Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Standards for Choosing Leaders
While the
standards that have been set for Elders and deacons are high, we should have
high standards for all of us in Christian service, but especially those in
leadership capacity. There are some people who might say that it is unfair for
us to hold such a high standard toward those who are not officially listed in
Scripture. I would say however, that if you are going to be in any type of
leadership role your character must be examined and your maturity in Christ
thoroughly evaluated. Because you are no longer only representing yourself in
your Christian walk you have now taken on the name of an organization that may
have a great community presence and glorifies the name of Christ.
By setting
the standards of leadership inside the church to highest capacity, it helps to
ensure that there are godly men and women who are in the proper roles. This
does not mean that there will not be times when someone may seem like the
perfect candidate on paper; while in actuality their personality does not mesh
well with the rest of the team. It should also be noted that Paul was mainly
describing the roles of men in the church forms of leadership; we could ask
“What are the rules for women?” The rules for women should not be any different
with the exception of things that speak of being the husband of one wife, she
should be the wife of one husband.
Even with
all of the safeguards in place you still have guarantee that there will be a
successful ministry to take place. However, by using the criteria set forth in
Scripture you are setting yourself up to be more successful than if you went
merely by your gut or your own collection of pre-requisites. It is our job to
trust that God has given us these qualifications to meet in order to be
effective leaders in the body as well as make an impact in the community.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Check us out on Facebook
Stop by and like our page on Facebook. We are always looking for more supporters of the ministry, and right now if we can get 50 likes on our Facebook page we will be giving away some great resources to a lucky winner. So stop by and give us a like http://www.facebook.com/SalvationIsFreeMinistries and don't forget to tell your friends about the blog and sign up to follow it also.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Trusting Leaders
It would be easy to say that the
culture we live in has bred us to not trust one another, because someone is
always out to get one over on you. I would dare to say that it has to do with
the fact that we are all totally depraved people and without Christ we cannot
dare trust ourselves. In chapter 7 of Romans the Apostle Paul summed up the
struggle we face when he said,
For I do not
understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing
I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know
that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to
do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good
I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I
do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. (Romans
7:15-20 ESV)
This makes it extremely difficult to trust those who are in
leadership positions because we have no certainty that they have our best
interest in mind when they are making their decisions. While in his book Being Leaders Aubrey Malphurs claims
that it will usually take up to five years to trust a new leader. It is this
writers humble opinion that this period does not have to be anywhere near that
length. If you enter into a situation with new leadership you can determine their
character within a matter of months to a year. Are they self-serving? Or do
they sacrifice some comfort on their part for the greater good?
Over years of working
in different environments I have noticed that the bosses who are willing to
show someone how to do the job more efficiently or even in the correct manner
without being brash or degrading get more respect which in return breeds trust.
Humility is another key to the character of the leader that will always play an
important role. If our Lord can take on the lowest place in the house to
demonstrate His heart, what makes us any better?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Is Christian Leadership only for the Church?
More often than not when someone
hears the term Christian Leader they automatically assume that the person being
referenced to has a place of authority in the church. This should not be the
case, because any person who calls themselves a Christian and is in a role of
leadership is therefore a Christian leader.
The kind of leader we are should be based upon our character stemming
from our relationship with Christ so others can see the difference in our
leadership style. Christ himself said that we are salt and light, in the Gospel
of Matthew he says, ‘“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on
a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your
light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory
to your Father who is in heaven.”’ (Matthew 5:14-16 ESV)
As far as a personal experience
goes there are not many work place experiences I can recall. I since becoming a
Christian ten years ago I have many different jobs but not in a leadership
role. The best thing that I can think of is when I was running my advertising
business with my best friend. We started out with the goal to offer affordable
advertising, while maintaining integrity in the industry. As we began to gain
more clientele my partner stopped focusing on pleasing God and only wanted to
make money. After several months of bad decisions and continued loss, which I would
attribute to our lack of focus on God
and a downward economy, I left him the run the company on his own. Since then I
have felt my life become more pleasing to Jesus, He has allowed me to finish my
BS in Religion and now working on my
MDiv.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Review of Steven Furtick's Greater
I recently finished reading Greater by Steven Furtick. I
really enjoyed reading his first book Sun
Stand Still, and was really looking forward to reading this work. After I read
the work I was a little disappointed. I did not take away as much from this
book as I did his first. I guess that if I had never read his previous work I would
have enjoyed this one much more.
Furtick’s book was not difficult to
read by any stretch of the imagination, as a seminary student I do a ton of
reading, and I was able to read his work at a slow leisurely pace in a few
days, (if I had wanted to I could have read it in a day). He is trying to stretch
your faith and get you to put in to practice trusting God for your life. There
is more than one occasion that as I read the book he came across as a self help
guru more than a mega-church pastor. He based the majority of this work off of
the life of Elisha the young up and comer following Elijah.
Through out certain parts of the
book Furtick’s battle cry is burn the plows, meaning leave your escape plan in
ashes; move onto what God has in store for you and leave no way to go back to your old life. He
exhorts us to trust God that faith is never wasted; even at times it seems our
prayers go unanswered. I would recommend this book as an encouragement to those
looking to strive for something more, but it was not my favorite work I have
read this year. Per federal law I received a copy of this book in exchange for
my review. If you would like to read the first chapter for free follow this
link: http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/blog/2012/04/01/sneak-peek-greater-by-steven-furtick/.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Fleece Praying
Take a
position on "fleece" praying; is it correct in the Church Age?
Should it be taught to congregations? Is it a lack of faith if
"fleece" praying is employed?
While it may
appear to some that Earley is advocating fleece praying, if we take a closer
look at the context of this quote, we come to understand that he is advocating
for specific prayer. I for one do not believe that we should do fleece praying
because that is asking God to prove himself when he owes us no proof. When the
Pharisees and Sadducees wanted a sign from Christ, He told them, “ He answered them, “When it is evening,
you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It
will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to
interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the
times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be
given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.” (Matthew
16:2-4 ESV)
We should
however teach those under our charge to pray specific prayers seeking the will
of God. In James four he tells his audience that “You do not have, because you
do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on
your passions.” (James 4:2-3 ESV) We in fact should be asking because when we
ask in accordance to Gods will it is a good thing. In the garden of Gethsemane
Christ prayed that the cup would pass before me, however not my will but your
will be done (Matt. 26:39) Also, in 1 John 5:14-15 we know that if we ask those
things according to His will He hears us.
It is hard
to answer if it is a lack of faith if fleece praying is employed. I say yes and
no; let me explain. It is a lack of faith in ourselves and the relationship
that we have with God. Paul tells us, “…for we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2
Corinthians 5:7 ESV) Therefore is we are walking by faith and our sense of the
Spirit is at a high level we should be able to sense what he wants us to do.
John MacArthur and Kevin DeYoung both have books about seeking God’s will for
your life without having mysterious revelations. I do not believe that we have
a lack of faith in God when we pray a fleece prayer, we do not trust ourselves
enough therefore are seeking validation. We should not continually implement
fleece prayers, but grow ourselves and those around us into a more intimate
relationship with the Lord; that way we can know what He is guiding us to do.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
A Critique on Select Chapters from Charles Spurgeon's Lectures to my Students
Summary
Charles Spurgeon in his work Lectures to My Students covers a wide
range of material that is important to any man considering entering into the
ministry. His work ranges from the need for us to have our own salvation
securely in place all the way to how we conduct our daily conversation with
those around us. As we read through the material we can notice a theme that
appears, Spurgeon not only covers things that are of importance when dealing
with sermons and our time in the pulpit, he covers the focus of our hearts.
Spurgeon advocates for us to be
extremely dependent upon prayer no matter if it’s during worship or our own
private time with God. He believes our lives should be a continuous out pouring
of prayer, he says, “I take it that as a minister he is always praying.
Whenever his mind turns to his work, whether he is in it or out of it, he
ejaculates a petition, sending up his holy desires as well-directed arrows to
the skies. He is not always in the act of prayer but he lives in the spirit of
it.” (Spurgeon
2010, 43)
Spurgeon
gives advice about how we should handle the text of our sermons. He tells us
that we should not be afraid to spiritualize the text sometimes, but when we do
we must do it with extreme caution. He warns us, “Within limit, my brethren, be
not afraid to spiritualize, or to take singular texts. Continue to look out
passages of Scripture, and not only give their plain meaning, as you are bound
to do, but also draw from them meanings which may not lie upon their surface.” (Spurgeon
2010, 101) The
most important part of our sermon must be the clear presentation of the Gospel.
He says, “Brethren, first and above all things, keep to plain evangelical
doctrines; whatever else you do or do not preach, be sure incessantly to bring
forth the soul-saving truth of Christ and him crucified.” (Spurgeon 2010, 79) While we are
presenting the gospel we must do it in manner that does not show this life we
live according to Christ as drab or dull, but full of life. Because Christ
himself told us, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”(John
10:10b ESV) If we cannot be excited by this then neither will our hearers.
Spurgeon says, “It is not the order of nature that rivers should run uphill,
and it does not often happen that zeal rises from the pew to the pulpit.” (Spurgeon
2010, 326)
Critique and Evaluation
This text was highly enjoyable to read as a
student, and as someone looking to pursue a career as a full-time pastor. His
insights are invaluable for anyone doing ministry. When he spoke of people
complaining of the want of zeal being the most zealous (Spurgeon 2010, 332) , this was
inspirational. Another area he touched on was how ministers can sometimes
become so cold to those around them because all they chose to do is be with
God, but forget to be with people. He tells us, “Take care, also, to be on most
familiar terms with those whose souls are committed to your care. Stand in the
stream and fish. Many preachers are utterly ignorant as to how the bulk of the
people are living; they are at home among books, but quite at sea among men.” (Spurgeon
2010, 337)
Spurgeon did well in his section on
ministerial progress when he exclaimed, “In our modes of speech we should aim
at being ‘all things to all men.’ He is the greatest master of oratory who is
able to address any class of people in a manner suitable to their condition,
and likely to touch their hearts.” (Spurgeon
2010, 223)
The point he is making is a good one, if we are able to adjust our mode of
presentation but not the meaning we become more effective than if we present
the material the same way no matter where we are. In the text he warns against praying too
long, which can happen sometimes just as a desire to seem pious. His warning
reads, “It is necessary in prayer to draw near unto God, but it is not required
of you to prolong your speech till everyone is longing to hear the word
‘Amen.’”
One of the most difficult sections, yet
instructive, dealt with the call to ministry. He says, “That which finally
evidences a proper call, is a correspondent opening in providence, by a gradual
train of circumstance pointing out the means, the time, the place of actually
entering upon the work.” My question is how long must we wait for that evidence
to appear? Do you have to be called as pastor of a church, or can you begin
leading a Bible study to be affirmed? Because he says elsewhere that to be a
pastor you must also posses the ability to teach others (Spurgeon 2010, 29) .
Personal Application
This text is one that I believe I will look
back over time and again in the future. It impacted me in ways that are not
easy to describe, there were points in the text that brought doubt about my
path in life; then there were times I had great joy about the things I could
see the Lord lining up, or doing as Spurgeon was describing them. I have long
felt called to become a pastor and questioned the Lord about this because
things never seemed to fall in to place for this calling on my life. However,
when I read these words I was comforted, “This desire should be one that
continues with us, a passion which bears the test of trial, a longing from
which it is quite impossible for us to escape, though we may have tried to do
so; a desire, in fact which grows more intense with the lapse of years, until
it becomes a yearning, a pinning, a famishing to proclaim the Word.” (Spurgeon
2010, 29)
After reading this my heart leaped for joy because it described my situation
perfectly.
Another area that spoke to my heart dealt with
our ordinary conversation. While most men can afford to casually allow a
conversation to slip in to ungodliness we must always be watchful of what we
say. Spurgeon says, “…a minister, wherever he is, is a minister, and should recollect
that he is on duty. A policeman or a soldier may be off duty, but a minister
never is.” (Spurgeon
2010, 172)
By realizing that I am always on duty then we may use our general conversation
as a means of change, because the one person I am speaking with could come to
know the Lord through our general conversation and never have stepped foot
inside of a church. (Spurgeon
2010, 179)
It was also encouraging to me to read that he
was a fan of expository preaching because I tend to enjoy that much more than
general topical preaching. These words offered me great encouragement for my
current ministry and future service, “I am sure that no preaching will last so
long, or build up a church so well, as the expository.” (Spurgeon 2010, 218) Lastly, and far be
it from least, was the reminder that we are not just tending after the sheep in
the flock , but searching for the lost one to bring back into the fold. He
struck a nerve when he said, “In many instances ministerial success is
traceable almost entirely to an intense zeal, a consuming passion for souls,
and an eager enthusiasm in the cause of God, and we believe that in every case,
other things being equal, men prosper in the divine service in proportion as
their hearts are blazing with holy love.” (Spurgeon
2010, 325)
Bibliography
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Letcures to My Students.
Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2010.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Top Five Task for Pastors
When one hears the question, “What
are the top five tasks of a pastor?” they may think to themselves that is an
easy question to answer. Let’s really think about that for a minute, it is not
asking what five things keep a pastor busy; but what are the five most
important tasks of a pastor? In order
for any man to be a pastor, he must first and foremost have saving knowledge of
who our Lord Jesus Christ is; not only that, but there should be some maturity in
his walk. Paul tells Timothy regarding men who would be overseers or pastors that,
“He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and
fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:6 ESV)
As pastors we should also follow the
pattern laid out for us by the men of Acts 6. While it is a noble task to serve
others they knew theirs to be a higher calling. “But we will devote ourselves
to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:4 ESV) As ministers of the
Word, we must be spending time in personal study and prayer. If Christ is our
model and went off to be alone and pray, are we any better than he? No, He also
studied the Scriptures which is what we must do in order to be effective
ministers of the word. In 2 Timothy 4, Paul tell Timothy preach the word and to
be ready in season and out of season. How can Timothy keep this charge if he is
not spending his time in the word and prayer? In order to be an effective
pastor you also have to be an effective teacher. If you lack the ability to
teach, then your calling in life may not be that of a pastor. Our teaching must
not be of any thing we wish it to be, it must be sound doctrine (Titus 1:9).
It seems to me that another
important task of a pastor is to be recognizing potential leaders for the
church and training them as such. As a pastor we should be able to recognize the
qualities in a man that would make him eligible for the position. Paul
instructs Timothy on this very issue when he says, “and what you have heard
from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be
able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2 ESV) In doing this we will continue
to ensure that the sound doctrine Paul spoke to Titus about is being passed on
in proper manner.
Last and far be it from
least, we should all love. It is the greatest symbol of a Christian and while
pastors are not super Christians we are often examined more closely than the
normal believer. We know that we are to love God, our neighbors as ourselves,
and one another as Christ loved us. We love because He first loved us and gave
himself us for us. (Rom 5:8) If we lack the ability to love then we cannot
bring people to Christ which is what the greatest goal of any pastor should be,
to see souls saved
Monday, August 20, 2012
Charismatic Theology
Introduction
Have you
ever heard of the phrase charismatic theology? Does anything in particular come
to mind when you think of it? Charismatic theology is a very interesting
theology indeed. The need to study charismatic theology has grown over the last
half century, since it began to emerge in the middle of the 20th
century. While studying charismatic theology we must understand where its roots
lay, the major tenants of its theology, some of the more drastic off shoots of
its theology, and the major players (pastors, theologians, etc.) in the
formation of this theology (and its subsets). By the time we conclude our study
of this subject, we should be able to argue whether charismatic theology is
biblical and historical, or is it heretical and merely a modern phenomenon. At
either cost charismatic theology should not be taken lightly because there are
many true followers of Christ who hold to a view on each side of the issue.
The Roots of Charismatic Theology
When we try
to understand charismatic theology we should go back to the beginning, and for
most that would be the early church. When I say the early church I am not
referring to the church around the enlightenment, but the first believers
during or just after the time of Christ. John Drane in his work Introducing the New Testament says, “The story of the earliest church
in Jerusalem shows that it too began with a charismatic understanding of its
own life.”[1] After the emphasis on the early church and its
charismatic gifts we do not hear much of them until the early part of the
twentieth century, with the beginning of the Pentecostal church. The
Pentecostal church has its beginning with Charles Parham who founded a bible
college in Topeka, Kansas in 1900 and by 1901 had closed its doors.[2]
It would be on the first day of 1901 that one of his students Agnes Ozman would
begin speaking in tongues. In 1906 in Los Angles, William Seymour would have
one of the greatest impacts on the Christian community since the reformation. Seymour
would lead what has become known as the Azuza Street Revival, teaching that
after a believer’s conversion that there is a “second-baptism” of the Holy
Spirit, and the evidence of this new baptism was speaking in tongues. During
this revival, “people shrieked and shouted, danced, fell over and, most of all,
babbled incomprehensibly in tongues. This happened at three services a day,
seven days a week, for three years.”[3]
Because of the nature of these gifts and their behaviors, traditional
“Pentecostals” did not find a place in the traditional church system, which
lead them to start their own.[4]
The
technical beginning of the Charismatic Renewal Movement that would take place
in 1960 with an Episcopal priest named Dennis Bennett in Van Nuys, CA.[5]
One of the biggest things that distinguishes the Charismatic Renewal Movement
from the Pentecostal church is that they have never felt the need to separate
themselves from traditional denominations. Elwell points out, “Hence today the
charismatic movement, despite its “classical” parentage, exists almost totally
outside official Pentecostal denominations.”[6]
Since there are differences between the two types of theology, we will be well
suited in taking a closer look at them.
The Differences in Theology
Most
people might assume, since the Charismatic Renewal Movement has its roots in
Pentecostal theology, there would be no demarcation of the two. And in making
that assumption you would be wrong! Most scholars are willing to recognize that while there are
many similarities there are also distinctions between the two. Paul Enns
writes, “Theologically, Pentecostals subscribe to “a work of grace subsequent
to conversion in which Spirit baptism is evidenced by glossolalia” (speaking in
tongues). Charismatics do not necessarily teach a second work of grace by the
evidence of speaking in tongues.”[7]
In knowing this, there is another group of believers who go a step farther know
as the Third Wave; this group of believers chooses to be distinct from
Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal Movement, by operating in their own
congregations in a more moderated approach.[8]
F.L. Cross
in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines Pentecostal theology
in this way,
Its adherents emphasize the corporate
element in worship (often marked by great spontaneity) and lay special stress
on the practice of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. and recorded in Acts (e.g.
speaking in tongues or ‘*glossolalia’, prophecy, divine [*spiritual] healing,
and *exorcism), and on possession of these gifts by all true believers. Most of
them claim that the ‘power’ to exercise these gifts is given initially in an
experience known as ‘*baptism in the Holy Spirit’, usually regarded as distinct
from conversion and from sacramental (or water) *Baptism, and the movement came
to be distinguished by the claim (first made in 1900) that ‘Spirit baptism’ is
normally signified by the recipient’s breaking into tongues.[9]
One major
tenant that both Pentecostals and charismatics seem to share is there are two “blessings”
of the Holy Spirit. Most scholars agree that the both parties believe that a
sign of receiving the baptism of the Spirit is speaking in tongues. MacArthur
says, “Most charismatics define Spirit baptism as post salvation, second
blessing experience that adds something vital to what Christians receive at
salvation.”[10]
A. Baptism of the Holy
Spirit
While we
have seen that both charismatics and Pentecostals believe in the baptism of the
Holy Spirit what exactly is it? What did
the early church believe about it? One of the first arguments we will hear from
those in favor of the baptism of the Spirit comes from the baptism of Christ
himself. The first question that arises from this argument is, “If all
believers who are baptized with the Holy Spirit speak in tongues after their
baptism, why didn’t Christ?” The phrase
baptism of the Holy Spirit is often defined as an event that occurs after
salvation in which the Holy Spirit descends upon a believer. According to Gregg
Allison this event is supposedly, “typified by enthusiastic devotion to Jesus
Christ and possessing a tireless energy for evangelism and missions,
Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement have turned the church’s attention
to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”[11]
Another argument often heard in favor of the baptism of the Holy Spirit deals
with the day of Pentecost, and events that took place before hand as Wayne
Grudem points out, “It is true that the disciples were
“born again” long before Pentecost, and in fact probably long before Jesus
breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22.” [12]
Some try to use this as an argument that the Lord always intended for there to
be the reception of the Spirit and then the baptism at a later date. What they
often fail to realize is that the Lord told them the Spirit could not come
until the Lord had returned unto the Father (John 15:26). Grudem in his
footnote (13) on this text explains how this could have very well been a
foreshadowing of the day of Pentecost. With that being known we can better
understand what he means when he says, “…we must realize that the day of
Pentecost is much more than an individual event in the lives of Jesus’
disciples and those with them. The day of Pentecost was the point of transition
between the old covenant work and ministry of the Holy Spirit and the new
covenant work and ministry of the Holy Spirit.” [13]
While many charismatics believe that all the gifts are still in effect for
today, one of the most talked about and the most easily abused is the gift of
tongues.
B. The Issue of Speaking in Tongues
Of all the different theological
topics that come into play when dealing with the Pentecostal and charismatic
movement, tongues has to be one of the most highly debated issues around. According
to David Dockery,
Many
scholars would agree that tongues are ecstatic utterances. Another
interpretation is that the tongues in NT days referred to foreign languages.
Some charismatic Christians want to make this gift normative for all
Christians. Other interpreters believe that the gift of tongues ceased in the
NT era. Some interpreters see tongues as a gift for some Christians as a way to
remind the whole body of Christ of the need to use human emotion as a way of
developing spiritually.[14]
It seems that Dockery has read a majority of continuist materials
because throughout my research there have been a number of authors on either
side of the issue, each with their own valid points.
How would you explain to a person
what “speaking in tongues” is, who has never heard the phrase used before?
Elwell gives us a great definition, “Speaking in tongues is generally
understood to be communication with God in language that is other than one
known to the speaker. A person does the speaking—that is, he freely uses his
vocal apparatus—but it is claimed that the Holy Spirit gives utterance. It is
viewed as transcendent speech by the enabling of the Holy Spirit.” Dr. Grudem
and Pastor MacArthur have whole chapters in their works referenced in this
essay dealing with the issue of tongues. Dr. Grudem is a proponent of what is
known as the “third wave” and believes that tongues along with the other grace
gifts are still in effect today.
However, Pastor MacArthur is of the
cessationist camp that believes all of the miraculous gifts have ceased since
the completion of the canon of the Bible.
While Pentecostals claim that everyone who claims to be a Christian
should speak in tongues and cessationist claim that all the grace gifts have
ceased some is not most charismatics tend to be more toward the middle ground
on this argument. Enns writes, “While some Pentecostals emphasize that speaking
in tongues is necessary as evidence of the reception of the Holy Spirit,
charismatics tend to deemphasize the importance of tongues. Chuck Smith states,
“We certainly are not advocating that everyone speak in tongues.”[15]
C. Scripture vs.
Experience
One of the hardest things to reconcile for members of the Pentecostal or
charismatic tradition is the authority of Scripture in their walk. MacArthur
says that, “there are only two basic approaches to biblical truth. One is the
historical, objective approach, which emphasizes God’s action toward men and
women as taught in Scripture. The other is the personal, subjective approach,
which emphasizes the human experience of God.”[16]
Patti Gallagher Mansfield in her work As By A New Pentecost, has very little
scriptural support for start of the Charismatic Renewal Movement in the
Catholic church, it is primarily a large gathering of stories of experience,
whether hers or her companions. MacArthur feels that, “both the Pentecostal and
charismatic movements of today are based on experience, emotion, phenomena, and
feelings.”[17] All while suppressing the
authority of Scripture. Mark Cartledge
emphasizes the experience of God when he says, “Later charismatics relativized
this by speaking of more frequent ‘encounters’ with the Holy Spirit as part of
the ongoing life of the believer. Therefore charismatics expect God toe revaeal
his glory in worship, to answer prayer, to perform miracles, to speak directly
by means of dreams, visions and prophecy.”[18]
Gregg
Allison, quotes Wayne Grudem on the sufficiency and authority of Scripture
while legitimizing ongoing prophetic revelation.
(1)the
encouragement that comes from knowing “that everything God wants to tell us
about [any particular doctrinal issue or personal situation] is to be found in
Scripture”; (2) the reassurance “that God does not require us to believe
anything about himself or his redemptive work which is not found in Scripture”;
(3) the reminder “that nothing is sin which is not forbidden by Scripture
(either explicitly or by implication)”; and (4) the comfort “that nothing is
required of us by God that is not commanded in Scripture (either explicitly or
by implication).”[19]
While experience has a place in every part of our lives we
must never allow it to become a greater authority than Scripture. Peter Hocken suggests that we keep a place
open for the Spirit to speak and for us to be more flexible to hear him and
follow his promptings[20].
Charismatic Sub-Sect
The largest
and most popular sub-sect of charismatic theology has to be the prosperity
gospel, also called neo-pentecostalism. As Cheryl M. Peterson says,
“Neo-Pentecostalism can be distinguished from earlier Pentecostal movements by
its global character and its message of prosperity.”[21]
The prosperity gospel is also known as the health and wealth movement. It
promises that if you love God with all you heart he will hear your prayers,
heal you from every disease and you have no reason to be poor. It seems that
most of the biggest names in Televangelism are all preachers of the prosperity
gospel. Most of us have all heard of Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and Joel
Osteen, just to name a few. According to Enns, Kenneth Copeland completely
denies the incarnation of Jesus and especially his deity; “Copeland states,
“This man—Jesus was a carbon copy of the one who walked through the Garden of
Eden…. He never made the assertion that He was the Most High God. In fact, He
told is disciple that the Father God was greater and mightier than He (John
14:28). Why didn’t Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during His 33 years on
earth? For one single reason: He hadn’t come to earth as God, he’d come as
man.”[22]
How absurd is this comment because, “ Jesus
said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me,
Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the
Father’?” (John 14:9 ESV)
The health
and wealth movement teaches that Jesus not only died for our sins but to allow
us to have a life free from sickness and poverty.[23]
Why would Jesus who spoke about money on so many different occasions guarantee
that we would have a life full of financial prosperity? Was in not the Lord
himself who told the rich young ruler to go and sell everything he owned, or
did he not mention that birds had nest and foxes had holes but the Son of Man
had no place to lay his head? When it comes to the theology of the health
and wealth movement we must denounce all that it stands for because, as Enns
exclaims
They demean the precious name of Christ, denying that he claimed deity,
teaching that he was dragged into hell and had to be born again and then
claiming that they themselves are gods. The prosperity people focus on this
world and the things in this world, encouraging covetousness and worldliness.
Jesus and the Scriptures speak clearly about the believer’s relationship to the
world (John 15:18-19; 1 John 2:15-17).
To demean Christ and to exalt man to deity
is heretical and blasphemous. The health and wealth movement stands outside of
historic, biblical Christianity and must be rejected. It is not Christian.
There will be some who will try to refute the examination of
this sub-sect of the charismatic movement, saying that we are being too harsh
on its propagators. However, we must beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing that
penetrate the flock to cause harm.
Conclusion
Through out this study I have attempted to present a balanced and
biblical view of charismatic theology. It is my understanding that the grace
gifts have not fully ceased, but unlike many Pentecostals and charismatics;
there is no need for a “second blessing”, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We
are all endowed with the gifts we have to nurture and allow the Spirit to
reveal them to us. As Paul reminded the Corinthian believers not all have the
same gifts, and we should appreciated the gifts given to us, because we are all
important to the body.
While we may
want to have our experiences rule in our lives, we must remember that the
highest authority we have in our lives is the Bible and if our experiences do
not line up Scripture then we have done something wrong. Never be afraid to
examine the things you are learning from the Bible the same way the Bereans did
(Acts 17:11). And if what you are learning requires change, allow the Spirit to
make that change in you for your good. I will end on this note from Mark Cartledge,
“Charismatic theology invites change at the levels of affection, behavior and belief.
However, it is always the Holy Spirit who is the true agent of such transformation.”[24]
Bibliography
Allison, Gregg R. Histiorical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2011.
Cartledge, Mark. "Charismatic
theology: approaches and themes." Journal Of Beliefs & Values:
Studies In Religion & Education 25, no. 2 (August 2004):
177-190. Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3,
2012).
--- "PRACTICAL
THEOLOGY AND CHARISMATIC SPIRITUALITY: DIALECTICS IN THE SPIRIT." Journal
Of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (April 2002): 93. Religion and
Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed August 17, 2012).
Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A.
Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Dockery, David S., Trent C. Butler,
Christopher L. Church et al. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville, TN:
Holman Bible Publishers, 1992.
Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, 2001.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago:
Moody Publishers, 2008.
Galli, Mark and Ted Olsen. 131
Christians Everyone Should Know. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2000.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The
Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of
Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
Hocken, Peter. "Transformation: An International Journal
of Holistic Mission Studies." sagepub.com. June 25, 2010.
http://trn.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/27/3/162.full.pdf+html
(accessed August 17, 2012).
MacArthur, John. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992.
Mansfield, Patti
Gallagher. As By A New Pentecost:The Dramaitic Beginning of the Catholic
Charismatic Renewal. Steubenville: Franciscan University Press, 1992.
Peterson, Cheryl M.
"Pneumatology and the cross: the challenge of neo-Pentecostalism to Lutheran
theology." Dialog 50, no. 2 (June 1, 2011): 133-142. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 25, 2012).
[1]
John William Drane, Introducing the New
Testament, Completely rev. and updated. (Oxford: Lion Publishing plc,
2000), 393.
[3]Jonathan Hill, Zondervan
Handbook to the History of Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006)452.
[4]
Water A.Elwell,ed.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic,
2001) 220.
[5]
Ibid,220.
[6]
Ibid., 220.
[7]
Paul Enns, The
Moody Handbook of Theology.( Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008)673.
[8]
Ibid, 673.
[9]
F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2005), 1262.
[10]
MacArthur, Charismatic, 21.
[12]
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI:
Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 769.
[13]
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 770.
[14]
David S. Dockery, Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church et al., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN:
Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 692.
[15]
Enns, Moody Handbook, 675.
[16]
MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 36.
[17]
Ibid., 40.
[18]
Mark Cartledge, "PRACTICAL
THEOLOGY AND CHARISMATIC SPIRITUALITY: DIALECTICS IN THE
SPIRIT." Journal Of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (April 2002):
93. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed August
17, 2012) 107.
[19]
Allison, Historical Theology, 161.
[20]Peter Hocken,
"Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission
Studies." sagepub.com. June 25, 2010.
http://trn.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/27/3/162.full.pdf+html
(accessed August 17, 2012)167.
[21]
Cheryl M.Peterson, "Pneumatology and the cross: the challenge of
neo-Pentecostalism to Lutheran theology." Dialog 50, no. 2 (June
1, 2011): 133-142. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed July 25, 2012)133.
[22]
Enns, Moody Handbook, 679.
[23]
Ibid., 680.
[24]
Cartledge, Practical Theology, 108.
Monday, August 13, 2012
The Intertestamental Period
Introduction
When reading through the Bible have you noticed the section called the
Intertestamental Period? Neither have I, but it is there between the books of
Malachi and Matthew. This time is often referred to as the “silent years”
because there was no prophetic voice; however this time was anything but quiet.[1]
This time would encompass the prophecies of Daniel and the different nations
that would come to rule over the people of Israel. Throughout this paper two
terms may be used interchangeably, they are Intertestamental period and Second
Temple period.
During this
time there is some debate about how the periods should be divided. For the
purpose of this paper we will not be looking at the Babylonian Period or the
Persian rule. We will be focusing on several periods in particular, they are:
the Greek, Ptolemaic, Seleucid or Syrian, Self rule and Roman/Herodian. By
better understanding these periods we can have a clearer picture of the
religious and political landscape Jesus entered into.
The Greek Period
This period
of history kicks into full gear after the death of Phillip of Macedon. After
his death his twenty year old son Alexander III (the Great), took up his mantle
to Hellenize the entire world. Most scholars make it a point to mention that
Alexander trained under Aristotle and had the finest education a man of his
time could have. “Alexander inherited from Phillip an aggressive attitude and a
keen military skill: his education provided him with a deep appreciation for
Hellenistic ideals, and his military training gave him the courage and skills
to conquer the empire before him.”[2] This empire also consisted of a great number
of Jews that spread across the entire kingdom. David Dockery gives a great
overview of how Jewish life was impacting the empire that Alexander was taking
control of. Dockery says,
At the time of Alexander’s rise to
power, the Jews were living under the rule of the Persian Empire. Aramaic had
become the common language in Palestine. The dispersion of the Jews had already
begun. There were significant populations of Jews not only in Babylon and Egypt
but also in the major cities of the Mediterranean world also. The numbers of
Jews in these cities increased significantly during the period between the
Testaments.[3]
Alexander had a great
military mind; he would defeat Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Palestine, Egypt,
Babylonia, Tyre and Gaza. With all of his conquest, Alexander would achieve
what his major goal was, to Hellenize his entire empire. And with that
hellenization “Koine Greek became the common language of the eastern
Mediterranean. Koine means common or profane. It was not refined, classical Greek but Greek as learned
and spoken by those who were not native Greeks. Koine Greek later became the
language of the New Testament.”[4]
There is a small discrepancy on whether or not Alexander was 32 or 33 when he
actually died. Köstenberger points out that after Alexander had conquered as
far as the Indus River he returned to Persia, where he would catch a fever and
die at the age of 33, and it only took him 13 years to conquer his empire.[5]
Gaebelein points out that after Alexander’s death his “empire was divided into
more than twenty satrapies”[6],
and would eventually be divided among his generals called the diadochi. The land would be divided with
Ptolemy I Soter taking control of Egypt; the Seleucids had Syria; Lysimachus
controlled Asia Minor; Cassander ruled Greece. Palestine first came under the
jurisdiction of the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy in about 320 BC.[7]
The Ptolemaic Period
This period
is one of the shorter mentioned, but it still has some very important
implications for the Jewish people. Dockery informs us of some of the
foundations laid in Palestine under the Ptolemies,
Palestine experienced a century of relatively
peaceful development. Political independence, self-sufficiency, prominence, and
leadership were the dominant motives for the political conduct of the
successors. They sought the greatest measure of economic self-sufficiency as a
basis for political independence. They established economic and social patterns
that continued into the New Testament period. The parables of Jesus—with their
large landowners, tenants, stewards, money lenders, day laborers, tax
collectors, grain speculation, and land leasing—must be understood against the
background of the economic structures developed by the Ptolemies.[8]
Ptolemy
wanted to regain control over Palestine, after losing it to Antigonus in 311 B.C.
which gave full control of Asia Minor to him. According to Gaebelien,
In 301 B.C., however, Antigonus was was killed in a decisive
battle as Ipsus in Phrygia….Ptolemy had not taken part in the battle; so it was
decided to give it to Seleucus, but Ptolemy forestalled Seleucus and took
possession of Lower Syria, Palestine, and Phoenicia south of the River
Eleutherus. This caused a lasting contention between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic
houses.[9]
To
show the complete hatred the Seleucids and Ptolmies had for one another comes
from the fact that they had no less than four major wars against each other.
The Seleucids would finally gain control over Palestine in 198 until 63 B.C.
when the Romans gained control.[10] One
other very interesting point about the Ptolemies, is that every ruler in Egypt
up until around 30 AD used the name “Ptolemy” regardless of their actual
descent.[11]
While the Jews may have experienced some peace under the Ptolemaic rule all
that would change when the Seleucids take control of the region.
The
Seleucid or Syrian Period
It
would be during this time period that one of the most notorious rulers would
emerge Antiochus IV. Long before he would assume control of the Syrian kingdom,
he would be sent to Rome as a hostage, as part of a treaty. While he was being
held hostage “Antiochus III was succeeded by his second son Seleucus IV
Philopator in 187 B.C. He attempted unsuccessfully to rob the temple via his
chief minister Heliodorus (2 Macc 3:7; cf also Dan 11:20).”[12]
Not long after the murder of his brother Antiochus IV was released by the
Romans and he went to seek help from the Pergamon king killed Helidorus and
assumed control of the Syrian kingdom.
“Antiochus
was marked by his exile. In Rome he had recognized the power of Roman
authority. He never opposed Rome. In Athens he had drunk deeply of the spirit
of Hellenism. He supported the Greek cults and games and became a proponent of
Hellenistic culture. He was also unpredictable, however, and had little
knowledge of or respect for Jewish beliefs.”[13]
He became so enamoured with Greek culture that he encouraged people to worship
him as the bodily form of the God Zeus; he would even give himself the name
Epiphanes, meaning, “the manifest god”, his enemies would start to call him
“Epimanes” or “madman”.[14]
Antiochus had set his sights on ruling Egypt, expecting little fight from the
Ptolemies, but that is not what he got. According to Brand, “He was proclaimed
king of Egypt, but when he returned the following year to take control of the
land, the Romans confronted him and told him to leave Egypt. Knowing the power
of Rome, he returned home.” [15]
You
may be asking yourself what made this man so horrible, according to the Jews, a
lot of things. He started by instituting a ban on possessing the Torah,
allowing circumcision, the festivals, and even offerings to Yahweh. That is not
all however he would go even farther by erecting a statue of Zeus in the temple
and then sacrificing a pig on the altar.[16] He would commit further atrocities by
crucifying mothers with their newly circumcised children hanging around their
necks.[17]
The last straw came in 166 B.C. when Antiochus ordered that each village was to
erect a heathen altar and demanded that heathen sacrifices be made.[18]
The
Period of Self-Rule
After
the demands were made that heathen sacrifices were to be made one priest could
take no more and refused to follow orders. This old priest was a man named
Mattathias, he refused to do the sacrifice and when another Jew offered to do
it he murdered him and the man who gave the order. This would be the first
strike in what would become known as the Maccabean Revolt.
Mattathias tore down the altar and fled with his five sons (John, Simon,
Judas, Eleazar, and Johnathan. These men would find great support from a group
of extremely pious Jews known as the Hasidim. “The Hasidim made up the major
part of his army. These men were devoutly committed to religious freedom. They were
dedicated to obedience to the law and to the worship of God.[19]
While everything may have started with Mattathias, it would be his middle son
Judas (often called Maccabeus meaning “hammerlike”)[20]that
would take the forefront and lead his people from guerilla warfare to well
planned battles.[21]
In just under three years Judas’ military might lead him to recapture
Jerusalem. Gabelein says that,
Judas had regained the entire country.
He marched on Jerusalem an occupied all of it accept the Acra. He restored the
temple, selected priest who had remained faithful, destroyed the altar of the
Olympian Zeus, and built a new one. Exactly three years after its desecration
(on Chislev 25), the temple with its altar was rededicated and the daily
sacrifices began (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8). This marked the beginning of
the Jewish Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hebrew Hanukkah).[22]
With
the confidence Judas had gained from previous victories he sought to have more
land and power. At the onset he did not face much opposition because Antiochus
IV had already died. After Lysias learned that Philip was on his way to try and
take the kingdom he eagerly made peace with Judas, and this marked the
beginning of the Jews gaining their freedom. “In 161 B.C. Judas led his
dwindling forces against a vastly superior Syrian army and was killed in
battle.” [23]
After
the death of Judas, his younger brother Jonathan took control of the nation. According
to Evans, “Jonathan achieved more by diplomacy than by warfare, cooperating
with Alexander Balas and fostering alliances with Rome and allegedly even with
Sparta.”[24]
While a casual reading of that statement may not mean much Dockery opens it up
even more with this explanation,
In 152 B.C. Alexander Balas, who was
contending with Demetrius I for the Syrian throne, appointed Jonathan as high
priest. This appointment of one of the Maccabee brothers, who were from a
priestly family but were not descendants of Zadok, to the office of high priest
by one of the descendants of Antiochus Epiphanes is surely one of the ironies
of history. It shows, however, how the high priesthood had been increasingly
politicized in the intervening years. By this means Jonathan became the
political, religious, and military leader of the Jews and an appointee of the
Seleucid Empire.[25]
Jonathan would
eventually be killed by Tryphon out of fear of his success in the nation. After
the murder of Jonathan, Simon would be the last of Judas’ brothers who would
assume control of the nation as high priest. According to some he is known as
the first Hasmonean ruler while for others his son John Hyrcanus I is the
first. During his rule Simon would align himself with Demetrius II with the
condition that Judea was completely free. “Since Demetrius no longer controlled
the southern parts of the Syrian empire, he gave Simon complete exemption from
past and future taxation (142 B.C.). The yoke of the Gentiles over Israel had
been removed for the first time since the Babylonian captivity….”[26]
While Simon was the one who finally brought freedom to the nation of Israel he
would face as similar fate as the rest of his brothers; he would die a violent
death; except his was at the hands of his son-in-law.[27]
After
the death of Simon his son John Hyrcanus I assumed his role as high priest and
chief civil leader. Not long after he assumed control the Syrian empire exerted
control over Judea, and Hyrcanus would work out a treaty that would allow
Jerusalem to be left without a garrison within its limits.[28]
Once Hyrcanus was settled he began to expand his borders, he conquered Medeba
in Transjordan, then Shechem and Mt Gerizim, he would destroy the Samaritan
temple.[29]
Following
Hyrcanus’ rule things became more volatile even amongst family members to the
point that they were murdering and mutilating one another to get the position
that they wanted.
The
Roman and Herodian Period
Once
Pompey came in and lead Aristobulus away this was the mark that the
seventy-nine years of self rule had come to an end; and the Romans were now in
charge. Even though Hyrcanus II had been reinstated as high priest he had
become nothing more than a puppet king, controlled by Antipater. “Shortly
before he was poisoned to death in 43 B.C., Antipater appointed his sons as
governors: Phasel, governor of Judea; and Herod, governor of Galilee.”[30]
Herod
was a very feared man and for good reason, he would kill anyone he felt would
try and betray him. He was so psychotic that he had his own family murdered. In
knowing this it makes it much easier to see how he could have issued a decree
that all newborn males under the age of two be murdered. One thing that may be
found surprising is that, “Herod proved himself an efficient administrator on
behalf of Rome. He kept the peace among a people who were hard to rule. To be
sure, he was a cruel and merciless man. Yet he was generous, using his own
funds to feed the people during a time of famine. He never got over the
execution of Mariamne, the wife he loved above all others. His grief led to
mental and emotional problems.[31] Herod was also a master architect,
“about 24 B.C. Herod built a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses
and Gentile temples, including the rebuilding of Straton’s Tower, renamed
Caesarea. His greatest building was the temple in Jerusalem, begun c. 20 B.C….”[32]
It should also be noted that the temple was finished in 64 AD before its final
destruction in 70AD when Rome destroyed the city.
Conclusion
As
you can see while this period of time may have had no prophets to speak for the
Lord there was a group of men who would sit down quietly and allow their God to
be made a mockery of. This period is full of political and religious turmoil
that lead up to and even continued through the times of Jesus Christ himself.
So while it may not be found in Scripture expressly, this period of history
plays a very important role in the beginning of Christianity. Because had none
of these things happened Israel may have never been awaiting their messiah so
anxiously as they were. We have seen what greed and jealousy can do to a nation
and to individual men. We have also seen what a small group of men who stick to
their convictions is capable of accomplishing. It is my hope that this essay
has blessed you and allowed you to better understand the religious and
political climate of Palestine some 2,000 years ago.
Bibliography
Dockery,
David S., Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church et al. Holman Bible
Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992.
Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter. Dictionary
of the New Testament Background. Downers Grove: IVP, 200.
Gaebelien, Frank E., ed. The Expositor's Bible
Commentary-General OT & NT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Holman
Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie
England et al. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
Ironside, H. A. The Four Hundred Silent
Years (from Malachi to Matthew). New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1914.
Kostenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, Charles L.
Quarles. The Craddle, The Cross, and the Crown. Nashville: B&H
Publishing Group, 2009.
[1]
Andreas J.
Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. (The Craddle, The Cross,
and the Crown. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009) 59.
[2]
Ibid., 65-66.
[3] David S. Dockery, Trent C.
Butler, Christopher L. Church et al., Holman
Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 505.
[4] Ibid., 505.
[5]
Köstenberger,
The Cradle, 66.
[6]
Frank E.Gaebelien ed., (The Expositor's Bible
Commentary-General OT & NT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979)181.
[7]
Kostenberger, The Cradle, 67..
[8] David, Holman Bible, 506.
[9]
Gaebelein, Expositors, 181.
[10]
Ibid., 183.
[11]
Kostenberger, The Cradle, 67.
[12]
Gaeblein, Expositor’s, 183.
[13]
Dockery, Holman), 507.
[14]
Gaeblein, Expositor’s, 183.
[15]
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary,
ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman
Bible Publishers, 2003), 830.
[16]
Kostenberger, The Cradle, 69.
[17]
Ibid., 70.
[18]
Gabelein, Expositor’s, 184.
[19]
Holman Brand, 830-31.
[20]
Craig A.Evans, and Stanley E. Porter. (Dictionary
of the New Testament Background. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000) 439.
[21]
Gabelein, Expositor’s, 185.
[22]
Ibid., 185.
[23]
Dockery, Holman, 508.
[24]
Evans, Dictionary,440.
[25]
Dockery, Holman, 508.
[26]
Gabelein, Expositor’s, 186.
[27]
Evans, Dictionary, 440.
[28]
Ibid., 440.
[29]
Gabelein, Expositor’s, 187.
[30]
Dockery, Holman, 513.
[31]
Holman,Brand, 833.
[32]
Gabelein, Expositor’s,191.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)