on reading a series of theological assumptions  and modern events back into the biblical text.  While I respect much of Richardson’s work, I do believe in this respect he must be challenged.

To be fair, Richardson is no theological maverick for approaching Daniel in this particular way.  The belief that much or even most of Daniel’s prophetic material has not yet been fulfilled has been a relatively popular interpretation in certain Christian circles for at least a hundred years now.  And let me be perfectly clear:  this belief is not without biblical foundation.  I am not suggesting at all that this point of view cannot be show to have some support from Scripture.  However, I do not think that any interpretation which finds in Daniel detailed prophecies about the coming Antichrist – while ignoring its literal fulfillment in the centuries between its composition and the first coming of Christ – is able to stand up under careful scrutiny.  For those kinds of details we must turn to the book of Revelation.

I don’t have any serious objection to much of what Richardson says in his books.   I object to his use of Daniel to support his point about an Islamic Antichrist, but I am not inherently opposed to or even doubtful about his theories in general.  And, to be fair, there is much in his books that I find quite laudable.  Of particular note, the section called “Formulating Our Method of Interpretation” in his book, Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist, is a very reasonable and balanced approach to prophetic interpretation.  He is to be commended for it.

However, as numerous conservative scholars have demonstrated and as my own recent article Rome or Greece: Interpreting the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 2 indicates, there is considerable objective biblical evidence which cannot be reconciled with Richardson’s interpretations of the material in Daniel.   While this by no means proves that Richardson’s theory about an Islamic Antichrist is false, it does seriously undermine a significant plank in his argument, leaving the burden of proof to rest all the more heavily on the other parts of his argument.

The post Joel Richardson’s Use of Daniel in Arguing for an Islamic Antichrist appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

I can’t seem to find the word “Lucifer” in my Bible anywhere. Isn’t that Satan’s real name? If it’s not, where did we get that name for him?

In common discussion, the terms Devil, Satan and Lucifer all refer to the same being. If you want to be technically correct, though, you should probably stop using the word “Lucifer” at all because its not a biblical term.

Let me explain:

In the King James Version of the Bible, Isaiah 14:12 says: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The use of the word “Lucifer” here is a strange, because the original Hebrew term it translates is helel which means “morning star” in English. But for some reason the translators of the KJV chose not to use the English translation but to insert a Latin term instead; i.e. lucifer is the Latin word for “morning star.” It makes sense that the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible would use this term to translate the original Hebrew helel, as both words refer to the same thing, but the KJV translators’ decision is far less easy to understand. My best guess is that they either didn’t know for sure what the Hebrew helel meant (this is the only time it occurs in the Hebrew Bible) or that they didn’t feel they had a good English equivalent.

To be fair, the KJV was not the first English translation to use a Latin term here. John Wycliff’s translation, which dates back to the 1380′s, did the same thing, so the KJV translators had a precedent for their translation decision. However, if you look at any modern English version besides the New King James (which follows its parent translation here), you will not find the Latin word “lucifer” but rather the English phrase “morning star” or, in some cases “daystar”. And it should be noted that this is not only a modern preference. Some of the oldest English translations of the Bible use “morning star” instead of “lucifer”. Even the 1537 Matthew’s Bible (which predates the KJV by about 80 years), while still employing the term lucifer, explicitly indicates that this is not a proper translation but rather is a Latin substitution. (By the way, if you want to see a very cool online version of a very old English translation, check out the 1537 Matthew’s Bible)

So, while there are some KJV-Only believers out there who claim that modern English versions are watering down the Bible and cite the substitution of “morning star” for “Lucifer” as evidence, the fact is that this “morning star” translation goes back even further than the KJV in some cases.

In summary, the word lucifer is simply a Latin term meaning “morning star.” Its use to translate the Hebrew helel in Isa 14:12 and the interpretation of that passage as a reference to the fallen angel we know as Satan has created a popular conception that Lucifer is the Devil’s proper name. But it’s not. The Bible does not tell us anything about the Devil’s “real” name before he rebelled against God.

The post How The Devil Got His Name appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

One of the most heated cultural debates of our time is that of homosexuality.  While the scales seem to have tipped in favor of seeing homosexuality as a morally neutral behavior,[1] at least in the culture at large, there remains a significant minority who think otherwise.

It will probably come as no surprise that these dissenters most often come from the ranks of those who consider themselves religious in a traditional sense. This is by no means limited to those of the Christian faith.  On the contrary, orthodox Islamic teaching against homosexual behavior is, arguably, more pointed than anything to be found in the Jewish or Christian scriptures (cf. Qur’an 4:15-16, 7:80-82, 26:165-175, 27:55-58, 29:28-29).

In the West, however, it is the Christian view of homosexuality that has received the most attention.  This is understandable, given Western culture’s indebtedness in the Judeo-Christian worldview[2] which has always viewed homosexuality as morally negative; that is, as sinful.  This historical entanglement of Western culture and Christian theology is a matter of some difficulty for those who are presently advancing the morally-neutral view of homosexuality.  Changing the cultural perception of homosexuality clearly goes against the stream of our history.  Therefore, the attempt to modify our culture’s view of homosexuality must do one of two things:  disassociate Western culture from Christian faith or redefine the Christian view of homosexuality.

Both approaches are currently being employed by those who hope to see homosexuality accepted as a morally neutral, or even morally positive, behavior.  However, it is the latter one, the attempt to redefine the Christian view of homosexuality – which most concerns us here.  One of the techniques – and indisputably a clever one from a purely rhetorical perspective – has been to challenge the traditional interpretation of biblical passages which seem to speak against homosexual behavior.   If it can be shown that these passages do not actually condemn homosexual behavior, as has been thought, then the moral foundation of objecting to such behavior is lost and such objections become nothing more than personal preference.

The question before us, then, is whether or not the Bible actually does evaluate homosexual behavior as being morally negative.  A secondary question is whether or not any such negative evaluation – if it exists at all – is to be understood as timeless or if it was limited to a particular cultural context (much like the Jewish dietary prescriptions have been understood to be non-binding for non-Jewish Christians).

To do this, we will look at each of the relevant biblical passages, employing standard principles of responsible interpretation.

Genesis 1: 26-28 & 2:18-24

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  ²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:26-28)  

¹⁸ The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  ¹⁹ Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  ²⁰ So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam  no suitable helper was found.  ²¹ So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  ²² Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  ²³ The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.”  ²⁴ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18-24)

While these two passages do not directly speak to homosexual behavior, they do provide important context for the larger discussion.  Human sexuality cannot be understood as an isolated construct.  Rather, it must be understood within the larger framework of human nature.  Within the first two chapters of Genesis, critical teaching about the purpose of human existence is given:

1. Humanity is a single whole made up of two constituent parts, male and female.
2. Human beings were created to be/act as the Image of God, representing God and His purposes in all creation.
3. In order to accomplish #2, humans were commanded to procreate and fill the earth with their offspring, a task which necessarily requires heterosexual behavior and which is obstructed by homosexual behavior.

Again, these two passages do not directly address the issue of homosexual behavior, but they do provide important context to the discussion by teaching that human procreation is closely linked to the purpose of human existence.

However, while it seems clear that procreation is a central function of sexuality according to these passages, it may be an overstatement of the evidence to say that procreation is the only purpose of human sexuality.  Gen 2:24 says “for this reason a man…shall be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.” It is likely that the statement “they will become one flesh” here is related to sexual union but it should be noted that both marriage itself (“man…united to his wife”) and the sexual union that occurs in the context of marriage (“become one flesh”) are both intended to accomplish some larger goal; that is, both marriage and sex are given “for this reason”.  The question then becomes, what is “this reason”? In the context, it seems clear that the reason is that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18).  In other words, both marriage and sex are intended to foster companionship.  Therefore, producing children is not the only purpose of sexual activity.

Recognizing that procreation is not the only purpose of sexuality, some might attempt to argue that the teaching here in Gen 1 & 2 is not necessarily restricting sexual activity to heterosexual partners.  However, such an argument would have to ignore the larger context of this section. In context here it is clear that both marriage and sexuality serve to unite man to woman, apparently because, while both are made as God’s Image, their representation of Him is of differing sorts (e.g. strength and nurturing) and it is only when male and female are together that they are able to accomplish this purpose.  Add in the fact that procreation is one of the central purposes of sexual activity and it becomes clear that homosexuality is fundamentally contrary to the goals of human sexuality as described here in Genesis 1 & 2.

Even apart from these contextual observations, it must be acknowledged that these first mentions of human sexuality in the Bible are exclusively concerned with heterosexuality.  As we shall see in our consideration of subsequent passages, the biblical teaching on human sexuality appears to proceed from this basic assumption of heterosexuality as the intended norm.

Read The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 2:  Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11)

The post The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 1: The Purpose of Human Sexuality in Genesis 1 & 2 appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

It has been common practice among Christians since Jerome (347-420 A.D.) to interpret the 4^th of these kingdoms as being the Roman Empire.  The primary reason for this seems to be that Daniel predicted that, during the 4^th kingdom a stone “not cut with human hands” (Dan. 2:34) would strike the kingdom and destroy it.  This stone has long been understood to be Jesus of Nazareth, who was born during the Roman era.  While symbolically satisfying for obvious reasons, this interpretation is simply not as strong as another, far older interpretive option which understands the 4^th kingdom to be the Macedonian/Greek Empire as established by Alexander the Great.   As I will argue here, this interpretation ultimately does a much better job of staying true to the biblical text itself and to the historical events that Daniel clearly foretold several centuries earlier. 

At the end of the day, the identification of the 4^th kingdom with either the Macedonian or the Roman empires is not of earth-shaking significance.   In either case we still have a clear example of detailed, predictive prophecy written several centuries before the events actually took place.  In either case, God’s sovereignty over the kingdoms of man is demonstrated to be absolute.  In either case, the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth is predicted, though in slightly different ways depending on which interpretation one ultimately accepts.  These are the most important issues here and none of them is undermined by either interpretation. Therefore, what is at stake here is, in some senses, inconsequential.

In another sense, however, what is at stake here matters very much.  While it is not obvious how understanding the 4^th kingdom of Daniel 2 as the Macedonian or Roman empire will affect our lives or spiritual development, the accurate division of God’s Word is always of paramount importance, whether one can immediately see the personal impact or not. 

(Before considering the argument below, you might find it helpful to look at this summary chart of the details of the three prophecies: Daniel Chart)

Reasons for understanding Daniel’s 4^th kingdom as the Macedonian/Greek Empire:

1.  The  4^th kingdom in Dan. 2 (A), the 4^th beast/kingdom in Dan. 7 (B) and the goat in Dan. 8 (C) all appear to be symbolic of the same earthly kingdom which Dan. 8:21 explicitly identifies as belonging to the “king of Greece.”  

a.  The first three kingdoms in Dan. 2 and the first three beasts/kingdoms in Dan. 7 are obviously parallel, leading us to assume that they will also be parallel in regards to their respective 4^th kingdom. The connection between the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd kingdoms in Dan. 2 & the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd kingdoms in Dan. 7 is obvious and widely, if not universally, accepted.  If these two prophecies are each speaking about the same kingdoms in the first three instances, then it is most natural to assume that they are also speaking about the same 4^th kingdom.  Even apart from any direct evidence of parallels between the 4^th kingdom in Dan. 2 and the 4^th beast/kingdom in Dan. 7 (see below), it would still be most natural to assume the two prophecies are detailing the same 4^th kingdom simply because these two prophecies have been paralleling one another in the first three instances.

b. There are also explicit parallels of content between the 4^th kingdoms of Dan. 2 & 7 and the goat of Dan. 8. 

(1) In all three prophecies, there is a reference to God’s activity in demolishing human kingdoms.  In Dan. 2 this happens during the 4^th kingdom (a stone “not cut by human hands”, 2:34).  In Dan. 7 it happens during the 4^th kingdom (the Ancient of Days destroys the 4^th beast; 7:9-11).  These parallel references also seem to correspond to the statement in Dan. 8 that the small horn which came from the goat was “broken without human agency,” a phrase which is quite similar to the description of a stone “not cut by human hands” in 2:44.

(2) Similarities between the unidentified beast of Dan. 7 and the goat of Dan. 8 are substantial. 

• Both overtake the whole earth with great power and speed
• Both are initially unified under a single leader but are then split into factions
• A small horn which eventually emerges from one of the splintered factions is described in considerable detail in both Dan. 7 and Dan. 8, including statements of the horn’s boastfulness and opposition to God’s saints.  This small horn was destroyed by the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:9-12, a prediction which appears to be repeated in Dan. 8:25 where it is said to be “broken without human agency.”

It would appear that the unidentified beast of Dan. 7 is identified and further described by the prophecy of the goat in Dan. 8.

It seems clear that the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 2 (A) and the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 7 (B) correspond to one another, so A=B.  It also seems clear that the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 7 (B) corresponds to the goat of Dan. 8 (C), so B=C.  If A=B and B=C then A=C; i.e. the goat of Dan. 8 must also correspond to the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 2.  All three references of these passages prophesy about the same kingdom.  Since Dan. 8:21 explicitly identifies its 4^th kingdom as being ruled by the “king of Greece”, then the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 2 and the goat of Dan. 8 are also ruled by the “king of Greece”; i.e. this is the Macedonian/Greek Empire.

2.  The details of the 4^th kingdom in Dan. 2 & 7 and the details of the goat in Dan. 8 fit the historical events of the Macedonian/Greek Empire extremely well.  Conversely, the specific details do not correspond naturally to events from the Roman era.

a.  Alexander the Great was the strongest military leader the world had ever seen.  This fits the descriptions of a kingdom of iron which tramples all the other kingdoms (Dan. 2) as well as the fearsomeness of the goat (Dan. 8) and the teeth of iron possessed by the 4^th beast in Dan. 7.  There is no particular reason why this could not also apply to the Roman Empire as it was also wide-spread and extremely powerful.  However, there is no one individual closely associated with the rise of the Roman Empire in the ancient world and Daniel clearly associates a single leader with this kingdom’s earliest stages.

b.  Alexander conquered the ancient world in an astonishingly short time (about 3 years).  This fulfilled the prophecy about “coming over the surface of the earth without touching the ground” (i.e. advancing at great speed; 8:5).  There is simply no similar concept of rapid conquest associated with Rome.

c.  Alexander was the first non-oriental king to rule this area (i.e. he was “different from the others” since the Babylonian, Median and Persian Empires were all oriental; 7:7).  This would also be true of Rome and, as a republic in its earlier stages, its form of government might also fit this prophecy.

d.  Right after conquering the world, Alexander died unexpectedly, leaving no children.  His empire was splintered into four initial sections each headed by one of his four generals (a divided kingdom; 2:41, divided into four initial horns; 8:8, 8:22, also 11:6).  These eventually gave rise to multiple kings who warred with one another (10 horns; 7:7, 7:24]).  There is no easy way to fit these prophetic details with the Roman Empire. 

e.  The small horn which eventually grew up out of the remains of this 4^th kingdom fits the infamous Antiochus Epiphanes very well.  His very name, Epiphanes, means “God manifest” (“magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host”; 8:11) and was self-chosen (boasting; 7:8, 7:20).  In 167 B.C, he destroyed Jerusalem, defiled the temple and rendered it unusable for sacrifices (which fits the details of Dan. 8 extremely well).

3.  Other details of Daniel beyond the prophecies of 2,7 & 8 also cohere well if we understand the 4^th kingdom and the goat to be references to the Macedonian Empire.  In particular, the references to the king of the North and the king of the South in Dan. 11 fit perfectly with the Seleucid (northern) and Ptolemic (southern) regimes which emerged from the four-way split of the Macedonian Empire. 

Difficulties with this view:

The only real difficulty with understanding the 4^th kingdoms of Dan. 2 & 7 and the goat of Dan. 8 as the Macedonian Empire is an artificial one; that is, it goes against popular interpretations which have dominated discussions about Daniel for some time.  As we have seen, though, it does not go against the biblical or historical evidence.  From that perspective, there is little or no problem with this interpretation.  However, since it flies in the face of presently popular understandings, this bears some address.

The strongest argument for the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 2 and 7 being the Roman Empire is the arrival of the rock/Ancient of Days/”one like a son of man” during the 4^th kingdom.  If this is Jesus, who did not arrive during the Macedonian Empire but during the Roman, then the 4^th kingdom would have to be the Roman Empire, in spite of all the evidence considered above.  However, these are not all references to Jesus and in fact, the reference to Jesus (“the one like a son of man” which was Jesus’ favorite title for himself) is clearly distinct from the Ancient of Days.  Moreover, the “one like a son of man” arrives after the Ancient of Days has destroyed the 4^th kingdom’s power…possibly a considerable amount of time later.

1.  The “rock not cut by human hands” in Dan. 2 is not the same as the “one like a son of man” in Dan. 7. 

It is clear in Dan. 7 that it is the appearance of the Ancient of Days who destroys the power of the beasts/kingdoms, but it is also clear that the Ancient of Days is not the same as the one “like a son of man”. The “one like a son of man” receives his power/dominion from the Ancient of Days, so they cannot be the same person.  The rock “not cut by human hands” of Dan. 2, the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7 and the power which destroys the small horn in Dan. 8:25 are likely the same, but the “one like a son of man” seems to be distinct (though obviously connected).

2.  The arrival of the “one like a son of man” in Dan. 2 seems to come sometime after the destruction of the 4^th kingdom, not during it. 

Daniel says that the Ancient of Days destroyed the fourth beast and the power of all the beasts/kingdoms, but that an “extension of life” was granted to the beasts (7:13-14).  The “one like a son of man” only appears after this extension.  If the 4^th kingdom is the Macedonian Empire, this works perfectly. God destroyed the small horn, Antiochus Epiphanes (who we know died not in battle but from either a sickness or a fall from his chariot…i.e. not by human hands), fatally wounding what was left of the splintered power of the Macedonian Empire.  The Maccabean revolt in Israel followed this, throwing off much of the Greek power over Israel.  However, the Greeks continued to rule Israel albeit in reduced capacity until the Romans came in 63 AD.  Jesus then appeared soon after Rome came on the scene and Rome was eventually swallowed by Christianity when it became a Christian empire.  In effect, Rome was a part of God’s final destruction of previous world powers in this region.

But if this rock not cut by human hands is not Jesus of Nazareth, then what/who is it?  I believe the best interpretation is that it is the Kingdom of God itself.  Obviously, Jesus accomplished the decisive victory by which the Kingdom was inaugurated with his crucifixion and resurrection.  However, even Jesus spoke of the presence of the Kingdom in present terms before his resurrection.  This is, undoubtedly, in many ways related to the incarnation – that is, the Kingdom was present because Jesus himself was present – but there is no particular reason why the beginnings of the Kingdom – which is, after all, the rule of God in human affairs – could not have earlier stirrings going back into the Macedonian period.

As discussed above, the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes eventually led to the Maccabean revolt which did two things.  First, it seems to have brought divine judgment upon him, leading to his death “not by human hands” which, in turn, dramatically undermined the power of what was left of the Macedonian Empire.  In this way, God’s actions broke the power of the 4^th kingdom and set in motion events which came to a head with the arrival of Jesus.  Second, the Maccabean revolt did something extremely important with respect to Jesus’ ministry:  it stirred up longings for the arrival of God’s Messiah.  With a taste of freedom but also the knowledge that they would not be completely free until God moved, during the latter part of the Macedonian occupation, the people of Israel began to long for the Messiah to an unprecedented degree.  The messianic fervor that we find in the 1^st century Jewish culture of Jesus’ day was directly related to the events which occurred during the Macedonian occupation of Israel.  I believe this is what is meant by the prophetic details of the 4^th kingdom in Dan. 2, 7 & 8:  during this time, God would do something that would grow larger and larger until eventually it destroyed to power of all other kings and kingdoms.  Obviously Jesus was the “one like the son of man” who decisively declared the absolute power of this divine Kingdom and won its critical victory, but he need not be taken as the initial “rock” thrown in the pond of human affairs.

The post Rome or Greece: Interpreting the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 2 appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Perhaps one of the most puzzling passages in the book of Genesis is found in 6:4:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days– and also afterward– when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

This enigmatic verse has caused no end of confusion, consternation and, of course, speculation. One of the most common speculations holds that this verse teaches that fallen angels (e.g. the “sons of God”) had sex with human women, giving rise to some kind of human/angel hybrid called the Nephilim. This view has been popularized in books, movies, TV shows and, most unfortunately of all, in sermons by irresponsible preachers.   This teaching depends on the fact that in the book of Job, the phrase “sons of God” is a clear reference to angelic spirits (cf. Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) and assumes that the phrase must mean the same thing here in Genesis.  The fact that the Nephilim, who appear to be the offspring of this union, are said to be “heroes of old, men of renown” reinforces the idea that they are not mere mortals but had supernatural qualities.

This idea certainly feeds our appetites for sensationalism, but is it good biblical teaching?  No, it is not.  More importantly, it ends up causing people to miss the very point God was making when He inspired Moses to write these words!

Let’s deal first with why this popular idea of angel/human hybrids is almost certainly mistaken:

1. This union between the “sons of God” and the daughters of men” was clearly displeasing to God, which would mean that any angels who entered into such unions were rebelling against God.

The evidence for this is primarily to be found in the fact that, between the statement about the union (Gen 6:2) and the statement about the offspring of that union (Gen 6:4), we find this:  Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years” (Gen 6:3). The Hebrew here is constructed in such a way that there can be no doubt that this statement about God’s displeasure was linked to the previous verse.[1] In other words, these marriages were not God’s will.

Now, if these “sons of God” were angels, then they would have been disobeying God by doing this and their disobedience would seem to constitute an angelic rebellion.  As there is no mention of Satan here in Gen 6 or any mention elsewhere in the Bible of Satan leading the rebellion by marrying a human woman, this would almost certainly have to be a different angelic rebellion than the one most of us are familiar with.  However, there is no mention anywhere in Scripture of a second angelic rebellion.  It would be very surprising, to say the least, that there would be no comment made about such a thing either here are elsewhere in the Bible.

So, if this is not a matter of previously loyal angels abandoning heaven, then the only other option would be to understand these “sons of God” as already-fallen angels, otherwise known as demons or evil spirits.  But if these are demons or evil spirits, then calling them “sons of God” would be a very strange thing to do…

2.  The Bible does not refer to rebellious angels as “sons of God.”

Some readers will probably think that this is so obvious that it needs no explanation.  After all, how could demons be called “sons of God”?  The Hebrew phrase here (beni ha elohim) and the Greek equivalent (huioi theou) used in the New Testament are most typically used to denote creatures who are faithful and obedient to God’s will.  We see this even in so near a context as Job 38:7 where the “sons of God” are angels who rejoice at God’s work…quite the opposite of a typical demonic response!  In the New Testament, we see the same positive association without exception (cf. Mat 5:9, Luk 20:36, Rom 8:14, Rom 8:19 and Gal 3:26).

However, it is clear that the use of this phrase in Gen 6:2 and 6:4 cannot easily be understood in so a positive light since God is obviously displeased by what they were doing.  Therefore its use in Gen 6 is somewhat anomalous.  In that sense, it could theoretically be a reference to angels who were rebelling at this moment, but as we mentioned above, there is no other biblical reference to what would have to be considered a second angelic rebellion.

Now, to be fair, there is a place in the Bible where the phrase “sons of God” might be easily misunderstood to include fallen angels as well as the still-loyal ones.  We do find this exact same phrase in Job 1:6 and 2:1, both of which say that the “sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them.”  While this might appear, at first glance, to say that Satan was counted among the “sons of God”, a closer looks makes this very unlikely.  The Hebrew word (gam) translated here as “also” (as in “Satan also came”) is typically used to indicate association with distinction; that is, it is not the word one would use to speak of a thing which was simply part of the larger whole.  For instance, you would not use this word to say “a bushel of apples and also an apple” but rather to say “a bushel of apples and also an orange.”  The use of this word sets Satan apart in an important sense from the assembly of the “sons of God”, though indicating that he was to be found “among” the crowd of them.  This same idea of association-with-distinction is also typical of the Hebrew word (tavek) translated here as “among”.  In summary, while Job 1:6 and 2:1 say that Satan came before God along with a crowd of angels, it does not say that he was one of these “sons of God”.  On the contrary, these verses seem to distinguish Satan from the group of angels called “sons of God.”  Apart from these two verses in Job, there is simply no evidence from Scripture that Satan or any other fallen angel was ever called a “son of God” and even these two verses, rightly understood, do not support such an understanding.

So, while “sons of God” can mean angelic spirits, it does not mean demonic spirits or rebellious angels, so it is very unlikely to have that meaning here in Gen 6.

3.  Angels don’t marry, but the language here is clearly that of marriage.

At various points in history, some scholars have attempted to dismiss the idea of angels marrying humans on the basis of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:30:  “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”  This approach might be a bit too simplistic,[2] but that doesn’t mean that it is false or can be easily ignored. If the angelic nature is such that they do not marry one another, then the idea that they might be interested in marrying a completely different kind of creature is rather difficult to fathom.  This is all the more difficult a notion to accept when we consider the question of why non-physical spirits would find human women “beautiful.”

Perhaps more importantly, there is the problem of the essential nature of angels vs. the essential nature of human beings. Angels are spirits whereas humans are physical or, more properly embodied spirits.  To be fair, some angels may[3] be able to manifest with actual physical form (as opposed to simply being visible) for a time (cf. Gen 18:1 and 19:1), but it remains a fact that their normal state is non-physical.[4]  The idea of a “marriage” between a physical and a non-physical creature simply makes no sense, especially given the fact that marriage as instituted in Genesis has the effect of making the two partners “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), a concept which is meaningless if one of the partners has no flesh!

For an angel to really marry a human woman, it would have to take on physical form in a permanent or at least semi-permanent way which raises all sorts of additional problems.

4.  Angels having children with human women is both physiologically and theologically problematic.

First, to be blunt, as angels are by nature non-physical creatures, they do not naturally possess sperm with which to impregnate human women.  Even if we assume that angelic spirits can take physical form for a while, it is an assumption orders of magnitude greater to think that their temporary bodies possess DNA wrapped up in sex cells which can be introduced into a human woman, beginning the process of sexual reproduction and maintaining cellular meiosis even after the angelic spirit has returned to its natural, non-physical state.  Second, from a theological perspective, any child born from an angel/woman union would not be of Adam’s line and would therefore not be under the Adamic churse, yet as we will see in the next section, the Flood narrative seems to include the Nephilim in with the other, sinful descendants of Adam.

An alternative interpretation, one held by John Macarthur, is worth mentioning here:  it is held by some that demons did not directly impregnate women but rather, possessed human men who then impregnated women.  This view does not have the ontological or theological difficulties of the more popular view.  However, it remains problematic for different reasons.  First, there is no evidence for this in the passage itself; on the contrary, the passage explicitly says that the “sons of God” directly married the “daughters of men.”  If they had to do so via intermeidary bodies possessed for this purpose it is surprising that no mention of that fact is made.  Second, this view is apparently intended to explain the unusual physical nature of the Nephilim, but I cannot see how it does so.  Even if a man impregnates a woman while possessed, his sperm would still be entirely human.  If there is a reason why the offspring of a possessed man and a woman should have unusual physical capacities, it is never made clear (or even hinted at) in Scripture.

5.  God brought judgment on humanity for this sin, not on angels.

The context of Genesis 6 strongly suggests that this displeasing union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” was part of God’s motivation in bringing the Flood upon the earth.  Note that Gen 5 concludes with the introduction of Noah and then Gen 6:8 returns to discussion of Noah and his righteousness.  The intervening verses, including the statements about the “sons of God” marrying “daughters of men” and the brief statement about the Nephilim, are all part of the declaration of humanity’s great wickedness.  Interestingly, Gen 6:12 says that God saw how bad things had gotten because (literally) “all flesh”[5] had become corrupt, a term closely associated with human beings throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.  This is a clear indication that physical human beings are the focus of God’s judgment, not angelic spirits.

The result of this great wickedness was the Flood on earth, not a purging of the heavens, maintaining the focus on human sinfulness and punishment, but making no mention at all of the sin or punishment of angelic spirits. If the nephilim’s very existence is an abomination, then why are humans held responsible for it rather than the supposedly angelic “sons of God” who are explicitly identified as initiating these unholy unions?

Note:  some scholars, Sailhamer among them, argue that Gen 6:1-4 are intended to be a conclusion to the genaeology of Gen 5 rather than an introduction to the Flood narrative of Gen 6.  If this is correct, then it is possible that there is no particular judgment implied upon these unions.  Rather, in this view, Gen 6:1-4 could be simply a “calm before the storm”, though with an ominous statement that God’s judgment upon wickedness is coming.  If this view is correct, then the point I have made in this section becomes irrelevant to the larger discussion.  However, an alternative view is that Sailhamer is correct that Gen 6:1-3 belongs as the conclusion to chapter 5 and 6:4 actually begins the flood narrative.  I actually think this quite likely based on the fact that 6:1, 6:2 and 6:3 all have a waw/vav connector at their beginning but 6:4 does not, suggesting it is not so intimately connected to the preceding verses.  If this is the case, then the mention of the Nephilim are still part of the Flood narrative.

6.  The word “Nephilim” seems to mean “giant humans” and is not a proper noun.

The mysteriousness of Gen 6:4 is considerably heightened because most Bible versions have simply transliterated the Hebrew word rather than translating it.  This means that most versions have retained the sound of the original word using the closest letters in the target language, but in so doing they have treated the word as though it were a proper noun which it may not be.  This same word recurs in Num 13:33 where it appears to be a description rather than a proper noun:  “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

When we remember that the Flood wiped out all human beings but Noah and his family and realize that Anak was a descendent of Noah’s son Ham,[6] it becomes clear that these are two completely unconnected groups of people being described by the same Hebrew word.  This strongly suggests that Nephilim is not a proper noun at all but a descriptive noun meaning something like “giants”.  When read in this way, it becomes very likely that Genesis 6:4 is referring to human beings who possessed unusual physical size and strength which is why they were called “heroes of old, men of renown.”  (Note also that they are specifically called men of renown, a translation of the Hebrew term ish which is normally only used in reference to human males).[7]

7.  Genesis 6 does not focus on the nephilim as result of this union but rather cites them as evidence of the human wickedness of “those days.”

There are two distinct literary units in the first part of Gen 6.  The first is found in 6:1-3 and the second in 6:4-8.[8]  Both of them have a very similar function:  they emphasize the fact that wickedness on the earth was growing and about to be judged.  When this is understood, it becomes likely that the nephilim are cited as evidence of the prevalence of this wickedness; that is, they are mentioned because they contribute to the point Moses is making:  the Flood was justified because the world was full of terrible evil.  The nephilim are apparently an example of that evil.

Now, to be fair, there are at least two possible reasons why the nephilim would have been used as an example of rampant evil.  One option is that they were the unnatural offspring of angels and humans, but we have already seen several reasons why this is very unlikely.  The other option would be that the original audience of Genesis knew of some human example of nephilim that was closely associated with evil.  But that is precisely what the Bible tells us!

As we have already seen, the word nephilim which is probably a descriptive noun meaning “giants,” also occurs in Num 13:33 where it was used to describe some of the Canaanites the Israel were facing as they contemplated entering the Promised Land.  The Bible gives several horrifying descriptions of Canaanite evil and it would have been quite natural to fixate on the “giants” among them as a kind of representative archetype of these evil people, similar to the way that Goliath would later come to be a kind of archetype of the “giants” that oppose God’s people.  Given what they were facing, this is likely how the original audience of Genesis would have responded to the word nephilim when they encountered it in Gen 6:4.   They would have understood the presence of giants before the Flood as evidence of the great wickedness of “those days.”

Moses is not emphasizing the supernatural nature of these “giants” but merely citing them as evidence of the great wickedness of “those days”.  In this light, the statement that these nephilim were “heroes of old, men of renown” is likely not a positive thing.  Rather, it emphasizes the fact that these evil, violent – but undeniably powerful – men were looked up to![9]  This is probably supposed to be an indictment of those who looked up to these men rather than a statement about how great the nephilim were.

Further support for this understanding of Gen 6:4-8 comes from Jesus himself.  In one of Jesus’ most famous sermons, he spoke about the “days of Noah” (Mat 24:37-38, Luk 17:26-27) as an example of evil days when people are not paying any attention to God.  While he clearly refers to Gen 6 in this sermon, he never once mentions the nephilim, but he specifically mentions people “marrying and being given in marriage” which sounds suspiciously similar to what Moses said in Gen 6:1-2 and 6:4!  If the point of Gen 6:4 was the nephilim themselves, Jesus seems to have missed it.  Rather, he seems to think that the point of the entire section of Gen 6:1-8 is to describe how bad things had gotten.  The wicked, though much-admired, nephilim were simply one example of mankind’s evil in “those days.”

There is not a single good piece of evidence that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 were angels, either of the previously-fallen or the fell-at-that-moment variety.  The nephilim were not angel/human hybrids but were rather men huge men with great strength admired by the rest of an increasingly wicked humanity.

But if the nephilim are not angel/human hybrids, then why are they mentioned in conjunction with the “sons of God”?  And if the “sons of God” were not angels, then what were they?  At this point, you may already have a pretty good idea what the answer is, but let’s look at the alternatives first:

Option 1 – The “sons of God” were ancient kings.

In the ancient Near East, it was not at all uncommon to describe rulers as descendants of the gods and some scholars have suspected something of that sort operating here in Gen 6:4.  However it is not at all clear why kings would be spoken of as a group (i.e. “sons of God”).  Nor does this view explain why God would have been displeased with the kings taking wives, unless the issue is that they took more than one, thus committing polygamy, which some scholars have suggested.

Option 2 – The “sons of God” are of the godly line of Seth.

In this view, the “sons of God” is a phrase used to distinguish between the godly line of Seth and the rest of humanity.  This does take the “sons of God” in a more positive light which seems natural, but it does not explain why the marriage to the daughters of men should have been received negatively, unless this is a veiled reference to marriages outside of tribes.  This is an intriguing possibility suggested by the statement that they “married any of them they chose” but there is not enough evidence to know for certain if this was what Moses meant.

Option 3 – The “sons of God” is simply a stylized way – and possibly an ironic one – of identifying human males.

One of the most important features of Hebrew literature was parallelism between elements in the first and second stichs (lines of poetry).  From that perspective, the simple “men” of 6:1 might simply be parallel to the more stylized “sons of God” in 6:2.  In support of this is the nearly certain observation that the simple “daughters” of 6:1 is parallel to the more stylized “daughters of men” in 6:2.  It seems very unlikely that “daughters” and “daughters of men” are intended to identify two different groups of women.  Therefore, it is also unlikely that “men” and “sons of God” are intended to identify two different groups of men but rather a single group; i.e. human males.  It should be noted that in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, he traces the family line back to Adam whom he identifies as being a son “of God” (Luk 3:38).[10]  Further support for this view comes from the genealogy in Gen 5 where the fact that Adam was made “in God’s likeness” (5:1) is reiterated and it is also said that Adam had a son, Seth, “in his own likeness” (5:3).  In other words, there are good biblical reasons to take the phrase “sons of God” to be some kind of reference to God’s initial creation of Adam as his image and likeness and a continuation of this thought to the male “sons” who were born to Adam.[11]

But why would men be called “sons of God” whereas women are called “daughters of men”?  The answer may simply be that Adam, the first man, had no human ancestor and was therefore a direct “son of God.”  Eve, however, was created from Adam’s rib and was therefore in some senses a descendent of Adam.  While this might seem on the surface to exalt men and denigrate women, no such slight is intended.  On the contrary, not only does Gen 1:27 explicitly state that both males and females were made as God’s image, but this truth is reiterated again 5:1-2.  In Hebrew, the phrase translated as “daughters of men” is literally “daughters of Adam” and likely points back to the direct connection between women and the first Adam.  In that sense it is simply an acknowledgement of the creative order by which God brought Adam and Eve into existence.

If “sons of God” (Gen 6:2) is merely a more stylized version of “men” (6:1) – as “daughters of men” (6:2) is merely a more stylized version of “daughters” (6:1) – then both terms simply identify human males.  Further evidence for this option emerges from Mat 24:38 where Jesus said that in the days before the Flood, “they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark.” Here we have what appears to be a clear reference to all this marriage business that precedes the Flood account, yet it is also clear that it is human marriages that are in view.  In other words, Jesus seems to have understood Gen 6:1-3 to be referring to purely human marriages.  If Jesus thought there was something more spectacular going on here, he was completely silent about it.

But what is the point of this passage then?  Why should Moses have bothered to say that men were taking any women they chose as wives and having more kids?  And why would he have made this enigmatic mention of these nephilim who were “on the earth in those days”?  Both questions are easily answered when the context, both literary and cultural, is considered.

The nephilim were mentioned in order to encourage God’s people as they were learning to trust God after their exodus from Egypt.

The point of Gen 6:1-8 is simply that human wickedness spread like wildfire upon the earth, leading to God’s judgment exercised via the Flood.  The business about men taking any wives they wanted may simply be a statement of rampant procreation; more and more humans means more and more sin.  However, remember that Moses was giving this account to the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt, at precisely the same time that God was forbidding them from taking wives from among the Canaanite tribes they were encountering.  In that cultural context, the statement that men were taking any women they chose might well have been understood as a statement of their lawlessness and a warning that falling into similar sin was serious business.

Remembering this cultural context of the Exodus might also explain the reference to the nephilim. If, as I have already argued, nephilim, is a descriptive noun (i.e. giants), then Moses might have been drawing a connection between what happened back then and what the Israelites were facing in their present circumstances.  When the spies who explored the Promised Land returned, they reported that they saw “nephilim/giants…and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight” (Num 13:33).  As we might easily imagine, confronted with an enemy who had giant soldiers, the Israelites panicked.

What better way to encourage and strengthen them than to remind them that there had been wicked giants on the earth in the past, too, but that God had destroyed them along with all of the other evil-doers who had necessitated the Flood?  Remember that Gen 6:4 doesn’t simply say that there were giants “in those days”, it goes on to say “and also afterwards”.  What is the point of this if not to draw an explicit connection between the days of Noah and the situation the Israelites were facing when this was written?

In other words, Moses was saying something like this:  “Look, don’t be afraid of these giants in the land.  God will destroy the evil that threatens His people.  He’s done it in the past…remember the Flood?  And by the way, back when God sent the flood there had been giants too, powerful warriors of great renown, just like the ones you’re facing right now!  But what happened to those giants in the past?  They were powerless before God.  They were swept away by His might!  And so too will these giants threatening us now be swept away before Him!”

This mention of the nephilim back in Gen 6:4 was an encouragement to the Israelites facing giants as they contemplated entering the Promised Land.  That might seem like a complicated way to encourage someone, but it would have been quite powerful in those days.  Hebrew literature is rarely direct, preferring instead to make its point progressively by a carefully crafted telling of a story.  If nothing else, modern biblical scholarship has confirmed to us time and again that the Old Testament is not simply a random collection of historical anecdotes but rather a carefully crafted story intended to impart truth and encourage God’s people.  These are true stories, to be sure, but they are also carefully crafted so that the point of telling them is accomplished…as long as we remember how to read them.

The post The Nephilim and the Sons of God in Genesis 6:4 appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Over years of studying scripture, I have found four kinds of tools indispensable. Today, I’d like to introduce you to some of those:

1. Concordance – An exhaustive concordance is a book listing words in the Bible and all occurrences of that word. Let’s say, for example, you want to do a study on “justice” in Isaiah. You could go the long route, read through the book and find every time justice occurs. Or, you could grab a concordance and look up “justice.” There you would find every verse it occurs. Furthermore, every occurrence will be labeled with a number connected to an index in the back which tells you what the word is in the original language and other possible translations. From there, you can use other tools to find out more about that word.

2. Dictionaries and Lexicons – These are helpful for gaining more insight into Hebrew and Greek words. Some good options are Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of New and Old Testament Words (William Mounce) and The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament (ed. Zodhiates). For more in depth study, try the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. Colin Brown) and the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (ed. Willem VanGemeren). These latter two are five volume sets so check out the less expensive electronic versions if you want to purchase these.

3. Commentaries – These are single author works written on a specific book or books in the Bible. There are also a few single Bible commentaries that offer brief notes on every book of the Bible, although these are certainly not as helpful. While I always recommend beginning with your own study first, once you’ve spent some time with just you and the text, your next step is to consult an expert on that book and see what they have to say about the passage you are studying. While they are not always right on everything, they have usually spent a great deal of time in that book and have great insights to offer. Just make sure to consult more than one, to get a broad range of input on the passage.

4. Computer Programs – When I began to study the Bible, there really were no great Bible programs in existence. Now, we have a number of great options. My own personal favorite is Bibleworks, which I have been using for over ten years and have found it indispensable to serious study. Here are my favorite things to do with Bibleworks:

• Word searches – Bibleworks functions as a concordance making searching for terms in scripture a breeze. You can search the entire Bible or limit your search to a book or to just the old or new testament. You can search in any version you prefer and you can also search in Hebrew or Greek (and other languages like Spanish and French). You can even search for whole phrases, such as “in Christ.” This alone makes this a better choice than a hardback concordance.
• Cross referencing – It is really easy to find other bible passages that relate to the one you are studying with Biblework’s cross-referencing feature. It lists verse that are commonly seen to relate to the specific verse you are studying, allowing you to make scriptural comparisons to help with interpretation.
• Word studies in dictionaries and lexicons – Bibleworks comes loaded with several word study tools, including expository dictionaries and lexicons. You can also buy extra modules to load onto it as well (including the five volume dictionary sets I mentioned above). Not only does this save you valuable shelf space, but time as well as searching is much quicker. You can see the range of meaning for Greek and Hebrew words and more extensive discussions on those words.
• Vocabulary study – Bibleworks has a great feature in which you can learn and review Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words. If you have studied biblical languages, you know how easy it is for vocabulary to slip. This feature keeps Hebrew and Greek sharp and allows you to acquire a broader range of vocabulary in the languages.
• Speaking and teaching notes – You can easily cut and paste the Hebrew and Greek text into Word documents to have a nice clean copy for translation or taking notes on. This allows you to keep the Greek text and notes in the same document which is so helpful for teaching or preaching preparation. You are also able to easily transfer other things to Word documents, including lexical entries and lists of occurrences of words which is great for preparing handouts for teaching Sunday school or Bible classes.
• These things are only the tip of the iceberg for all Bibleworks can do. If you have an older version of Bibleworks, consider upgrading to the new version, which has even more tricks and gadgets for bible study including the ability to have several tabs open for studying multiple passages, the full Moody atlas of the Bible, new statistics features, and many more perks. One of my favorite things about the new version is the fact that it consistently checks for updates and you can apply them immediately so you never have to wonder if your program is up to date. For more information on Bibleworks, check out their website:  www.bibleworks.com
• So, if you want to get more serious with Bible study for your own devotions or ministry, consider loading up on a few of these tools to allow you to be more efficient in your study. You will find that not only are they time savers, but they will make your study of the Word considerably more fruitful.

The post Harvesting the Fruit of God’s Word: Part III: Tools for the Harvest appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Craig A. Smith, Ph.D.

The text-critical problem of Mark’s ending remains one of the more vexing difficulties in studies of a book which is by no means a stranger to controversy.  Though there is relatively little doctrine at stake in the question of the originality of Mark 16:9-20, the desire to settle the debate is understandable.  If nothing else, it would be nice to have some means of bridging the gap between Evangelical scholars – the majority of whom seem to have decided against the originality of the final 12 verses[1] – and the average Christian who is understandably confused and even distraught by footnotes in their Bibles calling into question the legitimacy of these verses.  This distress is compounded when the popularly accessible commentaries not only deny the originality of the ending but go on to assert either that the Gospel was never completed or that the original ending was lost.[2]

As we shall review in a moment, the evidence for additional text beyond 16:8 is both substantial and early, suggesting at the very least that ending Mark at 16:8 has long been perceived to be problematic. This remains a widespread perception; the abrupt and “open-ended” nature of 16:8 causes many casual readers to feel that it cannot have been intended as the conclusion to the book. There are several observations which contribute to this sense.  First, the promise of 14:28 (“But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”) is seemingly unfulfilled in Mark if the text ends at 16:8.  Second, the women are left “trembling and bewildered” instead of rejoicing.  Third, we are left with the assertion that the women “said nothing to anyone” which seems to contradict their witness to the apostles as reported in the other Gospels. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, concluding Mark at 16:8 means that there is virtually no account of the Resurrection itself, and this is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Mark is known to us as a Gospel, a term intimately connected in the rest of the N.T. to the announcement of the Resurrection of Jesus.[3]  How could one write a Gospel and yet leave off nearly everything about the Resurrection itself?

These observations are significant and make the persistent unease with 16:8 as the original ending to Mark perfectly understandable.  However, a critical look at these observations reveals that they are nearly all based on expectations which emerge from a particular understanding of what kind of text Mark is; that is, from a perception, conscious or unconscious, of the genre of Mark. But what if the perception about the genre of Mark is mistaken to some degree?  Could it be that an adjustment of our view of Mark’s genre might cast new light on the likelihood that 16:8 was the originally intended conclusion to the book?  That is the subject of this short inquiry.

A Short Review of the Problem

The manuscript evidence regarding the ending of Mark is, unfortunately, inconclusive. As the footnotes in most English Bibles indicate, the earliest complete manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not have 16:9-20 and many later manuscripts give some explicit inter-textual indication that vv.9-20 were regarded with some hesitation if not suspicion.[4] On the other hand, the majority of extant manuscripts include vv.9-20 without any hesitation as to their originality and several of these are quite nearly as old as those which omit the longer ending.[5]

The patristic evidence is likewise inconclusive.  Several patristic writers demonstrate no awareness of vv.9-20, but their silence is hardly conclusive evidence against the originality of the longer ending.  However, the possible citation of 16:20 by Justin Martyr and the certain citation by Irenaeus and Tatian clearly demonstrate that the longer ending was well-known by the mid-2^nd century.

Internal analysis of the longer ending is, in my opinion, slightly weighted against the originality of vv.9-20, but this is by no means conclusive.  Differences in vocabulary, stylistic oddities and the fact that the longer ending of Mark “feels” a bit like a composite summary of material that appears in Matthew, Luke and Acts may suggest that the longer ending was a later attempt to provide a more satisfactory ending than the abrupt conclusion at v. 8.  However, these are largely subjective assessments and can hardly be seen as definitive evidence.

In short, the objective evidence is insufficient to determine with certainty whether or not vv.9-20 were original to the Gospel of Mark.  If there is evidence which might enable us to make a more confident determination, we will have to look elsewhere for it.  Again, it is my proposal that such evidence may be found in a proper understanding of the genre of Mark.

The Gospels as Ancient Biography

Until the last century, the Gospels were generally considered a kind of biography and this view seemed plausible until the genre of biography itself began to change in response to modernism.  During the nineteenth century, likely spurred by the parallel development of modern psychology,[6] biographers became more interested in explaining the character of their subjects by detailing their childhood, upbringing, schooling, etc.[7]  Prior to this, details of a subject’s early years do not appear to have been standard features of the biography. As one might imagine, however, once such features became standards of the biography, their relatively conspicuous absence in the Gospels made it increasingly difficult to see the Gospels as biographical works.[8]  However, this dissimilarity obtains only in comparison of the Gospels to modern biography. Comparison of the Gospels with ancient biographies yields “marked similarities of form and content”.[9] While there is still considerable debate about the degree to which the various canonical gospels fit within the genre of ancient biography, there appears to be a general consensus that this is the most appropriate classification for them.  For the purposes of this inquiry I will depend upon this new consensus that the canonical Gospels are best considered within the general milieu of Greco-Roman bios, taking it as very unlikely that they would have deliberately set out to create an entirely novel genre.[10]

However, to say that the Gospels are bioi does not mean that their authors were slavishly devoted to a restrictive set of “rules of the genre” and in fact, it would be quite difficult to argue that such formal “rules” existed.  To say that the Gospels are a kind of ancient biography is really only to say that they are interested first and foremost in a historical person, one Jesus of Nazareth, and in the significance of this person and his teachings for their audience(s).  As such, they are all to be considered historical works, contra many of the scholarly opinions in the previous century which supposed them to be deliberately and consciously a-historical.  In other words, to say that the Gospels are a kind of ancient biography is only to say that they are intended to recount events from the life of a historical person.  Determinations of which events are most significant and how best to present them in service of an author’s purpose will vary, sometimes substantially, from one biographical work to the next, regardless of the fact that each author will still consider their work to belong to the genre of biography. Plutarch’s Lives provides an illuminating example of the degree to which texts may vary from one another while still belonging to the same genre. 

The consequence of this is that while we may properly consider Mark to be a biography of Jesus, alongside Matthew and Luke and perhaps even John,[11] we do not necessarily have to think of it as being precisely the same kind of biographical work as the other gospels or interpret Mark through precisely the same lens.  The genre of Greco-Roman bios is widely recognized to have distinct sub-types.[12]  Talbert has advocated this approach to the canonical gospels, classifying Mark & John as defenses of the subject against misunderstanding[13], Luke as “life of the founder” and Matthew as “hermeneutical key”.[14]  These particular micro-classifications need not be accepted in order to acknowledge the central point:  to say that the Gospels belong to the genre of biography is not necessarily to say that they are all the same kind of biography.

There is obvious justification for thinking of Mark in different terms than the other Gospels.  Though source criticism has led us to focus on the fact that most of Mark’s content is duplicated in Matthew or Luke, we should not fail to note that there are things which are unique to Mark such as the Messianic Secret, a surprising emphasis on the failure of the disciples, et.al. While Mark does have some unique features, it is the omissions which are most remarkable. For instance, with the exception of 13:5-37, Mark does not contain the kind of extended discourses by Jesus that are common in Matthew and Luke and is, on the whole, a far more action-oriented Gospel. Of more interest for this inquiry, however, is the fact that Mark has no birth narrative or genealogy.  These are particularly puzzling omissions since Matthew and Luke placed such emphasis on these elements in their presentation of Jesus. If Mark was the first of the Gospels and Matthew and Luke looked to him as a model for their own work, it is strange that their early chapters differ so substantially from his.

And, of course, we have not yet mentioned the possible difference between Mark and the other Gospels which most directly bears upon this discussion:  the Resurrection accounts.  If the longer ending of Mark is original, then this difference is somewhat lessened, though it would still be noteworthy.  There is a clear tendency on the part of Matthew and Luke to abbreviate Mark’s longer pericopae, but the questionable ending of Mark would represent a rare exception to this, since even the longer ending of Mark is dramatically shorter than the Resurrection and post-Resurrection accounts in the other Synoptics.  In other words, this would be a reversal of the trend from long pericopae in Mark to shorter pericoape in Matthew and Luke, with no obvious explanation as to why this should be the case.

On the other hand, if Mark originally concluded at 16:8, then Mark’s Gospel would omit the same sort of material at its beginning and end, material which the other Synoptics felt the need to include.  This would support the idea that Mark, while still broadly biographical, is not precisely the same kind of biography as Matthew and Luke. But if Mark intended to write a somewhat different kind of biography than Matthew, Luke and John, do we have any indication of what Mark was aiming to do? 

Does Mark Indicate His Genre?

Burridge and others[15] have observed that the opening features of a text – that is, its title and opening formulae/prologue/preface – are often important indicators of genre and/or the purpose of the text.  It is appropriate, therefore, to look to the title and opening lines of Mark to see if they provide any illumination. 

Unfortunately, the earliest evidence of titles attached to Mark tells us very little about its genre as they are primarily variations on the preposition kata,[16] and it is only in the mid-2^nd century that Justin Martyr indicates that the word “gospel” was being used in reference to these books.[17]  Furthermore, Mark’s opening line does not obviously fit into a formulaic pattern that is evident in ancient texts of an identifiable genre.[18]Still, the expectation that the opening lines of a text might well be expected to provide some indication of its genre is both reasonable and supported by surveys of other ancient literature.[19] As Mark 1:1 contains no verb, it cannot easily be seen as the beginning of the narrative itself, and some have taken this as evidence that Mark intended “beginning the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God” to be the title for his work. I think this an intriguing possibility, but it would be an unusually long title.  Its length makes the phrase more likely to be an opening line, but still quite possibly one which was intended to help readers orient themselves to the rest of work.  As such, it bears closer examination.

Mark’s opening line is unusual in at least two respects.  First, it is the only NT work to use the word euangelion in a way that could be a reference to a literary work.  In fact, it seems quite plausible that the early church took to calling these texts “gospels” because of Mark’s use of the term here. As such, it may be that Mark intended euangelion to be a genre-designation, but as we shall see in a moment, there are significant difficulties with this view. The second unusual feature of Mark’s opening line is the use of an anarthrous and preposition-less archē  to begin the text.  This is, to the best of my knowledge, a wholly unique way to begin a literary work.

There appear to be three possible functions of archē in Mark 1:1: First, could be meant to place Mark in an O.T. context by drawing a parallel to Gen 1:1. It has been suggested that Mark’s opening line bears some resemblance to the opening line of Genesis,[20] but the absence of the preposition enmakes it unlikely that this was authorially intended.[21]  Second, it could serve as an identifier of an opening section of the Gospel that was meant to be distinguished from the rest of the text; 1:1, 1:1-8, 1:1-13 and 1:1-15 have all been suggested as constituting this archē that precedes the narration of Jesus’ ministry.  The difficulty with this view is evident in the disagreement over the extent of this opening section. It is difficult to know which parts of vv.1-15 can be meaningfully separated from the rest of the narration of Jesus’ ministry.  Moreover, the return of attention to John the Baptist in 6:14-29, 8:28 and11:30-33 strongly suggests that narratives like this opening section, that is, narratives concerning John the Baptist, are to be considered an integral part of Mark’s narrative. Therefore, setting the initial narrative about John apart from the rest of Mark has the appearance of arbitrariness. 

However, this understanding of archē as a designation for a literary unit is a very natural way to understand its use here in Mark 1:1, as evidenced in the multitude of commentators who have taken it in precisely this way.  But if it is unlikely to designate an introductory section, then to what could it refer?  I would like to suggest that the third possible function of archē  in 1:1 is as a designation of Mark’s entire work.

In this view, it would be archē rather than euangelion which identifies the genre or, more properly, the sub-genre of Mark;[22] that is, the book of Mark is not a euangelion but an archē .  Admittedly, giving such weight to the word archē may seem counter-intuitive to the modern reader who is accustomed to seeing the word “Gospel” as a title before each of these books, but there is good reason to doubt that Mark used euangelion as a genre-designation.  First, we know nothing of a Gospel-genre preceding Mark and it is problematic to assume that Mark self-consciously invented and designated a novel form with no other indication of his intention to do so.[23]  Second, Mark’s intention to create a novel form would seem to require his conscious awareness of this thing we call genre and this may presume more than we can know of his formal literary sensibilities.[24]  Third, if Mark was inventing a new genre, his most immediate successors seem to have missed it; neither Matthew nor Luke use euangelion as a designation for their own texts in spite of their apparent dependence on Mark as a literary source.  Fourth, the N.T. uses of euangelion seem, in the majority of instances, to flow from Isa 61:1 where it is an announcement of freedom from oppression.[25]  The arrival of the person of Christ, accompanied by miraculous signs and culminating in his defeat of death itself is referred to throughout the N.T. as “the Gospel.”[26] In other words, it is a kerygmatic use. Is it likely that Mark would have completely conflated his particular recounting of this good news with the kerygma itself?  Fifth, it is problematic to think that Mark called his work “the Gospel” and yet included only a very brief Resurrection account or even omitted it entirely simply because the Resurrection itself seems to have been at the very core of what the early church considered to be the Gospel.[27]  If Mark is significantly dependent on the teaching of Peter, whose recorded speeches in Acts are clearly Resurrection-centric, the brevity with which Mark recounts the Resurrection is nearly incomprehensible if he intended his text to be considered a recounting of the “Gospel”.

On the whole, then, it seems unlikely that euangelion should be taken as a designation of genre for Mark, but is archē any more likely a candidate? There are at least two reasons to think that it is. The first reason is grammatical: archē  is the first word in the text and the only nominative.[28]  Moreover, it is also the only known example of an ancient writer beginning a text with an archē  that is both anarthrous and preposition-less.  This may well have served to draw attention to the word itself.  Second, there is a logical reason why it is sensible to think that Mark used archē in this way:  it fits the nature Mark perfectly.  Mark, more than any of the other Gospels, revolves around conflict.  Virtually every literary unit in Mark involves explicit conflict between Jesus and the powers-that-be, whether spiritual, religious or judicial.  If the gospel, to employ the normal NT usage, is the good news of the Resurrection, then Mark is the story of how Jesus came to be crucified.  It is the story of the ever-escalating conflict culminating in the crucifixion which was, itself, the necessary precursor to the Resurrection which is the heart of the good news.  In other words, Mark did not write to paint a portrait of Jesus so much as to explain how he came to be crucified.  In that sense, Mark is not a proclamation of the good news so much as it is the back-story to the good news.  It is what Paul Harvey calls “the rest of the story”.  It sets the stage and provides meaningful context for the good news with which his audience was already familiar…and archē is a very good word for such a thing.

In the same way that Paul Harvey’s radio broadcasts brought his listeners up to the point in the story that they already knew and then stopped, this view of Mark could easily account for the abrupt ending of the Gospel at 16:8.  It could also account for the abrupt beginning to Mark:[29]  if Mark is the back-story to the Resurrection, it is primarily concerned with the escalating conflict that culminated at Golgotha.  The birth of Jesus and his early life did not provide suitable material for describing this escalating conflict and so were unsuited to Mark’s purpose.[30]  There may also have been a structural reason for excluding a birth account.  If Mark intentionally left off a Resurrection account then he may have wanted to exclude a birth account for the sake of balance. The first pericope of Mark is concerned with John the Baptist who heralds the coming of Christ.  If the original conclusion of Mark is at 16:8, then the final pericope of Mark is concerned with another herald who announces the return of Christ.  Bauckham has also suggested an inclusio of Petrine references at the beginning and ending of Mark.[31]  Both observations suggest that Mark was interested in having his beginning and ending balance each other.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what I am suggesting is that Mark is perhaps best understood as archē  bios, a kind of sub-genre of Greco-Roman bios which explained how he came to be crucified, thus recounting the background to the “Gospel” as his audience already knew it.  I am not suggesting that Mark intentionally set out to create a distinct literary sub-genre or that he meant his readers to take archē as a formal literary term.  Rather, I imagine he envisioned his work as a stage-setting enterprise and used archē in the same way we might call a book An Introduction to the New Testament, where “introduction” describes our intention for the work without necessarily being intended as a formal genre-designation.  To the extent that Mark was genre-conscious, he likely thought of his work as a subtle alteration to the existing genre of bios.  In this vein, what I am saying here is quite close to the view of those who, like Talbert, have identified Mark as an attempt to dispel misunderstanding of their subject, similar to Xenophon’s Memorabilia or Philodemus’ Life of Epicurus.[32] If I am really saying anything new here at all, it boils down to two things

1.  archē may tell us more about Mark’s intention for his work than euangelion, and this could easily be understood as consistent with the present view of Mark as Greco-Roman bios.
   
2. This view of Mark’s genre (or sub-genre) explains both the accepted abrupt beginning and disputed abrupt ending, providing an additional plank in the broader argument that the Gospel originally ended at 16:8.  In that sense, this view suggests that Evangelicals have no need to resort to disturbing assertions that Mark was either never completed or that its ending has been lost.

The post Type & Termination: The Impact of Genre Classification on the Text-Critical Problem of Mark’s Ending. appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Listen here:

Download here (registered users only…registration is free and we will never sell or otherwise distribute your information to any other organization)

Subscribe to the Transform podcast here:  

The post The Prayer of Faith that will Heal (James 5:13-20) appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

The 2012 Word Conference trailer is live:

The post Jesus: Faith in the Facts appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.