Life and Land

• 14Jun

  SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED: An Archaeological Exposition of Jeremiah 32:1-15

  Archaeology and the Bible, Jerusalem Comments Off on SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED: An Archaeological Exposition of Jeremiah 32:1-15

  by Gordon Franz

  This essay is dedicated to Dr. Gabriel “Goby” Barkay and Zachi Zweig, co-directors of the Temple Mount Sifting Project; and to the tens of thousands who have sifted the dirt from the Holy Hill of Zion (Psalm 102:14)

  Introduction
  It is always the archaeologist’s dream to find inscriptional material, such as a seal, bulla, stela, ostraca, clay tablet, papyrus, scroll, or even just graffiti on a wall.  In Israel, an inscription is a rare find, and some are revealed to be forgeries.

  In the summer of 2005, the Jerusalem Post reported the discovery of a tenth-century wall in the City of David in Jerusalem by Dr. Eilat Mazar.  One of her area supervisors also discovered a bulla (a dried lump of clay with a seal impression on it) of an individual named “Jerucal ben [son of] Shelemiah ben [son of] Shevi.”  The name of this person appears in Jeremiah 37:3 and 38:1.  This seal impression adds a detail that the Bible does not mention: the name of his grandfather, Shevi (Lefkovits 2005:13; Mazar 2007:67-69).

  In this essay we will examine the command that God gave to Jeremiah to redeem a field from his cousin, Hanamel of Anathoth.  Particular attention will be given to the archaeological background to this chapter and how it illustrates the Biblical text.  Jeremiah’s obedience to God’s command, in spite of a hopeless situation, was a vivid lesson to the people of Judah that God would return His people from the Babylonian captivity.  Jeremiah had publicly proclaimed to the people of Judah that God would restore them to the land after 70 years of captivity in Babylon.  Jeremiah’s faith in the promise of God was shown by buying the field at Anathoth, a city already destroyed by the Babylonians.  Jeremiah was literally putting his money where his mouth was!

  Jeremiah Redeems a Field in Anathoth as a Sign of Future Redemption (32:1-15)

  The Time Setting.  32:1, 2
  The date that is given in this chapter is the tenth year of Zedekiah and the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (32:1).  This date would be in 587 BC.  Two deportations of Judeans to Babylon had already taken place (605 BC and 598 BC).  In the tenth year of Zedekiah, the Babylonians were besieging Jerusalem (32:2).  Jeremiah was in the court of the prison in the king’s house, possibly on the Western Hill.

  In the preceding two chapters (Jer. 30 and 31), Jeremiah forewarned the Judeans of the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah as well as the Babylonian captivity.  But he also predicted that the people would return to the land of Judah.  For this reason, these chapters have been called the “book of consolation” or “book of hope” (cf. Jer. 30:2).  At least nine times he predicts that the people of Judah will return to the land (30:10,11, 30:18, 31:3-6, 31:7-9, 31:10-12, 31:16,17, 31:18, 31:23,24).

  King Zedekiah complains of Jeremiah’s prophecies.  32:3-5
  The Prophet Jeremiah was not a popular preacher.  He did not say to the people of Judah that God did not care about their lifestyle and that they could go on living in their sins.  Nor did he say that the Babylonians were a peace-loving people with only good intentions toward Jerusalem and Judah.  King Zedekiah understood the words of the prophet: First, the LORD was going to use the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem (32:3; cf. 21:4-6); second, King Zedekiah would attempt to flee from the Babylonians but he would be captured and taken to see King Nebuchadnezzar face to face (32:4; cf. 21:7); and finally, King Zedekiah would be taken captive to Babylon (32:5a).  Jeremiah also added that it would be futile to fight the Babylonian army (32:5b).

  King Zedekiah did not like Jeremiah’s “doom-and-gloom” preaching.  Yet everything Jeremiah said was based on the Mosaic Law as recorded in the Torah.  As history unfolded, everything Jeremiah said in his seven encounters with King Zedekiah (Jer. 21:1-7, 32:1-5, 34:1-7, 37:1-15, 37:16-21, 38:1-6, 38:14-28) came to pass (2 Kings 25:4-7; Jer. 39:1-10).  What Jeremiah had not told him was that his sons would be killed and his eyes would be put out by the Babylonians.
  
  Jeremiah recounts the story of redeeming a field in Anathoth.  32:6-15
  The city of Anathoth, Jeremiah’s hometown, is located 4 kilometers (2½ miles) to the north of the Temple Mount in the tribal territory of Benjamin (cf. Josh. 18:11-28; Jer. 1:1, 11:21-23, 29:27, 32:7-9; Hareuveni 1991).  It was also a Levitical city (Josh. 21:18).  Two of David’s mighty men, Abiezar and Jehu, came from this city (2 Sam. 23:27; 1 Chron. 11:28, 12:3, 27:12).  A high priest, Abiathar, was exiled to his estate in the city (1 Kings 2:26).  During the Syro-Ephraimite Campaign, Anathoth was a target for the invading army (Isa. 10:30).  After the Babylonian exile, some of the people of Anathoth returned to their hometown, just as Jeremiah had prophesized (Ezra 2:23; Neh. 7:27, 11:32).

  Jeremiah was in prison when the Lord spoke to him and said that his cousin, Hanamel, was going to visit and ask Jeremiah to buy his field in Anathoth (32:6-7).  Jeremiah realized it was the hand of the Lord when Hanamel, the son of Shallum, showed up and asked Jeremiah to redeem his field in Anathoth partially based on the laws recorded in Leviticus 25:23-28.  Jeremiah might have been aware that Anathoth had already fallen to the Babylonians (cf. 32:25).  He redeemed the field because God commanded him to do so, rather than thinking: “This must be some cruel joke by my relatives who plotted to kill me a few years ago along with the men of Anathoth (Jer. 11:18-23). Now they are trying to sell me this field after the Babylonians destroyed the city.  What a scam!”  God commanded him to buy the field so that Judah would have a sign that they would one day return from captivity in Babylon.

  In verses 9-15 the transaction is recorded in detail.  The first thing Jeremiah did was to weigh out the 17 shekels of silver scraps in order to buy the field (32:9).  During the Iron Age, money – minted coins – had not yet been invented.  So the shekels of silver would have been a weight of silver, not coins.  Today, we would call it “junk silver,” e.g., broken pieces of a silver ring, silverware, old silver coins.  In 1968, the largest hoard of junk silver ever discovered was in five Iron Age vessels in the ancient city of Eshtemoa in the Judean Hills.  These vessels contained a total of 27.21 kilograms (62 pounds) of junk silver (Yeivin 1987:38-44).

  One shekel of silver weighed 11.33 grams (Kletter 1991:122,134).  Jeremiah would have purchased the land for about 182.61 grams (0.182 kilograms) of silver.  To give the American reader a contemporary perspective, that amount of silver would be equivalent to 73 Mercury-head dimes worth of silver.  Keep in mind; however, there is not a speck of silver in the dimes currently being minted because they have been debased by the federal government!

  Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding the transaction are not known.  One cannot conclude that the land was worth $7.30; the amount of silver used to purchase the land is equal to the amount of silver in 73 Mercury-head dimes, but its value is not.  Therefore, we have no idea what the value of silver was at the time or whether its value was inflated because of the siege.  We also do not know the size of the field being purchased or its market value.  All we know for certain is that Jeremiah paid 17 shekels for that field.

  Jeremiah put 17 stone shekel weights on a pan on one side of the scale and proceeded to put seventeen shekels of silver scraps on a pan on the other side until the scale was balanced (32:10).  During the 1977 season at the excavations of Tel Lachish, half of a balance beam from a scale was discovered in Stratum IV of Area S, dated to the middle of the eighth century BC.  It was made of ivory, or polished bone, and was 10.1 cm (4 inches) long.  If it were complete, then it would be about 20 cm (8 inches) long.  The only other balance beam to be found in an archaeological excavation was at Megiddo (Barkay 1996:75-82).

  To finalize the land purchase, two “purchase deeds” were written up:  an open one and a sealed one (32:10-14).  The deeds were identical, but, in case of a dispute, the sealed one was the one that was binding.  The sealed deed was put in a safe place so it could be opened if there was a problem.  Probably, the transaction information, including the price of the sale, a description of the field being sold, and the identity of the buyer and seller were recorded on the document, which was papyrus.  One deed was rolled up and tied with a string.  A lump of clay was then placed on the string, and an impression was made with a seal that contained the owner’s name and possibly his title.  This clay impression is known as a bulla (plural bullae).  Although it is not stated in the text, the witnesses to the transaction might have added their bullae as well (Avigad 1986:125-127; Shiloh 1986:36-38; for illustrations as to how the deed might have been sealed: Avigad 1986:123, Fig. 4; Brandl 2000:60, Fig. 6; 63, Fig. 9).

  The deeds were handed to Baruch the son of Neriah the son of Mahseiah for safe keeping.  A bulla with the inscription “(Belonging) to Berekhyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe” was discovered in a non-provenanced hoard of bullae and published by Professor Nahman Avigad (1978, 1979, and 1986).  A second, identical bulla is in a private collection (Shanks 1996:36-38).  Baruch is the shortened form of the name Berekhyahu.  Most likely this bulla was used by Baruch to seal documents when he was a royal scribe before 605/604 BC.  Avigad suggests that “Baruch seems eventually to have left his official position [of royal scribe] and joined Jeremiah in his struggle against the pro-Egyptian, anti-Babylonian policy of the court, a policy which was soon to lead to the destruction of Jerusalem” (1986:130).  A word of caution is in order: recently one scholar identified these two bullae as forgeries (Rollston 2003:161), but there is still a scholarly debate as to their authenticity.

  Jeremiah instructed Baruch to take both purchase deeds and place them in an earthen vessel so they would be preserved for a long time (32:13-14).  During the 1982 season at the City of David excavations in Jerusalem, 51 bullae (later revised to 53) were discovered in Locus 967 in Area G.  This is the “first time that so large a group of easily legible Hebrew sealings has come to light in a controlled excavation, in a clear stratigraphic context and accompanied by architectural, ceramic and historical evidence” (Shiloh 1986:16-17).  On the floor of what is now known as the “House of the Bullae” were found “two vessels of uncommon form – tall kraters with high trumpet bases.  The latter are distinguished by their exceptionally high-quality slip and wheel-burnish covering the entire body.  At the base of the body is a drainage (?) hole, made prior to firing” (Shiloh 1986:23-24; Fig. 6:2-3; Pl. 6A).  The excavator, Yigal Shiloh, suggested the possibility that these two kraters “may have served for storage of the papyri, the bullae from which were found scattered around them” (1986:36).  This collection of bullae dates to the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth centuries BC, which would make them contemporary with the Prophet Jeremiah (Shoham 2000:30).
  
  Conclusions
  Jeremiah paid 17 shekels of silver to redeem his cousin’s field in Anathoth.  He signed the land deed, sealed it with his personal seal, which the witnesses probably did as well, and then delivered the deed to his confidant Baruch for safe keeping in a clay vessel, most likely in an administrative archive.  This account ends with the promise from the Lord that “Houses and fields and vineyards shall be possessed again in this land” (32:15).
  The situation looked bleak, because the Babylonians were about to destroy Jerusalem and take the Judeans captive to Babylon.  Jeremiah, however, rested in the promise of God and proclaimed that the people would return to their land and rebuild their cities.  He put his money where his mouth was by redeeming his cousin’s field.
  Perhaps one day, archaeologists will find a bulla or seal with the name of Jeremiah the prophet on it in a controlled archaeological excavation!

  Bibliography

  Avigad, Nahman
  1978    Baruch the Scribe and Jerahmeel the King’s Son.  Israel Exploration Journal 28: 52-56.

  1979    Jerahmeel and Baruch.  King’s Son and Scribe. Biblical Archaeologist 42: 114-118.

  1986    Hebrew Bullae From the Time of Jeremiah.  Remnants of a Burnt Archive. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

  Barkay, Gabriel
  1996    A Balance Beam from Tel Lachish.  Tel Aviv 23/1: 75-82.

  Brandl, Baruch
  2000    Bullae with Figurative Decoration.  Pp. 58-74 in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh.  Final Report VI.  Inscriptions.  Edited by D. T. Ariel.  Qedem 41.  Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University.

  Hareuveni, Nogah
  1991    Desert and Shepherd in Our Biblical Heritage.  Kiryat Ono, Israel: Neot Kedumim.

  Kletter, Raz
  1991    The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah.  Tel Aviv 18/2: 121-163.

  Lefkovits, Etgar
  2005    Shards of Evidence.  The Jerusalem Post August 11.  Page 13.

  Mazar, Eilat
  2007    Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem.

  Rollston, Christopher
  2003    Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests.  Maarav 10:135-195.

  Shanks, Hershel
  1996    Fingerprint of Jeremiah’s Scribe.  Biblical Archaeology Review 22/2: 36-38.

  Shiloh, Yigal
  1986    A Group of Hebrew Bullae from the City of David.  Israel Exploration Journal 36/1-2: 16-38.

  Shoham, Yair
  2000    Hebrew Bullae.  Pp. 29-57 in Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh.  Final Report VI.  Inscriptions.  Edited by D. T. Ariel.  Qedem 41.  Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University.

  Yeivin, Ze’ev
  1987    The Mysterious Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa.  Biblical Archaeology Review 13/6: 38-44.
• 28May

  TYCHICUS: On the Road Again

  Profiles in Missions Comments Off on TYCHICUS: On the Road Again

  by Gordon Franz

  Introduction
  In 1980, the country singer Willie Nelson released an album entitled Honeysuckle Rose.  On it was one of Nelson’s most memorable tunes, “On the Road Again.”  You know the words:

  On the road again
  Just can’t wait to get on the road again
  The life I love is makin’ music with my friends
  And I can’t wait to get on the road again
  On the road again
  Goin’ places that I’ve never been
  Seein’ things that I may never see again,
  And I can’t wait to get on the road again.

  I have adopted this song and modified it slightly (with all due respect to Willie Nelson) for the Tablot Bible Lands study tour of Turkey – Greece – and Rome because we are never two nights in the same place, except Athens and Rome.  We are always “on the road again”!

  On the road again
  Just can’t wait to get on the road again
  The life I love is seein’ (Biblical) places with my friends
  And I can’t wait to get on the road again

  Tychicus, a fellow worker with the Apostle Paul, whose Greek name means “Fortunate,” is mentioned five times in the New Testament.  Each time he is mentioned, he is either traveling “on the road again” with, or for, the Apostle Paul.

  Willie Nelson characterized his group as a “band of gypsies.”  Tychicus sometimes traveled with a band of men, but they were students or co-workers of the Apostle Paul.  And like Nelson, Tychicus got to see places in the Roman Empire that he never dreamed of seeing while he was growing up in Ephesus.

  Willie Nelson liked to be on the road singing and traveling like a “band of gypsies” with his friends.  Tychicus, on the other hand, traveled not so much to sing, but to share the greatest news in the world, the gospel of Jesus Christ and also to comfort, encourage and edify the saints.

  The Apostle Paul defined what the gospel was in his first epistle to the Corinthians.  He stated: “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.  For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

  The reason the Lord Jesus died for our sins was because we are all sinners and sin cannot enter the presence of a Holy God (Rom. 3:23); even one little lie would keep a person out of a perfect, sinless Heaven (Rev. 21:27).  Sin was the problem; but the Savior, the Lord Jesus, was the solution to that problem.  When the Lord Jesus, God manifest in human flesh, was suspended between Heaven and earth on the cross of Calvary, He took the wrath of the Father upon Himself, and paid for all the sins of all humanity (1 John 2:2).  In grace, mercy, and love, He offers each and every individual the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness of God, reconciliation with a Holy God, and a home in Heaven if that individual puts his or her trust in the Lord Jesus and Him alone for their salvation (Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:17-21).  Because Jesus paid for all sins, there can be no merits, good deeds, rituals, or works that we can do to earn our salvation and eternal life (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9).  One can rejoice in the free gift of eternal life; the fact that all sins have been paid for; and one can know for certain that he is eternally secure in Christ and have the forgiveness of sins (John 10:28-30; 1 John 5:13).

  In this study on the life of Tychicus, we will learn that being faithful in exercising ones spiritual gift, even using it for mundane things like being “on the road again,” could have great spiritual benefits for the Church and eternal rewards.

  On the Road with the Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem – Acts 20:4
  The first time Tychicus appears in Scripture is in Acts 20:4.  At the end of the Apostle Paul’s third missionary journey (AD 57), he is getting ready to go Jerusalem for the Feast of Shavuot (Pentecost) in order to take money to the needy saints in the Holy City (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:5).  Dr. Luke recounts the makeup of the team taking the collection: “And Sopater of Berea accompanied him to Asia – also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia.  These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas” (Acts 20:4).

  This group of proven and trusted men were from churches in three different Roman provinces that Paul had ministered in: three were from Macedonia (Sopater, Aristarchus, and Secundus), two from Galatia (Gaius and Timothy; cf. 1 Cor. 16:1), and two from Asia Minor (Tychicus and Trophimus).  Trophimus was from Ephesus (Acts 21:29), and it has been suggested that Tychicus was also.  Codex D has a deliberate emendation of the text to read Ephesus, thus this might reflect a local tradition that Tychicus was from this city (Ramsay 1893:154).

  As a young boy growing up in Ephesus, he would have heard of different places in the Roman world from the sailors and travelers who came through this major seaport while traveling to or from Asia Minor.  He probably dreamed of seeing far off exotic lands and wondered if he would ever get to see such places.  He must have heard the quote from the rabbis: “He who has not seen the Temple that Herod has built, has not seen a beautiful building” (BT Baba Bat. 4a). Now he was traveling to Jerusalem, the city of the Great King, and would see this most beautiful building!

  The seven men selected by the churches to join the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke were to take the money collected by the churches in Achaia, Macedonia, Asia, and Galatia to the church in Jerusalem.  How much money was involved is unknown.  But these men must have been of high moral character and men who could be trusted with the gold aurei and silver denarii.

  This was in stark contrast with what was going on in the religious scene in Ephesus.  The Temple of Artemis / Diana was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.  Pilgrims and tourists flocked to see this magnificent structure.  The temple was also the regional bank where people deposited their money for safe keeping.  Ironically, the temple was an asylum for criminals as well.  If they made it into the temple before the long arm of the law caught them, they were safe.  Now what is wrong with this picture?  Here you have thieves, extortionists, and murderers residing in the regional bank!  That is like inviting the fox to hang out in the hen house!  In contrast, the churches sent seven men of proven character who could be trusted to guard the money they were sending to the needy saints in Jerusalem.
  Some have suggested that the unnamed brother “whose praise is in the gospel throughout the churches” and that accompanied Titus with the second letter to the Corinthians was Tychicus (2 Cor. 8:18-21, 23-24); and the other unnamed brother was Trophimus (2 Cor. 8:22-24); but this is conjecture (Boyd 1918:2:623).  If it is true, however, Paul already knew Tychicus was a man of proven character and could be trusted.  This would also account for why he was selected by the Asian churches to help take the collection to the saints in Jerusalem.

  On the Road Again with Four Letters to Asia Minor – Col. 4:7-9; Eph. 6:21-22
  Perhaps four or five years later, during the Apostle Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome (AD 60-62); two events transpired in Paul’s life that had connections with the city of Colosse in the Lycus Valley.  One was meeting a runaway slave named Onesimus from Colosse; and the other was a visit from Epaphras who told Paul of the doctrinal problems in the churches in the Lycus Valley.  Paul had never visited this valley (Col. 2:1), yet he was deeply concerned about the spiritual condition of the churches in the valley that were possibly established by some of the students that he and others had trained in the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:9).
  When exactly, and what the circumstances behind the meeting with Onesimus were, Scripture does not say.  But when the Apostle Paul did meet him, he shared the gospel with Onesimus and led him to faith in the Lord Jesus.  Afterward the apostle mentored Onesimus and he proved to be a faithful and beloved brother.  He also ministered to the apostle while he was in prison (Col. 4:9; Philemon 10-13).  Paul, however, wanted to set things right between Onesimus and his master, Philemon, so he thought it best to send him back to Colosse.

  Epaphras, on the other hand, brought distressing news of some strange heresies that were creeping into the Colossian church and probably the other churches in the Lycus Valley as well.  As their representative, he wanted advice from the apostle as to how to deal with the heresies.  Paul counseled Epaphras, and they had a major prayer meeting about this situation (Col. 1:9-12).  Paul saw this as an opportunity to “kill four birds with one stone.”

  Paul had four purposes in sending Tychicus to Asia Minor.  First and foremost, he was to return the runaway slave, turned Christian, Onesimus to his owner, Philemon, in Colosse.  Second, he was to deliver at least four letters to three churches and one individual.  Third, he was to ascertain the situation in Colosse and report back to Paul.  Finally, he was to give a verbal update to the churches and individuals that he visited on his journey of Paul’s condition and activities while under house arrest in Rome.  They knew in was under house arrest, but Paul did not want them to worry about him, but rather, be encouraged by how the Lord was using this situation in Paul’s life and ministry (cf. Gen. 50:19-20).

  Proverbs 25:25 was probably the theme verse for this journey: “As cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.”  Tychicus and Onesimus were to report to the churches in Asia Minor how the Apostle Paul was faring under house arrest and to comfort their hearts.

  Tychicus and Onesimus would have walked the 360 Roman miles on the Appian Way from Rome to the port city of Brundusium and then boarded a ship to Corinth.  The ship would have to cross the 353 miles (565 km) of the Adriatic Sea and Gulf of Corinth to Lechaeum, the harbor of Corinth that was north of the city.  They would have walked the 8 miles across the Isthmus of Corinth as their ship was being dragged across on the Diolkos and then re-embarked the ship at Cenchrea on the northwest corner of the Saronic Gulf.  If they had to change ships, perhaps they would have enjoyed the hospitality of Sister Phoebe in Cenchrea (cf. Rom. 16:1-2) as they waited for another ship heading across the Aegean Sea for the port city of Miletus in Asia Minor 250 miles (400 km) away (cf. Acts 20:15).  From Miletus they would have taken a six-mile ferry ride across the Gulf of Latmos to Priene; and there, picked up the Roman road through the Meanders Valley to the Lycus Valley and the tri-polis: Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colosse.  The final leg of their journey was 132 miles.

  This trip was not an easy one.  The scenery along the Appian Way and the road through the Meanders Valley was boring and monotonous.  (Trust me; I’ve been on these roads)!  In the 1st century AD, one did not have the luxury of a taxi or an air-conditioned bus.  The mode of transportation for the travelers was limited to three choices: walk, ride a donkey, or take a cart.  The Appian Way had large cobblestones and the carts had no shock absorbers!  If you rode a donkey you had to feed it and that cost money, so you walked!

  The ships that crossed the Adriatic and the Aegean Seas were not the luxurious Caribbean cruise liners with open buffets and entertainment 24-7.  You brought your own food with you; you cooked it on deck; and you rolled out your mattress at night wherever you could find space on the ship.  If you wanted fresh food, you threw a fishing line over the edge and hoped to catch a fish or two.  There was always the concern for a shipwreck on the seas and robbers on the roads (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23-28).
  Yet Tychicus and Onesimus were faithful to their assigned task.  They walked nearly 500 miles of Roman roads and sailed 600 miles on two seas in order to fulfill their mission.  The total mileage for their journey from Rome to the Lycus Valley was about 1,100 miles, all to carry four letters and return a runaway slave!

  Let’s put this in a contemporary American perspective.  This trip would be like getting on a sailboat at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and sailing down to New York Harbor, and then walking from New York City to Cleveland, Ohio.  In other words, go to the George Washington Bridge; get on Route 80 and head west on foot!  (It would probably take about a month to do the hike.)  For those on the Left Coast, it would be like getting on a sailboat at Eureka, California, and sailing to Long Beach Harbor and then walking to Tucson, Arizona.

  When they arrived in the Lycus Valley, the first city they would have come to was Laodicea.  They would have dropped the first letter off to the church there (Col. 4:16).  After a short visit, they proceeded to Colosse.  At Colosse, they would have gone directly to the house of Philemon.  Tychicus would have handed him the letter from Paul and would have begun the mediation to reconcile and restore Onesimus to his master.  News would have spread quickly among the believers in the Lord Jesus in that city, and they would have gathered together, possibly in Philemon’s house, in order to hear the letter that Paul sent to the church.

  As this letter was read, Paul reveals the reason Tychicus was sent to the church at Colosse:  “Tychicus, a beloved brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me.  I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that he may know your circumstances and comfort your hearts, with Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you.  They will make known to you all things which are happening here” (Col. 4:7-9).

  Notice first of all, Onesimus is mentioned as “one of you” (i.e., he is from Colosse).  This implies that Tychicus is not from this city, nor the Lycus Valley.

  Paul gives three-fold qualities and characteristics of Tychicus.  The first is his spiritual relationship: he is a “beloved brother” (Col. 4:7; cf. Eph. 6:21).  When a person comes to faith in the Lord Jesus, he or she is “born again,” or born from above by the Spirit of God (John 3:1-8).  Before they came to faith, they were in Satan’s family, but after they trusted Christ, they are forever in God’s family.  Earlier in the epistle that was being read a Colosse, Paul wrote: “He [the Lord Jesus] has delivered us from the power of darkness [Satan’s domain] and conveyed us into the Kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:13-14).  The Bible describes believers as brothers and sisters in the family of God and God as their Heavenly Father (John 1:12-13).  Paul does not call Tychicus “my son” like he does Onesimus (Philemon 10).  This suggests that Tychicus was not his convert.  Scripture is silent as to when and how Tychicus came to faith in the Lord Jesus.  Not only was he a brother, but he had the quality of a “beloved” brother.

  The second description recounts his faithfulness in exercising his spiritual gift of ministry / service (cf. Rom. 12:7).  He was a “faithful minister.”  William McRae suggests the characteristics of this gift in these terms: “The person with the gift of service has an unusual capacity to serve faithfully behind the scenes, in practical ways, to assist in the work of the Lord and encourage and strengthen others spiritually” (1976: 47).  Not only was Tychicus a minister, exercising his gift of ministry, but he had the quality of being faithful in that ministry.  As Paul stated to the Corinthian believers: “Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2).

  The final description is that Tychicus is a “fellow servant / slave” (sundoulos).  On several occasions Paul calls himself a servant or slave of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:1, doulos).  In this epistle, Paul characterizes Epaphras, also from Colosse, as a fellow servant (Col. 1:7, sundoulos), and also a bondservant (4:12, doulos).  Paul is trying to identify Onesimus with himself and put him on the same level as himself, Epaphras, and Tychicus when he entreats Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave but more than a slave – a beloved brother” (Philemon 16, doulos).  In one sense Paul is laying a guilt trip on Philemon – Accept him back as a brother in Christ, be reconciled to him, and also “Free Onesimus”! (Philemon 15-21).

  Paul wanted the Colossian believers to know how Paul was surviving his house arrest in Rome.  Most likely Tychicus and Onesimus would have begun with the greetings from Epaphras and recounted his imprisonment and burden to pray for the work in Colosse (Philemon 23; Col. 4:12).  They would have then told of the boldness of the Apostle Paul in sharing the gospel with the Praetorian guards that he was chained to.  Everyone thought Paul was a captive of Rome, but in fact, the guards were his captives because they could not leave their post for eight hours.  Paul took advantage of this captive audience to share the gospel with these hardened and elite soldiers, and some came to faith (Phil. 1:12-14).  Onesimus would have shared his testimony as to how he came to faith in the Lord Jesus after meeting Paul (Philemon 10).  One of the miracles they would have shared would have been how God intervened in Epaphroditus’ near-death experience and brought him back to good health (Phil. 2:26-30).  There must have been much rejoicing at the news of salvation of souls and God’s miraculous intervention in people’s lives.  All these things were shared to comfort the believers.  They would have realized that the Lord was the “God of all Comfort” who comforts the downcast (2 Cor. 1:3-4; 7:6) and His word would comfort them as well (Ps. 94:19; 119:50; Rom. 15:4).

  Another reason Paul sent Tychicus to Colosse was to get an update as to what was going on in the Lycus Valley: “that he [Tychicus] may know your circumstances and comfort your hearts” (Col. 4:8 NKJV).  The Westcott – Hort tradition says: “you may know our circumstances” (as in the RSV, NIV, and NASB).  It would seem redundant for Paul to say three times in these verses that he is sending Tychicus to tell them about the situation in Rome.  I think the better reading in the context is that Tychicus was also sent to assess the spiritual situation in Colosse.  Paul had heard the report from Epaphras, and they had prayed about the situation (Col. 1:3-8; 4:12).  The report back from Tychicus would tell them in Rome how God was answering their prayers in Colosse!

  After discharging his duties in the Lycus Valley, Tychicus proceeded to his hometown of Ephesus.  When the believers gathered at the school of Tyrannus, the letter that Tychicus brought from the Apostle Paul was read.  In this epistle, Paul stated why he sent Tychicus: “But that you also may know my affairs and how I am doing, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make all things known to you; whom I have sent to you for this very purpose, that you may know our affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts” (Eph. 6:21-22).

  These instructions are similar to what Paul wrote in the letter to the Colossians.  There are some differences that are very instructive.  First, Tychicus and Onesimus are mentioned together in Colossians; but only Tychicus is mentioned in Ephesians.  Paul wrote both epistles at the same time based on a prearranged travel plan to Asia Minor.  Paul had instructed them: “First, go to the Lycus Valley and drop off these three letters that I am giving you and see to it that Onesimus and Philemon are reconciled.  Then proceed to Ephesus and drop off the fourth letter at your home assembly while you visit with your family and friends.  Finally, return to Rome with word of the Colossian situation.”  Thus, there is no mention of Onesimus in the Ephesians’ epistle because he was not with Tychicus at the time.  Second, Paul does not ask Tychicus to assess what is going on in Ephesus like he did for the Colossian situation.  The Ephesians’ assembly was a strong and healthy meeting with no doctrinal problems.  Third, Tychicus is not called a “fellow servant” in Ephesians.  This description was given in the Colossian letter because of the Onesimus situation.

  On the Road Again with Paul and Luke and Possibly to Replace Titus on Crete – Tit. 3:12
  The Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians that he sent Tychicus so that “he may know your circumstances” (4:8 NKJV).  This implies that Tychicus would return to Rome with the information about the condition of the Colossian church after he dropped off the letter to the Ephesians.  Apparently he returned to Rome and soon after the apostle was acquitted and released from his first imprisonment by Emperor Nero (AD 62).  Nero does not burn Rome until July AD 64, so Paul is long gone from the city when that happens.

  After his release from prison, the Apostle Paul went on a fourth missionary journey.  Dr. Luke does not record this journey because the book of Acts ends abruptly in chapter 28 with Paul still under house arrest in Rome.  However, one can trace a plausible itinerary of the fourth missionary journey from Paul’s Prison and Pastoral Epistles (Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus).

  It had long been the Apostle Paul’s desire to take the gospel to Spain (Rom. 15:24), and church history suggests that he got there.  Most likely he went there first and then on to the island of Crete where he left Titus.  Paul’s team continued to Macedonia, and then on to Asia Minor.  He apparently was heading back to Rome and planned to spend the winter in Nicopolis in the region of Epirus on the west coast of Greece by the Adriatic Sea.  Most likely he went through Corinth on his way to Nicopolis.

  Apparently in Corinth (AD 66?), Paul penned a letter to Titus on the island of Crete and took advantage of two itinerant preachers, Zenas and Apollos, to take the letter to Titus on their way through the island of Crete to parts unknown.  Among other things, Paul instructs Titus: “When I send Artemas to you, or Tychicus, be diligent to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there” (Tit. 3:12).  It seems that Artemas (of whom we know nothing more than his name in this verse) and Tychicus were traveling with the Apostle Paul, Dr. Luke, and Trophimus on this missionary trip and Paul was trying to decide who to send to Crete to replace Titus in the work that he was doing.

  The Apostle Paul had judged Tychicus faithful in his ministry and wanted to give him greater responsibilities.  Yet Paul eventually chose Artemas instead of Tychicus.  I suspect the reason Tychicus was not chosen to replace Titus was because Titus had the spiritual gift of administration (1 Cor. 12:28) and that was not one of Tychicus’ gift.  Perhaps Paul had discerned that it was Artemas’ gift and he would be better suited to set in order the things that were lacking in the churches on the island of Crete and finish the job of appointing elders in the churches in every city (cf. Tit. 1:5).

  On the Road Again, Back Home to Ephesus with another Letter – 2 Tim. 4:12
  Paul was a prisoner again in Rome, and knew he was about to be executed, when he penned his “last will and testament” to his beloved son in the faith, Timothy (2 Tim. 1:12, 16-18; 2:9; AD 66 or 67).  In it, Paul requests that Timothy come to Rome before winter; but not before stopping at Troas and picking up his cloak and books (4:9, 13, 21).

  Tychicus apparently was not sent to Crete to replace Titus because he is with Paul in Rome during his second imprisonment, which took place soon after Paul wrote to Titus.  All of Paul’s co-workers had left Paul for one reason or another during this time of danger for Christians in Rome, except Dr. Luke and Tychicus (2 Tim. 4:10-11).  Paul wrote: “And Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus” (4:12).

  The verb “sent” is in the aorist tense.  Scholars have debated whether it should be understood as a historical aorist or an epistolary aorist.  If it’s a historical aorist, that would mean that Paul sent Tychicus to Ephesus before he wrote the letter to Timothy.  If it’s an epistolary aorist, then Paul, by using this common Greek idiom, would place Tychicus in Ephesus at the time of the readers reading the letter.  I suspect it is the latter use.  This would mean that Paul sent Tychicus to deliver the letter to Timothy in Ephesus (Hiebert 1992:218).  Thus making it the fourth, or fifth, inspired epistle that Tychicus carried from Paul to its intended recipient.

  The Apostle Paul wrote thirteen epistles totaling 87 chapters in the New Testament (assuming he did not write the epistle to the Hebrews).  Tychicus carried at least four letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and 2 Timothy), and possibly a fifth letter (2 Corinthians) that were inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The total number of chapters that Tychicus would have carried of Paul’s inspired books would be 15 or 28 chapters.  Thus, Tychicus would have been responsible for 17 – 24% of the content of Paul’s writings getting to their intended destination!  What some might consider a mundane task of carrying letters for the apostle, Tychicus took as an important task because these epistles were used to build up the Body of Christ, the Church.  Tychicus will be rewarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ for his faithfulness in exercising his spiritual gift that was used to accomplish an important mission.

  Loyal and faithful Tychicus was sent home by the Apostle Paul, apparently with thanks for a job well done, but also to replace Timothy in the work in Ephesus.  Timothy’s spiritual gift was evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5; cf. Eph. 4:11).  It would be very fitting for Tychicus to replace him if Tychicus were the unnamed brother “whose praise is in the gospel throughout the churches” (2 Cor. 8:18).

  Later Activities
  Scripture is silent as to where Tychicus went “on the road again” and what Tychicus did after he returned to Ephesus.  There are, however, at least three ancient church traditions as to what Tychicus did and where he went.  One, tradition says he became a bishop (or elder) in Chalcedon in Bithynia, a church probably started by Peter, Silas, and John Mark in AD 42 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1).  Another tradition says he was a bishop (or elder) at Colophon, 24 km (15 miles) northwest of Ephesus, replacing Sosthenes, who was originally from Corinth (cf. Acts 18:17; 1 Cor. 1:1).  In Colophon Tychicus was martyred for his faith in the Lord Jesus (Boyd 1918:2:623).  Finally, there is another tradition that says he ministered at Paphos on the island of Cyprus (Hogarth, et. al. 1888: 189).  Which of these three traditions, if any, are true?  I do not know, but when I get to Heaven, I will ask Tychicus.

  How Does “On the Road Again” Apply to My Life?
  There are at least three things we can learn about being “on the road again.”  The first thing we notice about Tychicus was that he was a beloved brother.  He was born into the family of God by faith alone in the Lord Jesus.  Have you trusted the Lord Jesus as your Savior and know the joy of sins forgiven and the promise of a home in heaven?  Or, are you still in Satan’s family?

  The second thing we notice is that he was faithful in exercising his spiritual gift of ministry / service (Rom. 12:7).  The Holy Spirit sovereignly gives at least one spiritual gift, if not more, to every individual in the church as He sees fit (1 Cor. 12:11).  Spiritual gifts are given for the purpose of building up the local assembly and the Universal Church, both numerically, as well as spiritually. (Eph. 4:11-13; 1 Cor. 14:12).  Each believer must discern what his or her spiritual gift is and develop it so he or she can faithfully use it to build up the local assembly.  Those with the spiritual oversight of the church need to instruct the church on what the spiritual gifts are, how to discern them, and what is the practical outworking of these gifts in the local church.  They should also be able to discern these gifts in the individual believers and develop them so that these gifts can be maximized in the building up of the local church.  The apostle Paul sent Tychicus “on the road again” exercising his spiritual gift of ministry / serving in order to build up the Body of Christ, the Church universal.  Have you discerned what your spiritual gift is and are you faithfully exercising it to build up the local church?  Or, are you sitting around, warming the pew, and letting others exercise their spiritual gifts?

  The third thing we notice is that he was a fellow servant.  Paul calls himself a servant / slave / bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ.  As a slave, he was completely devoted to one Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and was determined to serve him all the days of his life.  This attitude he instilled in Tychicus as well because he was a fellow-servant (1 Cor. 11:1).  If you are a Christian, have you determined to follow the Lord Jesus, whatever the cost?  Or, have you said: “I’ll be Jesus’ slave on Sunday, but Monday to Saturday, I will be the master of my own destiny and do as I please!”

  Tychicus is no longer “on the road again” seeing places he may never see again, or sharing the gospel of the Lord Jesus to a lost and dying world.  He is in Heaven enjoying the mansion the Lord Jesus prepared for him (John 14:6).  Perhaps he is on the front steps of his mansion strumming his guitar, tapping his toes and singing a more spiritual version of “On the Road Again.”  When I get to Heaven, I’m going to look him up and we’re going to sit down and sip some ice tea or lemonade because I want to hear all his stories about his travel adventures “on the road again.”

  Bibliography

  Boyd, W. F.
  1918    Tychicus.  P. 623 in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.  J. Hastings, ed.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

  Bruce, F. F.; and Simpson, E. K.
  1984    Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians.  Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

  Gillman, John
  1992    Tychius.  P. 682 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 6.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

  Hiebert, D. Edmond
  1992    In Paul’s Shadow.  Friends and Foes of the Great Apostle.  Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University.

  Hogarth, D. G.; James, M. R.; Elsey Smith, R.; and Gardner, E. A.
  1888    Excavations in Cyprus, 1887-88.  Paphos, Leontari, Amargetti.  Journal of Hellenic Studies 9: 147-271.

  Lees, Harrington C.
  1917    St. Paul’s Friends.  London: Religious Tract Society.

  Lightfoot, Joseph
  1976   Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.  Reprint of 1879 edition.

  MacLaren, Alexander
  1887   The Epistle to the Colossians.  Tychicus and Onesimus, the Letter-Bearers.  Expositor, 3rd series.  5: 60-73.

  McRae, William
  1976   The Dynamics of Spiritual Gifts.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

  Ramsay, William
  1893    The Church in the Roman Empire Before AD 170. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

  Rolston, Holmes
  1954   Personalities Around Paul.  Richmond, VA: John Knox.

  Seekings, Herbert
  1914    The Men of the Pauline Circle. London: Charles H. Kelly.

  Revised: June 2, 2010
• 21May

  THE HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANAS: Firstfruits of Achaia

  Profiles in Missions Comments Off on THE HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANAS: Firstfruits of Achaia

  by Gordon Franz

  Introduction
  Sometimes I will see this little ditty on the marquee of a church: “The family that prays together – stays together.”  There is a lot of truth to that statement.  I suspect that it was true of the household of Stephanas.  Not only did they pray together, but they also poured their lives into serving the church at Corinth together.

  Stephanas and his household are mentioned in only two passages in Paul’s first epistle to the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15-18), and a member of the family is hinted at in one verse in the book of Romans (16:5b).  Yet these passages tell us quite a bit about this active family in the city of Corinth.  Probably no family in the Early Church did more for the Apostle Paul and their local church than this family, yet they were not fully appreciated for the work that they were doing among the saints at Corinth.  The lack of appreciation, I would like to suggest, was due to the Corinthians’ prejudice against non-Corinthians within the church.  Paul appealed to the believers in the church at Corinth to give them due recognition.

  In the local church, have you ever observed that there are two kinds of people: those who are living only for themselves and their ambitions and agendas and those who are selflessly serving others, expecting nothing in return?  Have you observed those who are always suspicious of “outsiders” and those people who are not quite like them; versus those who wholeheartedly welcome anybody and everybody who walks through the front door?  If so, you are not the first and you won’t be the last.  Because we all have a sin nature, people have not changed over the millennia.  Our sin nature creates the same problems in churches today that the Apostle Paul saw and addressed in his day.  By examining the way the Apostle Paul understood, addressed, and resolved similar problems in the Church’s earliest days, we can bring timeless Biblical wisdom and truths to our own church problems.

  In this study, the self-centeredness of the Corinthian believers will be examined (Paul calls it carnality), and we will ask why it was difficult for the Corinthian church to accept the selflessness of the household of Stephanas, who were not originally from Corinth, and what the solution is to this problem.

  Textual, Geographical, and Chronological Problems
  At the outset of this study, there is a textual problem that must be addressed.  This textual problem has led to a misunderstanding of the geography of the narratives.  First Corinthians 16:15 states: “I urge you, brethren – you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia” (NKJV, NASB, NIV).  In Romans 16:5 it states: “Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ” (KJV, NKJV).  The Westcott–Hort tradition states that Epaenetus was the firstfruits of Asia (RSV, NASB, NIV).

  It can be suggested that an early copyist saw an apparent conflict between these two texts and wondered how Epaenetus and the household of Stephanas could both be the firstfruits of Achaia.  This “problem” was resolved by emending the text in Romans 16 to read that Epaenetus was from “Asia” [Asia Minor is western Turkey today], because 1 Corinthians is clear that the household of Stephanas was from Corinth, the capital of the Roman province of Achaia.

  The statement that the household of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia (1 Cor. 16:15) also raises a potential geographical and chronological problem.  The household of Stephanas was ministering in Corinth, yet Paul had already led some people to the Lord in Athens (Acts 17:34), which was also part of Achaia.  How could the household of Stephanas be the firstfruits of Achaia if Paul has already led people to the Lord in Athens?

  I would like to suggest that Epaenetus was a slave, a freedman, or a son within the household of Stephanas.  This family originally lived in Athens where Paul first led Epaenetus to the Lord and then eventually the rest of the family.  The entire household was baptized in Athens and later moved to Corinth to be involved in the work of the Lord in that city.  This view is consistent with all the Biblical, geographical, and chronological data and there would be no need to emend the text in Romans 16 (Lenski 1963:47-48; Hiebert 1992:203).

  Achaia in the First Century AD
  Epaenetus and the household of Stephanas are both called the “firstfruits of Achaia.”  It would be helpful to discuss the historical geographical background to Achaia in order to understand this phrase.

  During the Classical period, Achaia was restricted to the northern part of the Peloponnesus, along the southern coast of the Gulf of Corinth (Pausanias, 1995:5:Plate 7).  When the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke wrote about Achaia in the first century AD, they were referring to the Roman senatorial province of Achaia, which was a much larger area than the Achaia of the Classical period (Acts 18:12,27; 19:21; Rom. 15:26; 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1; 7:5; 9:2; 11:10; 1 Thess. 1:7,8).

  In 46 BC, Julius Caesar began to rebuild the ruined city of Corinth into a Roman colony.  In 27 BC, his successor, Octavian (known as Caesar Augustus in the Gospel of Luke), separated Macedonia (Northern Greece) from Achaia and made Corinth the capital of the Roman province of Achaia.  The province of Achaia consisted of the Peloponnese, Central Greece (including Athens), and possibly Thessaly and Epirus.  In AD 15, Emperor Tiberius took Macedonia and Achaia away from the Roman Senate and joined it with Moesia (today, northeastern Bulgaria) under the rule of a legate.  Emperor Claudius restored both of these provinces back to the Roman Senate in either AD 41 or 44 (Suetonius, Deified Claudius 25:3; LCL 2:51).  “By AD 65 the provinces of Thessaly and Epirus were clearly defined and constituted Achaia’s northern border; Actium and the coastal territory to its immediate south, became part of Epirus” (Pattengale 1992:1:53).  Thus, the area of modern Greece was known as “Macedonia and Achaia” in part of the first century AD (Acts 19:21; Rom. 15:26; 1 Thess. 1:8).

  During Paul’s second missionary journey in AD 50, he visited the Roman senatorial province of Macedonia.  When he left Berea by ship, he was departing from the province of Macedonia.  When he disembarked from that ship in Athens, he was in the province of Achaia.

  The Household of Stephanas – the Firstfruits of Achaia – 1 Cor. 16:15
  When Paul visited a new city, his practice was always to seek out the synagogue of the Jewish community in order to share the gospel with them.  He would then proclaim the gospel to the pagans in the agora, or marketplace (Acts 17:17; cf. Rom. 1:16).  Based on hints in the Scriptures, I suspect, but cannot conclusively prove, that Epaenetus was part of the household of Stephanas, either as a son, freedman, or a servant, and the family was of Jewish heritage.  This suggestion is consistent with the passages in 1 Cor. 1 and 16, as well as Romans 16.

  If my suspicion is correct, more than likely Paul met Epaenetus in the synagogue of Athens and shared with him the good news of the gospel.  Paul would have showed Epaenetus from the Hebrew Scriptures that the Lord Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messianic passages in his Bible (Gen. 3:15; Ps. 16:8-11; 22; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; 52:13-53:12; Dan. 9:24-27; Micah 5:2).  Once this fact was established, Paul would have gone on to share the reason why the Lord Jesus came to earth.  As God manifest in human flesh, the Lord Jesus died on the cross of Calvary to pay for all of Epaenetus’ sins and three days later He was raised from the dead.

  As Epaenetus listened to the apostle, the Spirit of God convicted him of his sin of unbelief (John 16:7-11).  He realized that his righteousness in the sight of a Holy God was like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6).  He also knew that he was a sinner because Isaiah said, “all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (53:6).

  Paul carefully pointed out that a sinner is justified (the act of God whereby He declares a sinner righteous) by faith alone in the Lord Jesus and not by any works or merits of his own.  He invoked Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, who believed that God would send a Sin-bearer to take away his sins and trusted Him to do just that.  God declared him righteous because of his faith alone (Gen. 15:6; cf. Rom. 4:1-3).  King David, after the Law was given, was declared righteous the same way: by grace through faith in a coming Messiah (Ps. 32:1-2; cf. Rom. 4:4-8).

  Paul led Epaenetus to faith in the Lord Jesus as his Messiah and Savior.  The joy of sins forgiven, a home in heaven and the righteousness of God freely given to him by grace through faith alone in the Lord Jesus (Phil. 3:9) was more that he could contain.  He in turn shared this wonderful gospel, along with his new found mentor, the Apostle Paul, with the rest of those in his household, and they too came to faith.  These were Paul’s first converts in the Province of Achaia, and they were subsequently baptized, probably in Athens.

  After the Apostle Paul’s defense before the Areopagus, he departed Athens for Corinth.  In this city, he met Aquila and Priscilla, exiles from Rome, who apparently had an assembly, possibly started by Peter, meeting in their home in Corinth.  Paul joined forces with them in the work of the gospel, but also worked with them in their mutual occupation: tentmakers.  Silas and Timothy later joined them in the work of the gospel.  Paul, Timothy, and Silas ministered in the city for a year and a half (AD 50-52; cf. Acts 18:11).  Sometime after this, Stephanas and his household moved to Corinth and got involved in the work of the Lord in that city.  The timing and circumstances of this move are unclear because the Scriptures are silent on this issue.

  The Baptism of the Household of Stephanas – 1 Cor. 1:14-17
  In the winter of AD 55-56, during Paul’s third missionary journey and six years after Paul began his Corinthian ministry, Paul wrote a letter to the church in Corinth from Ephesus.  Some visitors from Corinth, mainly those of the household of Chloe, had told him that there were contentions and divisions within the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10-11).  This division was now confirmed by a letter from the church at Corinth that was carried by Stephanas and two other delegates from the church (1 Cor. 16:17).  It should not be surprising that the Apostle Paul heard from different believers in Corinth; the maritime lines of communication between the two cities were direct and regular.

  The division in the church was over personalities who had ministered in the church within the last six to fifteen years.  Some believers were followers of the Apostle Paul, others of the eloquent Alexandrian Apollos, others of the Apostle Peter, and the really pious ones were followers of Jesus (1:12).

  Paul wrote to the divided church at Corinth: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptize in my own name.  Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.  Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.  For Christ did not send me to baptized, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1:14-17).

  Paul stated that he “baptized none of you [Corinthians] except Crispus and Gaius.”  Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue who came to faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 18:8).  Gaius was an individual who later would be Paul’s host and a patron of the church at Corinth (Rom. 16:23).  The implication of this verse is that these two believers were the only ones he baptized in Corinth.  Once the local church was established in Corinth, Paul moved out of the way and let the local leadership take over the ordinance of baptism, which is a function of the elders in the local church.

  Paul then adds, almost as an afterthought, that he “also baptized the household of Stephanas.”  Paul does not include the household among the Corinthians.  Thus it could be assumed that they were baptized elsewhere, most likely in Athens.  I can just imagine Stephanas looking over Paul’s shoulders as he penned these words: “Don’t forget us!  We were your firstfruits in Achaia.” (1 Cor. 1:16).

  The ordinance of baptism has nothing to do with one’s salvation.  The salvation of an individual is determined when a person puts his or her trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone as his or her Savior.  Baptism is an outward testimony before the local church to the changed life of the new believer (1:17).  It is also a testimony to the unsaved in the local community and provides an opportunity for both courage and accountability of the one being baptized.

  The Ministry of the Household of Stephanas in Corinth – 1 Cor. 16:15-18
  The Apostle Paul concludes this epistle with the usual salutations, greetings and exhortations.  He writes of the household of Stephanas: “I urge you, brethren – you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints – that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.  I am glad about the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for what was lacking on your part they supplied.  For they refreshed my spirit and yours.  Therefore acknowledge such men” (1 Cor. 16:15-18).

  Paul reminds the believers in Corinth about two things that were unique to the family of Stephanas.  First, they were the firstfruits of Achaia.  This was an honor that could never be taken away from this family.  Others would follow, but they would always be known as the first.

  The second thing Paul reminds the Corinthian believers about is that the household of Stephanas devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.  In verse 14, Paul had mentioned: “Let all that you do be done with love” (cf. 1 Cor. 13).  He then mentions the household of Stephanas, which exemplified the principle of doing all things in love because they devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints (16:15).  Lenski suggests that this family rendered their service of their “own accord with an eye only to the benefit resulting for others” (1963:777).  That was Biblical love, seeking the best for the one being ministered to.  This love was a self-imposed obsession of this Athenian family that apparently had the financial means to minister to the needs of others, and they voluntarily jumped right into the Lord’s work when they arrived in Corinth.

  We are not told what the ministry of the saints was.  There are several possibilities.  It could be hospitality to the saints, possibly a food kitchen to help the poor and needy believers.  They could have opened their home for the church to meet in or hosted traveling preachers and apostles.  It could also be a spiritual ministry such as teaching the Word of God.  It is interesting to note that, unlike the household of Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16), Paul does not say he was the beneficiary of the household of Stephanas’ ministry to the saints.  This lack of personal ministry might suggest that the family arrived in Corinth after Paul left for Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19).  Perhaps Paul did not specifically state what their ministry was so that future believers could draw broad applications to their own work.

  The household of Stephanas, being filled with the Spirit of God, was submitting to the leadership in the church of Corinth (Eph. 5:18-21).  Paul had to admonish the church of their reciprocal duty: “you also submit to such” (1 Cor. 16:16) who work and labor for the Lord.  The household of Stephanas worked together and took the difficult tasks in their ministry for the Lord in Corinth.

  Apparently the Corinthian believers were suspicious of this family and their motives for coming to Corinth to work because they were Athenians and not Corinthians.  The apostle Paul had to admonish the Corinthian believers to submit to those who labor in the Lord’s work (16:16).  By implication, he is commanding them to submit to those in the household of Stephanas who are in leadership positions because of their works and appointments.  Paul had also admonished the Thessalonian believers: “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.  Be at peace among yourselves” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

  Clement of Rome, a bishop (or elder) in Rome at the end of the first century AD, penned an epistle to the church in Corinth.  Whereas this epistle is not inspired of the Holy Spirit, it is instructive to the saints.  He wrote: “They [the apostles] preached from district to district, and from city to city. And they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops [episkopos] and deacons of the future believers.  And this was no new method, for many years before had bishops and deacons been written of; for the scripture says thus in one place ‘I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith’” (Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 42:4, 5; LCL 1:81).  The word that is translated “bishop” in this passage is the same word for the office of elder in the New Testament (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7).  Apparently it was the practice in the early church for the apostles to appoint the firstfruits of their converts as elders and deacons in the churches after they were tested by the Holy Spirit.  This would suggest that Paul appointed at least Stephanas as one of the elders in the church of Corinth soon after he arrived in the city even though he was originally from Athens.  The Corinthians would be suspicious of him and perhaps wonder what his motive was for coming to Corinth.

  The Apostle Paul rejoiced in the delegation that came from Corinth to visit him in Ephesus.  It included Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17; most likely the “brethren” in 16:12).  Stephanas was the head of the household and he apparently brought two of his slaves or freedmen, Fortunatus and Achaicus, with him.  Fortunatus’ name, commonly given to a Roman slave, has at its Latin root, “blessed,” “fortune,” or “good luck.”  His nickname today would be Lucky, a name you would give to a dog, but not to your child!  Achaicus was named after the province of Achaia.

  The delegation from Corinth supplied to Paul what was lacking in this situation: the Corinthian believers themselves (16:17).  Paul’s desire was to be able to talk with the church directly, rather than have to write a letter to them, but the delegation was the next best thing.  “They supplied” has the idea of filling a cup full of liquid.  Paul was able to talk with the delegation, ask questions, and find out exactly what the problems were so he could address these issues in a letter and give the delegation verbal counsel to take back to the church.  This visit refreshed Paul’s spirit as well as the Corinthian believers because they would be the beneficiary of Paul’s counsel (16:18, cf. 2 Cor. 7:13; Philemon 7 and 20).

  Paul commands the church to acknowledge, or recognize, this delegation made up of the household of Stephanas because they served the saints (16:16) and also refreshed the saints at Corinth (16:18).  Their suspicions about the household’s motives for serving them should be put aside and credit should be given where credit was due.

  The Training of a Member of the Household of Stephanas – Romans 16:5b
  Paul described Epaenetus as “beloved” and the “firstfruits of Achaia” (Rom. 16:5).  Apparently he was a son, servant, or freedman in the Jewish household of Stephanas that Paul led to the Lord in Athens and described him as part of the “first fruits of Achaia” (1 Cor. 16:15).  For the next eighteen months in Corinth, Paul, Silas, and Timothy committed the Word of God to Epaenetus as a “faithful man” so that he could teach others the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:2).

  Nine years later Epaenetus is greeted by Paul when he writes to the church in Rome (AD 58).  How did Epaenetus get to Rome?  One possible conjecture as to how he got to the Eternal City is that when Aquila and Priscilla returned to Rome from Ephesus after the death of Emperor Claudius, they went via Corinth and invited Epaenetus to join them in the work in Rome.  If Epaenetus were a son or a freedman in the household of Stephanas, then he would have had no problem leaving Corinth.  But if he were a servant in the household of Stephanas, he would have had to have been freed by his master before he went to Rome as a freedman.

  In Romans 16, Epaenetus is greeted right after Aquila and Priscilla which suggests that they might be ministering together in the same assembly in Rome that met in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, which, according to tradition, is located on the Aventine Hill (16:3-5).

  The word greet in Romans 16 has the idea of giving a big bear hug to the one being greeted.  In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle addresses the division that was in the churches of Rome.  The division was along ethnic (Jews vs. Gentiles), gender (male vs. female) and economic (slave vs. free) lines.  This issue was addressed by the apostle in an earlier epistle (cf. Gal. 3:26-29).

  It is very telling that, nine years later, Paul was still in contact with his convert and disciple.

  Lessons from the Lives of the Household of Stephanas
  There are at least four lessons that can be drawn from the lives and ministry of the household of Stephanas.

  First, it does not make any difference what our economic status is; we should all be involved in the work of the Lord in our local assembly.  Paul writes that not many noble are called to the service of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:26-29), but there are some exceptions and they were greatly used of the Lord (Meeks 1983: 57-58).  In the Corinthian church there was Crispus, the former ruler of the synagogue; Gaius, apparently a well-to-do individual who became the patron of one of the churches in the city; and Erastus, who was the treasurer of the city (Rom. 16:23).  The household of Stephanas could be added to this list of the mighty as well.

  Second, the household of Stephanas were obsessed with getting involved in the work of the Lord and poured themselves into the ministry.  They took to heart the words of the Lord Jesus in His parable about the servants (Luke 12:41-48).  Jesus said, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required” (12:48).  The Lord apparently had blessed this family in a material way, and they were good stewards of the wealth that they had.  Stephanas, as the head of the household, had a concern for the spiritual oversight of his family and saw to it that they were all involved in the work of ministering to the saints.

  The third lesson we can learn from this family applies to the church.  The church should be willing to accept outsiders and make them welcome in the assembly, even if they are “different” than most in the meeting, especially those who want to be involved in the work of the Lord and who are doctrinally sound and walking with the Lord.  The household of Stephanas was apparently Athenian Jewish believers in the Lord Jesus.  They were different than the Corinthians.  Paul said to acknowledge them and the work they are doing.  A practical suggestion would be to have an “appreciation day” for those who labor in the church.  Perhaps an appreciation dinner for the Sunday School teachers or others who are involved in various ministries.

  The final lesson to be learned is the importance of follow-up and discipleship in the lives of new believers.  The Apostle Paul demonstrated the importance of follow-up in the life of Epaenetus.    I am sure he prayed for him on a regular basis and had personal contact with him over the years.

  The household of Stephanas may not have been appreciated by their adopted church, but Paul appreciated their labor for the Lord and wanted others to do so as well.

  Bibliography

  Allworthy, T. B.
  1916    Epaenetus.  Pp. 341-342 in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.  Vol. 1.  Edited by J. Hastings.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

  Clement of Rome
  1985   I Clement in Apostolic Fathers.  Vol. 1.  Trans. by K. Lake.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 24.

  Gillman, John
  1992a    Achaicus.  Pp. 53-44 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 1.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

  1992b    Fortunatus.  Pp. 852-853 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 2.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

  1992c    Stephanas.  Pp. 206-207 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 6.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

  Hiebert, D. Edmond
  1992    In Paul’s Shadow.  Friends and Foes of the Great Apostle.  Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University.

  Lampe, Peter
  1992    Epaenetus.  P. 532 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 2.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

  Lenski, R. C. H.
  1961    The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.  Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

  1963    The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians.  Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

  Meeks, Wayne
  1983   The First Urban Christians.  The Social World of the Apostle Paul.  New Haven, CT: Uale University.

  Pattengale, Jerry
  1992    Achaia.  P. 53 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 1.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

  Pausanias
  1988   Description of Greece.  Books 6-8.  Vol. 3.  Trans. by W. H. S. Jones.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 272.

  1995    Description of Greece.  Illustrations and Index.  Vol. 5.  Edited by R. E. Wycherley.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 298.

  Roberts, J. E.
  1916    Fortunatus.  P. 418 in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.  Vol. 1.  Edited by J. Hastings.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

  1918    Stephanas.  P. 525 in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.  Vol. 2.  Edited by J. Hastings.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

  Suetonius
  1992    Lives of the Caesars.  Deified Claudius.  Vol. 2.  Trans. by J. C. Rolfe.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 11.

  Revised: June 6, 2010
• 30Apr

  Noah’s Ark Discovered Again?

  Cracked Pot Archaeology, Noah’s Ark Comments Off on Noah’s Ark Discovered Again?

  by Bill Crouse and Gordon Franz

  The discovery of Noah’s Ark was announced last Sunday (4/24/10) by a Chinese organization from Hong Kong (Noah’s Ark Ministries, International).  The problem with this is that it seems like the “discovery” of Noah’s Ark is getting to be almost an annual event.  What in the world is going on?  We think it’s a question that is easy to analyze.  Genesis 1-11 is the most attacked portion of Scripture for its historicity.  Finding an antediluvian artifact like Noah’s Ark could be the greatest archaeological discovery ever.  It evokes many wannabe Indiana Joneses to search for Noah’s Ark.  We see no problem with this quest, and would welcome such a discovery.  The problem is not in the finding of the Ark; but in its substantiation. Amateur archaeologists can and do find things that turn out to be fantastic discoveries.  Witness the treasure hunter, Terry Herbert, in Staffordshire, England who recently found a huge cache of Saxon gold artifacts that was reported in National Geographic.  However, to properly document a discovery, the proper scientific protocol must be followed.  Scientists are trained to gather and analyze evidence.  They then publish their research so that other scientists can test their results. These “Indiana Joneses” invariably do not do this.  They put the cart before the horse by holding a spectacular press conference declaring what they discovered rather than publishing their results in a scientific journal.  The news media, on the other hand, is all too eager to comply for what gets good ratings, and at the same time it usually puts evangelical Christians in a bad light.

  This Hong Kong group claims they are 99.9 % sure that the wood they found belongs to the Ark of Noah.  Since we have spent a few thousand hours digging into the subject of the Noah’s Flood and the Ark, we have the following questions about the alleged discovery:

  1.    When archaeologists make a discovery they must be able to prove exactly where they took their specimen out of the ground.  How do we know this video showing the rooms was filmed where they said it was?

  2.     It is claimed that this discovery was found in an ice and rock cave on Agri Dagh, also known as Mt. Ararat.  It is a known fact among geologists that nearly all of the icecap on this mountain consists of moving ice, that is, glacier.  A glacier is a river of ice which flows down the mountain.  Any wooden structure inside this ice would be ground to bits from the glacial action.  In their news releases they have reported this site to be at 13,000 feet and in another report at around 14,000.  With these altitudes it would have to be on the ice cap or at the very edge.
  3.     Most geologists believe this mountain was formed in relatively recent times, i.e., after the Flood.  It is a complex volcano with no clearly discernible layers of sedimentation that would have been laid down by flood waters.

  4.  The group claims they have had the wood carbon dated by a lab in Iran with
  the results being almost 5000 years old (with the Flood occurring about
  3000 B.C.).  Why did they have the wood tested in Iran, we ask?   Will other
  scientists have access to the lab results?  Are there any good labs in Iran
  that can do this kind of testing?  Or, was the wood tested in Iran because
  the lab results might be harder to trace by other scientists?  Why wasn’t a
  lab in the United States or the United Kingdom used?  Just asking!

  5.  Is this wood coated with pitch (bitumen)?  The Bible says God instructed Noah to treat the wood with pitch, either asphalt or pine pitch (Gen. 6:14).  At least some of this wood should test positive for this coating.  Also, has a botanist examined the wood to determine what kind of wood it is?

  6.  What about motives?  Only God knows their true motives, but it sure makes one nervous when these groups looking for the Ark are planning a documentary video so early in the project before any truth claims are established.  One of the members of this Chinese group just happens to be a filmmaker.  Most readers interested in this subject probably notice about once a year a new docudrama about Noah’s Ark appears on one of the cable channels.  They would not keep doing this if they didn’t make money.  Hopefully, this group’s motives are other than financial.

  7.  What are the plans to publish this material in scientific peer-reviewed archaeological and geological publication?  We would have hoped that this would have been primary to a news conference and videos.  True archaeology is not forwarded by this sequence, but we certainly understand their excitement and the desire to be the first to report such a discovery.

  In addition to the above questions, we have some reasons to question the integrity of this discovery for the following reasons:
  1.  This group had a local guide who is a known for his deceit and fraud. It is this guide who initially informed the Chinese group that he knew the location of the Ark in 2008.  However, since then he has led them to more than one location.  The first location was a cave at a low altitude, a small cave with a tree growing in front!  Apparently the current cave is at the 13,000 or 14,000 foot level on the icecap.
  2.  The specimens taken from this first cave (at the lower altitude) were claimed to be petrified wood from the Ark. In actuality, they were nothing but volcanic tuff.

  3.   In one of the photos of the rooms straw is seen on the floor and even a spider web in one of the corners.  Really!  Do spiders live at 13,000 or 14,000 feet?  Can they survive the freezing temperatures?

  4.  There is a real problem with evangelists (which is what they claim to be) who use this kind of discovery to prove the Bible, and hence convince non-believers of its authority, when in fact the truthfulness of the discovery had not been established.  I [Bill Crouse] know firsthand of one “Indiana Jones” who spoke eloquently and emotionally about his adventures, and when he gave an invitation at the end of his presentation, many in the audience stood up to commit their lives to Christ.  When the speaker was confronted about the truthfulness of some of the stories he told that night, he replied:  “But look how many stood up to receive Christ.”  This becomes very problematic when at some point the convert learns the real truth.  They often become very embittered about all things Christian, and understandably so.

  5.  There seems to be more than the usual gullibility here in that the Hong Kong group was warned about this local guide who has led others astray.  We say usual gullibility, because it seems to be a characteristic of other ark-hunters as well, in that they tend to believe all the local lore.  While many ark-hunters mean well, it seems that they want to believe every report seemingly at all costs; putting everything through a rational grid often is avoided as being too skeptical.

  At this point we are skeptical of these new claims but would rejoice in the end if they proved to be true.  If this someday is the case we will be the first to apologize for our doubts. We would strongly urge the Hong Kong group to follow proper scholarly procedures and publish this material in scientific, peer-reviewed archaeological and geological publications so that the scholarly community can examine the material first hand and critique it in order to offer helpful, and constructive, criticism.  For the person in the pew, we caution you to not get too excited about something that is at best, unsubstantiated; and at worst, a fraud perpetrated by an enterprising local guide!

  (The authors are both members of the Near East Archaeological Society and the Evangelical Theological Society.  We both believe that Noah was a real historical person and that the Flood was a literal event in space-time history.  In our own research we came to a different conclusion about the landing place of the Ark.  Nothing we have seen so far causes us to doubt of change our position.  If you care to read of our research in can be found here: www.rapidresponsereport.com )
• 06Apr

  MESSAGE TO THE CHILDREN AND YOUTHS OF AMERICA BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  American History Comments Off on MESSAGE TO THE CHILDREN AND YOUTHS OF AMERICA BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  by Gordon Franz

  H. Clay Trumbull, the editor of the Sunday School Times, wrote the president of the United States and requested him to write a message to the children and young people of America.  The president graciously responded:

  “WASHINGTON, June 6, 1876.

  To the Editor of the Sunday School Times, Philadelphia.
  Your favor of yesterday, asking a message from me to the children and youth of the United States, to accompany your Centennial Number, is this moment received.
  My advice to Sunday Schools, no matter what their denomination, is: Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your heart, and PRACTICE THEM IN YOUR LIVES.
  To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future.
  ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.’
  Yours respectfully, U. S. Grant”

  (Grant 1967:27:124, capital letters were doubly underscored in the original letter; Biblical citation, Prov. 14:34).

  This letter was printed in the June 17, 1876 issue of the Sunday School Times published by John Wanamaker.  It also appeared on page 4 of the June 15, 1876 edition of the New York Times.  Nine years later, the letter was reprinted on the first page of the New York Times (August 1, 1885).  This challenge, written by the 18th president of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877), is still valid today for both young and old.

  Bibliography

  Anonymous
  1876    The President to the Sunday-School Children.  New York Times.  June 15, 1876, page 4.

  1885    Grant’s Message to the Children.  New York Times.  August 1, 1885, page 1.

  Grant, Ulysses S.
  1967    The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: January 1 – October 31, 1876.  Edited by J. Simon.  Vol. 27.  Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
• 01Mar

  “Searching for Paul’s Shipwreck on Malta”: A Critique of the 700 Club’s February 26, 2010 Program

  Cracked Pot Archaeology, Paul's Shipwreck on Malta Comments Off on “Searching for Paul’s Shipwreck on Malta”: A Critique of the 700 Club’s February 26, 2010 Program

  by Gordon Franz

  On Friday morning, February 26, 2010, Chuck Holton reported on CBN’s 700 Club program of a man who believes he found an “amazing Biblical discovery” on Malta.  This nine-minute video segment featured Robert Cornuke presenting his theory about the location of the Apostle Paul’s shipwreck on the island of Malta.

  
  http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/February/Searching-for-Pauls-Shipwreck-on-Malta/

  Cornuke, in his persona as a “former Los Angeles crime scene investigator,” approached the account of the shipwreck of Paul in Acts 27 and 28 as a “crime scene.”  As he read the Biblical text, he concluded there were four “clues” that needed to be found in order to solve the “crime.”  He identified these as: (1) a bay with a beach; (2) a reef or sandbar where “two seas meet”; (3) a seafloor with a depth of 90 feet; and (4) a place the sailors would not have recognized.  Cornuke concludes that the shipwreck occurred on the eastern shore of Malta, not on the northern side of the island as most scholars believe.

  Cornuke’s theory and investigations, as presented in this news segment, were already set forth in his 2003 book entitled, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (Bend, OR: Global Publishing Service).  In the book his view is that the Alexandrian grain ship containing the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke was shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef on the island’s eastern end.  Cornuke claims to have located, from among the local spear fishermen and divers, six anchor stocks which could have been from this shipwreck (cf. Acts 27:29, 40), four of which were located on the east side of the Munxar Reef in fifteen fathoms, or ninety feet of water (cf. Acts 27:28).  He identifies the “place where two seas meet” (cf. Acts 27:41) as the Munxar Reef and the “bay with the beach” as St. Thomas Bay (cf. Acts 27:39).  He concluded that neither the sea captain nor his crew would have recognized the eastern shoreline of the Maltese coast when it became light on the morning after they dropped anchor (cf. Acts 27:39).  Unfortunately Cornuke’s theory simply does not hold water.

  Experts and Computer Models
  Cornuke consulted Graham Hutt, an expert on Mediterranean storms, and Hutt concluded that the ship would have been driven by the winds to the southeast quadrant of the island, and that the more likely place of the shipwreck was the Bay of St. Thomas.

  In the book, Cornuke described a visit to the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta (2003:184-193).  Here he watched a computer model that plotted the possible course of a ship caught in a windstorm from Crete to Malta.  The ship landed, after 14 days in a severe windstorm, in the St. Thomas Bay!

  The limitations of storm experts and computer models were well illustrated by the recent Nor’easter that hit the Northeast United States on Feb. 25-26, 2010.  The storm was a prime example of what computer models and meteorologists could not predict.  The meteorologists on television said that this “monster storm” defied all the computer models and did not behave as any of the meteorologists predicted it should!

  Bay with a beach
  The beach in the St. Thomas Bay was identified as the “bay with the beach.”  The earliest maps of Malta show that the Munxar Reef, at one time, was actually a series of small islands.  Possibly in the first century AD, this location would have been a lengthy peninsula that has now eroded away.  If that is the case, the sea captain, in all probability, would not have been able to see the low-lying beach of St. Thomas Bay from the area where the four anchor stocks were found and almost certainly, he would not have dared to sail his ship through the dangerous islands or peninsula to reach the beach!  Thus, the Bay of St. Thomas could not be the beach that the captain saw or where the sailors and passengers swam to.

  Reef or Sandbar where the “two seas meet”
  Several times in the news segment the Munxar Reef is described as a “sandbar.”  A careful examination of a geological map would have identified the reef as being made of “Middle Globigerina Limestone.”  This soft limestone is rock not a sandbar.

  The identification of the “two seas meet” is based on two Greek words, “topos dithalasson”, that are translated different ways in different translations.  Professor Mario Buhagiar, of the University of Malta, cautions that this term “does not offer any real help because it can have several meanings and the way it is used in Acts 27:41, does not facilitate an interpretation.  A place where two seas meet (Authorized and Revised versions) and a cross sea (Knox Version) are the normally accepted translations but any beach off a headland (Liddell and Scott) or an isthmus whose extremity is covered by the waves (Grimms and Thayer), as indeed most water channels, can qualify as the place where the boat grounded.  The truth is that the Acts do not give us sufficient clues to help in the identification of the site” (see link at bottom for full bibliography).

  Anchors at 90 feet
  Mr.Cornuke interviewed people, primarily divers and spear fishermen, who claimed to have located four anchors on the south side of the Munxar Reef at 15 fathoms, or 90 feet of water.  Two other anchors were allegedly found near the Munxar Reef in 10 meters (ca. 33 feet) of water.  Cornuke implied in his book that these two anchors were the ones put in the skiff when the sailors tried to escape (Acts 27:30).  These interviews are the author’s primary evidence for Paul’s shipwreck.

  Unfortunately only two actual anchor stocks can be examined.  They are on display on the second floor of the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa.  The other four, however, are not available for scholarly consideration.  One of the anchor stocks was melted down, another is in a private collection, and two were allegedly sold on the antiquities market.

  Unfortunately the video clip of the anchors in the Malta Maritime Museum is very misleading.  It shows 6 or 7 anchors on display, but only two are from the Munxar Reef.  One of them, called “Tony’s anchor,” was one of the smallest of those on display.  It measured about 3 feet, 8 inches in length and would be too small for the stern of an Alexandrian grain ship.

  On the other hand, Professor Mario Buhagiar examined the other anchor and gave a cautious analysis, “It could have belonged to a cargo ship, possibly a grain cargo ship, and possibly one from Alexandria” (2003: 183).  He went on to conjecture, “This anchor stock would fit very well within the era of St. Paul” (2003: 184).  Although this anchor could have been from an Alexandrian grain ship, suggesting that it was from Paul’s shipwreck certainly goes beyond the available evidence.

  Did not recognize the land
  In the 1st century AD, the island of Malta was, in essence, the “Turn Right to Sicily” sign in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.  Malta was the landmark for sailors sailing west from Crete who were about to turn north to Sicily.  The eastern end of the island was what they saw first and it was a welcomed and recognizable sight.

  It seems that capable sea captains, piloting an Alexandrian grain ship between Egypt and Rome, would have recognized the landmarks on the eastern coastline of Malta, including the St. Thomas Bay and the hazardous Munxar Reef which every sea captain would know about because of its inherent maritime danger.
  Dr. Luke, however, testifies the sailors did not recognize the land.  This suggests that the shipwreck occurred at a different place on the island.

  Can We Know for Sure?
  At the end of the 700 Club news segment, Holton stated that it was “impossible to know for sure if this is where the shipwreck occurred.”  I would strongly disagree with that statement because my work leads to the inevitable conclusion that the St. Thomas Bay theory is contrary to the Biblical and geographic evidence, the alleged anchors are not verifiable, and thus it is surely possible to know that Paul’s shipwreck did not occur on the Munxar Reef.  One must look elsewhere for this shipwreck.

  For a detailed and documented critique of the St. Thomas Bay theory as presented in Cornuke’s book, see:
  http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/26/Has-Pauls-Shipwreck-Been-Found.aspx

  For another devastating critique by a Maltese diver based on his local knowledge of the waters around Malta, see pages 162-174 of the just released PAVLVS, The Shipwreck 60 A.D. by Mark Gatt (2010, Valletta, Malta: Allied Publications).

  A Documentary Coming
  On Tuesday, February 16, 2010, it was announced on Maltese television that Mr. Cornuke’s documentary about the location for the shipwreck of the Apostle Paul would be released by the BASE Institute in April, 2010.

  If Cornuke has any new evidence that supports his theory and that responds to the significant problems that have been previously noted, his discussion is welcomed.  If it is merely another way to sensationalize an old theory that has already been refuted then this documentary will not be about an “amazing Biblical discovery.”
• 23Feb

  Why Did God Choose Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel?

  Jerusalem Comments Off on Why Did God Choose Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel?

  By Gordon Franz

  Introduction

  Jerusalem is a city that is sacred to the three monotheistic religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It has been and remains to this day, a contested piece of real estate for two of these religions.

  Former Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, often said, “Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of the nation of Israel and the Jewish people.” On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority, with the help of some world politicians, wants to divide the city and create a Palestinian State with Abu Dis in eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

  Within Jerusalem, the Temple Mount is the most hotly debated piece of real estate anywhere in the world. At the Second Camp David summit held during the summer of 2000, Yasser Arafat said that there was never a temple built by Solomon or Herod on what the Moslems call the Haram esh-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary). Those temples, he said, were located on Mount Gerizim near Nablus (Gold 2007: 11). The literary sources and the Temple Mount Sifting Project have clearly demonstrated that these Temples once stood on the Haram.

  The Bible, history, and geography are clear: Jerusalem was chosen by the Almighty as the capital of the nation of Israel … why? The simple answer – God’s Son.
  There are Better Cities to be Capital

  Politically and strategically there were better sites that David could have chosen to be the capital of Israel. But God had Jerusalem in mind, primarily, it can be argued, for spiritual reasons.

  The first city David could have chosen was Hebron (Tel Rumeidah). In fact, this was the first city from which David ruled when he came to the throne. David was selected by God to be king and anointed by Samuel in Bethlehem (I Sam. 16:1-13). After his flight from Saul, God instructed David to go to the city of Hebron and there the men of Judah “anointed David king over the house of Judah” (II Sam. 2:1-4)1 and he reigned over Judah for seven and a half years (II Sam. 5:5). Finally, all the tribes of Israel came to King David and anointed him king over all Israel and Judah and he reigned for thirty-three years in Jerusalem.

  The reason Hebron was David’s first capital was because he was from the tribe of Judah and Hebron was in the tribal territory of Judah. The city also had a Patriarchal connection: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, along with some of their wives, are buried in the Cave of Machpelah near Hebron (Gen. 23:9, 17; 25:7-11; 49:29-32). Hebron overlooks the Patriarchal Highway the runs through the Hill Country of Judah down to Beersheva.

  David’s second choice of a capital could have been Gibeah of Saul (Tel el-Ful). Gibeah was King Saul’s capital (I Sam. 15:34). This city had a commanding view of the Central Benjamin Plateau from its position on the Patriarchal Highway (Judges 19:13).

  A third possibility might have been Bethel (el-Birah). This city was situated on the Patriarchal Highway (Judges 21:19) and had Patriarchal connections. This was the second place Abraham built an altar after he entered the Promised Land (Gen. 12:8-9). Jacob had his hallmark “ladder dream” at Bethel and it was at that event that God reconfirmed the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob (Gen. 28:11-22; cf. John 1:51).

  A fourth possibility is Gibeon (el-Jib) because “this great city, like one of the royal cities” (Josh. 10:2) was strategically located on the Central Benjamin Plateau and controlled the road leading to the Beth Horon Ridge Route. This road goes from the Central Benjamin Plateau to the International Coastal Highway and the port city of Jaffa.

  The last city David could have chosen was Shechem (Tel Balatah). It too was located on the Patriarchal Highway (Judges 21:19) at a strategic junction where the road splits. One could go west between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, or go northeast down to Tirzah and the Wadi Farah. Shechem, like some of the other cities, had Patriarchal connections as well. This was the first place Abraham built an altar after he came into the Promised Land (Gen. 12:6, 7) and Joseph is buried there (Josh. 24:32). Interestingly, Shechem was made the first capital of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) by Jeroboam I following the division of the kingdom (I Kings 12:23).

  These five cities may have geographically, militarily, and strategically made better capitals for the Kingdom of Israel, yet Jebus (Jerusalem) was chosen … why? The simple answer – God’s Son.
  Why Jebus (Jerusalem) Should Not Have Been Chosen

  The ancient city of Jebus is situated on the ridge above the Gihon Spring. Jebus, later named the City of David, covered a small area of approximately 10 acres (Mazar 2007:12). It was not located on the Patriarchal Highway, in fact, one had to turn off the ridge route (the Patriarchal Highway) in order to get to the city (Judges 19:10-12). The city is also isolated by steep valleys (Psalm 125:1, 2). The Kidron Valley is on the east and the Tyropean Valley (Central Valley) is on the west (Neh. 2:13). The city is isolated and in a bowl because it is surrounded by hills (Psalm 125:1, 2). Strategically and geographically, Jebus (Jerusalem) should not have been chosen the capital of Israel, yet it was … why? The simple answer – God’s Son.
  Why Was It Chosen the Capital?

  There are two reasons Jerusalem was chosen the capital of Israel. The first, from David’s perspective, is political. The second, from God’s perspective, and more importantly, is spiritual.
  Political Reason

  Jerusalem was not conquered during the initial conquest of the Land by Joshua (Josh. 15:63). Thus it was still controlled by the Jebusites. During the period of the Judges, Judah and Benjamin could not drive the Jebusites out of the city (Judges 1:21; cf. 19:12).

  When David came to the throne, he first ruled from Hebron. In order to unify the country, he had to find a “neutral” site that was not in the tribal territory of Judah. The unconquered city of Jebus was in the tribal territory of Benjamin (Josh. 15:7, 8; 18:16, 28). Also, there were not any Benjamites living in the city because the Jebusites were able to regain the city after Judah took the city and burned it during the period of the Judges (Judges 1:8; Mazar 2007:47-48).

  David also understood the geo-political realities of the tribal territory of Benjamin. The easiest and most convenient road from Jericho, and thus the Transjordanian Plateau, to the International Coast Highway in the west was via the Central Benjamin Plateau. The tribal territory of Benjamin is lower in elevation than the territories of Judah to its south and Ephraim to its north. David wanted to keep the tribe of Benjamin on Judah’s side so he could control these east-west roads and not let them fall under Ephraim’s control. Eventually, David and his men were able to take the city of Jebus and he moved the capital to the city (II Sam. 5:6-10; I Chron. 11:4-9).
  Spiritual Reason

  God used David as a human instrument to bring about His divine purpose of placing His name in the capital of Jerusalem. Just before the nation of Israel entered the Promised Land, the LORD instructed Moses to tell the people of Israel that they were to meet the LORD three times a year in a place that He would choose to place His name (Deut. 12:1-11). “But when you cross over the Jordan and dwell in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to inherit … then there will be the place where the LORD your God chooses to make His name abide. There you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice offerings which you vow to the LORD” (12:10-11).

  God does not reveal the identity of this place until nearly 400 years later when Solomon dedicated the Temple in Jerusalem. Solomon prayed: “O LORD my God, and listen to the cry and the prayer which your servant is praying before You today: that Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My name shall be there,’ and You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place” (I Kings 8:28, 29; see also 8:44, 48; cf. II Chron. 6:20, 33, 34, 38; Ps. 78:67-69; 132:13, 14). The LORD affirmed Solomon’s prayer when He said: “I have heard your prayer and supplication that you have made before Me; I have consecrated this house which you have built to put My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually” (I Kings 9:3; cf. II Chron. 7:12, 16).

  God chose to place His name in Jerusalem because of the two events that transpired in the city that are recorded in the book of Genesis. Both events foreshadow the Person and Work of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

  The first event is recorded in Genesis 14. In this account, Abram delivers his nephew Lot from the Mesopotamian kings at the city of Laish (Dan). On his way back to the Negev he stops at the Valley of Shaveh (cf. II Sam. 18:18) and meets Melchizedek. Melchizedek was the king of Salem and also the priest of the Most High God (El Elyon). The King / Priest blessed Abram and Abram in turn gave a tithe to Melchizedek (14:18-20; cf. Heb. 7:1-4).

  The Book of Hebrews gives a divine commentary on this passage as well as Psalm 110 where David stated, “The LORD (Yahweh) has sworn and will not relent, ‘You (David’s Lord) are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'” (110:4). In Hebrews 5:5, 6, God (the Father) said to David’s Lord (God’s Son), “You are My Son, today I have begotten You” (a quotation from Psalm 2:7), and also “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (a quotation from Psalm 110:4). Later, Jesus is identified as the Son who is the “High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20).

  King David composed Psalm 110, a beautiful and prophetic psalm, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God (Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36). In this psalm, David’s Lord is commanded to “Sit at My (Yahweh’s) right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’ The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!” (110:1). David, also being a prophet (Acts 2:30), foresaw the day when his descendent would rule forever from Zion (cf. Luke 1:31-33; Matt. 22:41-46; II Sam. 7:4-17; I Chron. 17:3-15). Zion is another name for the City of David, Salem, or Jerusalem (II Sam. 5:7; Ps. 76:1, 2; I Kings 8:1).

  The first reason God chose Jerusalem as the capital is because one day, His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God, will return again to the Mount of Olives with His saints and sit upon the throne of David and establish His Kingdom over all the earth in Jerusalem as a King / Priest (Zech. 14; cf. Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:5-8; Zech. 12:10; Rev. 19:11-19).

  The second event recorded in the book of Genesis was Abraham offering up Isaac on a mountain in the Land of Moriah (Gen. 22), called in Jewish tradition Akedah, for the “binding” of Isaac. The Temple built by Solomon was located on Mount Moriah (II Chron. 3:1).

  In this touching account, God tested Abraham by commanding him to “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the Land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (22:2). In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, it says, “Take thy son, the beloved one, whom thou hast loved – Isaac.” The Greek word for “beloved one” in the LXX is the same word used of Jesus at His baptism and transfiguration. The voice from heaven, God the Father, said at His baptism: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Again at the transfiguration He said: “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matt. 17:5).

  Abraham took his son Isaac, two young men, and a donkey that carried the wood for the sacrifice to the Land of Moriah. When they could see the mountain, Abraham said to the young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you” (22:5). Abraham said, “we (plural) will come back”, fully anticipating that Isaac would return with him, even though God had said to sacrifice him!

  Rabbis and commentators have had a field day trying to figure out this paradox. How could Abraham kill his son as a sacrifice, yet they were going to return together from worshiping God? Again, the book of Hebrews gives us a divine commentary on this event. “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it is said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense” (11:17-19). Abraham fully believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead, if he killed him.

  As the father (Abraham) and the son (Isaac) walked together to the mountain with the wood on the son’s shoulders, and the knife and fire in the father’s hands, Isaac asks, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (22:7). Abraham solemnly responded, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering” (22:8).

  Abraham built an altar and bound his beloved son and placed him on it. As he was about to slay him with the knife, the Angel of the LORD stopped him with these words: “Do not lay your hands on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (22:12).

  Abraham lifted up his eyes, probably filled with tears, and saw a ram caught in a nearby thicket. He took the ram and sacrificed it in place of his son Isaac and named the place, “The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, ‘In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided'” (22:13, 14).

  The Lord Jesus was visiting the Temple during the Feast of Succoth (Tabernacles) in AD 29 when He had an encounter with the religious leaders. The topic of discussion was Father Abraham. They asked Jesus if He was greater than Abraham and the prophets. Jesus answered in the affirmative and said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). The religious leaders said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (8:57). With that, the Lord Jesus asserted His deity by saying, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (8:58). The religious leaders understood that Jesus was attributing the divine name I AM WHO I AM (cf. Ex. 3:14) to Himself and so they picked up stones to throw at Him for blasphemy (John 8:59).

  But what did Jesus mean by, “You father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad”? What day was he talking about and why was he glad? I believe this statement goes back to the account in Genesis 22. Abraham, the friend of God, somehow knew of the Person and work of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, because he called the name of the place “The LORD Will Provide” which meant “In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided.” Abraham said to Isaac that God would provide a lamb as a burnt offering, and a ram was caught in the thicket. The ram is not a lamb! The ram was a substitute for Isaac, the ram died in Isaac’s place. It is not until 2,000 years later that John the Baptizer [remember, John was a Jew, not a Baptist!!!] was at Bethany beyond the Jordan (Batanea) when he saw Jesus approaching him after His 40 days of testing (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1-13) and said, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Jesus was the Lamb that God would provide Himself (Gen. 22:8).

  It was on Mount Moriah that Solomon built a Temple (and later the Second Temple stood) where people could bring sacrifices that could only atone for, or cover sins, but could never take away sins. It was on a nearby hill, called Calvary, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the perfect, sinless, Lamb of God, died as the perfect sacrifice in order to pay for all the sins of all humanity (Heb. 9:11-10:18; 13:13; I John 2:2; John 19:16-42). The final cry from the cross was “It is finished” (John 19:30). This word was used of a financial transaction that stated a bill was paid in full.

  In the Mount of the LORD, eternal redemption was provided by God and He offers His righteousness to any and all who would put their trust in the Lamb of God. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi in Macedonia and said if anyone could gain salvation by their good works, or their own merits, it was himself (Phil. 3:4-6). But he came to realize the great truth, “and be found in Him [the Lord Jesus], not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (3:9).

  The Apostle Peter stated that redemption was not with corruptible things such as silver and gold, but it was by “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (I Pet. 1:18, 19).

  The Lord Jesus told Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes [trust in, or rely upon] in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
  The Answer to the Question

  God chose Jerusalem as the capital of Israel because of the priority He placed on His Son and His Son’s coming to redeem sinners. Jerusalem figures prominently, practically, and prophetically into Jesus’s coming to earth. The two Jerusalem-centered events in the book of Genesis foreshadowed the Person and work of the Lord Jesus in His first and second comings to earth. The first time He came, He was the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world on a cross outside Jerusalem. The second time He will come, He will be the King / Priest who will rule the world from the Davidic throne on Mount Zion in Jerusalem.
  Bibliography

  Gold, Dore

  2007 The Fight for Jerusalem. Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. Washington, DC: Regnery.

  Mazar, Eilat

  2007 Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem.

  1 All Scripture quotes are from the New King James Version.
• 09Feb

  THE ARCH OF TITUS AND THE OLIVE TREE OF ROMANS 11

  Paul and Places Comments Off on THE ARCH OF TITUS AND THE OLIVE TREE OF ROMANS 11

  by Gordon Franz

  Introduction
  During the last two decades of the First Century AD, Rome was in the grip of the self-deified Emperor Domitian.  Imagine a small group of believers in the Lord Jesus walking pass the Coliseum in Rome and turning westward toward the Roman Forum and the Capitoline Hill.  They observe at the highest point of the Via Sacra (Sacred Way) the newly erected Arch of Titus.  Perhaps a few in this group might be struck by the olive groves on both sides of the road and caught the irony of this view.  The Arch of Titus commemorated the triumphal procession by the Roman army after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and also memorialized the apotheosis of Titus, but what of the olive trees?

  Imagine again that one of these individuals in the group had survived the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem by the Roman army, was brought to Rome as a prisoner and was paraded as a captive in the triumphal procession of Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus.  He was later sold as a slave in the Eternal City, Rome.  Perhaps the household this individual was sold into also had Christian slaves.  Eventually one of the Christians shared with this Jewish person the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ.  The message was simple.  God loved the world and sent His Son, the spotless Lamb of God – the sinless Lord Jesus, to die and pay for the sins of all humanity.  He offers the free gift of eternal life, the forgiveness of sins, God’s righteousness and a home in Heaven to any and all that would put their trust in the Lord Jesus as their Savior.  Doing good works and obeying the commandments were not good enough to merit God’s righteousness.  Only faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone would gain God’s favor (John 3:16; Rom. 4:5; Phil. 3:9; Eph. 2:8, 9: I Pet. 1:18, 19; I John 2:2).  This Jewish slave was touched by this message and trusted the Lord Jesus as Messiah and Savior.

  As this group of believers walks up the Via Sacra, the new convert ponders some verses that were read that morning at a meeting of the brothers and sisters in the Messiah Jesus.  The verses said: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?  Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril or sword?  As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.’  Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.  For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35-39, NKJV).

  The Jewish convert was joyful in the fact that absolutely nothing could separate a believer in the Lord Jesus from the love of God.  But there were several burning questions in his mind, who as a teen-ager had experienced tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril and sword at the hands of the Romans in Jerusalem several decades before.  When he viewed for the first time the panel on the Arch of Titus with the Temple implements being carried off in the triumphal procession he asked the group: “Does God still love ethnic Israel?  He said He did (Deut. 7:8; Jer. 31:3).  Is He finished with her, or is there still a future for the nation of Israel?”  The leader stepped off the Via Sacra and walked over to a branch in the olive groves and said, “The answer to your question, dear brother, is found in this olive tree.  Yes, our loving God still has a future for the nation of Israel!”

  The Arch of Titus
  Emperor Domitian erected this single-fornix arch with elegant proportions in memory of his deceased brother, Titus, after he was deified by the Roman Senate in AD 81.  Above the arch was an inscription that read: “The Senate and the Roman people to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus the son of the deified Vespasian” (Holloway 1987:184).  This arch stood 15.40 meters high, 13.50 meters wide and 4.75 meters deep and was faced with Pentelic marble (Richardson 1992:30).

  There were three reliefs that would have caught the eyes of anybody walking under the arch.  As one looked up to the crown of the arch there was a relief with an eagle carrying the deified Emperor Titus to heaven.  This was his apotheosis (deification).

  There are also two passageway reliefs to note.  On the south side is a relief of the Roman army carrying off the booties from Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem in the year AD 70.  The relief includes a menorah (lamp stand), the table of showbread with two vessels on it, and the two silver trumpets.  There were also soldiers holding signs with names of the cities conquered or pictures of various battle scenes.

  On the north side of the passageway is a relief with Titus riding a chariot being driven by Roma.  Nike, the goddess of victory, is crowning him with a wreath, showing his victory over the Jewish nation.

  Josephus, the first century Jewish historian and an adopted member of the Flavian family, gave a detailed account of this triumphal procession in his book, Jewish Wars, written about AD 75 (7:123-157; LCL 3:541-551).  After the triumph, some of the objects were placed in the Temple of Peace (Templum Pax) built by Vespasian near the Roman Forum and other objects were placed in his palace on the Palatine Hill (Wars 7:158-162; LCL 3:551-553; Richardson 1992:286-287).

  There was another arch built a few years earlier that was dedicated to Emperor Titus’ victory over the Jewish people in the Circus Maximus but it is not known archaeologically today.  It is, however, known from coins, reliefs and mosaics (Richardson 1992:30).  One of the inscriptions on this arch states:
  “The Senate and the Roman People to the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus the son of the deified Vespasian Pontifex Maximus, holder of the tribunician power for the tenth time, imperator for the seventeenth time, consul for the eighth time, father of the fatherland, the very princeps of Rome because by example and advice of his father he overcame the Jews and destroyed the city of Jerusalem which even before was besieged by generals, Kings and peoples in vain or left unmolested by them” (Holloway 1987:191).

  The Olive Tree in Romans 11
  The Apostle Paul wrote an epistle to the church in Rome about AD 58.  At the end of chapter 8 of this epistle, he asks the question, “What can separate us from the love of God?”  (8:35). He answers his own question by saying, absolutely nothing! (8:35-39). A Jewish believer in the Lord Jesus, reading this statement after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 might ask the question, “What about ethnic Israel?  Is God finished with her?”  Paul answers these questions in the next three chapters of this book (Rom. 9-11).  In chapter 9 he discusses the past history of Israel and her election by grace.  In chapter 10 he presents present day Israel and how they are seeking righteousness from God by their works, and not by faith alone in Christ alone.  Finally in chapter 11 he reveals the future for ethnic Israel.  One day, all Israel will be saved (11:26).

  Our imaginary group gathers around an olive tree near the Arch of Titus.  The leader points to a wild olive branch that had been grafted into the olive tree and says: “The Apostle Paul wrote a letter to our church and described the root of an olive tree as the blessings to all the families of the earth promised in the Abrahamic Covenant (Rom. 11:16-18; cf. Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:6-9).  Some of the branches of the olive tree, ethnic Israel, had been broken off because of their unbelief; yet wild olive branches, Gentiles, were grafted in (11:17-22).  The salvation of Gentiles was to provoke ethnic Israel to jealousy (11:11-14).  If an individual Jewish person returned to the Lord Jesus and trusted Him as Messiah and Savior, they would be grafted back into the tree (11:23-25).  But there is a day coming when “all Israel shall be saved” when they look upon Him whom they have pierced (11:26; cf. Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7).

  For a discussion on grafting by one who was contemporary with the Apostle Paul, see Columella, De Re Rustica 5.11; LCL 2:101-113.  For a discussion on the arboriculture of Romans 11:17-24, see Baxter and Ziesler 1985:25-32; Ramsay 1905:16-34, 152-160; Bruce 1988:203-210.

  
  The Conclusion of the Whole Matter
  There are at least two theological truths that could be drawn by a believer in the Lord Jesus in the 1st century AD who visited the Arch of Titus.  First, Emperor Titus was declared to be the son of a god by a vote of the Roman Senate and his apotheosis was validated by large inscriptions over monumental structures, by coins, and by a relief showing him ascending to heaven on the back of an eagle.  In sharp contrast, the Lord Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by His bodily resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:3-4), and this declaration was validated by the many eye-witnesses who saw Him after His resurrection (I Cor. 15:1-9).  The resurrected and living Lord Jesus is infinitely superior to the dead and cremated Emperor Titus (Aitken 2001:73-88; 2005:82-85).

  Second, the two scenes from the passageway of the Arch of Titus indicated that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and some might conclude that God had rejected ethnic Israel.  However, the Apostle Paul illustrated from the olive tree in Romans 11 that Israel’s rejection was not complete, but only partial and that there remains a remnant of Israel according to the election of grace (11:5).  Their rejection was not final, but only temporary because one day in the future “all Israel shall be saved” (11:26).

  Bibliography

  Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw
  2001    Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews.  Pp. 73-88 in Religious Texts and Material Context.  Edited by J. Neusner and J. Strange.  Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

  2005    Reading Hebrews in Flavian Rome.  Union Seminary Quarterly Review 59: 82-85.

  Baxter, A. G.; and Ziesler, J. A.
  1985    Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:17-24.  Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24: 25-32.

  Bruce, F. F.
  1988    The Letter of Paul to the Romans.  Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

  Columella, Lucius Junius Moderatus
  1968    De Res Rustica (On Agriculture), Books 5-9.  Vol. 2.  Trans. by E. S. Forster and E. H. Heffner.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 407.

  Holloway, R. Ross
  1987    Some Remarks on the Arch of Titus.  L’Antiquite Classique 56: 183-191.

  Josephus
  1979    Jewish Wars, Books 4-7.  Vol. 3.  Trans. by H. Thackeray.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 210.

  Ramsay, William
  1905    The Olive-Tree and the Wild-Olive.  Expositor, 6th series, 11:16-34, 152-160.  Reprinted   in Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christian History. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1906: 219-250.

  Richardson, L., Jr.
  1992   A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.  Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.
• 01Feb

  JONAH: THE PROPHET WITH AN ATTITUDE

  Messianic Passages Comments Off on JONAH: THE PROPHET WITH AN ATTITUDE

  by Gordon Franz

  Introduction

  Jonah has been called the wayward prophet, or the fleeing prophet.  I would suggest that he is a prophet with an attitude!  God gave him a clear command to do something and he did the exact opposite.  Yet after chastening him, God, in grace and mercy, gave him a second chance.  And with that second chance, He did what the Lord commanded, but did it with an attitude.  When God demonstrated His unfathomable mercy toward the people of Nineveh, Jonah got very angry with God because He embarrassed him by not fulfilling His Word.  It got to the point where Jonah just wanted to bag his commission from the Lord and die.

  The city of Gath Hepher in Lower Galilee was home for Jonah when he prophesied during the reign of King Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25; ca. 760 BC).  The Lord told him to go in a northeast direction to the Assyrian city of Nineveh and cry against the inhabitants of that city because of their wickedness (Jonah 1:2).  Instead, Jonah went in the opposite direction – southwest to the seaport of Joppa on the Mediterranean Sea.  His intent was to flee from the presence of the Lord by going to Tarshish at the other end of the Mediterranean Sea (in modern day Spain).

  While Jonah knew the Word of God he conveniently forgot, or ignored, the words of a Davidic psalm: “Where can I go from Your Spirit?  Or where can I flee from Your presence?  If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea [like Tarshish], even there Your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me” (139:7-10).

  God had to get the attention of His wayward, fleeing servant so He caused a great wind storm to almost sink the ship Jonah was aboard.  When the captain and the crew discovered Jonah was running from his God, they inquired from Jonah what should be done to calm the sea.  He matter-of-factly said that they should throw him overboard.  Jonah knew the Word of God and understood the doctrine of the chastening of the Lord (Prov. 3:11-12; cf. Heb. 12:3-13).  Jonah acknowledged that the storm was used by the Lord as a tool to chasten him and to bring him back to the Lord.  Jonah, however, had been fast asleep in the bottom of the boat and did not want to be exercised by the chastening of the Lord (Jonah 1:5; cf. Heb. 12:11).

  In the Belly of the Great Fish

  God prepared a unique sea creature, simply called in the Hebrew text, a great fish (dag gadol).  The Lord Jesus called it a “ketos” (Matt. 12:40).  It was not a whale, but a special creature created by God that swallowed Jonah for His purposes.

  After three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, Jonah finally came to his senses and prayed in faith to the Lord.  His prayer was a psalm of thanksgiving that he composed with lines from a number of Davidic psalms (Jonah 2:2-9)[1].

  This suggests that Jonah knew the Davidic psalms, and perhaps even had them memorized, so that in times of trouble he could turn to the psalms for comfort, focus and encouragement.  He also understood the principle that Solomon stated in his dedicatory pray for the Temple.  In times of trouble, pray to the LORD in the Temple in Jerusalem (Jonah 2:4, 7; cf. 2 Chron. 6:20-21).

  The God of the Second Chance

  After the great fish vomited up Jonah on dry ground, God appeared to Jonah a second time (3:1).  He gave this wayward prophet a second chance to fulfill the commission that was given.

  Jonah obeyed this time but he still had an attitude.  He proclaimed the message that God gave him, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh will be overthrown!” (3:4). God was merciful to the inhabitants of Nineveh and He withheld His judgment from them because they believed God (put their trust in Him) and then turned from their wicked ways (3:5-10; cf. Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32).

  Jonah was extremely upset with God because he had prophesized that God was going to overthrow the city and he relished the thought of God nuking Nineveh.  When he complained to the Lord in prayer he said: “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was in my country?  Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm” (4:2).

  Jonah understood these truths because the Lord had proclaimed them in Exodus 34:6-7: “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation.”  The first four attributes of the God – mercy, grace, longsuffering and goodness – were used by Jonah in his prayer.  This suggests that Jonah knew the Torah as well and perhaps even had it memorized.  Yet he still had an attitude.  He was angry because he did not want God to be God and show unmerited love and mercy to the Gentile world.

  A Greater Than Jonah

  The Lord Jesus, when confronted by the scribes and Pharisees, was asked by them for a sign.  He responded: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here” (Matt. 12:38-41 // Luke 11:29-32).

  The sign of Jonah – three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish – was a prophetic picture of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.  For the Ninevites, their faith in God leads to their salvation.  Jesus, referring to Himself, said that a greater than Jonah was here because believers in the Lord Jesus, like the inhabitants of Nineveh, should have been judged by God for their sins and wickedness, but God demonstrated His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

  The Lord Jesus, unlike Jonah, had a different attitude toward the world around Him.  He saw His mission as seeking and saving that which was lost (Luke 19:10) and giving His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).  In Gethsemane He prayed three times, “Father, if it be Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done’” (Luke 22:42 // Matt. 26:39, 42, 44 // Mark 14:36).  This was in fulfillment of a Messianic passage in Psalm 40: “Then I [Messiah] said, ‘Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of Me.  I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within My heart’” (40:7-8; cf. Heb. 10:5-10).

  Lessons from the Life of Jonah

  There are at least four lessons we can learn from the life of Jonah.  First, knowing the Word of God and its doctrines, or even memorizing the Scriptures, does not make one spiritual, or Spirit-filled.  Jonah knew the Davidic psalms and also the Torah.  He also knew the doctrine of God’s chastening of His wayward children.  Yet he still had an attitude.  The believer in the Lord Jesus needs to humbly submit to the Spirit of God and let Him use the Word of God to work in the life of the believer.  We need a humble and contrite heart that will submit to the instructions of the Scriptures and be obedient to its commands (Heb. 4:12, 13; Ps. 119:11).

  Second, when we sin and God disciplines us, we need to be exercised by that discipline.  Jonah refused to be exercised by the chastening of the Lord while he was fast asleep in the ship.  God ratcheted up the chastisement by preparing the great fish.  That finally got Jonah’s attention and he began to be exercised by God’s discipline.  God chastens us in order to bring us back to His Word and Himself.  Let us learn these lessons quickly so God does not have to scourge us severely (Heb. 12:3-13).

  Third, Jonah had an exclusive view of missions.  He thought God only loved the children of Israel and was reluctant to go to the Gentiles.  This is in marked contrast to the Lord Jesus who said to Nicodemus: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).  James and John had the same spirit as Jonah.  When the Samaritans rejected the Lord Jesus they asked Him if they should call down fire from heaven just like Elijah did.  Jesus rebuked them by saying, “You do now know what manner of spirit you are of.  For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:51-56).  Christians should see the world the same way the Lord does: people heading to a Christ-less eternity.  Our hearts and lives should seek to win them to the Savior.  A contemporary song writer caught the essence of this heart’s desire:

  Looking Through His Eyes

   

  Let me see this world dear Lord as,

  though I were looking through Your eyes.

  A world of men who don’t want You Lord,

  but a world for which You died.

   

  Let me kneel with You in the garden,

  blur my eyes with tears of agony.

  For if once I could see this world,

  the way You see it, I just know I’d

  serve You more faithfully.

   

  Let me see this world dear Lord,

  through Your eyes when men mock

  Your holy Name.  When they beat You

  and spat upon You Lord, let me love

  them as You loved them just the same.

   

  Let me stand high above my petty

  problems and grieve for men Hell

  bound eternally.  For if once I could

  see this world the way you see it

  I just know I’d serve You more faithfully.

  -Mike Otto-

  Finally, when we gathered to worship the Lord Jesus, we do not come to remember our sins, nor our blessings (as many as they may be), nor do we remember Jonah; but rather, we gather to remember a “greater than Jonah” – the Lord Jesus Christ.  He was the One who, unlike Jonah, was obedient to the will of His Father.  He was the One who died for our sins and was in the heart of the earth for three days and nights, but rose triumphantly again from the dead.  We should contemplate, like Jonah did, the Lord’s mercy, grace, longsuffering and goodness because a greater than Jonah is in our midst (cf. Matt. 18:20).

  ---

  [1] The lines of this psalm are taken from Davidic psalms (D); psalms of the Sons of Korah (K); psalms of Asaph (A); and unattributed psalms (U).  Jonah 2:2a, cf. Psalm 3:4 (D); 120:1 (A); Jonah 2:2b, cf. Psalm 18:4, 5 (D); 30:3 (D); Jonah 2:3a, cf. Psalm 88:6, 7 (K); Jonah 2:3b, cf. Psalm 42:7 (K); Jonah 2:4a, cf. Psalm 31:22 (D); Jonah 2:4b, cf. Psalm 5:7 (D); Jonah 2:5a, cf. Psalm 69:1, 2 (D); Jonah 2:6b, cf. Psalm 49:15 (K); 56:13 (D);103:4 (D); Jonah 2:7a, cf. Psalm 107:5 (U); 142:3 (D); Jonah 2:7b, cf. Psalm 18:6 (D); Jonah 2:8a, cf. Psalm 31:6 (D); Jonah 2:9a, cf. Psalm 50:14, 23 (A); 69:30 (D); 107:22 (?); Jonah 2:9c, cf. Psalm 3:8 (D); 37:39 (D).

   
• 28Jan

  PSALM 27: Worship in the Midst of Warfare

  Studies in the Book of Psalms Comments Off on PSALM 27: Worship in the Midst of Warfare

  by Gordon Franz

  Introduction
   Have you ever been in a dangerous situation and wondered if you would ever get out of it alive?  God often uses danger and adversity in our lives to remind us of what is important and this gives us an opportunity to contemplate the shortness of life and focus our minds on what really matters: our desires and goals for this life in light of eternity.

  King Saul hounded David like a fox hunter; chased him as one hunts a gazelle; tracked him as if he was a common criminal; and made war on his son-in-law as if he was a threat to his kingdom.  David fled from Saul, not knowing his future fate, nor if his next step would be his last.  There was always the possibility that in his haste to flee from Saul, he would slip on a rock and fall in the treacherous terrain of the Judean Desert, or that Saul would have an ambush prepared for him in the Shephelah.

   What kept David going in this dangerous and difficult time?  What was his focus, and priorities in this life?  Psalm 27 recounts David’s supreme and sole heartfelt desire to worship the Lord even in the midst of warfare.

  Historical Background
   Some of the psalms of David have superscriptions that give the historical circumstances that prompted David to compose the psalm.  In Psalm 27 the superscription states “le-David” in Hebrew and is translated, “to or by David.”  The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, adds the words: “before he was anointed.”  If this addition is historically accurate (and I suspect that it is), the question is raised: “Which anointing?”  David was anointed on three separate occasions during his life.  The first time he was anointed was by Samuel in Bethlehem before the battle with Goliath in the Elah Valley (1 Sam. 16:13).  The second time was after the death of Saul when the men of Judah anointed David in Hebron (2 Sam. 2:4).  The final time was seven and a half years later when he was anointed king over all of Israel in Hebron by the elders of Israel (2 Sam. 2:11; 5:3).

   Most commentators that venture a historical setting for this psalm usually suggest it was composed during the rebellion of Absalom (Perowne 1976: 265).  Thus, the false witness against David (27:12) might have been the slander by Ahithopel (2 Sam. 16:1-21; cf. Ps. 55:4-6, 23), but this was after David was anointed all three times.  So most likely this is not the historical setting for the psalm.

   I suspect, however, David composed this psalm earlier in his life.  It had to be after his first anointing because we have no record of David engaged in military conflicts while he was a shepherd in the Wilderness of Judah.  Most likely it was during his flight from Saul and before he was anointed for the second and third time.   A possible setting could be in the cave at Adullam or the one at Ein Gedi.  David uses an interesting phrase in verse 5, “He [the LORD] will hide me in His pavilion.”  The Hebrew word translated pavilion is “sucah”.  The same word is used in Psalm 10, “He lies in wait secretly, as a lion in his den (sucah),” which is most likely a cave.

  After David fled the palace at Gibeah of Saul, he bid farewell to Jonathan and then headed for Nob (1 Sam. 21:1-9).  Most likely Nob is located at Ras el-Mesharif, althought it lacks pottery from the Davidic period (Barkay, Fantalkin and Tal 2002: 65-66).  There he got provisions (bread) for his flight and also the sword of Goliath.  Doeg the Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen, ratted on David to Saul (1 Sam. 22:9-10).  Saul summoned Ahimelech to his palace, a mere 2 ½ kilometers away (just over 1 ½ miles) and interrogated him and his family.  Saul accused them of being involved in a plot to overthrown him and to help place David on the throne of Israel.  They denied this accusation.  (David carefully worded his statements to Ahimelech so as not to let them know what his real intentions were.)  Saul ordered his men to slay Ahimelech and his family, but they refused.  Doeg the Edomite ended up carrying out this barbaric deed (1 Sam. 22:11-23), and the only priest to escape was Abiathar (22:20).  This incident lead David to compose Psalm 52 about the evil words and deed of Doeg.  The superscription of the psalm says: “To the Chief Musician.  A Contemplation of David when Doeg the Edomite went and told Saul, and said to him: ‘David has gone to the house of Abimelech.’”

  Psalm 52 may provide a clue to the time setting of Psalm 27.  There are distinct similarities in words and thoughts between the two psalms.  Psalm 52:1-4 describes the evil, lying tongue.  In Psalm 27, David mentions the false witnesses, presumably witnesses that lie with their tongues (27:12).  In 52:5 the wicked are removed from the land of the living; yet in 27:13 David anticipates the goodness of God in the land of the living.  In 52:7, the evil man did not make God his strength (maoz), yet David declares the LORD is his strength (27:1, 14).  David trusts in the mercy of God in Psalm 52:8, and in 27:7 he prays for God’s mercy.  In Psalm 52:9 David declares that he will praise the Lord forever.  In 27:6 he vows to sing praise to the Lord.  He concludes both psalms by saying he will wait upon the Lord (52:9; 27:14).  The mention of violence by the false witnesses (27:12) may be a hint of the slaughter of the priests and inhabitants of Nob by Doeg the Edomite (1 Sam. 22:18-19).  This was a barbaric crime that even Saul’s men would not do (1 Sam. 22:17).  David could have composed both psalms within a short period of time while his mind was thinking similar thoughts.

  Literary Structure
   Some commentators and critical scholars have suggested Psalm 27 was originally two psalms: 27:1-6 is seen as a psalm of confidence, while 27:7-14, is an individual lament psalm.  Some of the reasons for this suggestion is that in verses 1-6, the Lord is addressed in the third person (Lord, He); but in verses 7-14 He is addressed in the second person (You).  In the first section, we see the psalmist’s confidence, and the second, his prayer (Craigie 1983: 230).  But if we look at this psalm closely, these are two halves of the same psalm.  Both halves compliment each other and are linguistically related.  If we put them in chronological order, they would be reversed.  Verses 7-14 would come before verses 1-6.

  Theme
   The psalmist’s supreme and sole desire in life is to dwell in the house of the Lord in order to worship Him, behold His beauty, and meditate on His Word (27:4), yet he is battling enemies around him that prevents him from accomplishing his goal.  He expresses his confidence in the Lord that one day this goal would be attained.  Until that day, his desire for worship sustains him as he goes through conflicts in his daily life.  In other words: Worship in the midst of warfare.

  An Exposition of Psalm 27

  The psalmists desire for worship leads to confidence in the Lord during daily conflicts.  27:1-3

   The Apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost in AD 30, stated that David was a prophet (Acts 2:30).  He predicted the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus more than a millennia before it happened (Ps. 22; cf. Matt. 27:35-50; John 20:20), as well as His subsequent resurrection (Ps. 16; cf. Acts 2:25-33).  David had an understanding of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  How much he comprehended, we can only venture to guess (I Pet. 1:10-11).

  David describes the LORD three different ways in the first verse.  First, he says the LORD is “my light.”  In the Hebrew Scriptures, God is never called Light.  The closest it comes is the “Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings” (Mal. 4:2).  However, in the New Testament John the Baptizer, introduces Jesus as the Light.  The Apostle John records in his gospel: “In Him [the Word, the Lord Jesus] was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptizer].  This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.  He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.  That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world” (1:4-9).  The Apostle goes on to say that He came into the world, but His own did not receive Him.  But John holds out the promise: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name” (1:12).

  Jesus Himself said when He was in the Temple for the Feast of Succoth in AD 29, “I AM the Light of the World” (John 8:12; 9:5).  This statement was made in sharp contrast to the four large candelabras that lit the Jerusalem sky at night during this festive holiday.  During Passover of AD 30, Jesus said: “I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness” (12:46).  The Apostle John continues with the light theme in his first epistle.  He states: “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1:5; cf. 1 Tim. 6:16).

  The second way David describes the LORD is that He is “my salvation.”  The word salvation is “yeshua,” the Hebrew name of Jesus!  Recall the words of one of the angels of the Lord who appeared to Joseph in a dream.  “And she [Mary] will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

  The third description of the LORD by David is that he is the “strength of my life.”  The word strength (maoz) is often translated fortress or stronghold.  In Psalm 31:3, David describes the Lord as his Rock (zor) and Fortress (maoz).

   David also asks two rhetorical questions in this verse: “Whom shall I fear?” and “Of whom shall I be afraid?”  The obvious answer for David was no one because the LORD is his light, salvation, and fortress.  The only Person he was to fear was the Lord Himself.

   In verse 2, David demonstrated his confidence in the Lord by describing his enemies, and what they planned to do to him, but also what the Lord does to them.  The wicked (maraim) wanted to eat David’s flesh, like a lion or a leopard would do of the prey that was caught.  I’m sure David was using this in a metaphorical sense.  Saul was not a cannibal.  Yet a distressing spirit came upon him and Saul tried to kill David with a spear (1 Sam. 18:5-16; 19:1-24).  His enemies (zar) [Same word in use in verse 12] and foes (ayv) would eventually stumble and fall.  That was the case of King Saul when he finally realized David was more righteous than he was (1 Sam. 24:17-22).

   David makes a bold assertion of his confidence in the Lord by saying that even when an organized army came against him, he would not be afraid of them (27:3).  King Saul led his army against David and his band of men, chasing them throughout Judah.  Yet David was confident when he said, “In this (the Lord is my light, my salvation and the strength of my life) I will be confident.”  David was fearless in the face of danger because his desire for worship, even in the midst of warfare, lead him to a greater confidence in the Lord.

  The psalmists desire for worship leads to a more intense desire to have fellowship with the Lord.  27:4-6

  The Lord is omnipresent (everywhere present), but was also localized in one place at times in Biblical history (cf. 1 Kings 8:23, 27).  When the Children of Israel were redeemed out of Egypt, God led them by a pillar of clouds by day and a pillar of fire by night.  He resided in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.  When David fled from Saul, the Tent of Meeting was at Nob (1 Sam. 21:1-9), just 3 ½ kilometers to the north of the Jebusite city of Jebus / Salem.  Perhaps before he fled, while David was staying at King Saul’s palace at Gibeah of Saul he would make frequent visits to the Tabernacle at Nob, just a 20 minute walk from the palace.

  Hebrew worship was sensual: all five senses were involved in worship.  One could see the beauty of the Tabernacle and observe the sacrifices being offered.  One could hear the beautiful music sung by the Levites accompanied by harps and other musical instruments in praise to the Lord.  One could handle the sacrifices before they were given to the priest to be offered.  One could smell the sacrifices roasting on the altar.  One could taste the offerings after the sacrifices were “bar-b-qued.”  One could sing praises to the Lord with the mouth, or thank God for fulfilling a vow that was made.  On occasion, the feet were involved when the people danced before the Lord.  David made his contribution to Hebrew worship by composing songs that were later gathered together to comprise the Hebrew hymnbook, the book of Psalms, for worship in the Temple.

   This section begins by David saying, “One thing I have desired of the LORD, that will I seek” (27:4).  What will follow is David’s supreme, sole, and only desire in life.  It was his priority in life, it was everything he lived for, and it was the focus of his entire being.  He sought it because the Lord had earlier challenged him to “Seek My face” (27:8).  His supreme and sole desire was to dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of his life, a reference to the Tabernacle at Nob.  This is in contrast to the end of Psalm 23 when David wants to “dwell in the house of the LORD forever,” a reference to heaven.

   Two reasons are given as to why David wanted to dwell in the House of the LORD.  First, he wanted to behold the beauty of the Lord; and second to inquire in His Temple.

  When David visited the Tabernacle he was awestruck by its beauty because it was a reflection of the Person of the Lord Himself.  It was constructed of acacia wood overlaid with silver and gold.  It also contained finely woven tapestries with beautiful colors and designs.  Within the Tabernacle were vessels made of finely crafted gold.  All these things reflected the beauty of the Lord, as well as His ways in redemption.  Apparently the Glory of the Lord, the Sheikana Glory, was there as well.  The beauty of the Lord reflects the Person of the Lord.

   The second thing David wanted to do in the House of the Lord was to inquire of the Lord.  The word inquire has the idea of meditation on, or contemplation of, something.  This would be done with the Word of God.  While God’s revelation to humanity was not complete at this time, the priests at Nob would have had copies of the Torah with them, as well as the books of Job, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.  David would have been able to read the Word of God.  He could meditate on His ways and discern His will from the Scriptures that had already been written.

   In verse 5, the psalmist states that the Lord will protect him.  Three times David says that “He shall …” do something to protect him.  Twice “He shall hide”  David and once “He shall set him on a high rock.”  The Lord would hide him in His pavilion (sucah), a word that is used of a lions den, most likely a cave, possibly at Ein Gedi (Ps. 10:9; 1 Sam. 24:3).  The Lord would also hide him in the secret place of tabernacle (ohel).  The Lord also set David high upon a rock (zor).  I would like to suggest that this is a reference to Masada because after David and Saul depart at Ein Gedi, David went to the “stronghold”, a reference to the high plateau overlooking the Dead Sea (1 Sam. 24:22; Cf. Ps. 18:1-2; 28:1; 31:2; 89:26).

   During David’s flight from Saul, He made a vow to the Lord that when the Lord delivered him he would go to the Tabernacle and offer thanksgiving offerings to the Lord and publically thank Him for the deliverance (27:6; Num. 10:10).  When God answered his prayers, and the warfare had ceased, David offered his vows to the Lord as he worshiped.

  A more focused prayer life leads the psalmists to an intense desire for worship.  27:7-12

   This section (27:7-12) seems to be a reflection on some past experience that prompted David to seek the Lord and to fulfill his desire to worship the Lord in the midst of warfare.  What the historical circumstances were, we are not told.  Chronologically, this section would come before verses 1-6.

   The psalmist begins this section by pleading, “Hear, O Lord, when I cry with my voice!” (27:7).  The word “hear” is the Hebrew word shema.  The same word that is used in Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel:  The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”  David pleaded to the Lord for His mercy in answering his prayer for deliverance from his enemies.

   God responds to David’s request by saying, “Seek My face” (27:8).  Whether this was an audible request, or the still small voice, or something David had read, we are not told. But David got the message and knew the Lord was right.  He responded, “Your face, LORD, I will seek.”  David knew God’s presence was in the Tabernacle, so he sought the Lord there. 

   
   David pleads for mercy and petitions the Lord not to do three things (27:9).  The first is: “Do not hide Your face from me.”  The word hide is the same word used in 27:5, “He shall hide me [in His Tabernacle].”  When God hides His face, He removes His blessings from a believer (cf. Psalm 22:24; 30:7; 143:7).

   The second petition is “Do not turn your servant away in anger.”  David reminds the Lord that He has been his help.

   The third petition that David prays is for the Lord not to leave him nor forsake him (27:9).  In verse 14, David was aware of the “Be strong and of good courage” phrase from Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 1.  Within these verses, Moses wrote “He [the Lord] will not leave you nor forsake you” (31:6, 8).  The LORD also promised Joshua, “I will not leave you nor forsake you” (1:5).  Of course, every AWANA clubber in Sparks knows Hebrews 13:5, quoting Joshua 1:5: “For He Himself has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’”  David addresses this petition to “O God of my salvation.”  David began this psalm by saying: “The LORD is my light and my salvation” (27:1)!

   When David fled from Saul, he took his parents to Moab and left them there with distant relatives, descendants of Ruth (1 Sam. 22:3-4).  His parents did not forsake him, but rather waited for David to return to get them.  David’s statement “When my father and mother forsake me” should be taken as a hypothetical construction, such as “Even if my father and mother forsake me.”  If that ever happened, the Lord in His infinite love would take up David as a loving father lifts up his child in order to take care of him (27:10).

   The second part of this stanza is a prayer for God to teach David His ways, or guidance (27:11-12).  This prayer was answered in David’s desire to inquire of the Lord in His temple, which is the second reason David wanted to dwell in the Tabernacle (27:4).  He goes on to pray, “Lead me in the smooth path, because of my enemies.”  The smooth path is the level road.  When travelling in the Hill Country and Wilderness of Judah, the easiest, most convenient lines of communication are the ridge routes.  If David went into the valleys his enemies could attack him from above.

  The next prayer was for victory over his enemies.  “Do not deliver me to the will of my adversaries.”  The word “adversaries” in this verse is the same as enemies in verse 2.  As mentioned before, the reference to the violence by the false witnesses (27:12) may be a hint of the slaughter of the priests and inhabitants of Nob by Doeg the Edomite (1 Sam. 22:18-19).  David would have been saddened by this event because this was the place for him to worship, even in the midst of warfare.

  The psalmists desire for worship leads to patience as he waits on the Lord to answer prayers.  27:13-14

   The words “I would have lost heart” (NKJV) is in italics which means it was added by the translators.    The idea that the translators were trying to convey is “I can not even think about this possibility.”  So sure was his confidence, or trust, in the Lord that He would deliver him from the life-threatening situation that he found himself in.

   David was anticipating the goodness of God in the land of the living.  In this passage, the “land of the living” is not referring to the “pie in the sky, sweet bye-and-bye” – heaven – but rather to his deliverance in the nasty here and now – life on earth!  His attitude was not one of cockiness, but rather of confidence in the Lord as seen in the beginning of this psalm.  There is a difference between these two attitudes.

   David concludes this psalm by twice admonishing his hearers to “wait on the LORD!” (27:14). While they were waiting, they were to be of good courage so that the Lord would strengthen their hearts.  Courage and strength are linked together in other contexts, as well.  Just before the Children of Israel entered the Promised Land, Moses, in his farewell address, instructs them to be strong and courageous as they battled for the Land (Deut. 31:6).  He then commanded General Joshua, “Be strong and of good courage” (Deut. 31:7, 23).  Just before the Israelites crossed the Jordan River to enter the Promised Land, the LORD commanded General Joshua three times to be strong and courageous (Josh. 1:6, 7, 9).  The Israelites also commanded General Joshua to be strong and of good courage as he led them into the Land (1:18).  Later, during the Shephelah Campaign, Joshua admonishes the Israelites to be strong and of good courage (10:25).  Each time the admonition was given, it was in a military context.  David took this phrase and applied it to the military conflict that he was involved in when he composed this psalm.  David also used the phrase to encourage his son, Solomon, to build the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 22:13; 28:20).

   When Sennacherib, the king of the Assyrians, entered the Land of Judah he threatened Jerusalem with total destruction.  King Hezekiah made military preparations for the upcoming battle and encouraged his army by saying, “Be strong and of good courage” (2 Chron. 32:7).  He applied the words of the Lord, Moses, Joshua and David to the desperate military situation that Judah was facing, but his confidence was ultimately in the Lord (32:8).

   In this psalm, David’s confidence was in the Lord, and he rested in His sovereignty, knowing that the LORD was his light, salvation, and the strength (fortress) of his life.  So he could, wait – be of good courage – and strengthen his heart, knowing that God would answer his prayer to worship Him even in the midst of warfare.

  Application
   There are several applications we can draw from this psalm for our daily life.  First, the LORD is my salvation.  David realized he could not save himself, both in a spiritual sense as well as a physical/political sense.  He could only depend upon the Lord for his salvation.

   The same is true of each and every one of us.  We have a problem called sin (Rom. 3:23).  In order for us to enter Heaven and have fellowship with a holy God, we must be as perfect as God (Rev. 21:7).  None of us are.  That is why the Lord Jesus came to earth and lived a perfect life, never sinning once because He was sinless.  When He died upon the Cross, He paid for all our sins (1 John 2:2) and offers us His perfection and His righteousness, if we would trust Him as our Savior (Phil. 3:9; Rom. 4:1-5; Eph. 2:8-9).  Like David, we can truly say, “The LORD is my salvation” because, by faith alone in Christ alone, He paid for all my sins, gives me His righteousness, the forgiveness of sins, and a home in Heaven.

  Second, we have confidence in the Lord in our daily struggles when we know who He is and what He has done for us.  David’s prayer to the Lord was “Teach me Your ways, O LORD.”  The way to know the ways of God is revealed in His final revelation, the Bible.  David had to go to the Tabernacle in Nob to read the Word of God, but we just need to go to our bookshelf and pull down a copy of God’s Word.  It is imperative that we know our Bibles, and that can only be accomplished by studying and memorizing it.

  Finally, we need to develop a heart for worship like David had.  His desire was to behold the beauty of the Lord in His Tabernacle.  This is the one application that I would like to focus on.  Most of us will not find ourselves in harms way in a military conflict such as David experienced.  For those believers in the Lord Jesus who are in the military and serving overseas, they could relate to David’s personal experience and emotional feelings better than most of us.  However, the Apostle Paul says of Christians, that we are engaged in a spiritual warfare.  “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).  Thus, he encourages the Christian to put on the whole armor of God and engage in this spiritual warfare in the power of the Lord’s might (6:10-20).

  While we are engaged in this spiritual warfare, this psalm asks one question of us.  Do we have the single minded and focused desire that David had to worship the LORD and to meditate on His Word as we are engaged in this spiritual warfare?  David’s sole desire was to dwell in the Lord’s Tabernacle so he could behold His beauty, and to contemplate Him.  But today we do not have a Tabernacle to go to, but instead, a Table (1 Cor. 10:21).

  On the night in which the Lord Jesus was betrayed, He instituted the Lord’s Supper and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  And again, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.  This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:24, 25).  The command given by the Lord Jesus was to remember Him when we gather to worship.

  When we gather corporately to worship the Lord and remember His Son we do not come to remember our sins, but rather, the Savior of sinners.  We do not come to remember and recount our blessings for that week, as many as they may be, but rather to remember the Blesser Himself – the One who has already blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (Eph. 1:3).  We do not come together to remember the dumb sheep that we are, but rather the Good Shepherd who gave His life for the sheep (John 10:7-18).  Nor do we come together to remember the Bride of Christ, but rather the Bridegroom.  As the hymn writer so eloquently and profoundly wrote:

  “The Bride eyes not her garment, but her dear Bridegroom’s face;
  I will not gaze at glory, but on my King of Grace.
  Not at the crown He giveth, but on His pierced hand;
  The Lamb is all the glory of Immanuel’s land.”

  We come together to remember the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36); the Bread of Life who came down from Heaven (John 6:22-59); the Light of the Word who shines in darkness (John 1:7-9; 8:12); the Prince of Peace who brings peace with God to sinful humanity by faith alone in Christ alone; and the peace of God to His children who walk by faith and not by sight (Isa. 9:6; Rom. 5:1; Phil. 4:7).  We remember the Bright and Morning Star who shines in our hearts (Rev. 22:16); and the Son of Righteousness with healing in His wings (Mal. 4:2).

  The subject of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is inexhaustible in God’s Holy Word (for a limited, yet excellent attempt, see Lockyer 1975:93-280).  This gives us unlimited facets of the Person of the Lord Jesus to focus on at the Lord’s Supper.  The worship service is not about us; it’s about Him!  That was David’s supreme heart’s desire and should be ours as well, even in the midst of spiritual warfare.

  Bibliography

  Alexander, Joseph A.
  1975 The Psalms.  Translated and Explained.  Grand Rapids. MI: Baker Books.

  Barkay, Gabriel; Fantalkin, Alexander; and Tal, Oren
  2002 A Late iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem.  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 328: 49-71.

  Cohen, A.
   1974 The Psalms.  New York: Soncino.

  Craigie, Peter
   1983 Word Biblical Commentary.  Psalm 1-50.  Waco, TX: Word.

  Dahood, Mitchell
   1986 The Anchor Bible.  Psalms I.  1-50.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

  Delitzsch, F.
  1975 Psalms.  Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament.  Vol. 5.  Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

  Gaebelein, Arno
  1963 The Book of Psalms.  A Devotional and Prophetic Commentary.  Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers.

  Kidner, Derek
   1973 Psalms 1-72.  Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity.

  Kissane, Edward
   1963 The Book of Psalms.  Vol. 1.  Dublin: Browne and Nolan.

  Lewis, C. S.
  1958 “The Fair Beauty of the Lord.”  Pp. 44-53 in Reflections on the Psalms.  London: Geoffrey Bles.

  Lockyer, Herbert
  1975 All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

  Paul, Shalom
  1982 Psalm 27:10 and the Babylonian Theodicy.  Vetus Testamentum 32: 489-492.

  Perowne, J. J. Stewart
   1976 The Book of Psalms.  Vol. 1.  Gramd Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

  Tesh, S. Edward; and Zorn, Walter
  1999 The College Press NIV Commentary.  Psalms.  Vol. 1.  Joplin, MO: College Press.

  VanGemeren, William
  1991 The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.  Psalms – Song of Songs.  Vol. 5.  Edited by F. Gaebelein.  Gand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

  Wilson, Gerald
  2002 The NIV Application Commentary.  Psalms.  Vol. 1.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

   

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »