7/31/14

From Jim McGuiggan... CREATION: MALE & FEMALE

CREATION: MALE & FEMALE

This piece is very repetitive. I don't care.
I'm open to correction.

GOD CREATING MALE AND FEMALE

Genesis 1:26-27 [KJV]:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 
Genesis 5:1-2:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
AS THE NARRATIVE PRESENTS IT
1. God created humanity in his own image.
2. God created humanity [Man] as a plural unity and not two images.
3. “Him” and “them” are used interchangeably in the texts.
4. God called “their” name [not “names”] “Adam” [“humanity”].
5. Eve is not “humanity” independent of and apart from Adam.
6. Adam is not “humanity” independent of Eve.
7. Together they are named [identified as] “humanity”.
8. When we see ”humanity” as God created it we see a male & female pair.
9. That is “Man” [humanity] and when we see “the image of God” that’s what we 
    see—humanity as a plural but single reality and not as two independent images of God.
10. God created “him” male and female.
11. Gender distinctions are not confused or mixed but together they constitute 
      “Man”.
12. If you drew a single figure in a circle named humanity that would not be
      what God created as humanity.
13. Only if you drew two figures in that circle would you be representing 
      humanity as God created it.
14. But God didn’t just create Man [humanity]—he created Man “in his image.”
15. If you drew one figure in a circle named "the image of God" you would not 
      be representing the “image of God” as God created it.
16. Only if you drew two figures as a single reality in that circle would you be representing “the 
      image of God.” 
17. “The image of God” in humanity is seen in the Genesis account as male and 
      female, as a plural singularity. 
18. God could have made two independent creations; he could have made the
     woman out of the dust as he had made the man but the narrative says he chose 
     not to.
19. Genesis offers this truth as a creation truth and not as something that became 
      true after the Fall when curse entered.

GOD CREATING MALE & FEMALE: ADDED DETAILS
Genesis 2:18-23:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. 
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
AS THE NARRATIVE PRESENTS IT
1. This is a creation narrative that adds details about the way in which God created 
    humanity. It says that the creation took place in two phases. The male was first 
    created and then the female was created.
2. The creation of humanity [Man] was not completed when the male was created
    [as the earlier observations have made clear].
3. God says that it isn’t “good” that the male be alone. In the absence of a female the 
    situation is “not good” [but see Genesis 1:31 after the woman has made her
    appearance—it is "very good"].
4. Adam [the male, here] names all the animals and whatever else is involved in
    that exercise we’re told at its conclusion that in God’s created animal world there 
    was nothing that suited Adam’s need—nothing that made Adam’s solitary 
    existence “good”.
5. At this point God puts Adam to sleep and creates Eve [the female] out of a rib 
    from his side.
6. The man says, “Finally, at last” [see the versions and the literature], as distinct 
    from all that he has seen, named and identified in the animal world that God 
    created, “this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
7. Now that the female [Eve] has been created the male [Adam] finds himself 
    complete—without her, God calls the man’s existence “not good”. She is part of 
    him and he is part of her. They are "one flesh" prior to marriage.
8. [Marriage becomes the grand illustration of that truth—a truth that existed at 
    creation and before marriage—Genesis 2:24. Unmarried males and females are 
    together the image of God. It is a gender issue and not a marital one.]
9. This section adds narrative details not earlier spelled out and Paul, for example, 
    will call on it for various reasons. But these added details do not conflict with the 
    earlier mentioned creation texts and truths.
10. Nevertheless, these added details are not to be ignored.
11. However we understand Paul’s point when he uses this section he does make a 
      case built on the fact that the man [male] was created prior to the woman 
      [female]. See 1 Timothy 2:12-13.
12. However we understand Paul’s point when he uses this section he does make a
      case built on the fact that the woman was created out of the man and for the 
      man. [“For” the man can be understood in more than one way.] 
      See 1 Corinthians11:7-9, taking note of 11:3.


SUMMARY TO THIS POINT

The Genesis creation narrative and Paul’s use of it tell us that as the biblical witness presents it there is no “humanity” or “image of God” without the male/female interdependent existence. 
The Genesis creation narrative and Paul’s use of it tell us that within that “plural singularity” as created by God there are truths to be acknowledged and lived out in and as the “image of God.”
The Genesis creation narrative and Paul’s use of it tell us that these truths about male and female as “the image of God” are pre-Fall truths; they are what God purposed. They are not social constructs but creation truths.

God enabling I mean to take this a bit further.


What is “Sexual Immorality” in Matthew 19:9? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4778

What is “Sexual Immorality” in Matthew 19:9?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible repeatedly stresses the fact that God designed the institution of marriage (Genesis 2:22-25). He has, from the beginning of human history, given very specific ideas about what composes a divinely approved marriage (Matthew 19:1-4), consisting of one man and one woman. We learn from the Scriptures, however, that not every man or woman is qualified to enter into certain marital relationships. In the New Testament, we read of three, and only three, categories of people whom God approves to enter into marriage. The first category is those who have never been married (Hebrews 13:4). The second category of people who are eligible to marry is those who have been married but whose spouses have died (Romans 7:1-3). The third category of God-approved marriage candidates is those whose spouses have committed “sexual immorality” (Matthew 19:9). It is to this last category and to the term “sexual immorality” that we will direct our attention.
In Matthew 19:1-10, Jesus was tested by the Pharisees with the following question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” Jesus responded by directing their attention to God’s original creation of Adam and Eve. They then queried why Moses allowed certificates of divorce if marriage was supposed to be such a permanent institution. Jesus responded:
Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery (Matthew 19:8-9).
Notice, from this verse, that any person who gets a divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. But a person who divorces his/her spouse for sexual immorality and marries another person does not commit adultery. Thus, Jesus gives the criterion for those who are in the third category of God-approved marriage candidates. Also notice those who are not eligible to enter into a marriage: anyone who has gotten a divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality. [NOTE: The parallel passage found in Matthew 5:32 quotes Jesus as saying: “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”]
With Jesus’ statement in mind, it becomes imperative to learn what the term “sexual immorality” means, since this is the only infraction on behalf of a spouse that would allow for the remarriage of the innocent party (the spouse who does not commit sexual immorality) after a divorce. As you can imagine, in our culture of rampant divorce and remarriage, and secularized Christianity, this word has been given all sorts of meanings in an attempt to allow virtually every divorced person to be considered a God-approved candidate for remarriage. Many of these definitions are nothing more than attempts to alter the Word of God. So then, what does “sexual immorality” mean?
In order to understand what Jesus was saying, we must go back to the original language and identify what the word meant in the first century. The word translated “sexual immorality” in this verse is the Greek word porneia. The respected Greek lexicon of Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker states that the word refers to “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” In their primary definition, they mention that it refers to “the sexual unfaithfulness of a married woman” (1979, p. 693). The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words has an extensive section on porneia and related words: “This word group describes various extramarital sexual modes of behavior insofar as they deviate from accepted social and religious norms (e.g., homosexuality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and esp. prostitution)” (Verbrugge, 2000, 6:1077). This dictionary further notes: “Rab. Jud. (Rabbinical Judaism—KB) frowned on any kind of prostitution of extramarital sexual intercourse. Incest and all kinds of unnatural sexual intercourse were viewed as porneia (6:1078). In the discussion of the word’s use in the New Testament, the volume states:
It is not clear whether porneia in the so-called ‘exceptive clause’ (Matt 5:32; 19:9) is to be understood simply as extramarital sexual intercourse in the sense of moicheia or as including prostitution. Most interpreters tend to favor the former interpretation…. The porne word group denotes any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse in Paul’s letters (6:1078, emp. added).
TheTheological Dictionary of New Testament Words says concerning this word group that the “NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse” (Hauck and Schultz, 1968, 6:590). In discussing the word as it is used in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, this source states: “In both verses porneia refers to extra-marital intercourse on the part of the wife, which in practice is adultery” (6:592). From a survey of the lexical information regarding the word, the almost universally understood meaning of the word porneia is illicit physical sexual intercourse with someone who is not the person’s God-approved spouse (this would include homosexuality and beastiality). In modern terminology, then, the text is simply saying that the only time a person can divorce his or her spouse and marry another is if that spouse has been involved in a sexual affair with someone else. With knowledge of this word’s actual meaning, let us examine how some have attempted to redefine the term. [NOTE: Mark 10:11-12 is evidence of the fact that the Scripture applies both to a man who divorces his wife and to a woman who divorces her husband. The divine regulations apply equally to both genders. See Lenski, 1998, p. 734.]

Any Type of Lewd or Licentious Behavior

In our modern culture the term “pornography” has a host of meanings. It includes pictures of scantily clad men and women, videos of people engaged in illicit sexual situations, posters of women or men “baring it all,” etc. The word “pornography”derives from the word porneia. One can see the obvious connection. Due to the fact that “pornography”seems so similar to porneia, many have come to believe that any actions or behavior that modern people would term pornography would also fall under the definition of porneia. Thus, they suggest that if a person were to look at a pornographic movie, he would be guilty of porneia. If a wife were to send a man who is not her husband text messages with photos of herself in her underwear, or with messages that talk about sexual situations, she would be guilty of porneia. If a spouse were to call a phone-sex line and listen to a sexual situation described to him, he would be guilty of porneia. And the list could go on and on.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it projects a definition of the word porneia onto the first-century Greek term that the word in the first century did not have. Notice that in the definition provided from the lexical resources, there is near universal consensus that the term meant “sexual intercourse.” Due to the way the term “sex” has been overly applied to modern activities such as “phone sex,” or “sexting,” and “sexy,” the modern understanding is that anything that would be “sexually arousing” would be included in the term “sex.” But the term porneia would not have been understood to have such a loose, broad meaning.
It should be noted, of course, that many of the activities that have been described such as “sexting” or phone sex would be sinful and would be included in numerous lists of thoughts and actions that Christians should avoid. The terms for such activities include licentiousness, lusts (1 Peter 4:3), or lewdness (Romans 13:13). These terms have a much broader definition than porneia. Since that is the case, if Jesus had wanted to use one of these terms with a broader definition than “sexual intercourse” He could have, but He chose not to. As Wayne Jackson correctly stated: “Bible translations that render porneia more generically (e.g., ‘sexual immorality’) are misleading. There are various forms of sexual immorality (e.g., exposing one’s body in seductive clothing) that do not fall under the definition of fornication, though clearly they are sinful” (n.d.).
We get a definite understanding of how first-century Jews understood the term in John 8. In that passage Jesus accused the Jews of being the children of the devil, because they were behaving in the same way the devil would behave. They responded to His accusation by saying, “We were not born of fornication, we have one Father—God” (John 8:41). The word translated “fornication” in this verse is porneias. Notice their understanding of the term porneias included the idea that a person could be born of porneias. That would imply that the term must mean more than looking at pornographic pictures or explicit conversations about sex. In this context, it would be narrowly defined as sexual intercourse that has the biological ability to produce offspring. [NOTE: While the Jews had “spiritualized” the term and applied it to their spiritual relationship with God, that does not change the meaning of the word as they understood it. They certainly meant that they were not “illegitimate” spiritual children born as the result of an extra-marital sexual encounter. The fact that the term was figuratively applied to a spiritual relationship does not alter its literal meaning. See the section of this article titled “Sexual Immorality Used to Describe Idolatry.”]
The response to this statement from those who desire to view porneia as having a broader meaning is that “sexual intercourse” is such a difficult concept to define. Obviously, they say, homosexual behavior cannot produce offspring. Bestiality cannot produce offspring. So, according to them, any attempt to put limits on the nature of such “sexual” activity is doomed to failure. Such reasoning has at least two glaring flaws. First, it misses the point that the word porneia had a first-century meaning that was understood in the context as extra-marital sexual intercourse. Second, such reasoning fails to take into account the fact that in order to accept a broader definition for the term porneia, positive evidence must be presented that shows the word was understood in the first century to have the looser meaning. It is not enough to say, “I really feel like the term would include looking at pornography, sexting, or phone sex.” Any person who believes such activities would be included in the definition must present lexical information and first-century usages of the word that show such activities could be a part of the word’s meaning. Without this type of positive proof, we must stick with the definition that can be shown from the Bible and lexical sources to have been in use in the first-century.
Practically speaking, then, suppose a wife were to confide in a preacher that her husband is viewing pornography and masturbating. She asks the preacher if these transgressions would allow her to scripturally divorce her husband and be a candidate to remarry. The preacher then explains that porneia is the only divinely sanctioned cause for divorce and subsequent remarriage. The woman wants to know if porneia would include what she has described. The preacher shows her the lexical information and biblical usage and explains that “sexual intercourse” is the key component of the word. The woman argues that masturbation could be included in the term “sexual intercourse.” The preacher then goes to John 8:41, explains how the word was used there, and asks the woman to do some study and try to find any instance in or around the time of the first century where we know for a fact the word was used for masturbation or viewing pornography. If such a usage is not forthcoming, the only proper course of interpretation is to exclude masturbation and viewing pornography from the definition of porneia.

What About Matthew 5:27-28?

Once it has been clearly established that porneia is the only exception given for a spouse to scripturally divorce and contract a subsequent marriage, some then turn to Matthew 5:27-28 to broaden the meaning of porneia. Those verses record Jesus saying: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The reasoning is, if a man lusts for a woman other than his spouse, Jesus says he has committed adultery with her “in his heart.” Since he commits mental/heart adultery, the argument goes, that must mean his wife could divorce him for “adultery” based on his lustful thoughts, and she could contract another scriptural marriage. This argument is flawed on several levels.
First, notice where Jesus said the “adultery” takes place: “in his heart.” In Matthew 5:27-28, however, Jesus makes a distinction between what He is saying in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. In neither of the latter two instances does Jesus allow for the adultery to be in any other realm but physical. The word porneia carries no inherent meaning that would cause the reader to interpret it to mean anything other than physical sexual intercourse. Since “in his heart” or other such phrases are not included in Matthew 5:32 or 19:9, correct interpretation rules would require us to define the word porneia in physical terms, not mental or spiritual ones. As Wayne Jackson correctly stated: “A fundamental principle of Bible interpretation is that words must be interpreted literally unless there is compelling reason for assigning them a figurative meaning. The term ‘adultery’ is not employed in a metaphorical sense in Matthew 19:9” (n.d.).
Second, we must recognize that while certain sins may carry the same spiritual weight, they do not have the same physical consequences. In Matthew 5:21, Jesus explained that the Old Testament prohibited murder. He elaborated on this concept when He insisted that any person who hates his brother enough to say, “You fool,” will “be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). The inspired writer John said: “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). From these passages it is clear that the sins of hatred and murder carry the same spiritual weight, but they do not carry the same physical consequences. In the Old Testament, murder was a capital offense punishable by death, but hatred was not. Again, physical adultery was a crime punishable in the Old Testament by stoning, but lust was not. In Matthew 19:9, the sin of porneia may carry the same spiritual weight as lust “in the heart,” but the verses never hint at the idea that the terms carry the same physical consequences. The physical consequences of a spouse committing porneia are that the innocent spouse can divorce that person and contract a new scriptural marriage, while the guilty party must remain unmarried for the rest of his or her life. The same physical consequences are not enumerated for “adultery in the heart” in Matthew 5:28.

Sexual Immorality Used to Describe Idolatry

In a similar way, some have contended that because God used the terms “adultery,” or “sexual immorality,” or equivalent ideas to describe the Israelites’ apostasy into idolatry (Hosea 4:11-13), then the terms can have a broader meaning. They argue that if God’s people can commit “adultery” against Him by worshipping idols, then the word “adultery” must have a meaning broad enough to include activities other than actual, physical intercourse.
Again, this type of argument fails for at least two primary reasons. First, it is clear from the context of Matthew 19:1-9 that the physical relationship between a husband and wife is under discussion. Respected linguists Vine (1985) and Thayer (1962, p. 532) concur that  when not used metaphorically (in reference to idolatry) porneia is used of “illicit sexual intercourse.” There is no discussion in this context of idolatry or spiritualized unfaithfulness. The text could not be clearer in regard to the physical marriage relationship.
Second, the spiritualized, figurative sense of the word makes no sense if the Jews did not understand the physical sense as the primary, literal meaning. For instance, in Hosea 4:12, in regard to Israelite idolatry, the prophet said: “Therefore your daughters commit harlotry and your brides commit adultery.” In a physical sense, what do the terms “adultery” and “harlotry” mean?—illicit sexual intercourse. Without the understanding of the physical meanings, the illustration that God used makes no sense—that in a figurative sense, Israel is married to God, and idolatry is a spiritual act of unfaithfulness. Unless adultery really does mean committing sexual sin against one’s spouse, God’s illustration breaks down.
For instance, consider the statement: “The debater blew his opponent’s argument out of the water.” This figurative use of the phrase only makes sense if we understand the physical picture of literal water and some type of blasting explosion. The figurative use of the word is always dependent on the physical meaning of the term. The physical meanings of the terms are necessarily logically prior to the figurative or spiritualized meanings. Thus, spiritual “adultery” can only be understood if we comprehend the physical use of the term “adultery.” And we have sufficiently established that the physical use of porneia means illicit sexual intercourse.
Finally, and worthy of serious consideration, is this fact: even if it could be shown that porneia might have a spiritualized, figurative meaning in Matthew 19:1-9 (which it cannot), that fact would only indicate a possible use of the word. The one contending that a person could contract a God approved divorce and subsequent remarriage would have to prove that this spiritualized usage is being applied, not just that it is a possibility.If that usage cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then a person would be risking his or her soul on a mere possibility. What kind of ground would a person be standing on in the Day of Judgment contending with God, “But I thought the word possibly could have meant…,” when we have a very clear meaning of “physical sexual intercourse” that we know the word carries.

Conclusion

Marriage is permanent. The only two situations in the New Testament in which a person can get married more than once with God’s approval are when a spouse dies, or when an innocent spouse divorces a spouse for porneia. The term porneia means unlawful, physical sexual intercourse. In an attempt to broaden the category of those who can scripturally remarry, some have attempted to define the term porneia with concepts such as viewing pornography or “phone sex.” While those activities are sinful, they are not porneia as the word was used in the first century. Others have contended that lust results in “adultery in the heart” and would be grounds for a scriptural divorce and remarriage. But they fail to differentiate between sins that have the same spiritual weight but have different physical consequences. Jesus’ sole exception for divorcing a living spouse and marrying another is if that spouse has committed physical sexual intercourse with another biological being.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second revised edition.
Hauck, F. and Siegfried Schultz (1968), porneia, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jackson, Wayne (No Date), “Is ‘Lust’ the Equivalent of ‘Fornication’”, Christian Courier, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1371-is-lust-the-equivalent-of-fornication.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1998), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Thayer, Joseph (1962), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Verbrugge, Verlyn (2000), The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words(Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Vine, W.E. (1985), Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Electronic PC Study Bible Version).

From Mark Copeland... Paul's Defense Before Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

               Paul's Defense Before Agrippa (26:1-32)

INTRODUCTION

1. Following his arrest in Jerusalem, Paul had the opportunity to defend
   himself before...
   a. The Jewish mob - Ac 22:1-21
   b. The Sanhedrin council - Ac 23:1-10
   c. The Roman governor Felix and Drusilla - Ac 24:1-27
   d. The Roman governor Festus - Ac 25:1-12

2. After being incarcerated in Caesarea for two years...
   a. Jewish leaders wanted Paul brought back in Jerusalem - Ac 25:1-3
   b. But there was a plot to ambush Paul along the way - Ac 25:3
   c. Rather than be returned to Jerusalem, Paul appealed to Caesar - Ac 25:9-11

[Festus was willing to grant Paul's appeal.  Uncertain of charges to
specify against Paul, Festus solicited King Agrippa's help (Ac 25:12-27).
Once again, Paul was permitted to defend himself (Ac 26:1)...]

I. THE DEFENSE

   A. PAUL'S GRATITUDE...
      1. To be able to answer for himself before the king - Ac 26:2
      2. Because the king was known for his expertise regarding Jewish
         matters - Ac 26:3

   B. PAUL'S EARLY LIFE...
      1. Brought up in Jerusalem (though born in Tarsus) - Ac 26:4; cf.
         Ac 22:3
      2. Lived as a Pharisee, the strictest sect of Jewish religion - Ac 26:5
      3. He was being judged for the hope of the resurrection, a promise
         made by God to the Jews which the king should not think 
         incredible - Ac 26:6-8; cf. Ac 23:6
      4. As a zealous Pharisee, he thought he should persecute Christians
         - Ac 26:9-11
         a. Imprisoning them in Jerusalem
         b. Casting his own vote to put them to death
         c. Punishing them in the synagogues, forcing them to blaspheme
         d. Persecuting them to even foreign cities

   C. PAUL'S CALLING...
      1. While journeying to Damascus, commissioned by the chief priests
         - Ac 26:12
      2. Along the road, seeing a bright light shining about him and his
         fellow travelers - Ac 26:13
      3. Falling to the ground, hearing a voice in Hebrew - Ac 26:14
         a. "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
         b. "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
      4. Asking "Who are you, Lord?", Jesus identifies Himself - Ac 26:15
      5. Jesus then tells Paul why He has appeared to him - Ac 26:16-18
         a. To make him a minister
         b. A witness of things seen and things yet to be revealed
         c. To be delivered from Jews and Gentiles, while opening their
            eyes
         d. To turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan
            to God
         e. That they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance
            among those sanctified by faith in Him

   D. PAUL'S MINISTRY...
      1. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision - Ac 26:19
      2. But declared to those in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and to the
         Gentiles - Ac 26:20
         a. That they should repent, turn to God
         b. And do works befitting repentance
      3. For such reasons Jews seized him in the temple and tried to kill
         him - Ac 26:21
      4. But with help from God, to that day Paul witnessed to both small
         and great - Ac 26:22
      5. Saying only what the prophets and Moses said would come - Ac 26:22-23
         a. That the Christ would suffer
         b. That He would be the first to rise from the dead
         c. That He would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the
            Gentiles

[At this point, Paul is interrupted by an outburst from the Roman
governor Festus...]

II. THE REACTION

   A. FROM FESTUS...
      1. "Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you
         mad!" - Ac 26:24
      2. Paul's calm response - Ac 26:25-26
         a. "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of
            truth and reason."
         b. "For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these
            things."
         c. "For I am convinced that none of these things escape his
            attention."
         d. "Since this thing was not done in a corner."

   B. FROM AGRIPPA...
      1. Paul:  "King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that
         you believe" - Ac 26:27
      2. Agrippa:  "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." - Ac 26:28
      3. Paul:  "I would to God that not only you, but all who hear me 
         today, might become almost and altogether such as I am, except
         for these chains." - Ac 26:29

   C. FROM EVERYONE...
      1. At this point, Agrippa, Festus, Bernice, and others went aside
         to talk - Ac 26:30
      2. Their conclusion:  "This man is doing nothing deserving of death
         or chains." - Ac 26:31
      3. Agrippa:  "This man might have been set free if he had not
         appealed to Caesar." - Ac 26:32

CONCLUSION

1. The final two chapters of Acts (27-28) will cover Paul's eventful sea
   journey to Rome...

2. In the meantime, give serious consideration to whether we are
   experiencing the blessings of Paul's ministry in our own lives... 
   
"to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of
sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me."
                                                            - Ac 26:18

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

From Gary... What does God say about it?


It is going to be in the low 90's again today, but the humidity is 10% lower than in previous days, so even 90 won't seem so bad.  But, it is NOT COLD!!!  And so, I was drawn to this picture of a man on a high mountain. Cold- you bet!!! You can tell that from the snow, the altitude and the clothing he is wearing.  You know, there is just something special about mountains; a certain undefinable draw that tells you something wonderful lies up there- something marvellous. And this tale of a mountain-top experience does not disappoint!!!

Matthew 17:1-8 NASB
(1)  Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves.
(2)  And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.
(3)  And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
(4)  Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
(5)  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
(6)  When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.
(7)  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."
(8)  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Matthew 16:13-28 NASB
(13)  Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
(14)  And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
(15)  He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
(16)  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

(17)  And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
(18)  "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
(19)  "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
(20)  Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
(21)  From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.
(22)  Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You."
(23)  But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

(24)  Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
(25)  "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
(26)  "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
(27)  "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.
(28)  "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Jesus chose ordinary men; like those you might meet everyday- hard-working people.  And in Chapter 17 we find that Jesus takes his "inner circle" of disciples up to a high mountain. While there, the father attests to Jesus' sonship and commands that they listen to HIM!!!  I wonder- why?  I think the answer is found in the previous chapter (16).  Jesus asked who they thought he was and Peter made his now famous confession.  But, then Peter rebukes Jesus and in turn is properly put in his place. Or is he? Jesus said the correct thing, but somehow I don't think Peter really heard him.  The "inner circle" needed something more to really believe and that's what the mountain-top experience really did.  But, belief is more than just mental assent; it is a confident trust in God, which yields obedience to God's will. Forget your own interests; focus on listening to Jesus and actually do what he tells you to do. 

Gary- This means you!!!  (and everyone else as well)

7/30/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Creation and animal suffering


Creation and animal suffering

Petra wonders why God created the world so that animals have to suffer. We eat them, many of them eat each other, some of them are used for medical studies and some of them are butchered so that vain people can wear the exotic. And in the Old Testament we have the God-appointed sacrifice of animals.

As the biblical record presents it, in the beginning when God created humans and animals they ate vegetation and not each other (Genesis 1:29-30). It is only subsequent to our sinful rebellion that animals became a source of food for humans and (apparently) for one another (Genesis 9:3-6). I’m certain in light of that, as a beginning, and the development of the redemptive Story that we should view animal death as well as human death in connection with the arrival of sin and God's redeeming purpose. As Genesis 9:5 seems to imply, a tension is to be seen between the animal world and the humans.

I’m not suggesting that animals thoughtfully developed enmity against humans but I am suggesting that the peaceful relationship between them that’s reflected in Genesis 2:19-20 and 1:29-30 deteriorated. The mechanisms involved in that would be another discussion but I’m sure we should take the whole curse narrative of Genesis 3:14-19 into account and see it as the outworking of God’s will. That will is never to be separated from God’s redemptive purpose, which embraces the entire creation (see Romans 8:18-23). And if we hear the scriptures teach that God knew about our coming rebellion—as I’m sure he did—and that he prepared the creation for that eventuality this might ease our concerns about animals that are structured as carnivores. (They didn't grow flesh-tearing teeth after we sinned though the appetite may have arrived at that point.)

Whatever we are to make of the texts there are those (like Isaiah 11:6-9) that speak of peace in the animal world when the Messiah completes his glorious work of restructuring human society in justice, love and mercy. I think the least we should take from such texts is this: that the peace of the animal world was disrupted in light of sinful rebellion and spiritual anarchy. When all this is done away then the entire creation finds peace. So the texts as they sit present peace in the animal world arriving with the spiritual restructuring of the human world.

I believe there are aspects of the suffering of the animal world that serve the purposes of God by convicting us of our sin. I believe that the whole sacrificial system of the Old Testament, while it certainly runs deeper than this, sets before us the suffering of the innocent that sinful humans can be granted fellowship with the Holy Father. These sacrificial animals certainly shadow forth the coming of the Lamb of God but in themselves and their loss they bear witness to our sin and the depth of God’s love toward us. To puzzle over such questions is right and to refuse to settle for glib "explanations" is also right but what is not right is to forget that God looked at his entire creation and whispered, "Good!" Not a sparrow dies, said Jesus, but that the Holy Father doesn’t take note of it.

We usually speak as if Christ's work of reconciliation embraced only humans and it's perfectly right that we should do so. But Colossians 1:19-20 and other texts should remind us that the effect of Christ's work is cosmic.  

What is the “Fruit of the Vine”? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1262

What is the “Fruit of the Vine”?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

In the 21st century, scientific names and designations of certain fruits and vegetables often disagree with commonly accepted notions of the produce. For example, is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? What about a cucumber? Although most people see these two foods as vegetables, technically they are viewed in scientific circles as fruit. Furthermore, both cucumbers and tomatoes grow on vines, which would, in the strictest sense of the word, classify them as “fruits of the vine.” Other fruits that grow on vines include melons, such as watermelon and cantaloupe, as well as grapes.
In light of the fact that there are many different “fruits of the vine,” how are we to understand the New Testament phrase, “the fruit of the vine,” that Jesus used during the Last Supper just before His death. Is it possible to identify which “fruit of the vine” was used to produce the drink of the last Supper? And if so, how does the identification of that specific fruit affect the observation of the Lord’s Supper today?
The phrase “the fruit of the vine” is used in only three places in the New Testament:
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:27-29).
Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:23-25).
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:17-18).
In order to identify the specific “fruit of the vine” referred to by Jesus, we must analyze the words of the phrase in light of how the first-century audience would have understood them. The Greek word translated “vine” in these three instances is ampelos. Arndt, et al., define the term as “vine, or grapevine” (1979, p. 46). In virtually every instance in the Bible when the term is used, it refers to a grapevine. For instance, in James 3:12 several Bible translations render the word ampelos as “grapevine.” The New King James version reads: “Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs?”. In Revelation 14:18, we read: “And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, ‘Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.’” Notice that the term “vine” is used, then modified by the phrase “for her grapes...,” obviously referring to a grapevine.
Another Greek term relevant to this discussion is ampelōn, deriving from the same word as ampelos. Arndt, et al., give as its almost universal meaning, “vineyard” (p. 47). References in the New Testament using the term to denote a vineyard filled with grapes include Matthew 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-11, and Luke 20:9-16. In fact, the only reference in the New Testament where the term might mean anything other than a vineyard of grapes is Luke 13:6, where the term could possibly mean “orchard” (Arndt, et al., p. 47), specifically an orchard of figs. Since figs, however, are never referred to as the “fruit of the vine,” nor would a fig tree be classified as a vine, then this possible exception to the term “vineyard” has no bearing on the definition of the “fruit of the vine.”
Indeed, the terms “vine” and “vineyard” are so universally associated with grapes and wine made from grapes, that William Smith, under the entry for the word “vine,” wrote: “The vines of Palestine were celebrated both for luxuriant growth and for the immense clusters of grapes which they produced” (1870, 4:3446, emp. added). In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, W.E. Vine included the following statement with his definition of “wine”: “In instituting the Lord’s Supper He [Jesus—KB] speaks of the contents of the cup as the ‘fruit of the vine.’ So Mark 14:25” (1997, p. 1232). In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, A.B. Bruce summarized Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:29 in the following words: “It is the last time I shall drink paschal...wine with you. I am to die at this Passover” (2002, 1:312).
It is an absolutely established fact that Jesus’ disciples, as well as the broader first-century readership of the gospel accounts, understood Jesus’ phrase “fruit of the vine” to refer to juice from grapes [NOTE: There is ongoing debate as to whether the grape juice was fermented or unfermented. For a brief, but trenchant discussion of this debate, see Jackson, 2000).
If Christians today want to follow the example that Jesus set during the Lord’s Supper, and the apostles followed throughout their ministry, then they will drink juice from grapes during their observance of the communion. Although we today might technically view products such as tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons as “fruits of the vine,” they were not referred to as such by Christ, the New Testament writers, or the greater Greek-speaking community at large during the time of Christ.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.
Bruce, A.B. (2002 reprint), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Jackson, Wayne (2000), “Was the ‘Fruit of the Vine’ Fermented?,” Christian Courier, [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/224-was-the-fruit-of-the- vine-fermented.
Smith, William (1870), Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett and Ezra Abbot (New York: Hurd & Houghton).
Vine, W.E. (1997), Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).

From Mark Copeland... Paul Before Festus And Agrippa (Acts 25:1-27)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

               Paul Before Festus And Agrippa (25:1-27)

INTRODUCTION

1. While Felix remained governor, Paul remained in Caesarea...
   a. Though he did enjoy some privileges - Ac 24:23
   b. But he was imprisoned for two years - Ac 24:27

2. Finally, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus... - Ac 24:27
   a. Who assumed the office by Nero's appointment in A.D. 60 - HIBD
   b. Who held the office until his death in A.D. 62 - ibid.
   c. Josephus describes Festus as prudent and honorable governor - ISBE,
      Revised

[We catch a glimpse of Festus' character in his handling of Paul's case
inherited from Felix's own procrastination...]

I. PAUL BEFORE FESTUS

   A. THE JEWS PETITION FESTUS...
      1. Shortly after arriving, Festus traveled from Caesarea to 
         Jerusalem - Ac 25:1
      2. The high priest and chief men informed Festus of Paul - Ac 25:2
      3. They petitioned him to bring Paul back to Jerusalem - Ac 25:2-3
      4. Meanwhile the Jews plotted to ambush and kill Paul - Ac 25:3
      5. Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Caesarea - Ac 25:4
      6. He invited the Jews in authority to Caesarea to accuse Paul
         there - Ac 25:5

   B. PAUL'S DEFENSE BEFORE FESTUS...
      1. After ten days in Jerusalem, Festus returned to Caesarea - Ac 25:6
      2. The next day he commanded Paul brought before the judgment seat
         - Ac 25:6
      3. The Jews from Jerusalem laid serious but unproved complaints
         against Paul - Ac 25:7
      4. Paul replied, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against
         the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at 
         all." - Ac 25:8

   C. PAUL'S APPEAL TO CAESAR...
      1. Festus asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem with him - Ac 25:9
         a. Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor
         b. He suggested that he would judge Paul there
      2. Paul objected to being taken to Jerusalem - Ac 25:10-11
         a. He stood at Caesar's judgment seat where he ought to be 
            judged
         b. He had done no wrong to the Jews, as Festus knew
         c. Paul was willing to die if he had committed anything worthy
            of death
         d. But there was nothing in the charges of which he was accused
      3. Paul therefore appealed to Caesar - Ac 25:11-12
         a. As a Roman citizen he had the right to appeal his case before
            Caesar - ESVSB
         b. Caesar at that time was the emperor Nero - ibid.

[Conferring with his council Festus answered, "You have appealed to
Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" (Ac 25:12).  Before sending Paul to
the Roman Caesar, Festus took advantage of a visit by a Jewish king...]


II. PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA

   A. FESTUS PRESENTS PAUL'S CASE TO KING AGRIPPA...
      1. After some days, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to 
         greet Festus - Ac 25:13
         a. Agrippa was Agrippa II - HIBD
            1) Son of Herod Agrippa I, who killed James - Ac 12:1
            2) Great-grandson of Herod the Great, who killed the babies
               - Mt 2:1-18
         b. Bernice was the half-sister of Agrippa - AYBD
            1) She married Marcus Julius Alexander in A.D. 41
            2) After Marcus' death, she married her uncle Herod of 
               Chalchis in A.D. 44
            3) After Herod died in A.D. 48, she became Agrippa's constant
               companion (some think it was an incestuous relationship)
            4) Because of such regarding her brother, she eventually
               married Polemo king of Cilicia
            5) She finally became the mistress of the Roman emperor Titus 2.

            Festus laid Paul's case before Agrippa - Ac 25:14-21
         a. He noted that Felix had left Paul a prisoner
         b. The chief priests and elders of the Jews informed Festus
            about Paul
         c. He told the Jews that it was not Roman custom to deliver the
            accused for "destruction" without the accused having the 
            opportunity to answer the charges
         d. Festus had Paul come before the judgment seat
         e. Festus discovered nothing wrong, other than there were
            questions about "their own religion and about a certain 
            Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive"
         f. Festus asked Paul to go to Jerusalem, since he was uncertain
            about these matters
         g. Paul then appealed to Caesar
      3. Agrippa wanted to hear Paul, and Festus promised a hearing the
         next day - Ac 25:22

   B. PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA AND BERNICE...
      1. The next day Festus commanded Paul brought forth - Ac 25:23
         a. Following the arrival of Agrippa and Bernice with great pomp
         b. Before an audience of commanders and prominent men of the 
            city
      2. Festus explained the situation to Agrippa and the men gathered
         - Ac 25:24-27
         a. In Jerusalem and Caesarea the Jews claimed Paul was not "fit
            to live any longer"
         b. Festus had found that Paul committed nothing deserving death
         c. Paul had appealed to Caesar, and Festus was going to send him
         d. But he had nothing to write to Caesar about Paul
         e. He hoped after Agrippa's examination of Paul, he may have
            something to write
         f. For he thought it unreasonable to send a prisoner to Caesar
            without specifying charges

CONCLUSION

1. At this point, King Agrippa permitted Paul to speak for himself...
   a. Paul's defense before Agrippa is covered in the next chapter - Ac 26:1-32
   b. Which we shall consider in our next study

2. Luke detailed account of these events may have been for a particular
   reason...
   a. There is good reason to believe that Theophilus was a Roman 
      official - Lk 2:1-4; Ac 1:1
   b. Some suggest Theophilus may have been in charge of Paul's case at
      Rome
   c. Which might be why the book of Acts ends so abruptly with Paul
      awaiting trial - Ac 28:30-31
   d. With such detailed accounts of Paul's trials, it may have helped
      Paul's release after his first imprisonment in Rome

Of course, with the Holy Spirit inspiring Luke and preserving his two
books for our benefit, we can see the providence of God at work as
Jesus' promises regarding Paul are fulfilled...

   "...he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles,
   kings, and the children of Israel."
                                                           - Ac 9:15

   "But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, "Be of
   good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem,
   so you must also bear witness at Rome."
                                                           - Ac 23:11

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

From Gary.... When your world is all shook up


Acts 16:22-26 NASB
(22)  The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods.
(23)  When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely;
(24)  and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.
(25)  But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them;
(26)  and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened.

Some things are hard for me to understand. It took decades for me to adopt the attitude that Snoopy so gleefully espouses.  Even when my day is difficult, I try to keep a good attitude. However, I have not yet arrived to the level of Paul and Silas.  Imagine, being beaten with rods, imprisoned and chained for what you believe- and then being able to sing praises to God (even at midnight).  Yet, things like this are happening in our world, even now!!!  The thing is- most of the time you get shook up by the events of the day and the earth does not.  I wonder if I will ever have such faith in the face of adversity? And how would my life be changed by God's response to such a faith? I guess I will just have to play wait and see!!!  Its all about one's heart toward God, isn't it???? May God give us all the faith to face whatever the future may hold!!!!


7/29/14

From Jim McGuiggan... A TICKING CLOCK?


A TICKING CLOCK?


Humans didn’t arrive by chance. The former atheist, Anthony Flew, finally admitted, as he listened to atheists like Richard Dawkins, it is “comical” to think we arrived by chance.
Humans didn’t create themselves! Enough said.

We’re here because God in holy love and out of the infinite fountain of his life-filled life he chose to share life with us. In making a choice to create us God chose to be our God; he chose not to be God in solitary existence; he chose not to be God without us. He chose to bring into being a human family to which he would relate as a Holy Father to his children.

He didn’t create us to exist independent of him. He purposed more than existence; he purposed life for us, life in fellowship with him. What he purposed for us couldn’t be experienced by us apart from him. He didn’t create us as a clockmaker creates a clock, winds it up and then walks away to leave the clock ticking its own way toward oblivion.

Seen in that way “life” would be existence but it wouldn’t be what God purposed; it wouldn’t be the destiny for which he made us.

We couldn’t tell from reading Genesis—Malachi that God had purposed to bring into being a glorious and deathless human family but in Jesus, who brings Genesis—Malachi to fullness, we have come to know about “life and immortality” (2 Timothy 1:10).

In and through Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45 and see Romans 5:14) we learn what God’s eternal purpose was that was hinted at throughout the early ages.

What would thwart that glorious and generous purpose would be the free human rejection of God’s intention and that rejection of God could only and would only result in death. But God’s creative purpose took that into account and in Jesus he purposed to deal with the sinful rejection and by his resurrection destroy the resultant death.

No lovely couple has a child just so they can receive praise and honour even though it’s true that fullness of life could not be enjoyed if mutual honour and respect is not offered. God didn’t purpose life for a glorious human family just so he could be praised and honoured forever. He didn’t need service or praise—he didn’t create us to fill some lack he experienced. Our life was/is a generous gift; he gives to us grand and profound possibilities as a loving couple does to a child they loved into existence. Because God purposed that the creation would come to its fullness in the glorious and immortal Jesus in whose image the human family will live (Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 2:10 and compare Romans 8:29-30) the future is assured. Not only is it assured, it will be inexpressible wonderful (Philippians 3:20-21) and my Ethel will experience it in its fullness.

What Kind of Bread did Jesus Use to Institute the Last Supper? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

What Kind of Bread did Jesus Use to Institute the Last Supper?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

As one of the three major Jewish feasts, the Passover came complete from God with strict regulations regarding the proper rituals to be observed. Exodus 12:1-28 detailed specifically that the Passover lamb was to be killed at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month (12:6). Furthermore, its blood was to be sprinkled upon the lintels of the houses in which the Israelites ate the meal (12:7), and the flesh of the lamb was to be roasted—not eaten boiled or raw (12:8-9).
Numerous additional regulations pertaining to the lamb’s preparation, the length of the feast, and various other such facets of the festival could be cited. The one other injunction most specifically pertaining to this discussion is found in verses 15, and 18-20. These verses explicitly state that no leavened bread should be eaten from the 14th day of the month to the 21st day of the month. Verse 15 explains that any person eating leavened bread would be “cut off from Israel” (a phase often implying the death penalty). Verses 18-20 read as follows:
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.
Simply put, God directly commanded Moses to warn the children of Israel that anyone caught eating leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread would be punished severely, possibly with death.
As we move approximately 1,500 years from the initial institution of the feast, we find the Jews of Jesus’ day bound to the same regulations and specificities as those ancient compatriots of Moses. In fact, we find Jesus—as a faithful Jew “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses. On occasion, upon healing leprous people, Jesus instructed those individuals to present themselves to the priest as the Law of Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4; Luke 17:12-14). The Pharisees’ accusations of Jesus’ breaking the Sabbath notwithstanding, Jesus lived perfectly under the Law of Moses. Since He obeyed the Law consistently, when Jesus ate the Passover feast and celebrated the ensuing Feast of Unleavened bread, it is a fact that He would not have used any leaven from the 14th day of Nisan [originally, the first Jewish month was called Abib (see Deuteronomy 16:1-10), but its name eventually was changed to Nisan (Esther 3:7)] to the 21st day of that same month, as commanded in Exodus 12:15,18-20.
Therefore, it can be determined beyond any doubt that Jesus would have used unleavened bread during the Passover meal. This fact is of utmost importance, since the Last Supper (at which Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper) often is thought to have occurred on the 14th day of Nisan during the evening of the Passover, marking the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened bread. If Jesus did not institute the Lord’s Supper on the actual Passover, then there remains no biblical basis to insist upon the use of unleavened bread during the Lord’s Supper.
The original language provides no assistance in ascertaining whether the bread was leavened or not. The Greek word used to identify the bread distributed by Christ at the Last Supper is artos (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), which is the general word for any kind of bread (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 110). The use of this word does not exclude the possibility that it was unleavened bread, since the Septuagint translators the word artos to refer to unleavened bread (Leviticus 8:2,26). At the same time, use of the term does not demand that it was unleavened bread. In fact, another Greek word, azumos, could have been used to mean strictly unleavened bread (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 19). Therefore, from the word used to describe the bread eaten by Jesus at the Last Supper, we can deduce only that it could have been either leavened or unleavened. As noted earlier, the only way to prove from the Bible that the bread was unleavened is to verify that Jesus ate the Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan—the actual Passover.
This may, at first, seem quite easy to establish. Matthew’s account explicitly states: “Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?’ ” (26:17). And also, “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples” (26:20). According to Matthew, then, Jesus instituted the Last Supper “on the first day of unleavened bread.” Mark’s account is equally specific and descriptive: “And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?’ ” (14:12). And, as in Matthew, Mark states: “[W]hen it was evening he cometh with the twelve” (14:17). Mark clearly declared that the Last Supper was instituted on the first day of unleavened bread. He further defined that day as the day when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, which would have been the evening of the 14th of Nisan according to Exodus 12. Furthermore, Luke’s account is equally definitive when it states: “And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat’ ” (22:7).
Were the discussion to end at this point, it would be crystal clear that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first day of Unleavened Bread when the Passover lamb was sacrificed. But when John’s account is consulted, the picture seems to get a little fuzzy. John’s record certainly is not as specific as the other three. In John 13:1-4, we read:
Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto his Father, having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all the things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God, riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself.
Apparently, the thoughts of Jesus recorded in John 13:1 occurred sometime before the Feast of the Passover. How long before the feast is unknown, but some assume it means at least a day. That time frame is based upon other statements found in the book of John. In John 18:28, the chief priests and the leaders of the Jews “led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” If “the passover” in this verse means the Feast of the Passover lamb, which was eaten on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread, then that would mean the Last Supper Jesus celebrated with His disciples occurred about 24 hours earlier. Furthermore, John 19:14-18 states:
Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, “Behold, your King!” They therefore cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate saith unto them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified. They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst (emp. added).
Those who believe that the events of John 13 happened at least a day before the Passover generally base that belief on the idea that John 19:14-18 seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified before the actual Passover, since it was the “preparation of the passover.”
Several of the early church fathers held to the belief that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which would mean that the Last Supper occurred before the Feast of Unleavened bread. Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 8) and Clement of Alexandria (Paschal Chronicle Fragment) both took this view. Furthermore, in the Talmud, early Jewish rabbis concluded that Jesus was “hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people” (Bruce, 1960, p. 101). In more recent times, many have advocated this view. The editors of the Pulpit Commentary wrote: “It appears that our Lord was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, on the very day of the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb, a few hours before the time of the Paschal Supper, and that his own Last Supper was eaten the night before, that is, twenty-four hours before the general time of eating the Passover Supper” (Spence and Exell, n.d., pp. 196-197, emp. in orig.).
In his book, Radical Restoration, F. LaGard Smith mentioned some things that, in his opinion, seem to conflict with the idea that Jesus ate the Passover on the actual first day of unleavened bread. He commented:
The emerging picture tends to suggest that we may have misinterpreted the words with which Jesus began the Last Supper. It may well be that Jesus was not expressing his eagerness to eat the actual Passover, but his desire to eat the only “Passover” he could share with his disciples before he suffered. Which is to say, ahead of time. The day before. On the only evening left before his crucifixion. (2001, p. 280, emp. in orig.).
To further bolster the idea that the Last Supper might not have been taken during the Feast of Unleavened bread, Smith cited The Crux of the Matter by Childers, Foster, and Reese, who suggested that “from the ninth century, the common bread, leavened bread, was replaced by unleavened bread. Using regular table bread had been the practice of the churches for centuries of Christian worship from very early days” (2001, p. 38). McClintock and Strong observed:
At the institution of the Lord’s Supper Christ used unleavened bread. The primitive Christians carried with them the bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper, and took the bread which was used at common meals, which was leavened bread. When this custom ceased, together with the Agapè, the Greeks retained the leavened bread, while in the Latin Church the unleavened bread became common since the 8th century. Out of this difference a dogmatic controversy in the 11th century arose, the Greek Church reproaching the Latin for the use of unleavened bread, making it heresy. At the Council of Florence, in 1439, which attempted to unite both churches, it was agreed that either might be used… (1969, 5:514, emp. in orig.).
Even though McClintock and Strong stated that Christ used unleavened bread, they also documented that many of those in the early period of the church did not use unleavened bread—a fact that could be used to add credence to the possibility that Christ also did not use unleavened bread.
Obviously, the battle over which type of bread Christ used when He instituted the Last Supper has been going on for centuries. Is there any way to reconcile the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with that of John? Can it be established, from the biblical text, on what day Christ and His disciples ate their final meal before His death? The answer is a resounding “yes.” Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper on the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover lamb was to be killed—exactly as Matthew, Mark, and Luke plainly state.

THE PREPARATION DAY

In order to maintain that Christ ate the Last Supper on the first day of unleavened bread, a response must be formulated to the passage in John 19:14-18, which seems to indicate that Christ was crucified on the “Preparation of the Passover.” First, it must be noted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke each state that Christ was crucified on the “day of preparation.” Matthew, in speaking of the day after Jesus’ crucifixion, affirmed: “Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again’ ” (Matthew 27:62-63). Mark’s account, in dealing with the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, observed: “And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus” (15:42-43). Not only did Mark specify the day of Jesus’ crucifixion as “the Preparation,” but he also defined that day for his readers as “the day before the Sabbath.” Finally, Luke related virtually the same facts in 23:50-54:
And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), a man of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain. And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
Observe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe the day of Jesus’ death as the day of preparation of the Sabbath. Even John, in 19:31, stated: “The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” Because the Jews could do no work on the Sabbath, the day before provided them with the only opportunity to prepare for the following day’s meals. In Exodus 16, the Lord, through Moses, instructed the Israelites regarding how and when they should gather the manna that He was sending from heaven. In verses 4 and 5 of that chapter, the Lord stated:
Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not. And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.
The “Preparation Day” was a well-known description used to speak of the day before the Sabbath. However, it was not used to describe a day before a festival or feast. Lenski accurately recorded:
Equally decisive is the fact that paraskeua [preparation—KB] is never used in the sense of “the preparation” or of “the day of preparation” for a festival but only in the sense of the preparation for the Sabbath. The law provided complete rest from work only on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:5); all preparation of food had to be made on the day before; but the law provided nothing of the kind for the great festival days, for on these days (save as one might occur on the Sabbath) food could be cooked as on any other day. The attempt to show that the festival days also had a paraskeua has failed completely (1998, p. 1272).
What, then, shall we make of John’s statement that Jesus was crucified on “the Preparation of the Passover?” At first glance, we assume that John means that the “preparation” concerns the actual Passover lamb. However, that assumption is not correct. The “preparation” described by John simply was the day before the Sabbath that fell during the Passover festival. Lenski noted: “When John uses the exceptional combination paraskuea tou pascha, ‘Preparation of the Passover,’ he simply has in mind the Friday of the Passover festival, the one that occurs during the festival week. The Sabbath of this great week was considered especially holy, and preparation was made accordingly” (p. 1271).
In fact, the translators of the NIV were so confident of this meaning that they rendered the verse: “It was the day of Preparation of Passover week, about the sixth hour.” In their commentary on the NIV passage, Bryant and Krause remarked:
The force of the NIV’s interpretation is that this is “Friday of Passover Week.” While this may be what John intends (and I believe he does), it is possible to interpret this as “Preparation for the Passover,” i.e., Thursday. This is the translation of the NRSV and others, but this is every bit as guilty as the NIV of overtranslation…. Actually, the text is ambiguous and cannot answer the day of the week by itself. It is from other considerations that we should conclude that this is Friday… (1998, p. 376).
If John 19:14-18 could mean simply the preparation day during the Passover feast, then John’s timetable would match perfectly with that of the other three Gospels—almost.

THAT THEY “MIGHT EAT THE PASSOVER”

In order to match John’s timetable perfectly with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the passage in John 18:28 must be clarified. It states: “They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” If this reference to eating “the passover” refers to the actual Passover lamb that was sacrificed on the 14th day of Nisan, then John’s account would stand in direct opposition to those of the other three gospel writers. It can been shown conclusively, however, that John did not necessarily mean the actual Passover lamb, and that his statement can refer instead to the Feast of Unleavened bread directly following the Passover.
First, it should be noted that John was not nearly as specific as the other the gospel writers. As was discussed earlier, they defined the day of the Last Supper as the first day of unleavened bread on which the passover must be sacrificed. [It is interesting to observe that Luke 22:7 uses the Greek word dei, which the ASV translators render as must. Arndt and Gingrich noted that the word means “of compulsion of law or custom,” and then used Luke 22:7 to illustrate this usage. They translated the pertinent part of the verse under discussion: “when the paschal lamb had to be sacrificed” (1967, p. 172). Which law or custom compelled the Jews to sacrifice the Passover lamb on this particular day? The obvious answer is: the law set forth in Exodus 12.] John’s reference to the Jewish leaders’ eating the Passover certainly does not detail an exact day on which the Passover lamb “must” be sacrificed.
As further evidence that John’s reference does not necessarily mean the 14th day of Nisan, the term “Passover” sometimes was used to refer to the entire Feast of Unleavened bread, not just the eating of the Passover lamb. Luke 22:1 is an obvious and clear example of such usage: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” Other passages that support this usage are John 2:13,23, 5:4, 11:55, and Acts 12:1-4. Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, wrote about an event happening “at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover” (14:2:1). Thus, the term “Passover” often had a more relaxed meaning, and could refer to the “feast of unleavened bread.” To add support to this conclusion, Lenski made an interesting observation:
In the present connection it is impossible to make the eating of the Passover mean the eating of the Paschal lamb. For the defilement which these Jews feared would not have debarred them from eating the Paschal lamb if this lamb was to be eaten on Friday evening. Defilement of this type lasted only until sundown and could then be removed by a bath. The Paschal Lamb was not eaten until some time after sundown (1998, p. 1213).
With a quick look back into the Old Testament, we find that many of the things that “defiled” people, or caused them to be “unclean,” lasted only until evening (see Leviticus chapters 11 and 15). From reading Numbers 9:10,13, it seems that, according to the Law of Moses, the only two reasons a man might be unable to keep the feast would be because he had touched a dead body or was away on a journey. Since neither of those two situations seems to apply to John 18:28, the passage certainly allows for the phrase “eat the passover” to mean something other than the Paschal lamb. In his concluding comments on John 18:28, Lenski summarized remarks from Zahn’s Introduction to the New Testament by stating:
It is quite incredible to believe that with an entirely incidental expression, not at all connected with the Passover as such or with the actions of Jesus but solely with the scruples of the Jews, John should wish to overthrow a view of his readers which he has left entirely undisturbed throughout all of his preceding chapters (p. 1214).
What, then, were the Jewish leaders specifically desiring to eat? Zahn observed: “Moreover, it is probable that the members of the Sanhedrin had specifically in mind the so-called Chagigah, the sacrificial meal of the 15th of Nisan, which, unlike the Passover meal, was held during the course of the day and not after sundown” (1953, 3:283). Thus, there remains nothing to require that the phrase “might eat the passover” in John 18:28 must mean the actual Passover lamb.

TWO MINOR DISAGREEMENTS ANSWERED

In concluding the discussion as to the actual time of the Passover, John 13:1 needs to be revisited. In the verse, John wrote, “Now before the feast of the Passover….” It already has been established that certain schools of thought take this verse to mean at least 24 hours before the Passover. This time frame often is based on assumptions regarding John 18:28 and 19:31—assumptions that I have shown to be incorrect. Therefore, based on the textual evidence of the actual verse, can the phrase “before the feast of the passover” mean only a few minutes before the actual feast, or must it mean several hours? Morris concisely commented: “It is not impossible to understand this as meaning that Jesus knew certain things long before the feast. But it can also be understood to mean that the events now to be described took place before the feast began” (1971, p. 776). Bryant and Krause further clarified the situation:
John notes the time of the next event as just before the Passover Feast. According to ancient Jewish reckoning, the Passover Feast day would have run from sundown Thursday until sundown on Friday. This has caused some scholars to take the position that John understands the “Last Supper” to have taken place on Wednesday evening, just before Passover. This cannot be reconciled with the Synoptic accounts, which clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g., Luke 22:15). But this is an easily explained contradiction. John does not say “the day before Passover” but “just before.” The episode he relates next, Jesus washing the disciples’ feet, is done immediately before the meal really begins (1998, p. 285, emp. in orig.).
“Before the Passover” could mean months, days, hours, or seconds before the meal took place. Considering all the evidence, John 13:1 makes reference to only a few minutes before the actual Passover lamb was eaten.
The second minor disagreement that needs to be answered suggests that John placed Jesus’ death on the 14th of Nisan, the evening when the Passover lamb was to be killed, in order to symbolize the death of Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Other New Testament verses linking Christ to the Passover lamb often are used in support of this view. For instance, 1 Corinthians 5:7 states: “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ.“
While it is true that various New Testament writers refer to Christ as our Passover Lamb, it is not true that the power of His atoning blood was conditioned on the actual day that it was shed. As Zahn stated:
The conception of Christ as the Paschal Lamb which is found throughout the N.T. is in no way based upon this alleged coincidence of the hour of Jesus’ death with the time of the slaying of the Passover lamb, but was involved in the view that redemption under the new covenant was the counterpart of the deliverance from Egypt, and found merely a natural point of connection in the fact that Jesus died at the time of the Jewish Passover, and not, for example, during the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2-10) [1953, 3:276].
Furthermore, to suppose that there is a clash between John and the synoptics—based upon what a person assumes John was attempting to symbolize—is a less than desirable conclusion and fails to give John the benefit of the doubt.

A DISTANT POSSIBILITY MENTIONED,
BUT NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL

In an attempt to “help” John agree with the three other gospel writers, some have suggested that a difference in calendars might have caused the apparent confusion. In summarizing this view, Carson wrote:
These difficulties have led to a number of suggested resolutions that turn on calendrical disputes in the first century. The most important of these reconstructions, that of Jaubert, argues that Jesus and his disciples followed a solar calendar…. But the “official” calendar followed by the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Jerusalem establishment was lunar... (1991, p. 457).
After he summarized the main issues, Carson further noted: “these calendrical theories all involve delicate historical judgments or a paucity of hard evidence” (457). He concluded his section on the alleged calendar differences by saying:
More seriously, it is altogether unlikely that the Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus sanctioned the slaughter of paschal lambs on any day other than the official lunar day. Thus even if Jesus and his disciples followed a sectarian calendar—a very doubtful suggestion—they would not have been able to eat an early paschal meal, since the paschal lamb had to be slaughtered at the temple, and the priestly classes were not noted for affable flexibility (p. 457).
Furthermore, once the full meanings of the phrases “eat the Passover” in John 18:28 and “the Preparation of the Passover” in John 19:14 are explored, it becomes evident that the statements can be reconciled with the time table set forth in the other three gospels, without resorting to “calendrical theories.”

CONCLUSION

The exact day on which the Lord instituted the Last Supper is of utmost importance for two reasons: (1) If it was not on the 14th day of Nisan, when the Passover lamb was to be killed (marking the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread), then very little (if any) textual evidence exists that would demand the use of unleavened bread for the Lord’s Supper; and (2) the failure to reconcile adequately the time frame given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke with that given by John would indicate that there might be a contradiction in the Bible, which would leave the door open for skeptics to attack the reliability of the New Testament.
Yet, when the arguments are laid bare, it is evident that Jesus and the disciples did eat the Last Supper on the 14th day of Nisan, when the Passover lamb was to be killed. Once this fact is established, no one can legitimately deny that Jesus broke unleavened bread for His disciples. Nor can anyone claim that a contradiction exists between John’s timetable and that of the other gospel writers.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1967), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fifth edition.
Bryant, Beauford H. and Mark S. Krause (1998), John, The College Press NIV Commentary, ed. Jack Cottrell and Tony Ash (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Carson, D.A. (1991), The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Childers, Jeff W., Douglas A. Foster, and Jack R. Reese (2001), The Crux of the Matter (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Clement of Alexandria (no date), Paschal Chronicle Fragment, [On-line], URL: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0211.htm.
Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), The Works of Josephus, transl. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1998 reprint), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1969 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Smith, F. LaGard (2001), Radical Restoration (Nashville, TN: Cotswold).
Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell, eds. (no date), “Mark/Luke,” The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Tertullian, (no date), An Answer to the Jews, [On-line], URL: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm.
Zahn, Theodor (1953), Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).