Life and Land

Meta:

19Jan

THE RESURRECTION OF THE JERUSALEM SAINTS AT THE FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS (Matthew 27:51-54)

The Life and Land of the Lord Jesus, Uncategorized Comments Off on THE RESURRECTION OF THE JERUSALEM SAINTS AT THE FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS (Matthew 27:51-54)

by Gordon Franz

Introduction
In my younger days in Jerusalem, I enjoyed exploring the ancient burial caves throughout the city. I also had the privilege of working with, and learning from, Dr. Gabriel Barkay. In my estimation, he is the world’s expert on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem. Among other things, we surveyed together a number of burial caves in and around Jerusalem, mostly of the Iron Age (the period of the Judean Monarchy), and even excavated a handful of them. The most important caves were at Ketef Hinnom (the “Shoulder of Hinnom”), below the St. Andrew’s Scottish Church, on the edge of the Hinnom Valley. This is where the two oldest Biblical texts found to date were discovered (Franz 2005).

In my studies of the funerary practices and burials in Jerusalem, one passage of Scripture especially interested me as I visited ancient tombs in Jerusalem. It is Matt. 27:51-54: “Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’!”

I would like to examine this passage in light of what we know of Jewish burial practices in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, and then ask two questions, “What happened to these resurrected saints?” “What is the prophetic significance of the veil of the Temple being torn in two from top to bottom and the saints being resurrected?”

Second Temple Burial Practices
A Jewish person who died in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was usually buried before sundown, or at least within 24 hours of death. The body was taken to the family’s rock-cut tomb where it was washed and wrapped in burial shrouds and placed in a burial niche called a kok (kokim plural) that was in the tomb, or on a bench in the tomb called an arcosolia. The body was left to decay.

The family would return to their home and have a seven day period of intense mourning called shiva. They would turn over the bed of the dead person, smash any pottery vessels that were in the house because they were ritually defiled by the dead, and the men would not shave for the week. The extended family and friends would visit and consol the bereaved family on the loss of their loved one. After the week was over, the immediate family had a less intense period of mourning for thirty days, called sholshim. On the one year anniversary of the death of the individual, the family returned to the burial cave and gathered the bones of the dead, anointed them with olive oil and wine, and then placed them in a bone box called an ossuary. The ossuary was then placed elsewhere in the tomb.

The rock-cut tombs where the dead were buried were located outside the city walls of Jerusalem. More than a thousand burial caves from the Second Temple period have been surveyed and / or excavated in the area of Jerusalem. Archaeologists have determined that these tombs are located within three rings, or circles, surrounding the city (Kloner and Zissu 2007). The inner circle consisted of tombs in the Hinnom Valley to the west and south of the city and the Kidron Valley and the range of the Mount of Olives to the east of the city. The middle ring included the Valley of Rephaim and the back side of the Mount of Olives. The outer ring consisted of tombs that were 4 or 5 miles away from Jerusalem, but still within Jerusalem’s environs. It was from these tombs that the resurrected saints came forth.

The Gospel of Matthew and the Resurrection of the Saints
The gospel of Matthew the only gospel to record the account of the opening of the tombs and the saints being resurrected.

Matthew, also called Levi, was a scribe and a tax collector (Mark 2:14; 3:18; Matt. 9:9; 10:3). He was also the author of the gospel that bears his name. This book was written primarily to the Jewish people to demonstrate that the Lord Jesus was the fulfillment of all that the Hebrew prophets wrote about, and spoke, concerning their Messiah, the Son of God. The key word that is used over and over in the book is the word “fulfilled.” Usually, “that which was fulfilled that was spoken by the prophets, or written by the prophets.” Verses of the Hebrew Scriptures are quoted over and over again in this gospel. Matthew assumes his readers have a Jewish mindset, that they know the Torah, and they are familiar with rabbinic theology, and therefore does not explain some things. Christian readers need to know this material as well, in order to fully appreciate the words of this gospel because it is a Jewish book.

It should be observed that the resurrection of the Hebrew saints occurred when Jesus rose from the dead. Chronologically, that would have occurred by Sunday morning. What was going on in Jerusalem on Sunday morning of Passover week? For this we need to turn to the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Omer of the Firstfruits of the Barley Harvest
The LORD has a divinely ordained agriculture / religious calendar that began in the month   of Aviv, also known as Nisan. Moses, being a prophet (Deut. 18:15), wrote of this divinely given calendar in what is known as the “Feasts of the LORD” found in Leviticus 23. This calendar could also be seen as God’s prophetic program of redemption for individuals as well as nationally, for all Israel. The Sunday morning after the Shabbat that followed the Passover was the harvesting of the omer of the first fruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9-14).

Concerning this harvest, Moses wrote: “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: “When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf [omer] of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. [the barley harvest is in view, the wheat harvest is not for almost two months]. He shall wave the sheaf [omer] before the LORD, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the sheaf [omer] a male lamb of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the LORD. Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the LORD, for a sweet aroma; and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin. You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.”

There was a debate in the First century BC and early First century AD between the Pharisees and the Sadducees concerning the timing of this event. The Sadducees, rejecting the oral law and traditions of the Pharisees, understood the phrase in verse 11, “the morrow after the Sabbath”, in a literal sense, i.e. the day following the first Shabbat after the Passover (Sunday morning). The Pharisees, on the other hand, understood Shabbat in verse 11 as being a Festival Day, the first Day of Passover (Danby 1985:506, footnote 1). In AD 30, the year that the Lord Jesus was crucified, the Pharisees would have gathered the omer on Friday night after sundown. I suspect that there were two separate events that year. The Pharisees would have conducted their gathering of the omer on Friday night and the Sadducees would have gathered their omer on Sunday morning. The Mishnah, the rabbinic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, devotes one chapter of Tractate Menahoth to the gathering of the omer in the fields and its processing in the Temple (Danby 1985:505-507).

The Lord gave Moses the instructions concerning the Feasts of the LORD. These feasts had an agricultural and religious purpose to teach the people to trust the Lord, and Him only, in their daily lives throughout the year. But they also had a prophetic purpose concerning God’s program of redemption. The first two feasts are Passover (Pasach) and Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4-8).

The Apostle Paul referenced Passover and Unleavened Bread in a discussion on church issues, saying: “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:7-8). Also the Apostle Peter alludes to the Passover Lamb when he describes the redemption purchased by the Lord Jesus as being “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Ex. 12:5; Lev. 22:18-20). This is the Lamb that John the Baptizer pointed to when he saw the Lord Jesus coming toward him at Bethany beyond the Jordan when he said: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). The Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

But what of the omer (sheaf) of the first fruits of the barley harvest? The Apostle Paul gives us a hint as to its meaning when he wrote to the Church at Corinth about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. He stated: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep” and he went on to say, “But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterwards those who are Christ’s at His coming” (1 Cor. 15:20, 23).

Let us use our sanctified imaginations for a minute. Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon; Saturday was Shabbat, a day of rest. Most people in Jerusalem probably stayed home that day and reflected on the monumental events that transpired that week in Jerusalem. On the first day of the week, Sunday morning, there was a group of women who went out the Gennath Gate (Garden Gate) to the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea in order to anoint the body of Jesus.

There were also other groups of people leaving the city of Jerusalem early that morning as well. These people followed the Sadducean tradition concerning the cutting of the omer of barley. They were heading toward the barley fields in the Valley of Rephaim, just to the west of Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 17:5). Can you imagine them leaving the gates of the city with sickle in hand and baskets on their shoulders, and having a festive attitude as they went forth to harvest the omer? As they walked on the paths to the barley fields, they saw some people approaching them, heading toward the Holy City. One was their previously dead Uncle Eliyahu, another was Grandpa Akiva, as well as cousins Yonah, Elisheva and Batya, all dressed in tattered burial shrouds! Imagine their shock. “Hey, Gramp, what are you doing here? We buried you twenty years ago!” And the same question was asked of the others also. This was an experience that went against their theology because the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body (Acts 23:8)!

In 1973 there was a Jewish burial cave that was excavated on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem. It consisted of seven kokhim with five articulated skeletons and nine ossuaries in them (Rahmani 1980:49-54). On the lid of ossuary no. 2 there was an Aramaic inscription that was translated by Prof. Frank Moore Cross as followed: “No man can go up (from the grave), nor (can) ‘El’azar or Sappirah.” Cross attributed the denial of the resurrection to either Hellenized Jews or Sadducees (1983:245-246).

What Happened to these Resurrected Saints?
There are three possibilities as to what happened to these resurrected saints. First, they are still alive today. I have lived in Jerusalem, on and off, for more than thirty years. I’ve met a lot of people in that city. I even met some people who thought they were Jesus, or Elijah, or John the Baptist, but I have never met anybody that was 2,000 years old. So I think we can safely assume that they are not alive today.

The second possibility is that they died again. We have no Scriptural warrant for this claim, nor are there any Jewish or Church traditions that states they died again. So I think we can dismiss this idea.

The third possibility, and the one I believe is correct, is that they ascended into Heaven with the Lord Jesus forty days after His, and their, resurrection (Cambron 1973:57, 146-147, 334). Let’s examine the account of the ascension of the Lord Jesus to Heaven. After the Lord Jesus gives another commission to His disciples for world evangelism (Acts 1:8), Luke records: “Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:9-11).

There are several things to notice in this passage. First, “a cloud” received Him out of their sight. Most commentators would state that when Jesus ascended, He disappeared into a cloud, a vaporous mass. But Dr. Luke may be using this word in another way. When the Apostle Paul describes the return of the Lord Jesus in the air for His saints, what has been called the Rapture of the Church, he states: “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). It is important to note that in the Greek text, there is no definite article before “clouds.” So the text should state that the living saints shall be caught up “in clouds” to meet the Lord Jesus in the air. At the Rapture there would be a cloud of saints over North America, a cloud over Europe, a cloud over South America, Asia and Africa.

I believe that Dr. Luke is using the words “cloud” in this manner, as a collection of saints. Thus, the cloud that received the Lord Jesus above the Mount of Olives was a cloud of the saints that were resurrected in Jerusalem when the Lord Jesus was resurrected. This was the first fruits of a greater harvest to come and the prophetic point of the Feast of the LORD. The Israelites were to bring the first fruits of the barley harvest to the Temple and the priest would wave the omer (sheaf) before the LORD and acknowledge His provision for the harvest and trust Him for the full harvest in the months to come. In the prophetic analogy, the priest would not wave one stalk [Jesus] before the LORD, but rather, a sheaf [Jesus and the Jerusalem saints that were resurrected at the same time that He was]. Thus, this fulfilled the prophetic aspect of the Feast of Firstfruits and what Paul wrote, “Christ, risen from the dead, has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

Notice also the words of the two men in white apparel, most likely angelic beings. They said: “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into Heaven.” When the Lord Jesus returns to earth with His saints at His revelation as the King of kings, and Lord of lords, the Apostle John states that “He is coming with clouds [of saints], and every eye shall see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen” (Rev. 1:9; cf. Rev. 19:11-16).

The prophet Zechariah predicted that the Messiah would return to the Mount of Olives with all His saints (Zech. 14:4-5). The words of the two angels were that the Lord Jesus would return the same way He left. He will one day visibly return to the Mount of Olive with His saints. If he returns with saints, then He must have left with saints as well! The saints that He left with were those resurrected from the graves around Jerusalem at His resurrection, but one day He will return to earth with more than just these resurrected Jerusalem saints. He will have all His Church saints, those who have trusted Him as their Savior, from Pentecost to the Rapture, with Him as well (cf. John 5:25-29).

The Significance of the Rent Veil and the Raised Saints
Remember those Sadducean Jerusalemites who were amazed at seeing their resurrected relatives? They were perplexed about what was going on. The last question that needs to be addressed: “What is the significance of the veil of the Temple being torn in two and the saints being resurrected?” In order to answer this question, the larger context of the crucifixion in Matthew’s gospel needs to be examined (Senior 1976; Witherup 1987). In verses 39-44, there are two groups of people that mock the Lord Jesus because of His claim to be the Son of God.

“And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, ‘You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God come down from the cross’” (27:39-40).

This first group of people invoked the testimony of the false witnesses at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. The false witnesses said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days’” (Matt. 26:61). They misconstrued the words of the Lord Jesus because He was speaking of the temple of his body (John 2:19-21). Nevertheless, the high priest put Jesus under oath and said, “Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus acknowledged, “It is as you said” (Matt. 26:63-64). The people in the first group used satanically inspired words when they said, “If You are the Son of God.” These are the same words Satan used when he tested the Lord Jesus from the pinnacle of the Temple (Matt. 4:6).

The second group of people, the chief priests, scribes and elders, mocked Him. They said: “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (27:42-43).

This second group, predominately Sadducean, mocked His claim to be the Son of God. They also invoked Psalm 22:8: “He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him.” Unwittingly, and possibly, unknowingly, they fulfilled the words of verse 7 as well, “All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lips, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted in the LORD.’”

With the death of Christ, the tables are turned on the mockers. God the Father had said of His Son at His baptism, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). And again at the Transfiguration, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him” (Matt. 17:5).

The Lord Jesus was suspended between Heaven and earth while there was darkness over the face of the earth for three hours. At the ninth hour, He cried out with a loud voice, in Hebrew, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Ps. 22:1). This was the opening lines of Psalm 22, the same psalm the chief priests, scribes and elders invoked. Now the Lord Jesus invokes it.

A Jewish person in the Second Temple period would have most, if not all, of the psalms memorized. When this passage was read in Matthew’s gospel, the answer to that question was obvious. Psalm 22:3 states, “But You are holy!” Because of the holiness of God, the Father could not look upon His Son as He became sin for us, and took all the sins of all humanity upon Himself (II Cor. 5:21; I John 2:2), so darkness covered the earth. Matthew records that: “Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit” (27:50). John reveals those words: “It is finished!” (19:30). After paying the full price for all sin, the Lord Jesus voluntarily gave up His life (John 10:11-18).

In a Jewish court of law, a fact is established by two or more witnesses (Deut. 17:6-7; 19:15). God the Father gave two signs to the nation of Israel in order to vindicate His Son. The first, at His death, the veil of the Temple was torn from top to bottom. Only God could do this, thus it was a divine sign. The message of the torn veil was two-fold. The negative aspect was that God was finished with the corrupt priesthood, mostly controlled by the Sadducees. But on the positive side, it showed that all sin had been paid for and there was no more need for sacrifices because the way to God was open to all, both Jews and Gentiles. This message was not lost on the centurion and his men who were guarding the tomb of Jesus. They saw all that transpired – the darkness and the earthquake – and feared greatly. The centurion said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (27:54).

This was the beginning of the fulfillment of Psalm 22:27-28: “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD’s, and He rules over the nations.” It also affirms the creed that the Apostle Paul began the book of Romans with: “Concerning His Son, who was born of the Seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:3-4).

Matthew recorded the Gentiles expression of faith in the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. This was to provoke Israel to jealousy (cf. Rom. 11:11-14). Interestingly, a few years later, Dr. Luke recorded that “a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Had they thought through the theological implications of the veil being rent?

The second sign, at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, was that many saints from Jerusalem were raised from the dead. This showed the Sadducees that there was a bodily resurrection. Perhaps their minds would go to the prophet Ezekiel and his vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37:1-14). The Lord prophesied through Ezekiel that these dry bones were the whole House of Israel (37:11), and said of them: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the Land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it” (37:12-14).

The Jerusalem saints that were raised were just the firstfruits of a greater harvest / resurrection to come. Ezekiel described the resurrection of those in the House of Israel who died outside the Land of Israel (contra Grassi 1964-1965). At the end of days, those outside the Land of Israel will be resurrected and brought back to Jerusalem.

Applications for Us
There are at least three applications for us today. First, even though people mock the Lord Jesus Christ and deny He is the Son of God, God has already vindicated His Person and work. This was done by rending the veil from top to bottom to show the mockers their words are empty. It also showed that the Lord Jesus had paid for all sin and the way to God was open to any and all who would put their trust in Him.

This leads to the second application that is seen in the rent veil. Now the way into the Holy of Holies is open because of the death of Christ. He offers the free gift of salvation, a home in heaven, the forgiveness of sins, and Christ’s righteousness, to any and all, both Jew and Gentile, who would put their trust in Him as their Savior. Have you trusted the Lord Jesus to forgive all your sins?

The final application is seen in the resurrection of the saints from Jerusalem. This gives every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ the assurance that one day there will be a resurrection and believers in the Lord Jesus will live eternally with Him. These Jerusalemite saints were the first fruits and guarantees that there will be a greater resurrection to follow. For those who have trusted Christ, there is no fear of death. One day we will either be taken in the Rapture, or raised from the dead if we have already died.

Bibliography

Abodah Zarah
1982   The Talmud of the Land of Israel. Vol. 33. Trans. by J. Neusner. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Cambron, Mark
1973   The New Testament. A Book-By-Book Survey. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Cross, Frank M.
1983   A Note on a Burial Inscription from Mount Scopus. Israel Exploration Journal 33/3-4: 245-246.

Danby, Herbert
1985   The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University.

Franz, Gordon
2005   “Remember, Archaeology is NOT a Treasure Hunt!” Bible and Spade 18/2: 53-59.

Grassi, J. A.
1964-1965   Ezekiel 37:1-14 and the New Testament. New Testament Studies 11:162-164.

Kloner, Amos; and Zissu, B.
2007   The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Leuven: Peeters.

Rahmani, Levi
1980   A Jewish Rock-cut Tomb on Mt. Scopus. ‘Atiqot 14: 49-54.

Senior, Donald
1976   The Death of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Holy Ones (Mt 27:51-53. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38: 312-329.

Witherup, Ronald D.
1987   The Death of Jesus and the Raising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51-54 in Context. Pp. 574-585 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1987. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
18Dec

The Ultimate Sign, Isaiah 7

Messianic Passages Comments Off on The Ultimate Sign, Isaiah 7
By Gordon Franz

Introduction

As we go through life, sometimes we experience distressing times. We may lose our job, have a financial set back, have marital problems, or our health might deteriorate. During these times of distress, the believer in the Lord Jesus needs to examine his/her own life and ask these questions: Is this problem in my life self-inflicted? Are my sins the reason for this trouble? If so, what will I do about it? Can I rely on the promises of God? Finally, what lessons can I learn from this experience?

In the Eighth Century BC there was a king of Judah named Ahaz. He had heard about a planned coup d’etat by two other kings that wanted to overthrow him and replace him with a puppet king. Ahaz was a believer in the Lord but was living in sin, sadly it was gross sin. He had an arrogant spiritual attitude because he thought he was indispensable to the plan, program, and purposes of God. In his thinking, God needed him more than he needed to walk with God and let Him work in his life. That is a dangerous attitude to have, especially when you are dealing with the Living God.

In Isaiah chapter 7, God demonstrates His faithfulness to a promise that He made with King David concerning the Davidic dynasty by giving the ultimate sign to the House of David. The sign would be a virgin born Son named Immanuel, God with us. As we examine this passage carefully, we will see from the historical context that Matthew is not taking verse 14 out of context in order to “proof-text” the virgin birth of Jesus (1:22, 23). Moreover, the context is clearly pointing to the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus as the fulfillment of this passage in Isaiah 7. The Lord Jesus Christ is the sinless Immanuel and God manifest in human flesh.

Historical Background

The events of the reign of King Ahaz are recorded in II Kings 16 and II Chronicles 28. The summary statement of his spiritual walk with the Lord is very alarming. It states: “and he did not do what was right in the sight of the LORD, as his father David had done. For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made molded images for the Baals. He burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree” (II Chron. 28:1b-4). Yet apparently he had trusted the Lord at one time in his life for his eternal salvation. The Bible seems to indicate that he had a relationship with God (not a great one, but a relationship none the less). In II Kings 16:2 it says he did not walk in the sight of the LORD his God. II Chronicles 28:5 says that “the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria.” Even the LORD Himself said to Ahaz, “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God” (Isa. 7:11). Yahweh was his God, yet Ahaz was terribly unfaithful to Him (II Chron. 28:22). King Ahaz is not a person we should hold up as a role model, except as a warning to those believers in the Lord Jesus who are unfaithful to the Lord and have gotten away from Him (I Cor. 10:6).

The event and conversations recorded in Isaiah 7 took place in the year 734/733 BC. It was a time when Ahaz was having problems with his neighbors to the north. Israel, with its capital in Samaria and ruled by Pekah, and Syria, with its capital in Damascus and ruled by Rezin, wanted Ahaz to join a coalition of nations to fight against the “super power” of the day, Assyria, ruled by Tiglath-Pileser III. Ahaz was not a godly or spiritual man, but he was politically smart. He knew that the coalition could not stand up against the mighty Assyrian army, so he declined the invitation. This brought about the second Syro-Ephraimite incursion against Judah. Syria and Ephraim joined forces again to try and overthrow King Ahaz.

In order to get Judah to join the coalition, Pekah and Rezin hatched a plot to overthrow Ahaz and put a “puppet king” on the throne that would bring Judah into the coalition. To back up their conspiracy, Syria deployed troops in Samaria. Ahaz got wind of this plot and began to “shake in his boots.” He started to make secret overtures to the Assyrian king to get Pekah and Rezin off his back (II Kings 16:7, 8). His trust was in Tiglath-Pileser III and not the LORD.

In this chapter, Isaiah reminded Ahaz that God had made a covenant with David and promised him that a Davidic ruler would one day sit upon the throne of David forever (II Sam. 7:12-17).

The Distress in the House of David because of Rezin and Pekah – 7:1, 2

The first two verses give us the historical setting for this chapter. The events recorded take place in the “days of King Ahaz of Judah.” It was during this time that Rezin, the Syrian king whose throne was in Damascus brought his army up to Ephraim because he had an alliance with Pekah, the king of Israel. In verse one, the verb “went up” (to Jerusalem) is singular and seems to indicate that Rezin was the instigator of the plot to overthrow Ahaz and he was dragging Pekah along with him as his co-conspirator (7:1; cf. 10:27-32).

A few years earlier, Ephraim and Damascus had invaded Judah and killed 120,000 Judean soldiers in one day because the Judeans had forsaken the LORD. Also, 200,000 women and children were taken captives to Samaria, but were later released at the urging of the prophet Oded (II Chron. 28:5-15).

Their main objective, however, was not met, so they prepared a second incursion against Judah in which to overthrow King Ahaz. Judean intelligence was aware of the Syrian troop movements and informed the House of David: “Syria’s forces are deployed in Ephraim.” This was not good news for Ahaz. He, like all the rest of Judah, was “shaking in his boots” (to use an American slang). The Judean equivalent was used by Isaiah: “The heart(s) of his [Ahaz] people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind” (7:2). One of the members of the House of David was a young teen-age boy named Hezekiah. At this time, he was probably 15 years old. As this chapter unfolds, we will see that he was the primary recipient of one of the most astounding prophecies given to the nation of Judah.

The Planned Destruction of the House of David by Rezin and Pekah – 7:3-9

The Judean intelligence service was aware of the troop movements in the north, but God’s intelligence service would reveal the true intentions of the kings of Syria and Israel.

The LORD instructed Isaiah and his son, Shear-Yashuv, to meet Ahaz at the “end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s field”¹ (7:3). Ahaz was probably there because he was checking out the water system to see if any damage had been done when the city was first besieged by the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy (II Kings 16:5).

God instructed Isaiah to take his son because they were a sign to Israel and Judah (Isa. 8:18). The name Shear-Yashuv means “A remnant shall return.” This son was born after the call of Isaiah, in the year King Uzziah died (6:13). He was brought to meet Ahaz, a believer in the LORD (cf. 7:11), with the intent that this would be an encouragement for him to return to the Lord (6:10, 13).

Underlying this whole passage is the unconditional promise made by the Lord to David in the Davidic Covenant. This covenant promised David that one of his sons (or descendents) would sit upon the throne of David, in Jerusalem, forever and ever (II Sam. 7: 12-17; I Chron. 17: 11-15; I Kings 8:25; 2:3, 4; 9:5).

Ahaz was “trembling in his boots” at this point, but God instructs Isaiah to give him two positive and two negative commands in order to show him that he has nothing to fear. Isaiah says, “Take heed, and be quiet,” the two positive commands. Then he says, “do not fear or be fainthearted,” the negative commands. Then Isaiah gives the reason why he has nothing to fear and also reveals the plot of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy. He calls Rezin and Pekah “two stubs of smoking firebrands” (7:4). In essence he is saying they are nothing but “hot air,” there is no fire in them. They are smoldering embers and their strength is gone. Perhaps Isaiah called King Ahaz’s attention to another promise of God: “Do not be afraid of sudden terror, nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes; for the LORD will be your confidence, and will keep your foot from being caught.” Faith and fear are contrary to one another (Prov. 3:25, 26).

Isaiah then reveals the ultimate goal of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy which was to replace King Ahaz with a puppet king, identified as one of the “sons of Tabeel.”² This individual would then bring Judah into the coalition against Assyria.

There are far reaching implications for this plot to overthrow King Ahaz. If Pekah and Rezin successfully overthrew Ahaz and the House of David and placed one of the sons of Tabeel on the throne, the Davidic line would be wiped out³ and God could not fulfill His promise to David, i.e. the Lord Jesus would never have been born! But God is faithful to His promises.

You will recall the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary when he appeared to her in Nazareth: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:30-33). If the Davidic dynasty was overthrown, and the Messianic line eliminated, God would not be faithful to His promise to David. In the “conflict of the ages” between God and Satan, Satan would be victorious because there would be no Davidic Messiah to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem.

In verses 7-9, the LORD God gives two prophetic assurances and one warning to Ahaz. The first prophetic assurance is that this plot will not stand, nor will not come to pass (7:7). In other words, “It ain’t gawna happen, and it didn’t.” The second prophetic assurance is that within 65 years Ephraim will be broken (7:8). The warning that the Lord gives to Ahaz is that if he does not trust the Lord, his kingdom shall not be established (7:9). In other words, he will be removed from the throne.

The second prophetic assurance was fulfilled during the reign of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (680-669 BC). Hugh Williamson’s comments on Ezra 4:2 might be helpful. He has observed: “Nowhere else in the OT are we told that Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, was responsible for settling foreigners in Israel. The major tradition, as found in 2 Kings 17, suggests a much earlier settlement by Sargon II” (1985:49). He goes on to say: “Support for its historicity comes first from Isa. 7:8, whose reference to sixty-five years may well bring us to the reign of Esarhaddon, and second from the historical texts of Esarhaddon’s reign, which testify to his successful campaign in the west and which thus suggest a plausible setting for a policy of resettlement” (1985:49, 50). The Assyrian resettlement policy would have finally broken Ephraim.

The warning that was given to Ahaz was that he would be removed from the throne if he did not trust the LORD God: “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established” (7:9). The important word of this warning is “establish.” In the Hebrew, this warning is a word play: “eem lo ta-a-mee-noo, key lo tey-a-may-noo” It is difficult to translate this Hebrew word play into English, but the NIV made an attempt. They translated it as: “if you do not stand firm, you will not stand at all.” In essence, what this verse is saying is this: If you insist on trusting Tiglath-Pileser III and not the LORD in this situation, it will not be Rezin and Pekah that remove you from your throne, but rather the Lord will remove you as king, yet He will still be faithful to His promises to David.

The words of this warning go back to the Davidic Covenant. God promised David that his kingdom would be established forever (II Sam. 7:16; I Chron. 17:23, 24; Ps. 78:70; Ps. 89). Of David’s son, Solomon, and by implication all the other descendents, God, acting as a loving Father, would chasten them if they are disobedient to the Word of God. But His mercy would never depart from the House of David (II Sam. 7:13-15).

Ahaz did not want to trust the Lord in this situation, but rather, he bribed Tiglath-Pileser III to save him from Pekah and Rezin (II Kings 16:7, 8; II Chron. 28:16-25). The Chronicler recounts that “in the time of his distress King Ahaz became increasingly unfaithful to the LORD” (II Chron. 28:22). His trust was in Tiglath-Pileser III and not the Lord in this situation. He also thought he was indispensable for the program of God. Yet God, not Rezin and Pekah, would remove Ahaz from his throne.

This same principle is seen in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, writing to the church at Corinth, uses athletic terminology to describe the Christian life (I Cor. 9:24-27). He states: “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (9:27). Paul is not talking about losing one’s salvation because a believer in the Lord Jesus is eternally secure in Christ (John 5:24; 6:39, 40; 19:28, 29; Rom. 8:38, 39; I Tim. 1:12; I John 5:9-13). He is, however, saying that it is possible for a believer to be disqualified from the race of the Christian life and not be used of the Lord anymore. The sad results will be that the believer will be “ashamed” at the return of the Lord Jesus and “suffer loss” of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (I John 2:28; II Cor. 5:10; I Cor. 3:12-15).

These words of assurance and warning should encourage the House of David. When they saw the near fulfillment come to pass in 65 years, they could be confident that the next prophetic oracle that God would give would be accomplished as well, even if it was hundreds of years later.

The Declaration to the House of David – 7:10-17

In verses 10-12, the Lord confronts Ahaz. The LORD seems to imply that Ahaz is a believer in verse 11 when he challenges him to “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God”, a sign that could strengthen his faith in the Lord (cf. Isa. 38). But Ahaz responded piously, using the language of Scripture that he would not (7:12). He reasoned that if he saw the sign, he would have to respond in a positive way to the Word of God. He would have to trust the LORD and not Tiglath-Pileser III, something he did not want to do. Ahaz was using the language of faith because he knew the Word of God, but he was in rebellion to the Lord (cf. Jonah 2:1-9; 4:1-3). Ahaz had a very high opinion of himself. He thought he was indispensable to the plan of God.

In verses 13-17, the LORD comforts the House of David. Isaiah turns his attention to the House of David. Apparently he was in the royal court with members of the Davidic family. Most likely Prince Hezekiah would have been there. At this point in time, he was a teen-ager, about 15 years old. The warning had been given to Ahaz that he would be set aside (disqualified) from ruling. He would not be “established”, but the House of David was reassured that the Davidic dynasty would still be established.

Isaiah stated: “Therefore the Lord (Adoni) Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel” (7:14). The word “you” in verse 14 is plural. In other words, he is no longer talking to Ahaz, but the whole house of David. The sign of the virgin born son, Immanuel, was directed primarily toward Hezekiah in order to encourage him to trust the Lord. A few years later, when he came to the throne, he instituted a great revival in that first year. His trust was only in the Lord.

The Hebrew word for “virgin” in verse 14 is “almah.” This word is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures of a married woman, but is used of a young woman of marriageable age (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:26; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Prov. 30:18). Within the Israelite culture, one who is a virgin at the time of marriage is understood. There is another Hebrew word, “betula” that specifically means a virgin.

Interestingly, in the third century BC, seventy Jewish scholars got together in Alexandria, Egypt, and translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. The translation, called the Septuagint (LXX), was for those Jewish people living in the Diaspora, or outside the Land of Israel, who spoke only Greek. When they came to the word “almah“, they translated it with the Greek word “parthenos” which is at the root of the word “parthenogenesis” that means “development of an egg without fertilization”. These translators understood the word to mean virgin in the technical sense of the word.

In the New Testament, Dr. Luke, describes the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus in the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit in Luke 1:27, 34-38. Matthew also records the conception by the Holy Spirit in Matthew 1:18-25. In verse 23, Matthew follows the Septuagint when he quotes Isaiah 7:14 and uses the Greek word “parthenos“.

Some evangelical expositors have sought a dual fulfillment of this passage and try to identify Immanuel with either Hezekiah or the child of the prophetess who was Isaiah’s wife (8:3), and then also Jesus. These two suggested identification collapse on historical and theological grounds. First, Hezekiah was already born and was one of those in the royal court hearing this prophecy. Second, Immanuel could not be the son of the prophetess because she had already given birth to Shear-Yashub (7:3), thus she was not a virgin. The name Immanuel, “God with us” indicates that the Child will be God manifested in human flesh. Two chapters later, Isaiah would call Him the “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6). There was One, and only one Person, who could fulfill this passage and that was the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are actually three aspects to the nature of this Child. First, He would be virgin born. Second, He would have a humble beginning. And third, He would have a sinless nature, thus divine. The first part of verse 15 states: “Curds and honey He shall eat.” These are the food of the poor, not a symbol of a royal diet (contra Young 1992:I:291). The sign to shepherds was that He would be born in poor circumstances (Luke 2:10-12), not royal surroundings. When Mary dedicated her first-born in the Temple, she offered two turtle doves, the offering of the poor (Luke 2:22-24; cf. Lev. 12:8). The wise men did not arrive until a year, to a year and a half after the birth of the Lord Jesus, before they presented Jesus with gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Verse 15 goes on to say, “that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.” In this passage Isaiah is pointing out the sinless nature of the Child. Unlike us (and Hezekiah and Isaiah’s children), who by nature are sinful human beings that choose evil and refuse the good (Rom. 1-3), this Child will have a sinless nature as demonstrated by the fact that He chooses good and refuses evil.

Isaiah takes this prophecy and applies the time frame of the Child to the present situation. He continues: “For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good” [that is, before He was born], “the land that you dread [Samaria] will be forsaken by both her kings” (7:16). To put it another way, after the defeat of Pekah and Rezin, Immanuel would be born. How much time after, Isaiah did not know (cf. I Pet. 1:10, 11). He did not have a prophecy chart in front of him with an arrow pointing to May 14, 6 BC to mark the birth of Immanuel. Yet he believed Immanuel would one day be born.

It would be helpful to tell “the rest of the story.” Isaiah had admonished Ahaz to trust the Lord only, yet Ahaz wanted to trust Tiglath-Pileser III to take care of his foreign policy problems. Ahaz goes to Damascus to pay tribute and homage to Tiglath-Pileser III who, at this time, was not only king of Assyria, but Babylon as well (II Kings 16:9, 10). Isaiah warns Ahaz again about trusting Tiglath-Pileser III (Isa. 14:3-21) and reveals the king’s true intentions to Ahaz. The king of Assyria and Babylon wanted to “sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north” (Isa. 14:13; cf. Ps. 48:1-3). His intentions were to conquer Jerusalem! Ahaz would not believe this. In apparently what was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, Ahaz made a plan of the altar that he saw in Damascus and sent it back to Jerusalem to be constructed. When he got back to Jerusalem, he offered sacrifices on this unbiblical altar (II Kings 16:10-18). God’s patience and long-suffering ran out and Ahaz dies soon after in 727 BC (Isa. 14:28).

Prince Hezekiah had apparently paid attention to Isaiah’s warnings as he saw what transpired in his father’s life because in the first year of King Hezekiah’s reign, there is a great revival. He reinstituted the Passover and Biblical worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and got rid of the idolatry taking place in the Kingdom of Judah (II Chron. 32:29-31; II Kings 18:2-5). Judah had been heading for destruction because of Ahaz’s idolatry, but Hezekiah brought the people back to the Lord and the Lord, in mercy, intervened. Tiglath-Pileser III was struck down in Damascus the same year that Ahaz died and judgment from God was averted on Jerusalem. The prophet Micah also predicted the impending judgment on Jerusalem but because Hezekiah brought the people back to the Lord, the Lord did not carry out His planned judgment (Micah 3:12; cf. Jer. 26:16-19).

For the first time in the book of Isaiah, the Assyrians are mentioned by name as an instrument of God’s judgment (7:17; cf. Isa. 10:5). Judgment was stayed in the first year of Hezekiah’s reign, but they would come back at least two more times during Hezekiah’s lifetime (Franz 1987). The most devastating invasion would be in the year 701 BC. At this time, most of Judah was destroyed, but Jerusalem and the House of David was spared because Hezekiah trusted the LORD.

The Near Destruction of the Land of the House of David – 7:18-25

In graphic poetic language, verses 18-26 predict the Assyrian invasion of Judah in the year 701 BC. The focus of this prophecy is the land (of Judah), and not Jerusalem and the House of David (7:22, 24). Elsewhere, Isaiah predicted Jerusalem and the House of David would be spared.

In this section, Isaiah begins by describing an infestation of insects to the land of Judah: flies from the “farthest part of the river of Egypt” and bees from Assyria. Some have taken this to be a literal infestation; others have suggested this is figurative language to describe the armies of the Ethiopians under Tirhakah (II Kings 19:9; Isa. 37:9), and the Assyrians under Sennacherib and his Rabshakeh in 701 BC. Most likely, Isaiah is using the insects in a figurative sense.

In the year 701 BC, Sennacherib recounts his invasion of Judah and says he destroyed 48 cities and took a number of Judeans captive. Verse 20 describes the humiliation of these Judeans by the Assyrians when they shaved their heads and beards.

The Assyrians wreaked havoc on the Land of Judah. They had taken most of the livestock as booty and left only a few people (7:21, 22, 25). Isaiah describes the remnant as having one young cow and two sheep that thrived in the uncultivated land so they could eat “curds and honey.” The phrase “curds and honey” (7:21, 22) is another form of the saying “milk and honey.” The founder of Naot Kedumim, the Biblical Gardens in Israel, Nogah Hareuveni has observed: “The phrase ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ describes uncultivated areas covered with wild vegetation and a profusion of flowers. It is a positive and alluring description to the Israelites while they were still shepherds. However, after they settled the land of Israel by clearing the ‘milk and honey’ areas for cultivation, the same phrase became a frightening description associated with the destruction of productive farmland” (1980:22).

Isaiah goes on to describe the vineyards as reverting back to briars and thorns because they were uncultivated and now dangerous because they were inhabited by wild animals (7:23-25).

Hezekiah remembers these remarks from when he was a teenager. In order to avoid the impending destruction, in the first year of his reign, he was prompted to trust the Lord only. “He trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him” (II Kings 18:5).

Applications

There are two important theological truths being presented in this passage: first, the importance of the virgin birth for the Incarnation, and second, God’s dealing with wayward believers.

The Incarnation is at the heart of the Christian message. The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh …” (I Tim. 3:16). The only way the Second Person of the triune God could take on human flesh without being tainted by Adam’s sin was to be conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. He possessed two natures, perfect humanity and absolute Deity. As God manifest in human flesh, He could not sin, He would not sin, and did not sin.

As the perfect, spotless, sinless Lamb of God, He could die in our place and pay for all our sins. As a result of that sacrifice, He could offer any and all who would trust Him, the free gift of eternal life, the forgiveness of sins and a home in Heaven. The Bible says that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone and not by any works that we do, or merits of our own (John 3:16; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8,9; Phil. 3:9; I John 5:13).

The second issue this passage addresses is how God deals with His wayward children. Sometimes, I might dare say many times, our distressing problems are self-inflicted and caused by sins in our lives and not being obedient to the Word of God. If that is the case, we need to examine our lives and confess our sins to the Lord and forsake those sins (I John 1:9; James 5:13-16).

The Apostle Paul wrote to the believers in the church at Corinth about examples from the Hebrew Scriptures showing God’s chastening of His people during the Wilderness Wanderings (I Cor. 10:1-10). He concluded that section by saying: “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (I Cor. 10:11-14). If the Apostle Paul had expanded his list of examples of God’s chastening of His children, he could have included King Ahaz and the messages by Isaiah and Micah about the way of escape.

The idolatrous King Ahaz had the attitude that God needed him more than he needed God. His idolatry and arrogant attitude was inconsistent with a close walk with the Lord. He should have heeded the words of the prophet Micah who stated, “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (6:8). Ahaz did not, and God “disqualified” him and his kingdom was not established. Interestingly, the Apostle Paul identifies covetousness as idolatry (Col. 3:5).

On the other hand, we can learn some lessons from young Prince Hezekiah. He had observed what was going on in the kingdom and saw the consequences of his father’s sin of idolatry. After his father died, Hezekiah was crowned king and instituted one of the greatest revivals in the history of the nation of Israel. His revival began by getting rid of the high places and idols in the Kingdom of Judah and calling people back to Biblical worship in the Temple in Jerusalem (II Kings 18:4-6; II Chron. 29). Hezekiah saw the consequences of his father’s sin and applied and practiced the principles revealed in the Word of God. Thus his kingdom was established.

We have the assurance of eternal life, but not the assurance of reigning with Christ. The apostle Paul includes one of the hymns of the early church in his epistle to Timothy. He states in II Tim. 2:11-13:
The opening line of this hymn is true of all believers in the Lord Jesus. We have died with Christ (Gal. 2:20) and we shall also live with Him in resurrected glory. The second line would be addressed to the “overcomers”, those who endure to the end of the Christian life. For those who are faithful, they will have the privilege of reigning with the Lord Jesus in the Millennial Kingdom. The third line, “if we deny Him, He also will deny us.” In the context, He will deny us the privilege of ruling and reigning with Him in the Kingdom. He is not talking about denying us salvation and eternal life if we deny Him, because the last line gives believers the assurance of salvation and the promise of eternal security. “If we are faithless (like King Ahaz was), He [Jesus] remains faithful; He [Jesus] cannot deny Himself.” Even if we turn our backs on the Lord, He remains faithful to us because He cannot deny Himself (For a full discussion of this passage, see McCoy 1988). The Lord Jesus promised: “And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hands. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one” (John 10:28-30). Talk about double (eternal) security – Jesus holds on to us and the Father holds on to us; and no one, not even Satan, can snatch us out of either hand!

There is an old hymn entitled “Trust and Obey.” King Ahaz did not trust the Lord, nor did he obey God’s Word and he was not established, God removed him from the throne. On the other hand, King Hezekiah did trust the Lord and obeyed His Word, thus the ultimate sign, the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus, was fulfilled.

Bibliography

Albright, William
Bahat, Dan
Barkay, Gabriel
Franz, Gordon
- 1987 The Hezekiah / Sennacherib Chronology Problem Reconsidered. Unpublished MA thesis. Columbia Biblical Seminary. Columbia, SC.
Hareuveni, Nogah
Hayes, John, and Irvine, Stuart
Levine, Louis
McCoy, Brad
- http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1988ii/McCoy.html
Mazar, Benjamin
Williamson, Hugh
Young, Edward
¹ Two possibilities have been suggested as to this meeting location. The first is north of Damascus Gate at what was known as the Serpents Pools. These pools are now covered over by the Damascus Gate parking lot (Barkay 1985: 63-65, 3*). The second possibility is by the Pools of Bethesda (Bahat 1989: 28, 33). In the year 701 BC this would be the meeting place of three of Hezekiah’s court officials with the Rabshakeh, the commander of the Assyrian army, who was besieging Jerusalem (Isa. 36:2; II Kings 18:17).

² Several suggestions, based on Assyrian records, have been made in the scholarly literature as to who this son of Tabeel might be.

The first suggestion was made by William Foxwell Albright based on a cuneiform tablet that was excavated at Nimrud in 1952 by Professor Max Mallowan, the husband of Agatha Christie. Albright gave his translation of line 4-7 of Tablet XIV as: “The messenger of Ayanir, the Tab’elite, Ezazu by name, is bringing a sealed document with him to the palace” (1955:34). He suggested that the land of Tab’el is in northeastern Palestine or southeastern Syria and that the son of Tab’el “was presumably the son of Uzziah or Jothan by a princess of Tab’el” (1955:35). Albright’s reading of Tab’elite is contrary to the original reading of the epigrapher who translated the text, H. W. F. Saggs. He translates it as “Dabilite” and identified it as “a place in or near Moab” (1955:132). One should be cautious about accepting Albright’s identification and interpretation.

The second suggestion was made based on a vassal list on a stele of Tiglath-Pileser III that was found in western Iran and is now in the Royal Ontario Museum (Levine 1972a). In the year 737 BC, Tiglath-Pileser III campaigned in the west and made various kings vassals, including Resin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria and a certain Tubail of Tyre (1972b: 41). It has been suggested that the “son of Tabeel” was a prince of the king of Tyre whose father was named Tabal, or Tabail. According to this suggestion, Pekah and Rezin promised the king of Tyre the throne of Judah if he would join the coalition (Hayes and Irvine 1987: 127).

The final suggestion was set forth by Professor Benjamin Mazar (1957: 137-145; 229-238). He contends that: “It is likely that this Ben-Tab’el was the descendant of a noble Judean family, perhaps even a relation of the house of David, who had many supporters among Ahaz’ enemies in Jerusalem and was closely connected with the kings of Israel and Aram” (1957: 236). He places their land holdings in Transjordan in general and Gilead in specific (1957: 237-238). Most likely Professor Mazar is correct.

³ It was the practice in Israel (the Northern Kingdom) to exterminate entire dynasties. This is seen by the elimination of the House of Jeroboam I (I Kings 14:7-11; 15:27-29), the House of Baasha (I Kings 16:1-4, 11, 12), the Omride Dynasty (II Kings 10:8-11) and the House of Jeroboam II (Amos 7:9; Hosea 1:3; II Kings 15:16). One would assume that they would be planning to exterminate the entire House of David.
13Dec

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS – HISTORICAL FACT OR LEGENDARY FICTION?

Life of Christ Comments Off on THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS – HISTORICAL FACT OR LEGENDARY FICTION?

by Gordon Franz

Introduction
In the December 2008 issue of National Geographic there was a well illustrated article on the recent excavations at the Herodian. This was the final burial place of Herod the Great, located 5 ½ kilometers southeast of Bethlehem as the angels fly. In the article, the author made this bold statement, reflecting current historical and theological understanding: “Herod is best known for slaughtering every male infant in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill Jesus. He is almost certainly innocent of this crime” (Mueller 2008:42). Was Herod the Great really innocent of this crime, or did this criminal act actually happen?

Michael Grant, a popular writer on historical themes says of the Massacre of the Innocents: “The tale is not history but myth or folk-lore” (1971:12). He went on to say, Herod became known as “Herod the Wicked, villain of many a legend, including the Massacre of the Innocents: the story is invented, though it is based, in one respect, on what is likely to be a historical fact, since Jesus Christ was probably born in one of the last years of Herod’s reign” (1971:228-229). Elsewhere he says, “Matthew’s story of the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod the Great, because he was afraid of a child born in Bethlehem ‘to be King of the Jews’, is a myth allegedly fulfilling a prophecy by Jeremiah and mirroring history’s judgment of the great but evil potentate Herod, arising from many savage acts during the last years before his death in 4 BC” (1999:71). Was the slaughter of the innocents a tale, myth, folk-lore, or legend? Or was it a historical event?

Unfortunately archaeologists have yet to excavate the archives of the Jerusalem Post from the year 4 BC! Nor does the first century AD Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus record this event in any of his writings. Even though secular history is silent on this event it does not mean it did not occur. When the life of Herod the Great is examined, this event is very consistent with his character and actions so this is pointing to the fact that it did happen as recorded in Holy Scripture.

The Gospel of Matthew records the event in this manner: “Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more’” (2:16-18, NKJV).

Herod’s Paranoia
In 1988 I was attending a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies by Dr. Isaiah Gafni, a leading authority on the Second Temple period at the Hebrew University. His topic was the life of Herod the Great. Sitting next to me was Dr. Bruce Narramore, a Christian psychologist from Biola University.

Dr. Gafni recounted a seminar that was held at Hebrew University a few years before. Attending it were historians and archaeologists of the Second Temple period as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. They laid out (figuratively speaking) Herod the Great on the psychiatric couch and preceded to psychoanalyze him. The historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons! The shrinks diagnosed Herod the Great as a paranoid schizophrenic.

After the lecture I turned to Dr. Narramore and asked his analysis of Herod: “Well, do you think he was a paranoid schizophrenic?” Bruce laughed and said, “No, he was a jerk!” [That is a direct quote!]. Recently a historical / psychological analysis was done on Herod the Great and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431).

The Historical Plausibility of the Slaughter of the Innocents
It is true; Josephus does not record the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem. He does, however, record a number of ruthless murders by Herod in order to keep his throne secure.

Herod was crowned “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate in 40 BC in Rome. He was, however, a king without a kingdom.   Upon his return to the Land of Israel, he was given a Roman army and was eventually able to capture Jerusalem. The first order of business was to eliminate his Hasmonean predecessors. Mattathias Antigonus was executed with the help of Mark Antony and Herod killed 45 leading men of Antigonus’ party in 37 BC (Antiquities 15:5-10; LCL 8:5-7). He had the elderly John Hyrcanus II strangled over an alleged plot to overthrow Herod in 30 BC (Antiquities 15:173-178; LCL 8:83-85).

Herod continued to purge the Hasmonean family. He eliminated his brother-in-law, Aristobulus, who was at the time an 18 year old High Priest. He was drowned in 35 BC by Herod’s men in the swimming pool of the winter palace in Jericho because Herod thought the Romans would favor Aristobulus as ruler of Judea instead of him (Antiquities 15:50-56; LCL 8:25-29; Netzer 2001:21-25). He also had his Hasmonean mother-in-law, Alexandra (the mother of Mariamme) executed in 28 BC (Antiquities 15:247-251; LCL 8:117-119). He even killed his second wife Miriamme in 29 BC. She was his beloved Hasmonean bride whom he loved to death [literally, no pun intended] (Antiquities 15:222-236; LCL 8:107-113).
Around 20 BC, Herod remitted one third of the people’s taxes in order to curry favor with them, however, he did set up an internal spy network and eliminated people suspected of revolt, most being taken to Hyrcania, a fortress in the Judean Desert (Antiquities 15:365-372; LCL 8:177-181).

Herod also had three of his sons killed. The first two, Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamme, were strangled in Sebaste (Samaria) in 7 BC and buried at the Alexandrium (Antiquities 16:392-394; LCL 8:365-367; Netzer 2001:68-70). The last, only five days before Herod’s own death, was Antipater who was buried without ceremony at Hyrcania (Antiquities 17:182-187; LCL 8:457-459; Netzer 2001:75; Gutfeld 2006:46-61).

Herod the Great became extremely paranoid during the last four years of his life (8-4 BC). On one occasion, in 7 BC, he had 300 military leaders executed (Antiquities 16:393-394; LCL 8:365). On another, he had a number of Pharisees executed in the same year after it was revealed that they predicted to Pheroras’ wife [Pheroras was Herod’s youngest brother and tetrarch of Perea] “that by God’s decree Herod’s throne would be taken from him, both from himself and his descendents, and the royal power would fall to her and Pheroras and to any children they might have” (Antiquities 17:42-45; LCL 8:393). With prophecies like these circulating within his kingdom, is it any wonder Herod wanted to eliminate Jesus when the wise men revealed the new “king of the Jews” had been born (Matt. 2:1-2)?! (For a full discussion of these historical events, see France 1979 and Maier 1998).

Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia, wrote: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]” (2.4.11; cited in Brown 1993:226). Macrobius may have gotten some of his historical facts garbled, but he could have given us a chronological key as well. If he was referring to the death of Antipater in 4 BC, the slaughter of the Innocents would have been one of the last, if not the last, brutal killings of Herod before he died. What is also interesting is the word-play in the quote attributed to Augustus- “pig” and “son” are similar sounding words in Greek. Herod would not kill a pig because he kept kosher, at least among the Jews; yet he had no qualms killing his own sons!

Why did Josephus not record this event?
There are several possible explanations as to why Josephus did not record this event. First, Josephus, writing at the end of the first century AD may not have been aware of the slaughter in Bethlehem at the end of the first century BC. There were some pivotal events in the first century AD that Josephus does not record. For example, the episode of the golden Roman shields in Jerusalem which was the cause of the bad blood between Herod Antipas and Pontus Pilate (cf. Luke 23:12). It was the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria that recorded this event (Embassy to Gaius 38:299-305; Maier 1969:109-121). It should also be pointed out that Josephus got some of his information from Nicolas of Damascus who was Herod the Greats friend and personal historian. Nicolas may not have recorded such a terrible deed so as not to blacken the reputation of his friend any more than he had too (Brown 1993:226, footnote 34).

Second, the massacre might not have been as large as later church history records. The Martyrdom of Matthew states that 3,000 baby were slaughtered. The Byzantine liturgy places the number at 14,000 and the Syrian tradition says 64,000 innocent children were killed (Brown 1993:205). Yet Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time. Please do not get me wrong, one innocent child being killed is a horrific tragedy.

Based on the date of Jesus’ birth provided by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 AD), Jesus would have been born on May 14, 6 BC (Faulstich 1998:109-112). The wise men from the east do not arrive in Jerusalem to visit Herod and then go on to Bethlehem until at least 50 days after the birth of the Lord Jesus, but more than likely a year to a year and a half later. When Mary performed the ritual of purification for her firstborn in the Temple she offered two turtledoves, the offering of the poor (Luke 2:22-24; cf. Lev. 12:8). If the wise men had already arrived with their gold, frankincense and myrrh, Mary would have been obligated to offer a lamb and would have had the means to do so (Lev. 12:6). Herod inquired of the wise men when the star first appeared and instructed them to go and find the “King of the Jews” and return and tell him so he could go and worship the young Child as well (Matt. 2:7-9). Herod realized he was tricked when the wise men returned home another way after they were warned in a dream of Herod’s evil intentions (2:12). Herod calculated the age of the young Child based on the testimony of the wise men as to when the star first appeared. He ordered the killing of all male children in Bethlehem and its immediate vicinity who were two years old and younger (2:16). Herod dies in March of 4 BC, just under two years from the birth of Jesus.

Right before he dies, Herod realizes nobody will mourn for him at his death. He hatched a diabolical scheme to make sure everybody will morn at his death, even if it was not for him. He ordered all the notable Jews from all parts of his kingdom to come to him in Jericho under penalty of death. He placed them in the hippodrome of Jericho and left instructions for the soldiers to kill all the notables upon his death (Antiquities 17:174-181; LCL 8:451-455; Netzer 2001:64-67). Fortunately, after the death of Herod, his sister Salome countermanded the order and released the Jewish leaders. Ironically, Herod died on the Feast of Purim and there was much rejoicing at the death of Herod the Wicked (Esther 8:15-17; Faulstich 1998:110)!

Five days before he died, Herod executed his oldest son Antipater (Antiquities 17:187; LCL 8:457-459). During that time period he also executed, by burning alive, two leading rabbis and then executed their students for participating in the “eagle affair” in the Temple (Antiquities 17:149-167; LCL 8:439-449; Wars 1:655; LCL 2:311).

Paul L. Maier has pointed out, “Josephus wrote for a Greco-Roman audience, which would have little concern for infant deaths. Greeks regularly practiced infanticide as a kind of birth control, particularly in Sparta, while the Roman father had the right not to lift his baby off the floor after birth, letting it die” (1998:179).

Josephus, even if he knew of the slaughter of the innocents, would have deemed this episode unimportant in light of all the other monumental events going on at the time of the death of Herod the Great, thus not including it in his writings.

Conclusions
The slaughter of the innocents is unattested in secular records, but the historical plausibility of this event happening is consistent with the character and actions of Herod the Great. Besides killing his enemies, he had no qualms in killing family members and friends as well. Herod would not have given a second thought about killing a handful of babies in a small, obscure village south of Jerusalem in order to keep his throne secure for himself, or his sons, even if it was one of the last dastardly deeds he committed before he died. As Herod lay dying, raked in pain and agony, the men of God and those with special wisdom opined that Herod was suffering these things because it was “the penalty that God was exacting of the king for his great impiety” (Antiquities 17:170; LCL 8:449-451).

Bibliography
Albright, William; and C. S. Mann
1971   The Anchor Bible. Matthew. New York: Doubleday.

Brown, Raymond
1993   The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. New York: Doubleday.

Faulstich, Eugene
1998   Studies in O.T. and N.T. Chronology. Pp. 97-117 in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II. Edited by E. J. Vardaman. Macon, GA: Mercer University.

France, Richard
1979   Herod and the Children of Bethlehem. Novum Testamentum 31/2:98-120.

Grant, Michael
1971   Herod the Great. New York: American Heritage.

1999   Jesus. London: Phoenix.

Gutfeld, Oren
2006   Hyrcania’s Mysterious Tunnels. Searching for the Treasures of the Copper Scrolls. Biblical Archaeology Review 32/5:46-61.

Josephus
1976   Jewish Wars, Books 1-3. Vol. 2. Trans. by H. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 203.

1980   Antiquities of the Jews 15-17. Vol. 8. Trans. by R. Marcus and A. Wikgren. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 410.

Kasher, Aryeh; with Witztum, Eliezer
2007   King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor. Trans. by K. Gold. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Maier, Paul
1969   The Episode of the Golden Roman Shields in Jerusalem. Harvard Theological Review 62:109-121.

1998   Herod and the Infants of Bethlehem. Pp. 169-189 in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II. Edited by E. J. Vardaman. Macon, GA: Mercer University.

Mueller, Tom
2008   Herod. The Holy Land’s Visionary Builder. National Geographic 214/6:34-59.

Netzer, Ehud
2001   The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute and Israel Exploration Society.nz
20Oct

“HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 2

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on “HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 2

by Gordon Franz (continued)

The Reasons for Two-by-Two
As we have seen, there are no “Lone Ranger” missionaries in the New Testament; the pattern is always disciples going forth two-by-two with the gospel in order to plant churches. I believe that there are at least four reasons why Jesus and the Holy Spirit set this pattern.

The first reason is accountability to one another. When a person comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, all their sins are forgiven – past, present and future. Believers have been saved from the penalty of sin (justification), are being saved from the power of sin (sanctification), and, one day, will be saved from the presence of sin (glorification). But until that day, believers still have a sin nature and sin. James the son of Zebedee admonishes believers to “confess your trespasses (or sins) to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (5:16). If a believer is by himself, he is accountable to no one. Yet if there is a co-worker, the spiritual one can help with the restoration process. Paul writes: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such as one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1; cf. James 5:19, 20 and Eccl. 4:9, 10).

The second reason is for mutual encouragement. People, when they are alone and things start going the wrong way, become discouraged. They have no one to turn to for mutual support and encouragement.

The Church was fortunate to have a lesser know apostle named Yosef ha-Levi. We would say in English, Joseph the Levite. The apostles gave this man from the island of Cyprus the nickname, Barnabas, which in Aramaic means “son of encouragement” (Acts 4: 36). The nickname was well deserved because he had a solid reputation of encouraging people in the things of the Lord. The Lord used Barnabas to encourage Saul (later known as Paul) and John Mark at crucial points in their spiritual lives and to see potential in them for the work of the Lord.

The third reason to go out two-by-two is so that younger men can be taught with the help of a co-worker. Paul admonishes Timothy: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (II Tim. 2:2). The pattern of discipleship seen in the New Testament is not “one-on-one” discipleship, but rather, “two with a group of men.” For Jesus, it was twelve. At one point, Paul and Timothy had six men they were training in sort of a “seminary on the road” with practical “on the job training” (Acts 20:4).

The fourth reason is to maximize spiritual gifts. When Paul went on his second missionary journey he chose Silas, also known as Silvanus, to join him (Acts 15:40). Paul’s spiritual gift was that of apostle and teacher (Eph. 4:11), while Silas gift was that of prophet (Acts 15:32). While they were in Lystra, they invited a young man that Paul had led to the Lord to join them. Timothy had the gift of evangelist (Acts 16:1-3; II Tim. 4:5). Between the three men, they could effectively reach people with the gospel, establish and teach local churches, and train other men in the doctrinal truths of the Word of God, as well as ministry.

Applications for Today
The trend in missionary endeavors today is toward a team concept where several couples go to one place and work together. Recently I was teaching several classes on archaeology at two Christian schools in Bulgaria. A friend of mine was the regional director for SEND International in the Balkans. He was sharing how their mission board encourages a team effort in church planting.

There are several notable examples of team efforts in assembly mission work. One such example of a team effort was the “Auca Five” who were martyred in 1956. Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, and Edward McCully were friends from the assemblies and two of them had attended the same college. They planned and prayed together to reach the unreached Auca Indians in Ecuador. They were later joined by Nate Saint and Roger Youderian who were also laboring in that area with other missionary organizations.

This is not to depreciate the great work done by some pioneering missionaries who went to labor on the mission field all by themselves. Yet one wonders how much more effective they could have been if they labored together with other workers?

Some of the early gospel pioneers in the assemblies followed this pattern as well. For example, Richard Varder and John Rae labored from 1882-1886 in western Canada (Anonymous 2007: 13, 14). Another example is George D. Campbell and his fellow worker Gaius Goff who labored in Newfoundland and Labrador for three decades (Nicholson 2007: 18).

Practical Objections
I was talking with an elder in an assembly about this issue and he mentioned that the assembly he fellowshipped at had sent out two missionaries to different countries, but commented they could never have sent the two out together because both had domineering personalities and would clash with each other! I thought to myself, “That’s no excuse. Yes, Paul and Barnabas both had strong personalities that could not be reconciled, but they still followed the Biblical pattern and went out two-by-two with one other individual.”

Also, Paul gave a command to the believers in Ephesus when he said: “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, … submitting to one another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:18, 21; cf. I Pet. 5:5; Gal. 5:13). One of the fruits of being filled with the Spirit of God, and every missionary should be filled with the Spirit, is submitting to one another! What a testimony it would have been if two strong-willed brothers went out two-by-two, submitting to one another for the purpose of reaching people with the gospel.

Conclusion
W. E. Vine in his booklet, The Divine Plan of Missions states: “Where two are working together they are able to render help one to another by way of comfort in sorrow, counsel in perplexity, and sympathetic advice and warning in times of temptation. An ear ready to receive wise counsel may mean deliverance from succumbing to temptation” (nd: 36). He goes on to say: “How happy, how effective, how sure of Divine blessing, is co-work carried on in the absence of selfish individualism in the spirit of mutual esteem, and in a constant recognition of what is involved in being ‘God’s fellow-worker’!” (nd: 38, 39).

The Lord Jesus set the pattern for apostles / missionaries going out two-by-two in the Gospels. The Holy Spirit reconfirmed this pattern in the Book of Acts. Will we continue to follow the pattern set forth by the Triune Godhead in our missionary endeavors? If we do, we might not see a high attrition rate!

Bibliography

Anonymous
2007   Richard Varder, Prairie Pioneer. Uplook 74/5 (Aug.-Sept.): 13, 14.

Bruce, A. B.
1971   The Training of the Twelve. Grand Rapids: Kregel Reprint Library. (This book is the classic on how Jesus trained the Twelve disciples to reach the world with the Gospel after His earthly ministry. It is highly recommended).

Eusebiius
1926   Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1. Trans. by K. Lake. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 153. Reprinted 1980.

Jerome
1994   Lives of Illustrious Men. Pp. 353-402 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second series. Vol. 3. Edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Nicholson, Jabe
2007   Review of Take the Challenge: The Life of George D. Campbell, by George Campbell and Gaius Goff. Uplook 74/5 (Aug.-Sept.): 18.

Thompson, Robert Ellis
1890   The Sending of the Apostles, Two by Two. A sermon preached in the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church. West Philadelphia, PA.

Vine, W. E.
nd   The Divine Plan of Missions. London: Pickering & Ingles.
20Oct

“HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 1

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on “HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 1

by Gordon Franz

Introduction
Several reasons for a high attrition rate among missionaries are discouragement and loneliness on the mission field. An individual or couple may go out for a few years and when they return home for furlough, decide not to go back to the field again for these reasons. One wonders if following a Biblical pattern of mission might avoid some of these problems on the field. This paper will examine one aspect of Jesus’s instruction for mission. It is: He sent them out two-by-two in order to preach the gospel.

Jesus and His Disciples (Students)
The first disciples that the Lord Jesus called were two sets of brothers: Simon and Andrew, the sons of Jonas, who were using their cast net in the Sea of Galilee when Jesus said, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men” (Mark 1:16-18; Matt. 4:18-20). He went a little further and found another set of brothers, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, in their boat mending nets and Jesus called them to become fishers of men as well (Mark 1:19, 20; Matt. 4:21, 22).

This was not the first time they had met Jesus. In fact, more than a year and a half before, Andrew and most likely, John the son of Zebedee, were disciples of John the Baptizer [Remember, John was a Jew, he was not a Baptist!!!]. It was the Baptizer that introduced them to the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). When Andrew realized who Jesus was, he went and found his brother Simon and said, “We have found the Messiah!” (1:41).

Andrew, Simon, John the son of Zebedee, Philip, and Nathanael literally followed Jesus from Bethany beyond the Jordan (also known as Batanaea) to Cana of Galilee to a wedding where Jesus turns water into wine (John 1:43-2:10). As a result of this sign, Jesus’s new found disciples (or students) believed on Him (John 2:11). This was the point in time when these disciples put their trust in the Lord Jesus as their Savior (cf. John 20:30, 31). After this event, Jesus found and called seven other individuals to be His students. For the call of Matthew the tax-collector, see Mark 2:13, 14; Matt. 9:9; Luke 5:27-29. A short while later, He called together twelve men that He wanted to train in order to send them out to preach (Mark 3:13-19).

After a few months of training them to become fishers of men, Jesus gives His students a “mid-term exam.” John Mark records: “And He called the twelve to Himself, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. … So they went out and preached that people should repent [change their minds]. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them” (6:7, 12, 13; cf. Luke 9:1-6).

Interestingly, in the parallel passage in Matthew’s gospel the make up of the “two-by-two” teams are given: Peter and Andrew; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew; James and Lebbaeus / Thaddaeus; and finally Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot (10:2-4; cf. Luke 6:13-16).

Later, Jesus sends another group of seventy individuals out, most likely to Perea, in order to prepare that area for the next stage in His ministry. As with the Twelve, He sent these disciples out two-by-two as well (Luke 10:1).

Jesus set forth the Biblical pattern, two-by-two, for future missionary endeavors by the example of the Twelve and the Seventy. The Holy Spirit, in the Book of Acts, confirmed this pattern by example as well (Acts 13:2).

The Examples in the Book of Acts
The Book of Acts has been called by some, The Acts of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and fulfilling the mission that was set forth by the Lord Jesus (John 14:15-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-11; 17:18-21; Acts 1:8).

The book ends abruptly with Paul still under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28), yet we know from Paul’s later epistles, he has a fourth missionary journey to Macedonia, Asia Minor, Crete and possibly Spain before he is martyred in Rome in AD 67. The implications seem to be that the Church, under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit, continues its work even to the present, following the pattern set forth in the book of Acts.

Just before the Lord Jesus ascended into Heaven, He gave this command to His disciples: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Ten days later, on the Day of Pentecost, the Twelve (Judas being replaced by Matthias) were together in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came upon them and gave them utterances in known languages of the Jewish people from the Diaspora visiting Jerusalem for the festival (Acts 2:1-13). At that time, the Apostle Peter preached a powerful message that demonstrated from the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of humanity and was bodily resurrected from the dead. As a result of this preaching, 3,000 people came to faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:41). A short time later, Peter and John are together in the Temple and healed a lame man and ended up in trouble with the religious authorities (Acts 3:1-4:31).

Interestingly, Peter and John are working together at this point. Scripture is silent as to where their brothers, Andrew and James, are. Church tradition says that Andrew went to Scythia (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:1; LCL 1:181). Who he went with, we are not told. James, the son of Zebedee, remains around Jerusalem until he becomes the first apostolic martyr of the Christian faith (Acts 12:2).

More than ten years later, Peter and Silvanus, also known as Silas, took a missionary journey to “those of the circumcision” in the regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Apparently John Mark was with them as a disciple (I Pet. 1:1; 5:12, 13). According to Jerome, one of the early church historians, this trip ended in Rome in the second year of Claudius (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 3: 361). The second year of Claudius was AD 42. Peter wrote his first epistle as a “follow-up” letter to the churches they had just planted in these regions.
Later, Paul wrote to the church in Corinth about his apostleship. He raises the question about wives. He asked: “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (I Cor. 9:5). Here he acknowledges that Cephas, another name for Peter, was married and his believing wife was with him. [You didn’t know the first “pope” was married, did you?! Cf. Mark 1:30]. According to church tradition, they were crucified together in Rome.

It should be pointed out that the wife is not the other person in the two-by-two equation. She is “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) with her husband. The two-by-two equation would be the husband and wife as “one flesh” along with another man, or another couple, thus fulfilling the pattern set forth by Jesus (Vine nd: 36).

The first team recorded in the Book of Acts that went out was Barnabas and Paul, and John Mark along with them, apparently as a disciple again (Acts 13:2). They evangelized and planted churches on the island of Cyprus, as well as Pamphylia and South Galatia.

After this first missionary journey, Barnabas suggests to Paul that they revisit the churches from the first journey. He also suggested they take John Mark with them. Paul like the idea of revisiting the churches, but was adamant against John Mark going along. As a result of this heated dispute, Barnabas ended up going to Cyprus with John Mark (Acts 15:39) and Paul selected Silas as his co-worker on what became his second missionary journey (Acts 15:40). They later had Timothy join them as a disciple (Acts 16:1-3). At the end of the second missionary journey, Paul and Aquila, along with his wife Priscilla, depart Corinth for Ephesus (Acts 18:18).

On Paul’s third missionary journey his co-worker is apparently Timothy (cf. Acts 19:22). They spent two years in Ephesus teaching disciples in the School of Tyrannus. So effective was this work that “all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (19:10). During this time Paul sent two of his fellow workers, Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia to minister the Word of God (Acts 19:22). At the end of the third missionary journey, Paul returns to Jerusalem for the Feast of Shavuot (Pentecost) and Dr. Luke rejoins them at Philippi (Acts 20:6, note the “we”).

Paul’s preaching caused such a ruckus in the Temple that the Roman soldiers had to extract him from the crowd in the Temple courtyard to the Antonio’s Fortress. Later that night, they removed him to Caesarea-by-the-Sea where he was imprisoned for about two years. When Paul had a hearing before King Agrippa II, he appealed to Caesar. He also almost persuaded the king to become a Christian (Acts 25:11, 12; 26: 24-32). Paul was turned over to the centurion Julius in order to take him to Rome (Acts 27:1). Dr. Luke and Aristarchus also book passage on the same ship in order to travel with Paul (27:2; cf. 20:4).

On Paul’s fourth missionary journey, he decides to spend the winter in Nicopolis in western Greece. He wrote Titus and instructed him to come to the city. He also added a note to “send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey with haste, that they may lack nothing” (Tit. 3:13). Apparently Zenas and Apollos were itinerant preachers and co-workers that Titus had shown hospitality to while they were on the island of Crete.

“HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 2
20Oct

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 6 – Application and Bibliography

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 6 – Application and Bibliography

by Gordon Franz (continued)

Applications
We have conjectured on the ethnicity and social status of some of these saints in the church in Rome. When we get to Heaven, we will be able to sit down and talk with them, hear their own testimonies as to how they came to faith in the Lord Jesus, when and where they met the Apostle Paul, and what they did in the Lord’s work in Rome and elsewhere.

The first thing we note in this chapter is that Paul calls Phoebe, “our sister.” One of the metaphors used for the Church is that of a family. A person is born into God’s family by being “born-again” (John 3:3). The Apostle John writes, “But as many as receive Him [the Lord Jesus Christ], to them He gave the right to become children of God [brothers and sisters], to those who believe [trust in] in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12, 13). Have you trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior and been born into God’s family?

We should also notice the role of women in the church in Rome. The description of their activities is impressive. Of Phoebe, it is written that she was a helper of many. Of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis, it is written that they “labored much.” While the roles of women may be different than men in the church, the zeal in which it is carried out by these women was noted by Paul. Women were active participants in the work of the Lord in the church at Rome.

Phoebe also set an example of seeking out fellowship with the Lord’s people when she traveled to Rome. When we travel for vacation or business, do you seek out the saints? A “letter of commendation” is always helpful when traveling to places where other believers may not know you. It smooths the welcoming process.

The Apostle Paul highlights three married couples that are serving the Lord together, Priscilla and Aquila, Andronicus and Junia, and Philologus and Julia. Couples with strong marriages working together in the church are important for several reasons. First, to set an example of a godly marriage for others to follow, and second, to illustrate the love the Lord Jesus had for His Church and the Headship of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33).

This list of names gives us a hint at Paul’s missionary strategy. He would lead a person to the Lord and then disciple them. From this chapter we see that Paul kept in contact with those he had led to the Lord. Epaenetus was Paul’s first convert in Achaia and Paul knew where he was and what he was doing for the Lord. Paul also mentions his “kinsmen,” so he had as his priority, reaching his family and friends with the gospel.

Paul says just enough tantalizing facts about some individual so that it should whet the interest of those in the church in Rome to get to know these people better. For examples: What did Phoebe do to help others? What did Aquila and Pricilla do to risk their necks for Paul’s sake?   Andronicus and Junia had seen and heard the Lord Jesus. What was that like? Apparently this humble couple did not draw attention to themselves, but pointed people to the Lord Jesus and talked about Him. Paul gives a subtle hint to the Christians in Rome to ask Andronicus and Junia what it was like to have walked (literally and figuratively) with the Lord for close to 30 years. The principle we can learn from this is that everyone has a story to tell. We should get to know the people in our assembly.

Paul mentions the Jewish believers that are living in Rome for two reasons. First, he is reinforcing the truths that he has set forth in Romans 9-11 that God has not given up on the Jewish people. He was still calling out a remnant for his Name, and one day the nation will return to the Lord Jesus (Rom. 11: 26, 27). Second, the Gentiles believers in the church at Rome should not marginalize the Jewish believers (or women or slaves, for that matter), but “greet” them, give them a big bear hug and a holy kiss, and welcome them back into the fellowship of the saints in Rome. Do not marginalize them (cf. Eph. 3).

Conclusion
The title of this paper asks a question. Is this chapter a “grocery list” of names or the focus of the Apostle Paul’s ministry? I think we can see that these names reflect the heart of the Apostle Paul and his missionary practices. His focus was on people: seeing that they come to faith in the Lord Jesus, and then go on to serve Him.

When we see lists of names in the Bible, we should not pass over them lightly. They are real people and the Spirit of God included the names for our benefit. It should be a challenge for the diligent student of the Bible to dig out the gems that are in these lists of names. This exercise would be profitable for our spiritual lives! The lists in the Bible are part of the “all Scripture” of II Tim. 3:16 that are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness! We ignore this chapter to our own spiritual peril.

Bibliography

Allworthy, T. B.
1918   Narcissus. P. 76 in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Vol. 2. Edited by James Hastings. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Avigad, Nahman
1962   A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley. Israel Exploration Journal 12/1: 1-12.

Carroll, Scott
1992   Aristobulis. Pp 382-383 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Cervin, Richard
1994   A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7. New Testament Studies 40: 464-470.

Clarke, A.
2002   Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female: Paul’s Theology of Ethic, Social and Gender Inclusiveness in Romans 16. Pp. 103-125 in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Cotter, Wendy
1994   Women’s Authority Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional? Novum Testamentum 36: 350-372.

Dio Cassius
2000   Roman History. Books 56-60. Vol. 7. Trans. by E. Cary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 175.

Diogenes Laertius
2000   Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 185.

Donfried, Karl
1991   A Short Note on Romans 16. Pp. 44-52 in The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by K. P. Donfried. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Donfried, Karl, and Richardson, Peter, eds.
1998   Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.

Grainger, Sally
2006   Cooking Apicius. Devon, Great Britian: Prospect Books.

Grocock, Christopher; and Grainger, Sally
2006   Apicius. Devon, Great Britian: Prospect Books.

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

Jerome
1994   Lives of Illustrious Men. Pp. 353-402 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second series. Vol. 3. Edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Jewett, Robert
1988   Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission. Pp. 142-161 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Edited by J. Neusner, et. al. Philadelphia: Fortress.

1993   Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Biblical Research 38: 23-43.

Josephus
1976   Jewish Wars. Books 1-3. Vol. 2. Trans. by H. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 203.

1981   Jewish Antiquities. Books 18-19. Vol. 9. Trans. by L. Feldman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 433.

Justin Martyr
1994   The First Apology of Justin. Pp. 163-187 in Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Juvenal
1993   Juvenal and Persius. Trans. by G. Ramsay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 091.

Kearsley, R. A.
1999   Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul. Tyndale Bulletin 50/2: 189-211.

Keyes, Clinton W.
1935   The Greek Letter of Introduction. American Journal of Philology 56/1: 28-44.

Lampe, Peter
1991   The Roman Christians of Romans 16. Pp. 216-230 in The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by K. P. Donfried. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

1992a   Asyncritus. P. 508 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

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

1992c   Hermas. Pp. 147, 148 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992d   Hermes. P. 156 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992e   Mary. Pp. 582-583 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992f   Nereus. P. 1074 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992g   Olympas. P. 15 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992h   Patrobus. P. 186 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992i   Philologus. P. 345 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992j   Phlegon. P. 347 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992k   Stachys. P. 183 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

1992l   Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Pp. 669 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

2003   From Paul to Valentinus. Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Lightfoot, J. B.
1976   St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Reprint of 1913 edition, 15th printing.

Lleweltn, S. R.
1998   Christian Letters of Recommendation. Pp. 169-172 in New Documents Illustration Early Christianity. Vol. 8. S. R. Llewelyn, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

O’Conner, Jerome Murphy
1992   Prisca and Aquila. Bible Review 8/6: 40-51, 62.

Packer, James E.
1967   Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome. Journal of Roman Studies 57/ 1-2: 80-95.

Peterson, Joan
1969   House-Churches in Rome. Vigiliae Christianae 23/4: 264-272.

Platner, Samuel
1929   A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London: Oxford University Press.

Seneca
1987   Apocolocyntosis. Translated by W. H. D. Rouse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 015.

Slingerland, Dixon
1989   Suetonius “Claudius” 25.4 and the Account in Cassius Dio. Jewish Quarterly Review 79/4: 305-322.

Strauch, A.
1992   The New Testament Deacon. The Church’s Ministry of Mercy.
Littleton, CO: Lewis and Roth.

Suetonius
1992   Lives of the Caesars. Vol. 2. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 038.

Tacitus
1992   Histories. Books 4-5. Annals. Books 1-3. Vol. 3. Trans. by C. Moore and J. Jackson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 249.

1986   Annals. Books 4-6, 11-12. Vol. 4. Trans. by J. Jackson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 312.

1994   Annals. Books 13-16. Vol. 5. Trans. by J. Jackson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 322.

Thorley, John
1996   Junia, a Woman Apostle. Novum Testamentum 38: 18-29.

Vagi, David
1999   Coinage and History of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1: History. Sidney, OH: Coin World.

Whelan, Caroline
1993   Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49: 67-85.

Witherington, Ben III
2004   Paul’s Letter to the Romans. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
20Oct

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 5

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 5

by Gordon Franz (continued)

Greetings to Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobus, Hermes, and the brethren – 16:14
This group of five names seems to be greetings to the leadership in one of the local assemblies within the city of Rome. Paul addresses these individuals as well as those that meet with them as “brethren”. Interestingly, the next group of names in verse 15 is called “saints.”

The first name is Asyncritus which means “incomparable” (Jewett 1993: 29). This name appears only two times in the corpus of inscriptions from Rome. As Lampe observed, “Since the name was not common there, it probably indicates that Asyncritus immigrated to Rome from the East of the Roman Empire” (1992a: 1: 508). According to Jewett, the name points to slave status (Jewett 1993: 29).

The second person to be greeted is Phlegon. In classical literature this is a Greek name for a dog! (Jewett 1993: 29). I want to know what parent would give his or her child a dog’s name and why. (But parents have done stranger things. One rock star named his kid Jezebel!) It would be like having somebody in the church with the name Bowser or Fido! I guess the closest one comes to that name today would be Mutt like in the Mutt and Jeff cartoon strip. I am tempted to go off on a sermonette about nicknames and making fun of people’s names, but I will refrain. In the corpus of inscriptions from Rome, this name occurs only nine times which probably indicates he immigrated from the East as well (Lampe 1992j: 5: 347). The name is used of both slaves and freedman, so his social status can not be determined with certainty.

The third individual Paul instructs the church to greet is Hermas. The name Hermas is probably the shortened form of the name Hermagoras, Hermodorus, or Hermogenes.This name appears only six times in the corpus of Roman inscriptions and may indicate that this individual immigrated from the Eastern Roman Empire as well. Lampe suggests that Hermas was a Gentile believer in the Lord Jesus (1992c: 3: 147).

The fourth person to be greeted is Patrobus. This is the Greek form of the Latin name Patrobius. The Greek form of the name has never been discovered in any inscriptions (Lampe 1992h: 5:186). However, the Latin name has appeared eight times. Of the eight times, three are of prominent freedmen connected with the imperial administration, one which was in Nero’s court (Suetonius, Galba 20).

The final person Paul instructs them to greet is Hermes. This name is the same as the Greek god of good luck, whom Paul was identified with at Lystra on his first missionary journey (Acts 14:12). In Rome, this was a name given to slaves. Perhaps the owner was hoping that this slave would bring them good fortune (Lampe 1992d: 3:156).

Jewett has observed that “the names of the participants in this group indicate immigrant status and ethos, with a mix of slaves, freedmen, and Greek-speaking immigrants evident. … Persons with Greek names in Rome reflect a social background that was almost exclusively slave or former slave. Since all five names are Greek, it is likely that this church consisted entirely of persons with a low social status associated with slavery. This status gives it a high likelihood of being located in one of the tenements of Trastevere or Porta Capena. Since none of the five names appears to be playing the role of patron for the group, the social structure probably differed from what we have assumed was a normal house church. The selection of the title ‘brothers’ for this group may indicate an egalitarian ethos, which would be appropriate for a group without a patron” (Jewett 1993: 30).

Paul instructs the believers in Rome to greet this meeting of believers made up mostly of slaves. This act would demonstrate the truth that Paul wrote about in Galatians 3.

Greetings to Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them – 16:15
This next group of Greek names appears to be the leaders or prominent people of another assembly in Rome. Philologus and Julia are mentioned together which may indicate that they are husband and wife. The name Philologus appears on 23 inscriptions in Rome. Eighteen of these names are from the 1st century AD. “Half of the references are explicitly to slaves or freedmen. Several persons with this name are mentioned as lower officials in the Roman bureaucracy” (Jewett 1993:30). The name was not common in Rome which may indicate that he was an immigrant (Lampe 1992i: 5:345).

His wife, Julia, on the other hand, has the most frequently used name of any of the individuals listed in Romans 16. This Latin name appears over 1,400 times in the corpus of names found in Rome. This was a name given to slaves, especially of the Julian household, whether Jewish or Gentile.

The third name, Nereus, was “coined for slaves, [and] named after the Roman god of the ocean” (Jewett 1993: 31; Lampe 1992f: 4:1074). There is a 4th century AD tradition that Nereus and his sister were associated with Flavia Domitilla, and could have been buried in her catacomb. This raises the possibility that they were related to Amplias (16:8). Paul does not give the name of Nereus’s sister, but she must have had a good reputation and been very active in the church for her to be mentioned.

The final person to be greeted is Olympas. This might be a shortened form of the name Olympiodorus, Olympianus, or Olympicus (Lampe 1992g: 5:15). Most likely he was of slave origin like the others in this group because the name only appears twice in the corpus of inscriptions in Rome and none from the 1st century AD. He may also have been an immigrant from the East.

The picture that seems to immerge from this greeting is another church gathering in a tenement building of people with slave origins. Yet Paul calls them “saints” which seems to indicate a Jewish origin for this meeting.

Paul’s Missionary Strategy
Was there a strategy by Paul that these people would meet him in Rome after he left Corinth for Jerusalem? We don’t know. This was the “ideal” time for Paul and his co-workers to go to Rome because it was the “Golden Age.” They would also be available as Paul makes preparation to push on to Spain.

He is also trying to bring about the “Oneness of Christ.” John 17, so the world will believe. You can have a garbage man, excuse me, a sanitation engineer, as an elder in a meeting and he should be shown the respect and honor due that position.

The Holy Kiss
Paul’s final admonition to the believers in Rome was to “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (16:16a). Paul had admonished other churches to do the same thing (I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26, cf. I Pet. 5:14). Justin Martyr (died ca. AD 165) wrote in his First Apology 65, “When we have ceased from our prayers, we greet one another with a kiss” (1994: 1:185). This apparently was a common practice in the early church.
How should this be practiced today? What is the cultural equivalent? There was an elderly gentleman in a class I taught at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. He claimed to have had an “anointed kiss.” He said that if he kissed you, the Lord would bless you. Needless to say all the young ladies in the class were afraid of him!

I was talking with a Bible teacher who described the assembly that I attend as the “most kissingest assembly in NJ.” What a reputation to have! This created a problem at one time. A man who was not “playing with a full deck upstairs” visited the meeting for several Sundays because he saw all the kissing. He was thinking to himself, “Hey, I want to get in on the action!”

Perhaps the solution should be what a friend of mine, Bob Inot, once said, “Let’s greet one another with a holy handshake!”

The churches of Christ greet you – 16:16b
A number of people that Paul instructs the church in Rome to greet were originally from Greece or Asia Minor and had immigrated to the Eternal City (cf. Acts 20:4). The churches where they were originally from, in the east, sent their greetings as well. The churches in Christ in the east were concerned about those who had fellowshipped with them at one time and how they were treated by the believers in Rome. Paul is saying, “We are sending our greeting to you, and this is what we want you to do to each other in Rome. Please, do not show partiality among those believers who are different from you. Embrace one another!”

Peter in Rome?
It is interesting to note that there is no mention of Peter in this chapter. He was absent from Rome at this point in time. One would think if he was the first pope or even the bishop of Rome he would be mentioned. At an early point in Peter’s ministry (AD 42) he calls himself a “fellow elder” (I Peter 5:1). Peter and his wife were, most likely, off ministering somewhere else.

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 6 – Application and Bibliography
20Oct

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 4

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 4

by Gordon Franz (continued)

Greetings to Amplias – 16:8
This name was derived from the Latin name Ampliatus, a name which was common in the Roman imperial household. The name has been found at least eighty times on inscriptions in Rome. This cognomen was used by one of the branches of the gens Aurelia. One interesting inscription from this family was found in the Catacomb of Domitilla on the Via Ardeatina where the Jews and Christians from this family were buried. This inscription bears the name AMPLIAT and dates to the end of the 1st century AD. Is this the same person mentioned by Paul in this chapter? We have no way of knowing.

The normal burial practice in Rome was cremation. However, because of their concept of the resurrection of the body, the Jews and Christians buried their dead in catacombs.

Paul described Amplias as “my beloved in the Lord.” Paul apparently worked with Amplias somewhere in the East. Where? We are not told. His name indicates that he was a slave or a freedman and most likely of Jewish heritage. We are not told what brought him to Rome.

Greetings to Urbanus – 16:9a
The Latin name Urbanus means “belonging to the urbs, or city.” This seems to indicate that he was born and raised in Rome, thus a city slicker. Yet, Paul identified him as “our fellow worker in Christ.” How we are to understand the word “our” is a matter of debate. Some have taken the word in a figurative sense and suggested that Paul was already identifying with the believers in Rome and that Urbanus served the Lord in Rome while Paul served the Lord elsewhere. On the other hand, Urbanus could have labored for the Lord with Paul in the East in one of the Roman colonies, perhaps Corinth or Philippi. In this case, Urbanus would have been a Roman official, sent to one of the colonies as an administrator, and came to faith in the Lord Jesus and began working with Paul while in the city that he had been posted to. When he finished his “tour of duty” he returned to Rome. Now he was laboring among the believers in that city.

Greetings to Stachys – 16:9b
Stachys was another individual that Paul knew from his ministry in the Eastern Roman Empire because he identifies him as “my beloved.” His name means “ears (of grain).” Today his nickname might be Wheaties!

Most likely he immigrated to Rome for one reason or another. As Peter Lampe points out: “This … is confirmed by the inscriptions of the city of Rome; that only thirteen epigraphical matches of ‘Stachys’ exist shows that the Romans seldom used the name. Stachys was probably a gentile Christian. It has been proposed that Stachys was a (freed) slave, but the inscriptions do not reveal a significant occurrence of the name for slaves; only three out of eleven possible 1st century “Stachys” inscriptions refer to slaves of freedmen” (1992k: 6: 183).

Greetings to Apelles – 16:10a
The name Apelles was common among the Jewish people of Rome, so we can assume that he was a Jewish believer in the Lord Jesus. Paul characterizes him as “approved in Christ.” The word “approve” has the idea of tried by a test, or tests. The same word is used in James 1:12, “Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.” Apelles apparently has been “through the mill” in his service for the Lord Jesus. What he experienced, we are not told. Paul mentions it, in hopes that the gentiles in the church in Rome would greet him and ask about his life story.

Greetings to the household of Aristobulus – 16:10b
Paul admonishes the church to greet those of the household of Aristobulus. This seems to indicate that Aristobulus was not a believer in the Lord Jesus. There are only two inscriptions that have been excavated in Rome with the name Aristobulus.

There was a man living in Rome during the First Century AD, that some have conjectured is the Aristobulus of this household. He was the grandson of Herod the Great and the brother of Herod Agrippa I (Josephus, Wars 2:221, 222; LCL 2: 209-211). His parents’ names were Aristobulus and Berenice “the younger.” Aristobulus received a Roman education in the city along with his two brothers and a fellow who would become Emperor Claudius! When he came from the east, most likely he brought his slaves / servants with him (Lampe 2003: 165).

Unfortunately he did not get along with one of his brothers, Agrippa I. In fact, he accused his brother of taking bribes, which did not sit too well with the Roman proconsul of Syria, Flaccus.

Aristobulus was one of the Jewish leaders that led a protest against the decision of Emperor Gaius Caligula to place a statue of himself in the Temple in Jerusalem. Fortunately, Caligula would die before he could carry out this abomination (Josephus, Antiquities 18:273-276; LCL 9:161-163; Wars 2:10; Tacitus, Histories 5:9).

Aristobulus had a wife named Jotapa, a princess from Emessa. This union produced only one daughter and her name was Jotapa as well. His brother, Agrippa I, died in AD 44. Aristobulus died sometime after that.

There is a church tradition that he was “the brother of Barnabas, one of the 70 disciples, ordained a bishop, and was eventually a missionary in Britian” (Carroll 1992: I: 383). If that is the case, most likely he came to faith after Paul wrote this epistle to the Romans. Perhaps he saw the changed lives of the believers within his household and their testimony left an impact on him, causing him to trust the Lord Jesus as his Savior.

Greetings to Herodion – 16:11a
Herodion might have been a prominent freedman in the household of Aristobulus. Usually when a slave is set free, the individual would take the name of his master, or the family name. It is quite possible that Herodion was somehow connected with the Herodian dynasty. Paul identifies him as “my countryman,” indicating that he was a relative of Paul and of Jewish heritage.

Greetings to the household of Narcissus – 16:11b
This is the second household Paul instructs the Gentile believers to greet. Narcissus, apparently was not a Christian, but there were believers in the household. We know of at least one individual in Rome, about this time, with the name Narcissus. His full name was Tiberius Claudius Narcissus (Lightfoot 1976: 175). He was a wealthy freedman of Emperor Tiberius (Juvenal, Satire 14:329-331; LCL 289), who came to prominence and was very influential during the reign of Claudius (Suetonius, Claudius 28: LCL 2: 59). Unfortunately for Nacissus, he crossed paths with Nero’s mother, Agrippina, who had him executed in AD 54 (Tacitus, Annals 12:57,65; LCL 4:399, 411; Annals 13:1; LCL 5:3; Dio Cassius, History 60:14-16,19; LCL 7:403-407, 415; CIL 15: 7500). “It was customary in such cases for the household to become the property of the Emperor while it retains the name of its old master” (Allworthy 1918: 2: 76). When this letter was written, three years had gone by since the household reverted to the property of Nero. Perhaps these are some of the believers that Paul is referring to when he wrote to the church at Philippi a few years later, “All the saints greet you, but especially those who are of Caesar’s household” (4:22).

The fact that there were different religions in Rome at the time and that sometimes masters and slaves did not worship the same God or gods, is reflected in an interesting statement by Cassius in AD 61. “But now that our households comprise nations – with customs the reverse of our own, with foreign cults or with none, you will never coerce such a medley of humanity except by terror” (Tacitus, Annals 14:44; LCL 5: 179).
Paul instructs the slaves to “obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eye service, as men pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality” (Col. 3:22-25). He also gives similar instructions to the church at Ephesus (6: 5-8). Cf also I Peter 2:18-21.

There is another example of a household coming to faith. Cf. Acts 16:30-32. The Philippian jailer trusted the Lord Jesus as his Savior and each person of his household trusted Christ on an individual basis.

Greetings to Tryphena and Tryphosa – 16:12a
The next two individuals that Paul instructs the church in Rome to greet, are apparently two sisters who might even be twins. The first is Tryphena, whose name means dainty. The mother of Polemon II, king of Pontus and Cilicia, had this name as well. The second is Tryphosa, whose name means delicate. Both names are found on Roman inscriptions that are connected with imperial households (Lampe 1992l: 6:669). Like Mary and Persis, they “labored in the Lord” (cf. 16:6). The fact that they had time to work for the Lord in the church at Rome seems to indicate that they were freedwomen and, if they were married, had very supportive husbands.

Greetings to Persis – 16:12b
The next person Paul instructs the church to greet is a woman named Persis. Her name means “Persian woman.” The name is used of a slave or free born person, but not the imperial household. Like the two woman before, she labored (much) for the Lord.

Greetings to Rufus – 16:13
If the Rufus Paul instructs the church in Rome to greet is the same Rufus mentioned in Mark 15:21, then he was of Jewish heritage. He would have been the son of Simon of Cyrene, from the Jewish colony in Cyrene, North Africa. Rufus’ brother’s name was Alexander. Simon was the person that carried the cross of the Lord Jesus to a hill called Golgotha where He was crucified. John Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name from Rome about AD 43. He would have mentioned Rufus because, most likely, he and his mother had moved to Rome and they were in fellowship with the saints in the city at the time.

Some have objected to Rufus being the son of Simon because Simon is not greeted in this passage, or his brother Alexander. Perhaps one, or both, had already died in the intervening 28 years. In 1941, during a systematic survey of burial caves in the Kidron Valley in Jerusalem, an intact burial cave was discovered containing eleven ossuaries, or bone boxes. One of them, ossuary no. 9, had the name “Alexander (son of) Simon” on it twice. On the lid, it had a bilingual inscription with the name Alexander written in Greek and Hebrew. The Hebrew inscription added the word QRNYT, which has been taken by some to mean “from Cyrene” (Avigad 1962: 9-11). The epigrapher who published these ossuaries mused: “The perplexing similarity of these names with those on our ossuary may of course be a sheer coincidence, but it led Milik … to consider the possibility, without pressing the matter ‘that the tomb in question belongs to the family of him who helped Jesus to carry the cross’” (Avigad 1962: 12). The date of his death, unfortunately, was not recorded on the ossuary.

Paul also instructs the church to greet Rufus’ mother as well. He identifies her as “Rufus’ mother and mine.” More than likely Paul is speaking of her as his mother in a figurative sense. Most likely she cared for the physical needs of Paul when he was visiting Jerusalem on various occasions before she and Rufus moved to Rome.

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 5
20Oct

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 3

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 3

by Gordon Franz (continued)

Greetings to Epaenetus – 16:5b
The next person to be greeted is Epaenetus. Paul described him as “beloved” and the “first fruit of Achaia.” The city of Corinth was the capital of Achaia so we can assume that he was the first person Paul led to the Lord upon his arrival in Corinth during his second missionary journey in AD 52. Apparently he was a servant in the household of Stephanas, which Paul describes as the “first fruits of Achaia” (I Cor. 16:15). The Apostle Paul followed the pattern that he followed elsewhere by seeking out the Jewish community in Corinth first (Acts 18: 2, 4; Rom. 1:16). The household of Stephanas was most likely Jewish.

This was the only household that Paul baptized (I Cor. 1:16). It is interesting to note that the Apostle Paul baptized only Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue who came to faith in Yeshua (Acts 18:8); Gaius, later to be Paul’s host and a patron of the church at Corinth (Rom. 16:23); and the household of Stephanus (I Cor. 1:14-16). Once the local church was established in Corinth, he moved out of the way and let the local leadership take over the ordinance of baptism, a function of the elders in the local church.

For the next eighteen months, Paul and Silas committed the Word of God to Ephaenetus as a “faithful man” so that he could teach others the Scriptures (II Tim. 2:2). Six years later we see Epaenetus in Rome. How did he get there? One possible conjecture as to how he got to Rome is that when Aquila and Priscilla returned to Rome from Ephesus, they went via Corinth and invited Ephaenetus to join them in Rome. He had been a servant in the household of Stephanus, but apparently was freed by his master and went to Rome as a freedman and ministered in the assembly that met in the house of Aquila and Priscilla on the Aventine Hill.
It is very telling that, six years later, Paul was still in contact with his convert and disciple.

Greetings to Mary – 16:6
Paul instructs the church to greet Mary, or as she was known by her Semitic name Miriam (Mariam). Most likely she was of Jewish heritage and named after Aaron’s sister (Ex. 15:20, 21; Micah 6:4). Nineteen Jewish inscriptions have been found in Rome bearing the name of the famous Old Testament person (Lampe 1992e: 4: 582).

Peter Lampe, on the other hand, suggests that “Mary was a freedwoman of the gens Maria or a descendant of a freed slave of this gens. Either way, she probably had Roman citizenship: slave masters with famous gens names like ‘Marius/is’ possessed Roman citizenship and in most cases passed it on to their slaves on the occasion of their emancipation; the freed slave then bequeathed the citizenship and the gens name to their freeborn children. Mary was probably a Gentile Christian” (1992e: 4: 583). Personally, I would disagree with Lampe. I think she was of Jewish heritage.

Paul describes her as one who has “labored much for us.” The word “labored” (ekopiasen) means to work hard and is used of four people in this chapter, all women (Miriam, 16: 6; Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis, 16:12). Paul uses the word “labor” to describe his activities as well. He was a workaholic and worked on the philosophy, “I would rather burn out than rust out.”

“Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, writing in the second half of the 4th century AD says: “The women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way, they were traveling with them and also performed all other ministries”.
A number of years ago, when we had a college and career group at Valley Bible Chapel called “Eklampo” (it means “to shine forth” from Matt. 13:43), we had a young lady named Ruth Hsu from the Brighton Ave. assembly in Orange, NJ attend our meetings. One afternoon the issue of the role of women in the assembly came up. Ruth said, “All my life I have been told what I can not do. Can somebody tell me what I can do?!” She was thankful when I gave her a copy of a chapter from the book, Life in His Body, by Gary Inrig. Even though Paul says a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man (I Tim. 2:12), there are plenty of other things women can do in the meeting and Inrig gave a very positive presentation of what women can do in the assembly. Women play a key roll in the Sunday School ministry, Vacation Bible School, Awana, and women’s outreach. I dare say that if women stopped doing what they are doing, most assemblies would have to close their doors! Like Mary in Rome, women have a vital function in the local assembly.

Greetings to Andronicus and Junia – 16:7
This is a problematic greeting because we do not know if the name Junia is masculine or feminine. The name is in the accusative case which means it is the same for the male and female. If the name is masculine, then he would be named Junias, which is the shortened form of the name Junianus. If that is the case, then the two were probably brothers. If it is feminine, then the name would be Junia as in the KJV and NKJV. That being the case, then Andronicus and Junia were probably husband and wife. The early church fathers took it as female, and I will follow their lead.

Paul identifies them as “my countrymen.” This could mean one of two things. First, is that they were of Jewish heritage. Paul uses the word in the same way earlier in this epistle (Rom. 9:3, 4). “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.”

The word could also be used of close relative. Notice in this list that Paul does not call Aquila a “countryman” (16:10), even though he was of Jewish heritage. Apellas and Rufus were also Jewish (16:13), but they are not called “countrymen.” The context suggests that Paul is using the word for close relatives. If that is the case, we see the fruit of Paul’s labors while he was in Tarsus for 8-12 years reaching family and friends with the gospel (16:8-12).

Jerome, a prolific commentator in the 4th century AD, records that Paul was born in Gush Halav in Upper Galilee. His family later moved to Tarsus. As a teen-ager, he goes to Jerusalem to study under Rabbi Gamaliel. There is a hint in the book of Acts that Paul had relatives in Jerusalem. It was Paul’s sister’s son that alerted him to a conspiracy to kill him (Acts 23:16). The question arises, did the family live there or were they up in Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festival of Succoth? Be that as it may, we see that Paul was reaching his family and friends with the gospel and then discipling them.

Paul also identified this couple as “fellow prisoners.” When this occurred, we are not told. The Apostle Paul was, by his own admission, a jailbird with a rap sheet a mile long! He proclaims that he was beaten a number of times and frequently in prison (II Cor. 11:23). Paul points out to the believers in Rome that this couple had been in prison for the cause of Christ. He wanted them to know that they had paid the price for following the Lord Jesus.

Paul goes on to say that they were of “note among the apostles.” Two different interpretations have been given for this phrase. First, they were noted “in the eyes of the apostles.” Second, they were noted “among the apostles.” (Witherington 2004: 390). The early church Fathers favor the second, indicating that they were apostles and noteworthy among the apostles. The word apostle means one sent forth with a message (cf. Phil. 2:25; II Cor. 8:23), but it could also mean, those who had seen the Risen Lord Jesus and been sent forth by Him with the gospel. Paul gives a list of those who had seen the Risen Lord Jesus in I Cor. 15. The list included “the twelve” (vs. 5), which is distinct from “James [most likely Jesus’ half-brother], then by all the apostles” (vs. 7). What Andronicus and Junia did to deserve this commendation, we are not told. Their life and work for the Lord was such that it caught the attention of the other apostles in Jerusalem.

Paul goes on to say that they were “in Christ” before he was. The phrase “in Christ” is used of people who have put their trust in the Lord Jesus as Savior and have been places in the Body of Christ. In the case of Andronicus and Junia, this happened (chronologically) before Paul trusted the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus. Most likely they were part of the Hellenist faction of the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1). Their names are not Hebrew names, but rather, Greek and Latin names.

The fact that Paul has to tell the believers in Rome that this couple was related to him, spent time in prison for the cause of Christ, did noted things, seen the Risen Lord Jesus, and had been saved longer than himself, speaks volumes about their humility. It could be suggested that they were a humble couple that did not want to draw attention to their own lives and accomplishments. The focus of their ministry was to uplift and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by the manner in which they lived.

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 4
16Oct

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 2

Profiles in Missions Comments Off on Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 2

by Gordon Franz (continued)

The Apostle Paul Sends Instructions to Greet Various Saints in the Church in Rome. 16:3-16
Before we look at the names of the people in the church at Rome, we should look at the formation of the church in the “eternal city.” When did the gospel first arrive in Rome and what was the ethnic and religious makeup of the early church in the city? The gospel most likely came to Rome soon after Shavuot (Pentecost) of AD 30. There were “visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” (Acts 2:10) that were in Jerusalem for the thrice annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Some may have heard Peter’s heart piercing sermon and placed their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. They would have returned to their family and friends in Rome and shared the good news of salvation by faith alone in the Lord Jesus.

According to church tradition, Peter, along with Silvanus and John Mark, visited Rome in the second year of Emperor Claudius in AD 42. The nucleus of believers in the earliest church meeting in Rome would have been Jewish. In AD 49, the Jews were expelled from Rome. It was at this time that Aquila and Priscilla departed the city, even though they were believers in the Lord Jesus (Acts 18:2; Suetonius, Claudius 25:4; LCL 2: 53; Slingerland 1989: 305-322). The church that was left in Rome was mostly Gentiles and probably of the lower class. After the death of Claudius in AD 54, Nero apparently reversed the decree and Jews returned to Rome, most likely Jewish believers in the Lord Jesus returned as well, including Aquila and Priscilla.

Peter Lampe published a monumental study on the early church in Rome entitled Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte (1987; for an English summary, see Lampe 1991 and 2003). In his studies he “showed that two of the most likely areas for early Christian house churches were in Trastevere, [on the west bank of the Tiber River] and the section on the Appian Way around the Porta Capena inhabited by the immigrants” (Jewett 1993: 27). He also suggested two other areas, Marsfield and the Aventine Hill with “potentially higher social status” than the other two areas (cited in Jewett 1993: 28).

In verses 3-16, Paul commands an unnamed group in the Roman church to greet 28 people on his behalf. The verb “to greet” does not merely mean to greet, like “Hi, how are you?” and wave your hand. The verb has the idea of wrapping one’s arms around and embracing someone. Paul admonishes them to “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (16:16). Ben Witherington III points out: “[This] amounts to a command to treat those named as family, to welcome them into one’s own home and circle. Paul is going all out to create a new social situation in Rome, overcoming the obstacles to unity and concord dealt with in chapters 14-15. His arguments have intended to deconstruct the social stratification in the Roman church, creating a leveling effect by making all debtors to the grace and mercy of God, so the Gentile majority will treat the Jewish Christian minority as equals and with respect” (2004: 380). I would also add women and slaves to Witherington’s comments.

The hint from Romans 14 is that the church was divided over what was served at the love feast, or agape meal. This section (16:3-16) begins with a group of Jewish believers meeting in the home (probably a villa) of Aquila and Pricilla (16:3-5a), and ends with a church of Jewish believers who are slaves meeting in a tenement building, or apartment (16:15).

There is a Roman receipt book entitled Apicius which gives the receipts for standard Roman meals. They include such non-kosher items as shell fish (lobsters, mussels and crawfish), pork, blood sausage, ostrich, rabbit, octopus and squid and receipts that mix milk and meat (Grocock and Grainger 2006; Grainger 2006). Having a meal of pork sacrificed in a pagan shrine in Rome, or blood sausage, would be completely appalling to any Jewish believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul had never been to Rome, yet he already knew about 28 people in the church in that city. Some he knew from personal contact. He either worked with them or led them to the Lord. Others he knew only by reputation from what others had told him.

Greetings to Pricilla and Aquila – 16:3-5a
The first individuals that Paul encourages the church in Rome to greet is a Jewish couple named Priscilla and Aquila who had come to faith in the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. Aquila was originally from Pontus on the south shore of the Black Sea, called the Euxine Sea during the Roman period (Acts 18:2). Where Priscilla is from, we are not told. She could have been from Rome and Aquila met and married her in the Eternal City.
There are at least four possibilities as to when and how they came to faith in the Lord Jesus. First, he could have heard the preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem in AD 30 (Acts 2:9) and then returned to his home in Pontus (in the Diaspora). Second, he and his wife could have been in Rome in AD 30 and were part of the Jewish and proselyte delegation that visited Jerusalem for Pentecost in AD 30 (Acts 2:10). Third, he could have heard the preaching of Peter on his missionary trip through Pontus in AD 40-42 (cf. I Peter 1:1. Acts 12:17). Jerome, one of the early church fathers, states: “Simon Peter … after having been bishop of the church in Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion – the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia – pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius” (1994: 3: 361). Fourth, if they were in Rome in AD 42, they could have heard Peter preach then.

These possible scenarios raise some interesting questions. Did Peter go to Pontus at the request of Aquila as a follow-up visit? Does Peter take Aquila as a disciple to Rome with him when he ventures to the city after his missionary journey? The latter would account for how he got to Rome. Was Aquila one of the leaders in the “pro-Cephas” faction in the church at Corinth (cf. I Cor. 1:12; 3:22)? He was being loyal to the one who led him to the Lord and mentored him. These are questions that can be asked, but Scripture is silent on the answers.

Scripture does state that Aquila and Priscilla were expelled from Rome by a decree during the days of Emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2). Most scholars date this decree to AD 49. After the expulsion, Aquila and Priscilla went to the Roman colony of Corinth. There they practiced their trade of tentmaking. In AD 52, Paul appears in Corinth to begin the work of evangelism. Silas and Timothy soon joined Paul in the work. One of the things that attracted these three was the Isthmian Games that were held near Corinth (Acts 18:2-5).

After 18 months of ministering in Corinth, Paul decided to move to Ephesus. He took Aquila and Priscilla with him to this major trading center on the west coast of Asia Minor (Acts 18:18, 19). Paul left them there as he journeyed on to Jerusalem. While in Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla had the opportunity to teach Apollos, from Alexandria, the finer points of the Word of God and his salvation (Acts 18: 26). They were also able to establish a church that met in their house (I Cor. 16:19).

The next time we see Aquila and Priscilla in Scripture, they are in Rome when the epistle to the Romans arrives in AD 58 (Rom. 16:3-5). Rome, not Corinth or Ephesus, was home for them, so they returned sometime after the death of Claudius and the reversal of his decree of expulsion. Paul indicates that there is a church meeting in their home (Rom. 16:5a). Tradition has it that the house church was on the Aventine Hill, on Via Prisca (Platner 1929: 65-67). This site was excavated by the Augustinian monks of St. Prisca between 1934 and 1958. Underneath the church they found a Mithraeum with an altar dating to the 2nd century AD with statues of Oceanus Saturnus and Mithras killing the bull.

The church had been meeting in the home of Aquila and Priscilla for nearly 10 years when tragedy struck. The Great Fire of July 19, AD 64, probably started by Nero, destroyed the homes on the Aventine Hill leaving Aquila and Priscilla homeless, along with thousands of other Romans. Perhaps they saw the handwriting on the wall. There were rumors that Nero had started the fire so he could engage in some urban renewal. He quickly blamed the Christians for starting the fire and the persecution of the Christians soon followed. Aquila and Priscilla, being homeless and fearing the persecutions, escaped to Ephesus. The last mention of this couple is in II Tim. 4:19, written in AD 67.

When Paul instructs the church at Rome to greet Priscilla and Aquila on his behalf, he describes them as his “fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also, all the churches of the Gentiles” (16:3b, 4). Paul had labored with them in Corinth and the beginning of the work at Ephesus. Paul mentions an event that is unrecorded in the book of Acts, but this couple put their life on the line for the Apostle Paul. What it was, we do not know, but it must have been heroic because the Gentile church gave thanks. Why does Paul mention this event? The majority of Gentile believers in the church in Rome apparently marginalized this couple and the house meeting in their home. Paul says to greet them (give them a big hug) and thank them for risking their lives for his sake. He says that even their fellow Gentiles in churches in the east have been thankful for their testimony. Paul is trying to unify the Church. (For a full discussion of this couple, see Hiebert 1992: 23-35).

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 3

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Category:

Archives:

Meta:

THE RESURRECTION OF THE JERUSALEM SAINTS AT THE FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS (Matthew 27:51-54)

The Ultimate Sign, Isaiah 7

Historical Background

The Distress in the House of David because of Rezin and Pekah – 7:1, 2

The Planned Destruction of the House of David by Rezin and Pekah – 7:3-9

The Declaration to the House of David – 7:10-17

The Near Destruction of the Land of the House of David – 7:18-25

Applications

Bibliography

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS – HISTORICAL FACT OR LEGENDARY FICTION?

“HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 2

“HE BEGAN TO SEND THEM OUT TWO-BY-TWO …” Part 1

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 6 – Application and Bibliography

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 5

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 4

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 3

Romans 16: A “Grocery List” of Names Or the Heart and Focus of the Apostle Paul’s Ministry? Part 2

Recent Posts

Recent Comments