Bible Study Resources

Salvation is a major theme in the book of Luke. In fact, Luke used the language of salvation more than any other gospel writer.[1] Salvation in the Gospel of Luke should be interpreted in light of the overall message of the Gospel which is about Jesus and how he, as the Son of God, performed miracles, died for those who followed Him, rose again, and ascended to heaven. This study of the word “salvation” in the book of Luke will consist of explaining the opportunity of salvation, synonyms, antonyms, and how Luke presented the word “salvation” in light of the overall message of his book.

I. THE OPPORTUNITY OF SALVATION

The word “salvation” is used five times in the book of Luke.[2] The clearest presentation of the word is used in Luke 19:44 where Jesus saw the city of Jerusalem, began to weep, and said,

“How I wish today that you of all people would understand the way to peace. But now it is too late, and peace is hidden from your eyes. Before long your enemies will build ramparts against walls and encircle you and close in on you from every side. They will crush you into the ground, and your children with you. Your enemies will not leave a single stone in place, because you did not accept your opportunity for salvation” (Luke 19:42-44, emphasis added, New Living Translation).

It is important to make a few observations about this verse. First, salvation is said to be an “opportunity.” The opportunity for salvation is through Jesus’ words and work on the Cross. The people of Jerusalem did not accept the opportunity for salvation that Jesus presented them. One of the main themes of the Bible is how humans can respond to that opportunity for salvation. As Allison Trites writes, “God is seen preeminently at work to fulfill his purposes in salvation history in Jesus.”[3] Jesus revealed himself as the one who brought salvation.[4] Second, the four previous mentions of the word “salvation” in the book of Luke affirmed that Jesus was the one able to bring salvation. That ability to bring salvation is what predicted the opportunity of salvation through him. Third, Jesus was weeping because “the nation missed the opportunity to respond to the eschatological moment, that is, to his [Jesus] visitation.”[5] Luke 19:42-44 tell of how Jesus “had visited his people as he had promised. The Messiah had come to seek and to save the lost. They refused to recognize they were lost. They refused to see God’s glory in Jesus or to give God glory for sending Jesus.”[6] Fourth, Jesus was sad because he knew that their decision to reject him would cost them dearly. This was the salvation opportunity for the Jewish people yet they failed to accept it.[7] Fifth, because the people had not accepted their opportunity for salvation, they therefore rejected the Son. Luke’s Gospel is a clear presentation about how Jesus was affirmed as the Son of God, performed miracles, died for those who followed him, rose again, and ascended to heaven. Furthermore, because the people of Jerusalem had rejected Jesus and his work, their rejection would cause God’s judgment to come.[8]

II. OTHER VERSES EXPLAINING SALVATION IN THE BOOK OF LUKE

Within the book of Luke several other verses also expand on this main passage about salvation. Three of the five times Luke mentions the word “salvation” it is found in the beginning section of Luke (chapters 1-3, see attached chart). In this beginning section Luke’s emphasis is on the words and statements of others about Jesus and the salvation he brings. From the beginning of Luke’s Gospel Jesus was acclaimed as the promised deliverer.[9] Because one of the main messages of Luke’s Gospel is to present how Jesus, as God, was affirmed as the Son of God, Luke uses the affirmations of three different characters to show Jesus as the means to salvation. In this way, Luke is using people to affirm who Jesus was before Jesus stated who he was.

The first reference to Jesus as salvation is from Zechariah who declared, “You [John] will tell his [Jesus] people how to find salvation through forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:77). While filled with the Holy Spirit (1:67) Zechariah gave this prophesy about his son, John. Zechariah showed that John would prepare the way for Jesus, the one who would forgive sins. If salvation comes from the forgiveness of sins, who has the power to forgive sins? That is Jesus; therefore, salvation is through Jesus.

The next use of “salvation” in the book of Luke is when Simeon, a righteous and devout man waiting for the Messiah, held Jesus and said, “Sovereign Lord, now let your servant die in peace, as you have promised. I have seen your salvation, which you have prepared for all people. He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and he is the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32). Again, Jesus is seen as salvation. When Simeon saw Jesus, he saw salvation. It should be noted that the use of salvation by Zechariah and Simeon connects to the Old Testament concept of “bringing deliverance.” Bringing deliverance as savior was applied to the coming of Christ in Zechariah’s prophecy (Luke 1:69, 71; Ps. 106:10; 132:17) as well as Simeon’s hymn of praise (Luke 2:30).[10]

The third use of the word “salvation” in the book of Luke is when John the Baptist quoted from Isaiah saying, “And then all people will see the salvation sent from God” (Luke 3:6). This affirms that the one sent from God (Jesus of supernatural birth, [Luke 1:26-38]) is the one that is salvation. Similar to previous verses, seeing Jesus is the same as seeing salvation.

After these three introductory remarks about salvation the word is not used again until Luke 19:9 where Jesus responds to Zacchaeus’ decision to give half his wealth to the poor and four times as much to the people he had cheated on their taxes (Luke 19:8). Jesus responded with, “Salvation has come to this home today, for this man has shown himself to be a true son of Abraham.” The first three presentations of salvation in the book of Luke were seen as Jesus as its source. This is the first time Jesus directly declared himself as the instrument of salvation. Jesus declared Zacchaeus righteous and that salvation had come to him, probably because of his belief in Jesus and his response to Jesus.

III. SYNONYMS OF SALVATION IN THE BOOK OF LUKE

There are eight synonyms in the book of Luke that help to explain his concept of salvation.

A. Eternal Life

“Everyone who has given up house or wife or brother or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, will be repaid many times over in this life, and will have eternallifein the world to come” (Luke 18:29-30, emphasis added). For those who are saved Jesus promised eternal life in paradise (Luke 23:43).

B. Believe

During the time of Jesus’ resurrection he was walking with two of his followers and he said, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures” (Luke 24:25, emphasis added). Earlier in Luke several women had returned from the empty tomb and told everyone what they saw. “The story sounded like nonsense to the men, so they didn’t believe it.” (Luke 24:11, emphasis added). Responding to Jesus’ offer for salvation with belief is one of the most frequent descriptions from Luke about how to receive salvation.[11]

C. Acknowledge

“I tell you the truth, everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, the Son of Man will also acknowledge in the presence of God’s angels” (Luke 12:8, emphasis added). Acknowledging Jesus on earth and what he came to do is what allows people to join him in the presence of God’s angels. The people who responded to Jesus on earth are the same people who are promised a warm reception in heaven.[12]

D. Repent

Jesus opened his disciples’ minds to interpret the Scriptures and told them during his last conversation with people on earth, “There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent” (Luke 24:47, emphasis added). Repentance of sins is frequently emphasized in the book of Luke as a proper response to Jesus because someone receives salvation by repenting.[13] Lewis Sperry Chafer comments on repentance saying repentance “is almost universally added to believing as a requirement on the human side for salvation.”[14] He continues, “Repentance is not in itself equivalent to believing or faith, though, being included in believing, is used here as a synonym of the word believe.”[15]

E. Sacrifice

While teaching to a large crowd Jesus told them, “You cannot be my disciple without giving up everything you own” (Luke 14:33). Jesus had elaborated on this same point earlier in his ministry saying, “If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple. And if you do not carry your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple” (Luke 9:26-27). In these two passages Jesus spoke of sacrificing a person’s will, desires, needs, and ambitions all for the sake of following him. This sacrifice in order to follow Jesus is how to get salvation.

F. Forgiveness

After opening the minds of his disciples to interpret the Scriptures Jesus gave this statement during his last time speaking with people on earth, “There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent” (Luke 24:47, emphasis added). This forgiveness of sins was something only Jesus could do and was one of the expressions used in the Gospel of Luke to describe the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ.[16]

It is important to remember that these synonyms are not to be seen as different ways of salvation. They are simply different ways of expressing God’s opportunity for salvation. Neither are these synonyms a list from which people can chose which ones they like best. People “enter into God’s kingdom through one response that involves faith, repentance, baptism, confessing Christ, following Jesus, and keeping the commandments.”[17] This is not a process, it is an act which contains all of these responses.[18] As this examination of synonyms has been used to discover the meaning of the word “salvation” in the book of Luke an examination of antonyms will also be presented.

IV. ANTONYMS OF SALVATION IN THE BOOK OF LUKE

A. Denial

“Anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels” (Luke 12:9, emphasis added). Jesus was clear that those who knew him on earth would know him in heaven, but those who denied him on earth would be denied in heaven.  

B. Rejection

When sending out his disciples for ministry Jesus told them, “Anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me” (Luke 10:16, emphasis added). Rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God, therefore also a rejection of the opportunity of salvation of which Jesus was.

C. Punishment

While talking about the Pharisees to his disciples Jesus taught, “They [Pharisees] shamelessly cheat widows out of their property and then pretend to be pious by making long prayers in public. Because of this, they will be severely punished” (Luke 20:47, emphasis added). Punishment will fall upon all those who do not confess Jesus as Lord and follow him.

V. SALVATION IN THE BOOK OF LUKE

Salvation is an emphasis in the book of Luke. From start to finish Luke presents Jesus as the Savior, Messiah. In chapter one of Luke, Jesus was pointed to as the one who would bring salvation through the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:77). Then that message was affirmed by Simeon (Luke 2:30) and again by John the Baptist (Luke 3:6). Jesus himself claimed to be able to offer salvation when declaring that salvation had come to Zacchaeus’ home (Luke 19:9). With his final affirmation of salvation in Luke 19:44, Jesus stated that those who had not responded to the offer of salvation (himself) would be crushed, because he was the offer of salvation. 

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell. “Luke 1:11-9:50.” Vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.

Bock, Darrell. Luke 9:51-24:53. Vol. 2, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996.

Butler, Trent C. “Luke.” Holman New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Carpenter, Eugene E., and Philip W. Comfort. Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words: 200 Greek and 200 Hebrew Words Defined and Explained. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993.

Stein, Robert H. “Luke.” The New American Commentary, Vol. 24. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Trites, Allison. “The Gospel of Luke, Acts.” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol. 12, edited Philip Comfort. Carole Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006.

Wenham, David and Steve Walton. Exploring the New Testament. Vol. 1, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, 2^nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

---

[1] David Wenham and Steve Walton, Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, vo. 1, 2^nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 247.

[2] Luke 1:77; 2:30; 3:6; 19:9, 44.

[3] Allison Trites, “The Gospel of Luke, Acts,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip Comfort, vol. 12, (Carole Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006), 14.

[4] Darrell Bock, “Luke 1:11-9:50,” vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 33.

[5] Darrell Bock, “Luke 9:51-24:53,” vol. 2, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 1563.

[6]  Trent Butler, “Luke,”in Holman New Testament Commentary, vol. 3 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 320.

[7] Trites, “Gospel of Luke, Acts,” 261.

[8] Robert Stein, “Luke,” in The New American Commentary, vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 485.

[9] Trites, “Gospel of Luke, Acts,” 22.

[10] Eugene Carpenter, and Philip W. Comfort, Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words: 200 Greek and 200 Hebrew Words Defined and Explained (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 384.

[11] Stein, “Luke,” 50.

[12] Trites, “Gospel of Luke, Acts,” 22.

[13] Stein, “Luke,” 51.

[14] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993),  372.

[15] Ibid., 378.

[16] Stein, “Luke,” 50.

[17] Ibid., 51.

[18] Ibid.

Hebrews 6:1-8 is a passage most theologians either love or struggle with. Some theologians go to it repeatedly to explain their soteriological position while others attempt to avoid it because it does not match their theological method. This paper will examine three soteriological views and how each of these views interprets Hebrews 6:1-8. The final section contains a brief exposition of the passage along with the preferred view of this author.

I. 3 SOTERIOLOGICAL VIEWS OF HEBREWS 6:1-8[1]

A. Arminian – “Grace Lost by Walking in the Flesh”

The Arminian view interprets texts like Hebrews 6:1-8 as “real issues” (as apposed to hypothetical issues) because “Biblical warnings have meaning only if the threat is real, not hypothetical. Advocates hold that maintenance in grace is dependent on the believer’s continued faith, obedience, and perseverance.”[2] The Arminian view believes that “God and humans cooperate in the work of salvation. But if the latter fail to perform in a way sufficiently pleasing to God, salvation is forfeited.”[3] Some of the key texts that Arminian advocates use to support their view are Rom 11:17, 20-22; 1 Tim 1:18-19; Heb 6:4, 6; 10:26-29; and 2 Peter 2:20-21.

B. Moderate/Reformed – “Elect Believers Persevere, Non-Elect Fall Away”

The crux of the moderate/reformed view of Hebrews 6:1-8 is that “not all those regenerated are elected by God. The elect may fall into sin totally but not finally; but the regenerated who are non-elect may fall from grace both totally and finally. Those who fall from grace into sin need a new experience of conversion and justification. . . the elect persevere as a consequence of God’s sovereign decree.”[4] As a result, “the non-elect regenerate can fall totally from the state of grace.”[5] Some of the key texts that support this view are Matt 10:22; 24:13; Luke 8:3; and 1 Cor 10:12.

C. Reformed – “God Preserves the Converted in Perseverance to the End”

The reformed view of Hebrews 6:1-8 is that “regenerated and justified believers may lapse in their faith, resist God, and sin for a season. But their unbelief and resistance is temporary rather than incorrigible and final. . . because God through the Spirit secures the final salvation of all true believers by bringing about their free perseverance to the end.”[6] Key texts to support this view are John 3:39-40; 6:37; 10:28-29; 17:9, 11, 15; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 1:8; Phil 1:6; Heb 7:25; 1 Peter 1:5; 2 Peter 1:3.

II. THE PREFERRED VIEW

A. An Exposition of the Text

1. Before Hebrews 6. A strong emphasis leading up to Hebrews 6 is the call for spiritual growth in 5:11-14. The writer of Hebrews says that the readers of this letter were “spiritually dull” and needed someone to teach them again even though they ought to have been teaching others (5:12). Therefore, the readers of the book of Hebrews were called “babies” who could not eat “solid food” (5:12). Furthermore, the writer implied that the readers knew right from wrong (5:14).  Hebrews 6:1-8 is one of five “warning passages” written to these readers (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:20; 10:26-39; 12:25-29).

2. Hebrews 6:1-8. In Heb 6:1, one of the key words is the “evil” deeds; literally “dead” deeds or works. This is not necessarily the “evil” of the person’s life but instead is focused on death as a consequence of that evil.[7] In Hebrews 6:2, the word “further” seems to imply that the people had received instruction already. Again in Heb 6:3, the word “further” is used as something that the author hoped to accomplish in the future.  Hebrews 6:4 is the important verse to soteriology. A few important observations are that “once were enlightened” is in the past tense here. This is something that has happened already but does not appear to continue at the time of the author’s writing. In Hebrews 6:5, the word “enlightened” from verse 4 is explained as the people “who have tasted the goodness of the word of God” and tasted “of the power of the age to come.” In other words, these are people who have experienced the Christian conversion.[8]

Hebrews 6:6, if the “enlightened” from verse 4 “turn away from God” it is impossible to bring them back to repentance according to Hebrews 6:6. The preposition “by” in Hebrews 6:6 indicates the method by which people have turned away from God (i.e. nailing the son of God to a cross again). In Hebrews 6:7, the author switches to a metaphor to illustrate the points he has attempted to explain in verses 4-6. Hebrews 6:7 starts with the temporal word “when” which implies that this is something that surely happens (it is not a hypothetical situation). Hebrews 6:8, starts with the contrast conjunction, “but,” which gives the other option of what would happen under different circumstances (“thorns and thistles” compared to “good crop”).

3. After Hebrews 6. Following Hebrews 6:1-8 the author qualifies what he just said because it does not apply to the people he was writing to. The people receiving the letter of Hebrews had worked hard for God and had shown their love for God by caring for other believers. The author says that if the readers keep on loving others they would not become spiritually dull and indifferent (6:11-12).

B. The Preferred View of Hebrews 6 and Why

The exposition above is probably going to appear contradictory to this author’s soteriological view of Hebrews 6:1-8. However, Hebrews 6 clashes with the strong evidence seen elsewhere in the Bible for eternal security.

The preferred view of Hebrews 6 is categorized under the “Reformed” view that God preserves saints until the end. This view that God preserves the saints—eternal security—comes from several passages in the New Testament that strongly indicate this doctrine.[9] For example, the disciple John started his gospel saying, “To all who believed him [Jesus] and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12) and “everyone who believes in him will have eternal life” (John 3:14). The apostle Paul preached that “God’s gifts and his call can never be withdrawn” (Rom 11:29). And most convincingly for me, “He [Holy Spirit] has identified you as his own, guaranteeing that you will be saved on the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30). Some other texts are John 6:37-40; 10:27-29; 17:2-4, 6; Rom 8:28-29; Phil 1:6; Col 2:9-14; 2 Tim 1:12; 2:13; 1 Peter 1:1-9; 1 John 2:18-19; 5:11-13.[10]

III. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON HEBREWS 6 AND ETERNAL SECURITY

While there are other texts in the New Testament that appear to teach contrary what the preferred view is, the majority of Scripture appears to teach that “once saved, always saved” because God preserves believers until the end. Hebrews 6:4-6 is difficult to reconcile as well as John 15:1-6, Matt 12:32, and James 5:19-20. Just as this author has difficulty reconciling this position to these texts, someone who believes that believers can lose their salvation has to wrestle with the texts in the preceding paragraph that appear to teach that salvation is permanent.

Bibliography

DeMarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation. Wheaton, IL: CrossWay, 1997.

Geisler, Norman. “A Moderate Calvinist View.” In 4 Views of Eternal Security. Edited by J. Matthew Pinson. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Horrell, J. Scott. “Saving Faith, Assurance, and Eternal Security.” Unpublished class notes for ST104. Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, 2014.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. “Hebrews.” Vol. 17 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carole Streame, IL: Tyndale, 2009.

---

[1] People refer to the views by different labels. For the sake of simplicity and continuity within this paper this author uses the titles contained in the book, The Cross and Salvation, by Bruce DeMarest.

[2] Bruce DeMarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997)., 434.

[3] Ibid., 437.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 439.

[7] J. Ramsey Michaels, “Hebrews,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, (Carole Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2009), 17:371.

[8] Ibid.

[9] In addition to the passages contained above also see Norman Geisler’s support for eternal security from Job 19:25-26; Ecc 3:14; John 3:18; 5:24; 10:27-29; 17:9-24; Rom 4:5-6; 8:33, 35, 37-39; 1 Cor 12:13; 2 Cor 5:17, 21; Eph 1:4-5, 13-14; 2:4-6; Phil 4:3; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 10:14; 12:2; 1 John 3:9; Jude 24-25. Norman Geisler, “A Moderate Calvinist View,” in Four Views on Eternal Security, ed. by  J. Matthew Pinson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 70-77.

[10] Most of the Scripture references in support of my view appear in J. Scott Horrell’s notes, “Saving Faith, Assurance, and Eternal Security,” unpublished class notes for ST104 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, 2014), 15.

From the outset of Luke’s Gospel it is clear that he wants to get his story straight. He begins in this way,

Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught (Luke 1:1-4, NLT).

This is Luke’s main statement about his work, why he did it and how he did it. From a historical perspective, Luke displays an elevated literary style reminiscent of the classical historians of the ancient world like Thucydides, Polybius, and Herodotus.[1] Luke’s writing style matches closely to the style of ancient technical writings and because he has claimed to have researched his material carefully, he places himself among the ancient historians of his day.[2] This is shown by the way Luke sets his work within a historical and validated context. For example, he gives the date of Jesus’ birth in the reign of Augustus Caesar and a sevenfold dating of the ministry of John the Baptist (noting as John’s contemporaries one Roman emperor, four local rulers, and two high priests).[3] Luke sees it as vitally important that the Christian faith have a solid historical foundation.[4] Furthermore, Luke is seen as a highly credible account of the life of Jesus because “when Luke’s sources can be identified and examined, he appears to be trustworthy. In his presentation of customs, locales, and settings, he shows a remarkable concern for accuracy.”[5] It is known that Luke is not an eye witness to Jesus but is someone who wants to make a strong case for Jesus. Luke is strong in language skills, a careful researcher, and a meticulous writer who lays out a masterful piece of literature which will be used to tell who Jesus is.

I. DIRECT DESCRIPTIONS ABOUT JESUS

Luke states that Jesus is the instrument of salvation. Luke uses the language of salvation more than any other New Testament evangelist.[6] This is also shown from Luke’s recurring mentioning of Jesus making progress towards the city of Jerusalem.  Numerous times Jesus is said by Luke to be approaching the city of Jerusalem as demonstrated in 9:51; 10:38; 13:22; 17:11; 19:11, 41. Luke’s constant mentioning of Jesus’ progress toward Jerusalem, starting in chapter nine is showing Luke’s readers where Jesus’ journey is leading (Jerusalem) where he will be crucified and later rise from the dead.

Luke also wants to show that Jesus is the promised fulfillment of the Messiah prophesies. Luke carefully notes the ancestors of Jesus back to Adam in 3:23-38. Luke bookends his gospel with his own way of affirming Jesus as the Messiah. At the beginning, Luke tells of the true John the Baptist (1:5-25, 39-45; 3:1-20), an angel appearing to Mary (1:26-38), Jesus’ prophetic birth in the town of David (2:1-7), angels and shepherds singing to honor Jesus as king (2:8-20), the prophesy of Simeon (2:25-35), the prophesy of Anna (2:36-40), Jesus’ baptism (3:21-22), and the ancestry of Jesus to David and Adam (3:23-38). Luke ends his gospel telling of Jesus miraculously being taken up into Heaven in 24:50-53, “Then Jesus led them to Bethany, and lifting his hands to heaven, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up to heaven. So they worshiped him and then returned to Jerusalem filled with great joy. And they spent all of their time in the Temple, praising God.” This miraculous ascension after Jesus has risen from the dead affirms what Luke spoke directly about in the beginning of his gospel and what he sought to show through the middle as he displayed Jesus’ ability to teach and heal.

 II. OTHER CHARACTERS’ RESPONSES TO JESUS

Luke uses responses from several characters in the first three chapters to show who Jesus is. The angel Gabriel is the first person in the book of Luke to attest to Jesus being the son of God by saying to Mary, “You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!” (1:31-34). Mary appropriately responds to Gabriel affirming what she has just heard, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true” (1:30). Mary believes what Gabriel told her about her son being the son of God and that he would come to save others. In Mary’s song of praise in Luke 1:46-56 she reveals that she believes that God’s promises will come true and that the seed of Abraham will be the Savior. Elizabeth, the wife of Zachariah and mother of John the Baptist also affirms Jesus as the Son of God when she sees the pregnant Mary and states, “Why am I so honored that the mother of my Lord should visit me?” (1:44). Elizabeth knows that Mary is carrying her Lord. Next Luke tells of angels in 2:11-14 declaring that Jesus, the Savior has been born.[7] These angels play a strong role in Luke’s gospel to affirm Jesus as the Messiah. And, this was not the only time the angels arrive to announce Jesus as the Messiah.

After Jesus had been born and taken to the temple to be dedicated as every first born son was, he is again affirmed when Simeon sees him and says, “I have seen your salvation, which you have prepared for all people” (2:30-31). What is interesting about this is that “seeing God’s salvation is linked directly to seeing Jesus, so that a strong tie exists between salvation and the one who personifies it.”[8]  With this statement Simeon affirms Jesus as the Savior. Simeon is a unique character in the book of Luke because Simeon was given a special divine revelation about the coming Messiah.[9] With this special revelation Simeon responds appropriately with words of praise when seeing Jesus.[10] Anna, a godly woman who is always at the temple (probably hoping to someday see the Messiah) also knows that Jesus is the Messiah. “Anna’s message hints at a remnant concept, since she addresses her remarks only to those who await the consummation of God’s plan. For those ready to heard, fulfillment has come.”[11] With the sight of Jesus, Anna perceived the her prayers would be fulfilled through Jesus (2:38).[12]

The final character’s response Luke uses to show that Jesus is the Messiah is in 3:22 when the “Holy Spirit, in bodily form, descends on him like a dove. A voice from Heaven says, ‘You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy.’” This is located at the end of the first section of Luke’s gospel where he shows that Jesus is the Messiah, God affirms that Jesus is his Son. This statement by God shows that Jesus enjoyed the full approval of his Father, God.[13] Furthermore, “The words from heaven were more than a divine appointment; they were the divine approval of the course to which Jesus committed himself in accepting baptism.”[14] With this baptism it is clear that heaven has spoken, God has made his choice, and Jesus is the son of God.[15]

III. JESUS’ OWN WORDS AND THOUGHTS (NOT ABOUT HIMSELF)

With chapters one through three of Luke primarily focused on affirming Jesus as the Messiah through others’ responses to Him, chapter four moves onto using what Jesus says to discover who he is. Discovering who Jesus is can be done by noticing who he calls father. On the Mount of Olives praying to God about his coming judgment and crucifixion, he does not address God as God, but instead says, “Father” (22:41-42). Later, when being nailed to the cross Jesus addresses God as “Father” (23:34). Again, in Jesus’ last words while on the cross he addresses God as “Father” (23:46). In light of the previous revelations by Luke at the beginning of his gospel, Jesus’ statements addressing God as father cast him as the son of God.

Referring to John the Baptist (the one who prepares the way for Jesus) Jesus says, “Were you looking for a prophet? Yes, and he is more than a prophet. John is the man whom the Scriptures refer to when they say, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, and he will prepare your way before you’” (7:26-27). If John the Baptist was the prophet who was to prepare the way for Jesus, Jesus is therefore the one for whom John prepared the way for. “Both Jesus and Luke believed this would be sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ who was to come. If these things were taking place in Jesus’ ministry, then God’s kingdom, i.e., the messianic age, has already begun; and the one who has inaugurated that age must be ‘the one who was to come.’”[16] Zechariah prophesied about John the Baptist, “And you, my little son, will be called the prophet of the Most High, because you will prepare the way for the Lord” (Luke 1:76). By Jesus affirming John the Baptist, he affirms himself as Savior.

The story of Jesus and the sinful woman in 7:40-50 is one of the most moving and impactful stories of how Jesus reveals who he is. While having dinner with a Pharisee an immoral woman brings a beautiful alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume. She kneels behind Jesus at his feet, weeping. As her tears fall on his feet she wipes them off with her hair and then keeps kissing Jesus’ feet and putting perfume on them. When the Pharisee objects to such a sinful woman touching Jesus, Jesus shares a story with the Pharisee. In the story Jesus tells of a man who had one large debt owed to him by one man and one small debt owed to him by another. The man who loaned the money forgave both debts. Jesus asks, “Who do you suppose loved him more after that?” (7:42)  With that he leads into the point of his story, “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only a little love” (7:47). This moving story shows that Jesus is the Savior here to forgive sins and to come to those who know they are sinners. With Jesus taking on the right to forgive sins, he is showing he has the authority of divine judgment, which is only the authority of God.[17] With this claim of divine judgment and the ability to forgive sins Jesus is also claiming to be God.

IV. SELF-CHARACTERIZATION OF JESUS BY JESUS

The first words spoken by Jesus in Luke are a self-characterization of Jesus about himself. When Jesus’ parents were frantically searching for him and finally found him, Jesus replied, “‘But why did you need to search?’ he asked. ‘Didn’t you know that I must be in my father’s house?’” (2:49). With his rhetorical question Jesus states he is the son of God. The way Jesus asks the question makes a statement: “do you not know” is designed to produce an affirmative reply from his parents.[18] Jesus knows that he has a special relationship with the heavenly Father which naturally leads him to be discussing the things of God in his “Father’s house.”[19] Jesus has a “strong sense of identity with the Father and is committed to the mission God sent him to do. . . Jesus recognizes himself as sent by the Father to reveal his will.”[20] Jesus clearly wants to indicate that he is the son of God, and that God is his father.

Perhaps Jesus’ clearest self-characterization is when the crowds have grown to thousands around him and he turns to his disciples to say, “I tell you the truth, everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, the Son of Man will also acknowledge in the presence of God’s angels. But anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels” (12:8-9). Jesus points to himself as the one who saves, just as was prophesied about from various people in chapters 1-3 of Luke. The “open earthly confession of Jesus, the Son of Man, would bring open, heavenly confession of the believer by Christ himself in the presence of God’s angels.”[21] This is Jesus’ way of stating that he is the key to salvation; he is the one and only way to eternal life. This “Son of Man” is a title that Jesus clearly uses for himself throughout the book of Luke.[22] The term “Son of Man” is “an indirect way for Jesus to refer to himself in his authority to forgive sin . . . [he] has a strong sense that he is God’s appointed eschatological agent, since he has a role in divine judgment.”[23] Jesus is stating that he, as the son of man, is salvation.

V. ACTIONS AS A CLUE TO THE CHARACTER OF JESUS

The middle of Luke’s gospel from chapters 4 through 21 is mixed with actions of Jesus exemplifying him as the Messiah. In Luke 5:4-7 Jesus tells Simeon (later called Peter) to go out where the water is deeper and to fish there. Simeon objects because they worked hard the previous night and did not catch anything. However, Simeon still follows Jesus’ instructions to cast the nets and when they pull in the nets they are so full of fish that they are tearing! This leads Simeon to fall to his knees before Jesus and say, “Oh, Lord, please leave me—I’m too much of a sinner to be around you” (5:8). This story of Jesus showing that he has the power to do what they cannot do is the beginning of a theme of Jesus’ earthly ministry. The middle of Luke’s gospel (chapters 4-21) records that Jesus raises the dead twice,[24] cures more than 22 people who are sick,[25] casts out six demons,[26] and feeds thousands of people.[27] These all have a clear message: Jesus is God. “Miraculous healing demonstrates the scope of Jesus’ authority. He heals the sick, exorcises evil spirits, and cures fever, leprosy, paralysis, a withered hand, epilepsy, dropsy, blindness, a flow of blood, and deafness. He resuscitates the dead and exercises power over nature. Jesus’ work testifies to his person and task.”[28] Only the one who has power over these things could affect them in the way he affects them. From chapter four to twenty-one we see story after story of Jesus doing things that only the Son of God could do. 

During Jesus’ earthly ministry he also shows a keen understanding for what people are thinking. In 7:40 it reads, “Then Jesus answered his [Simeon] thoughts.” In 9:47, “But Jesus knew their thoughts.” Luke 11:17 states, “He knew their thoughts.” And finally in 19:1-5, “he looked up at Zacchaeus and called him by name.”[29]

Jesus’ actions further show that he is son of God when he is able to give his power to others. The book of Luke records Jesus healing others, casting out demons, feeding thousands, raising the dead, and showing knowledge of the thoughts of others. Miracles such as these show Jesus’ amazing power over demons, illness, and death. In light of Jesus’ power, he sends his disciples out to extend his ministry.[30] Jesus not only has the power to do these things but he also has the ability to give others this same power. Luke 9:1-2 records, “One day Jesus called together his twelve disciples and gave them power and authority to cast out all demons and to heal all diseases. Then he sent them out to tell everyone about the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick.” Just as Jesus’ work to do miraculous acts authenticates who he is, the fact that such work continues with his disciples suggests that Jesus’ authority continues through them.[31]

IV. CONCLUSION

The historical grounding of such a well documented and researched book as Luke sheds light on who Jesus is. Direct descriptions by Luke that Jesus is the instrument of salvation, responses from other characters that Jesus is the awaited Messiah, Jesus’ own thoughts and words addressing God as father, Jesus’ self-characterization as the son of man who saves, as well as his actions doing miracles all point to him clearly being the son of God, the Savior.

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell. Luke 1:11-9:50. Vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.

Bock, Darrell. Luke 9:51-24:53. Vol. 2, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996.

Marshall, I. H. Luke: Historian and Theologian. London: Paternoster, 1970). Quoted in Trites, Allison. The Gospel of Luke, Acts. Edited by Philip Comfort, Vol. 12, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, edited Philip Comfort. Carole Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006.

Stein, Robert H. Luke. Vol. 24. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Trites, Allison. The Gospel of Luke, Acts. Edited by Philip Comfort, Vol. 12, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, edited Philip Comfort. Carole Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006.

Wenham, David and Steve Walton. Exploring the New Testament. Vol. 1, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, vo. 1, 2^nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

---

[1] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, Acts, ed. Philip Comfort, in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip Comfort, vol. 12, (Carole Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006), 12.

[2] David Wenham and Steve Walton, Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, vo. 1, 2^nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 240.

[3] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 12.

[4] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 12.

[5] I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, (London: Paternoster, 1970) quoted in Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 12.

[6] Luke uses the Greek noun for “salvation” seven times in his gospel. This same noun is never found in Mark or Matthew. Wenham and Walton, Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, vo. 1, 2^nd ed, 247.

[7] Luke “found no difficulty in recording accounts of angelic activities as historical fact.” Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 19.

[8] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 242.

[9] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 59.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, 253.

[12] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 61.

[13] Ibid., 72.

[14] Ibid., 73.

[15] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, 345.

[16] Stein, Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 227.

[17] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, 708. 

[18] Ibid., 270.

[19] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, Luke, 63.

[20] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, 271.

[21] Allison Trites, The Gospel of Luke, 189.

[22] See 6:22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 58; 10:22; 11:30; 12:40; 17:22-26; 19:10; 22:48, 70, 24:7.

[23] Darrell Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, vol. 2, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 1139.

[24] Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56.

[25] Luke 4:38-39, 40 (“many” were cured); 5:13, 18-24; 6:8-1, 17-19; 7:9-10, 21; 8:40-48; 13:10-14; 14:1-6; 17:11-13 (10 were cured).

[26] Luke 4:31-37; 6:17-19; 7:21; 8:26-34; 9:37-43; 10:14.

[27] Luke 9:10-17.

[28] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, 34.

[29] This final scenario with Zacchaeus is correctly described, “Jesus makes a surprise move. Upon arriving under the tree in which Zacchaeus is perched, he looks up and addresses the tax collector by name. The text does not indicate how Jesus knows Zacchaeus’s name: perhaps he knew it by supernatural enablement (like John 1:47:48) or by hearing people call to Zacchaeus or by asking about his name (Plummer 1896:434; Arndt 1956: 389; C. A. Evans 1990: 283; Marshall 1978: 696. Despite the absence of this detail, it is clear that Jesus is in control of the situation.” Darrell Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1517. 

[30] Wenham and Walton, Exploring the New Testament, vol. 1, A Guide to the Gospels and Acts, vo. 1, 2^nd ed, 243-244.

[31] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:11-9:50, 34.

Loosely defined, sanctification is the work of both God and a believer toward becoming more Christ-like. The variations within evangelical theology and its view of sanctification vary greatly. As a system of theology, dispensationalism views sanctification in similar ways to many other evangelical theologies with the exception of three distinctions. Those three distinctions are the security of a believer, the work of the Spirit, and the unique role of progressive sanctification. This paper will define sanctification broadly from both a mainline and dispensational viewpoint, provide a brief biblical basis for dispensationalism, as well as discuss at length the three distinctions of the dispensational view of sanctification.

I. SANCTIFICATION DEFINED

            Sanctification is “being made holy, or purified”[1] by the “continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which the holy disposition imparted in regeneration is maintained and strengthened.”[2] The word sanctify comes from similar Hebrew and Greek words that mean “a person or thing is thereby said to be set apart, or classified, usually as pertaining unto God.”[3] Encompassing all of these definitions is that “Sanctification refers to growth in spiritual maturity, founded upon the enablement provided to all believers by the Holy Spirit and energized by the filling of the Spirit.”[4] With the definition of sanctification provided it is important to examine dispensationalism and how it might provide a different view of what sanctification is and how it occurs in the life of a believer.

II. A BRIEF BIBLICAL BASIS FOR DISPENSATIONALISM

            The word “dispensation” comes from the usage of the word, oikonomia, which is commonly used in the New Testament. But what is a dispensation? Stanley Toussaint describes a dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”[5] These periods of times include seven distinct dispensations.

A. The Seven Dispensations

            Stanley Toussaint provides an abbreviated description of the seven different dispensations of God. Each of these dispensations throughout history show different ways God interacted with His people in how they were to worship Him, the way in which He expected them to obey Him, as well as well as His punishment for disobedience. The first was the dealing with Adam before the fall and the second is the way in which God deals with Adam after the fall. The third was after the flood based on human government and capital punishment being enabled. The fourth was after the Tower of Babel which is when God began to mediate His blessings to people through one man: Abraham. The fifth was the Mosaic Law. The sixth is the age of grace and the church (as one with Jews and Gentiles). The seventh is the Millennial Kingdom which precedes the eternal state.[6]

B. The Dispensations in Light of Covenants in the Bible

            Another presentation of the basis for dispensationalism is from Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock who explain the six different covenants in the Bible as evidences of God working in different ways during different periods of time. The Noahic Covenant was the first appearance of covenants in the Bible. God uses covenant language to promise to preserve Noah’s life and every creature taken into the ark (Gen. 6:18) as well as to promise to never again destroy life on the earth through a flood (Gen. 9:9-17).[7] Another is the Abrahamic Covenant which clarified the way God kept his original covenant to Noah. The Abrahamic Covenant also revealed a foundation for a relationship between God, humanity, and life on the earth. Since the Abrahamic Covenant did not fully reveal God’s plans for humanity, further revelation was needed.[8] Another covenant was the Mosaic Covenant which focused on the concrete and present relationship between Israel and God. Based on the lifestyle of each generation, God presented a blessing or curse. Latter prophets living under the Mosaic Covenant predicted that a new covenant would come and in turn fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant.[9] The New Covenant was a new arrangement for the patriarchal blessing. This was a new dispensation of the Spirit that occurred after the Mosaic Covenant as a way to expand and bring greater revelation to God’s meaning of “I will bless you.”[10] The Davidic Covenant was another covenant which was given to bring an everlasting fulfillment to the Abrahamic Covenant and blessing. Through the Davidic Covenant, blessings would come under a Davidic king. Through the mediation of that Davidic king, blessings would come to an Israel of faith was well as all other nations that trust in Him.[11]  Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic king as well as the fulfillment of the biblical covenants as He is a descendant of David who will mediate the blessings to Israel. In Jesus, the Mosaic Covenant was also fulfilled. In one act, Jesus brought the Mosaic Covenant to an end (through His death) while also providing the sacrifice necessary for a new covenant which provides redemption, renewal, and resurrection. Stretching back further than David, Jesus is the heir to Abraham and mediates those blessings to Israel and other nations.[12]

            However, with these covenants and dispensations, it is clear that this present dispensation is not the end. This present dispensation looks forward. The next dispensation will have the new covenant fulfilled and fully received. When will this occur? At the descent of Jesus from heaven which is when a new covenant blessing will be extended as Jesus rules the nations.[13]

C. An Exegetical Basis for Dispensationalism

            The primary basis for dispensationalism comes from the use of the word oikonomia by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:9, 10 as well as Ephesians 3:9-11 the word is used to describe how God works. Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, Elliott Johnson supports this claim, “The exegetical basis for dispensationalism is derived partially from Paul’s three references to the term oikonomia within the book of Ephesians (1:10; 3:2,9).”[14] With such a large system of thought being derived from the use of a word in one book a closer examination is needed. For this sake, first the root meaning of the word “dispensation” will be examined, then its use in Ephesians as well its other uses in the New Testament, then observations and interpretations of how the word is used within the Ephesian passages will be made.

1. Meaning of the Word

            Charles Ryrie tells that in the ancient Greek culture, “an oikonomos was a servant in charge of a household. Oikonomia referred to his office or activity of managing the house.”[15] Another appropriate definition of oikonomia is “stewardship, manager” and can sometimes refer to a “grand plan.”[16] Over time these words began to be used more broadly and began to encompass the management activity involving financial transactions. Therefore the English words “steward” and “stewardship” are derived from the words oikonomos and oikonomia.[17]

            Within the New Testament Paul uses the terminology of oikonomos and oikonomia to “distinguish at least two and possibly three successive dispensations.”[18] Ryrie further elaborates that “Jesus’ teaching that the coming kingdom of God would involve stewardship changes also shows the appropriateness of dispensational theology to characterize his view of present and future.[19]

2. Other Uses in the New Testament

            The word oikonomia is used more than ten times throughout the New Testament in various forms. However, the following verses and their observations include the word used in the same or a similar way as in Ephesians.

• Assuming, by the way, that you know God gave me the special responsibility (oikonomia) of extending his grace to you Gentiles (Eph. 3:2).[20]
• Jesus told this story to his disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a manager (oikonomos) handling his affairs. One day a report came that the manager was wasting his employer’s money” (Luke 16:1).
• So look at Apollos and me as mere servants of Christ who have been have been put in charge (oikonomos) of explaining God’s mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1).
• They have to obey their guardians (oikonomos) until they reach whatever age their father has set (Gal 4:2).
• God has given me the responsibility (oikonomia) of serving his church by proclaiming his entire message to you (Col. 1:25).
• An elder is a manager (oikonomos) of God’s household, so he must live a blameless life. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered; he must not be heavy drinker, violent, or dishonest with money (Tit 1:7).

Even though these verses use other examples to employ the use of the Greek word to describe a manager, steward, or grand plan, hopefully the meaning affirms the way dispensationalists use the same word in Ephesians.

3. Ephesians 1:9, 10

As discussed earlier, the roots of dispensationalism are grounded in Ephesians 1:9,10 as well as Ephesians 3:9-11. Paul, when writing to the church of Ephesus, explains that God used Jesus as the way to adopt everyone into His family. Through Jesus Christ He has brought new people into His family, which told about what had already happened in the past, but the two verses in Ephesians 1:9,10 focus on the future. Paul writes,

God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. And this is the plan: at the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth (Eph. 1:9, 10).

Here are important observations and interpretations about these two verses:

1. This passage is listed in Paul’s introductory remarks to the church of Ephesus and sets the stage for the rest of the book. Paul is talking about how God had showered (him and the people in the world at that time) with kindness, wisdom, and understanding as a result of Christ. He also explains that God used Christ to purchase the freedom of the readers of Ephesians with the blood of Jesus Christ. C. I. Scofield, one of the first dispensationalist theologians, defines the beginning of this section as well as chapter 3 of Ephesians as a “positional” passage, meaning that Paul is describing and defines the standing that believers have in “Christ” as well as “in the heavenlies” through pure grace.[21]
2. The plan was once mysterious. The plan existed from the beginning and was mysterious for a long time; therefore it was not known to people before it had been revealed. But it existed from the beginning. It was God’s plan for His own pleasure (as will be seen later in the verses).
3. The plan has been revealed. God revealed the plan; Paul is merely attempting to explain it. The plan is about Christ. Christ is the focus of the revealing of the plan. And when Christ died the plan was revealed. Christ is the catalyst that has allowed His believers to understand the plan. Because of Christ and His work His believers are now allowed to know about God’s plan. And that plan has been revealed so that “believers are able to grasp something of the divine purpose of the ages.”[22]
4. This plan involves God’s pleasure. The plan was God’s plan from the beginning in which He desired to fulfill His good pleasure. It was for God’s benefit. Scofield believed the plan was according to “his [God’s] good pleasure which he hath purposed for himself.”[23]
5. The plan talked about in verse nine is revealed in verse ten. While verse nine states that the plan has “now” been revealed, verse 10 explains the plan and what will happen in the future.
6. The plan is something that will happen in the future. In verse ten the tense is future. God says that He “will” bring everything together. This is evidence that it will be brought together in the future at the right time. The literal translation of this can be, “unto the dispensation of the fullness of times.”[24] Another literal translation might be “that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together all things in Christ.”[25] This dispensation of the fullness of times is defined by Scofield as the “seventh and last of the ordered ages which condition human life on earth, is identical with the kingdom covenant with David.”[26]
7. Just as Christ revealed the plan, everything will be brought together under Christ’s authority. Christ is the authority over everything as part of this plan. Bringing together the plan is done by Christ, and it is brought under the authority of Christ. Again, Christ is the key. This is referring to the dispensation of the Millennial Kingdom which is when “God’s purposes will be completed (fulfilled) and all things both spiritual and material will be under Christ and His rule.”[27]
8. Words of location are used. Both heaven and earth are used as literal locations of where “everything” is going to come from. The verse uses the words “in heaven” and “on earth.” What is brought together “under” the authority of Christ will be “in” heaven and “on” earth. This will be “all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”[28]

4. Ephesians 3:9-11

In Ephesians 3:9-11 another emphasis is used as a way to develop the biblical view of a dispensational theology. Still writing in the “positional” type of context where Paul is defining a believer’s relation to Christ and describing things, Paul writes:

I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning. God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph. 3:9-11). 

Similar to the Ephesians passage in chapter one, observations and interpretations of this passage will be made to show its dispensational theology:

1. Again, a plan is described. This was a mysterious plan. The plan had been kept secret in the past, but now it has been revealed.
2. The church is used to display God’s wisdom. The medium that God uses is the church. The church is how God explains his rich variety.[29] Scofield also agrees that the church is the method which God uses to display the revelations of the mystery of God.[30] This is the new dispensation; the sixth and second to last dispensation.
3. God’s wisdom is described as having “rich variety.” The adjective phrase “rich variety” in this verse does not refer to “the church” as some might interpret it that way. Instead, “rich variety” refers to God’s wisdom. Other Bible translations might better reflect this phrase such as the New American Standard Bible, “So that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10), or New Oxford Annotated Bible, “So that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10). This rich variety of God’s wisdom is more specifically defined as the wholly new thing which was Christ’s body. Christ’s body formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit was the rich variety.[31] And Christ’s body through the baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the variety of the new relationship between Jews and Gentiles in one body.[32] Through Christ’s baptism and the Holy Spirit’s work, this rich variety has resulted in the new relationship between Jews and Gentiles together in one body.
4. The purpose of the mystery has been carried out through Christ. This new dispensation—the dispensation of grace—has been carried out through Christ. This is known because verse 11 says, “carried out” which is past tense and because the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles who believe was one of the results of Christ’s death.[33]

III. THREE DISTINCTIONS IN THE DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF SANCTIFICATION

A. Security under Christ

            The first distinction of the dispensational view of sanctification is a believer’s security under Christ. Dispensationalists focus on progressive sanctification: the experimental act of the believer by yielding to the work of the Holy Spirit after justification. This is because justification and security of going to heaven is not based on “how sanctified you are.”[34] Instead, the focus is placed on the trustworthiness of God’s own testimony in His word.[35] In other words, believers are “eternally secure from the moment of regeneration”[36] through their faith and baptism in Christ. Therefore, their assurance is not based on their worthiness or honor nor is it based on their “progress” in progressive sanctification. Their assurance is based on their belief and faith in Christ.

            While some people might see justification and sanctification as one event, the dispensational view of sanctification sees them as two distinct events. Lewis Sperry Chafer, a dispensational theologian and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, provides two basises for this view. The first was that he saw a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification.[37] Including in this distinction between justification and sanctification was the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had different ways of working in the believer between the “drawing near to Christ” that the Spirit uses to bring a believer close to God (justification). While the work of the Spirit was much different in the life of a believer as part of sanctification. The second was that Chafer saw a time interval between conversion and the beginning of progressive sanctification because progressive sanctification was primarily based on a believer’s yeildedness.[38] This meant that a person was not necessarily being sanctified as soon as he or she was converted to Christianity. This was because progressive sanctification in the life of a believer is based on the knowledge of truth, devotion, and experience.[39] These elements are something that do not happen at the moment of conversion but instead occur during a time interval sometime after justification.

            Further support for the security of a believer in sanctification is provided by the Dallas Theological Seminary dispensational doctrine of sanctification. DTS believes that sanctification is “already complete for every saved person because his position toward God is the same as Christ’s position.”[40] The position being referred to is a position of security of salvation under Christ. Salvation is secure because the work of salvation has already been done. Because the faith of the believer has already been confessed in Christ and that believer has already been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

            The idea that a Christian will never fall into sin is a false one. It is important to remember that all Christians have a sinful nature and that sin and wrongdoings will occur in the life of a believer. Because of this, dispensationalists argue that “sinless perfection is attained only in the glorified state of heaven and not in the present life.”[41] Because of this, the dispensational perspective recognizes the fact that Christians will fall into sin, but the dispensational perspective does not see sin as reversing a believer’s salvation. Neither does sin cause a believer to lose the Holy Spirit. Yet, that sin of the believer must be corrected.[42]

            This view that sin does not reverse a believer’s salvation is contrary to other evangelical views of sanctification. One of those views is the “holiness” view of sanctification. The holiness view of sanctification includes the Wesleyan, Oberline, Pentecostal, and Reformed views of sanctification that say you might lose your salvation if you participate in severe sin.[43] In the holiness view the believer’s active role in sanctification is heightened and emphasized. The question that one would raise from a dispensational view is this: If a believer plays a role in sanctification, what happens if he or she fails? If a believer plays a role in his own sanctification and he fails, is he still saved?

            An assurance that believers have under the dispensational view of sanctification is that sin does not reverse a believer’s salvation. This is because of the “sealing” work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer at conversion. Chafer explains the ministry of the Holy Spirit in sealing as it “represents the Godward aspect of the relationships, — authority, responsibility, and a final transaction. It is ‘unto the day of redemption.’ The Spirit Himself is the seal, and all who have the Spirit are sealed. His presence in the heart is the divine mark.”[44] A believer might try his best to live a holy life yet still sin, or have taken a “day off” from living as a Christian. In the dispensational view of sanctification, justification and security under Christ is permanent. In effect, one may say that the dispensational perspective holds that the position of a Christian is saved forever and that he is going to heaven. Therefore, the Christian needs to allow the spirit of God to work in him. A key distinction in the dispensational view of sanctification is that salvation is divinely secured at justification. Therefore the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer should also be examined from the dispensational perspective.

B. The Work of the Holy Spirit

            The second distinction of the dispensational perspective on sanctification is the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. John Walvoord, a dispensationalist and former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote an article titled, “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective of Sanctification” where he states, “Though all Christians are regenerated by the Spirit, baptized by the Spirit, indwelt by the Sprit, and sealed by the Spirit, not all Christians are filled with the Spirit.”[45] The filling of the Spirit and Its active work in the believer is an important work within the dispensational perspective. Dispensationalists argue that this work of the Spirit inside a believer is distinct from the work of the Spirit before salvation (which is often called the “conviction” of the spirit that draws non-believers to God). This work of the Spirit is also distinct from the work of the Spirit at the moment of salvation (i.e., baptism by the Holy Spirit, resurrection with Jesus, etc.). This work of the Spirit in the life of a believer is the cornerstone and main focus of the dispensational perspective of sanctification in the life of a believer. But, what is the work of the Spirit in the life of a believer? The work of the Spirit in the life of a believer is the “work of God that occurs repeatedly in the life of believers, and as such it is obviously the source of sanctification as well as all spiritual fruitfulness.”[46] This is the cornerstone for not just the work of the Spirit in the life of a believer for sanctification, but it is the main part of dispensational theology. This is important for the dispensational view of sanctification because the filling of the Spirit is the unhindered ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. The Holy Spirit infuses into the believer and provides spiritual power to do more than what he might have done without the help of the Holy Spirit.[47]

            In the dispensational view, the only necessity in sanctification is a “yieldedness” to the Holy Spirit. Thus sanctification according to Randall Gleason in his article, “B.B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” is “dependent on the believer’s initiative in meeting the condition of yieldedness.”[48] And that condition of yieldedness is justification and allowing the Holy Spirit to do work in the life of the believer. Further clarifying the work of the Holy Spirit and the believer’s responsibility is Chafer who believed sanctification was contingent on a believer’s willingness to “yield” to God.[49] That yielding is a submission to the work of the Spirit in the life of a believer.

            When considering that dispensational theology sees seven distinct “dispensations” in how God deals with and relates Himself to man, it is important to characterize how this work of the Spirit fits into dispensational theology. Based on the dispensational perspective of Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was a new ministry of the “dispensation of grace.”[50] The dispensational perspective would view indwelling, baptism of the Holy Spirit, sealing, and union with Christ being an instantaneous event occurring in the New Testament as a new dispensation. Therefore, this was not a practice in the Old Testament,[51] but it is something that believers now experience under the dispensation of grace.

C. Progressive Sanctification

            The third distinction in the dispensational view of sanctifications is what Chafer calls progressive sanctification. Virtually all Christians agree that sanctification is an activity that occurs in some form after conversion (justification). However, the types of sanctification and the role of God and human are often debated.

            The dispensational view of sanctification sees the topic of sanctification broken up into three separate categories which also occur in order in the life of a believer:

1. Positional Sanctification: This is the position in Christ, perhaps best clarified by Paul when he refers to all believers as “saints” and a “holy nation, priesthood, etc.”
2. Experimental Sanctification: This is the “progressive” act of God for the believer. It is the “progress” a believer makes to become more like Christ by the Spirit of God.
3. Ultimate Sanctification: This is the perfection believers will experience when they are brought into the presennce of glory at the end times.[52]

This paper will focus on the role of “Progressive Sanctification” as that is the primary way that believers are sanctified here on earth after positional sanctification and before ultimate sanctification.

Progressive sanctification is characterized by the filling of the Spirit. The filling of the Spirit is essential to the progressive sanctification that occurs in the life of a believer. However, it is important to distinguish the difference between the filling of the Spirit defined in dispensational theology verses how it is more commonly used in evangelical theology.

• Filling is different than indwelling because indwelling is something permanent while filling is recurring and experimental.
• Filling is different than sealing because sealing is a one-time event occurring at the moment of faith while filling is a recurring event.
• Filling is different than Baptism because Baptism is a one-time event that results in identification with the church while filling is a recurring event that results in community of church and union with Christ.
• Filling is different than maturity because maturity is obedience to God over time while filling is yielding to the Spirit’s work in the life of a believer.[53]

            Progressive sanctification only occurs because of the indwelling of the Spirit. By the power of the Spirit the new nature a believer has enables him to produce the fruit of the Spirit.[54] The new nature that occurs because of the power of the Spirit is explained by the Apostle Paul that “we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the father, now we also may live new lives. . . We are no longer slaves to sin. For when we died with Christ we were set from the power of sin. And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. . . . So you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus. . . For you were dead, but now you have new life.”[55] That is the new nature believers have in Christ: no longer being under the requirements of the law (an old dispensation), but instead having new life because of Christ Jesus (a new dispensation, the dispensation of grace). How does this happen in the light of the sinful nature which all believers have? This is certainly not possible on a normal scale because each human once was controlled by sin and was a slave to sin (as seen in the Romans passage). This is possible because the “human body is His instrument for manifesting these evidences of God’s grace.”[56] Warfield and Chafer agree that “sanctification involves both the sovereign grace of the Holy Spirit and the willing response of the individual believer and that the experience of sanctification is progressive.”[57] Therefore sanctification is an act of God through the life of a believer as long as the believer has “yielded” to the Holy Spirit to allow Him to do that work. It takes both the work of God and the willingness of the believer for sanctification to occur.

With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the yielding of the believer, progressive sanctification can occur. Chafer believed that sanctification occurred “little by little as the believer’s new nature counteracted the old.”[58] Even though the old sinful nature can never be completely abolished, a believer’s yielding to the work of the Holy Spirit in his life allowed the new nature to slowly and progressively defeat the old sinful nature.

The Dallas Theological Seminary Doctrinal Statement also sheds light on the progressive sanctification and its distinctives within dispensational theology. In dispensational theology there is a “progressive sanctification where the Christian is to ‘grow in grace,’ and to ‘be changed’ by the unhindered power of the Spirit.”[59] It is important to note that in light of the security under Christ, progressive sanctification, and being perfectly sanctified when Jesus returns, the sin nature always remains.[60] It cannot “be eradicated in this life.”[61] The sin nature is part of every person regardless of how much or how well a person allows the Holy Spirit to sanctify him.[62]

IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE DISTINCTIONS OF SANCTIFICATION IN DISPENSATIONALISM

            This paper claims that there are three distinctions in the dispensational view of sanctification. After a broad evangelical definition of sanctification and a brief biblical basis for dispensational theology, those three distinctions were shared. Those three distinctions are a believer’s security under Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, and progressive sanctification. As a result, believers can rest assured that their salvation is secure under Christ, that the Holy Spirit will work in their life, and that over time they will become progressively more and more like Christ. These are biblical and comforting assurances that each believer can have based on the dispensational view of sanctification.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blaising, Craig., and Darrell Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. He That is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1918.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. Vol. 6, Pneumatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1948.

Comfort, Philip W., and Walter A. Elwell, eds. Tyndale Bible Dictionary: A comprehensive guide to the people, places, and important words of the Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Gleason, Randall. “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 241-256.

Hoehner, Harold. “Ephesians.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Edited by John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, vol. 2. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Holsteen, Nathan. “A Dispensational View of Sanctification.” Unpublished class notes for ST105. Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2013.

Holsteen, Nathan. “The Holiness View of Sanctification.” Unpublished class notes for ST105. Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2013.

Holsteen, Nathan. “The Reformed View of Sanctification.” Unpublished class notes for ST105. Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2013.

HOLY BIBLE: New Living Translation. “NLT Word Study System” 1197-1209. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2009.

Johnson, Elliott. “Hermeneutics and Dispensationalism.” In Walvoord: A Tribute. Edited by Donald Campbell and John Walvoord, 239-255. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Ryrie, Charles. Dispensationalism. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995.

Scofield, C. I. Scofield Reference Notes. 1917. Accessed November 30, 2013. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/.

Snoeberger, Mark. “Second-Blessing Models of Sanctification and Early Dallas Dispensationalism.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 15, vol. 1 (Spring, 2004): 93-105.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology, 3 vols. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907.

The Scofield Reference Bible, ed. C.I. Scofield. New York: Oxford U., 1945, 5. Quoted in Stanley Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald Campbell and John Walvoord. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982).

Toussaint, Stanley. “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism.” In Walvoord: A Tribute. Edited by Donald Campbell and John Walvoord, 81-91. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Walvoord, John. “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective.” In Five Views on Sanctification. Edited by Zondervan, 197-237. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987.

---

[1] Philip W. Comfort and Walter A. Elwell, eds., Tyndale Bible Dictionary: A comprehensive guide to the people, places, and important words of the Bible (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1163.

[2] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 863.

[3] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 6, Pneumatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1948), 284-285.

[4] Nathan Holsteen, “The Reformed View of Sanctification,” unpublished class notes for ST105 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semester, 2013), 18.

[5] The Scofield Reference Bible, ed. C.I. Scofield (New York: Oxford U., 1945), 5 quoted in Stanley Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald Campbell and John Walvoord(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982), 90.

[6] Stanley Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald Campbell and John Walvoord(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982), 89-90.

[7] Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 128-129.

[8] Ibid., 139-140.

[9] Ibid., 140-151.

[10] Ibid., 158-159.

[11] Ibid., 170, 172.

[12] Ibid., 210-211.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Elliott Johnson, “Hermeneutics and Dispensationalism,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald Campbell and John Walvoord(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982), 241.

[15] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995), 106.

[16] HOLY BIBLE: New Living Translation, “NLT Word Study System” (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2009), 1207.

[17] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 107.

[18] Ibid., 116.

[19] Ibid.

[20] New Living Translation.

[21] C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Notes, “Ephesians-Introduction,” 1917, accessed November 30, 2013, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/ephesians/ephesians-introduction.html. 

[22] Harold Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ed. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 619.

[23] C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Notes, “Ephesians 1,” 1917, accessed November 30, 2013, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/ephesians/ephesians-1.html.

[24] Harold Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, 619.

[25] C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Notes, “Ephesians 1,” 1917, accessed November 30, 2013, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/ephesians/ephesians-1.html.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Harold Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, 619.

[28] C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Notes, “Ephesians 1,” 1917, accessed November 30, 2013, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/ephesians/ephesians-1.html.

[29] Harold Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, 630.

[30] C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Notes, “Ephesians 3,” 1917, accessed November 30, 2013, http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/ephesians/ephesians-3.html.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Harold Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, 630.

[33] Ibid.

[34] This is in contrast to other systems of belief, one of which is Wesleyan which places an emphasis on “Entire Sanctification” or “Christian Perfection.”

[35] Nathan Holsteen, “A Dispensational View of Sanctification,” 24.

[36] Randall Gleason, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 241.

[37] Randall Gleason, “Warfield and Chafer on Sanctification,” 250-251.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1918), 108.

[40] Nathan Holsteen, “The Reformed View of Sanctification,” 18.

[41] Randall Gleason, “Warfield and Chafer on Sanctification,” 241.

[42] John Walvoord, “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective,” in Five Views on Sanctification, ed. by Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 219.

[43] Nathan Holsteen, “The Holiness View of Sanctification,” 5-22.

[44] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, 38-39.

[45] John Walvoord, “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective,” 215.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Randall Gleason, “Warfield and Chafer on Sanctification,” 251.

[49] Ibid., 255.

[50] Mark Snoeberger, “Second-Blessing Models of Sanctification and Early Dallas Dispensationalism,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 15, vol. 1 (Spring, 2004): 94.

[51] Ibid., 101.

[52] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, 106-109. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 6, Pneumatology, 284-285.These descriptions of positional, experimental, and ultimate sanctification have been the best attempt of the author to summarize Chafer’s teaching in both He That Is Spiritual as well as Systematic Theology.

[53] Nathan Holsteen, “A Dispensational View of Sanctification,” 23.

[54] John Walvoord, “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective,” 220.

[55] Romans 6:4, 6-8, 13.

[56] John Walvoord, “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective,” 221.

[57] Randall Gleason, “Warfield and Chafer on Sanctification,” 241.

[58] Ibid., 253.

[59] Nathan Holsteen, “The Reformed View of Sanctification,” 18.

[60] This is in direct contradiction to teachings of “holiness” such as Wesleyianism which believes that “Entire Sanctification” and “Christian Perfection” are possible which result in the eradication of sin and sin’s nature in the life of a believer.

[61] Nathan Holsteen, “The Reformed View of Sanctification,” 18.

[62] Randall Gleason, “Warfield and Chafer on Sanctification,” 245. It is important to note that the distinction between the believer’s “old self” and “new self” correspond to the teachings of both Lewis Sperry Chafer as well as C. I. Scofield. Many believe Scofield influenced Chafer’s position on sanctification.

I. A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF REVELATION 17-18

A. Overview of the Book of Revelation

The city of “Babylon” is mentioned in Revelation 17-18 as part of the “seven bowls” (which is last in the series of seven scrolls and seven seals). Babylon is mentioned as part of the seven bowls after the first bowel was poured out on the earth (Rev 16:2), the second was poured out on the sea (Rev 16:3), the third was poured out on the rivers and springs, (16:4-7), the fourth was poured out on the sun (Rev 16:8-9), the fifth was poured out on the throne of the beast (Rev 16:10-11), the sixth was poured out on the great Euphrates River (Rev 16:12-16), and the seven poured the bowl out on the air (Rev 16:17-21). The mention of the city of Babylon is in the interlude of this seventh bowel.

B. Exposition of Revelation 17-18

1. Revelation 17. Revelation 17 starts by mentioning a “great prostitute” who ruled over many waters (Rev 17:2). She was sitting on a scarlet beast which had seven heads, ten horns, and blasphemies against God were written all over it (Rev 17:3). This beast is the one revealed earlier in Revelation 13. In Revelation 13 that beast had seven heads and ten horns with ten crowns on its horns (Rev 13:1). These blasphemies are what the beast was allowed to speak against God for forty two months (Rev 13:5). These were terrible words of blasphemy against God that slandered his name and those in heaven (Rev 13:6). For clarification, the beast of Revelation 13:1-6 is different than the beast (anti-Christ) in Revelation 13:11-17. After a brief mention of the beast and prostitute in Revelation 17:1-4, a mysterious name is told to have been written on the woman’s forehead, “Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World” (Rev 17:5, NLT).

2. Revelation 18. In Revelation 18 an angel came down from heaven and said Babylon had fallen and was a great place for demons (Rev 18:2). Because of her immorality and desires for extravagant luxury the kings of the world committed adultery with her (Rev 18:3).  The city of Babylon had sins (Rev 18:4), that were piled as high as the heavens (Rev 18:4-5), she had a cup of terror for others (Rev 18:6), she glorified herself and lived in luxury (Rev 18:7), and she boasted in her heart (Rev 18:7). Because of these sins, according to the angel, Babylon would be overtaken by plagues in a single day (Rev 16:21) and she would be consumed by fire (Rev 18:8).

After Babylon’s destruction the kings who had committed adultery with her will see smoke rising from her charred remains (Rev 18:9). Merchants will weep for her (Rev 18:11) because there will be no one left to buy gold, silver, jewels, purple, cloth silk, scarlet cloth, ivory goods, expensive wood, bronze, iron, marble, cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wealth, cattle, sheep, horses, chariots, and slaves (Rev 18:12-13). Merchants will stand at a distance terrified by what they saw (Rev 18:15). Captains of merchant ships, their passengers, and sailors will weep over the loss of Babylon (Rev 18:17-19). Lastly, a mighty angel said that the city of Babylon will never by thrown down with violence and will never be found again (Rev 18:21).

II. THREE VIEWS ON THE IDENTITY OF BABYLON IN REVELATION 17-18

A. Babylon as Rome[1]

The most common view is that “Babylon” is a reference to the pagan city Rome and the “beast” which Babylon/prostitute rides on represents the Roman Empire.  

1. Strengths. Eight pieces of evidence suggest that the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is Rome. First, the seven heads. The seven kings are also represented by the seven heads which consist of five fallen kings, the sixth of which now reigns, and the seventh is not yet come (Rev 17:9-10). This is commonly seen as a reference to a sequence of seven Roman emperors.[2] Second, political dominance. Babylon as “the great city that rules over the kings of the world” (Rev 17:18) is supposed to point to Rome’s political dominance.[3] Third, seven hills. Some of the most popular interpretations are that the beasts seven heads (Rev 17:9) are a reference to Rome as the city of seven hills.[4] Support for this view is that Rome did have seven hills: Palatine, Aventine, Caelian, Equiline, Viminal, Quirimal, Capitoline.[5] Fourth, a mask. The labeling of Rome as “Babylon” as the city with “seven hills” is said to have saved John and anyone who held the book of Revelation from being punished by Rome because a prophesy about the demise of Rome so direct and tragic as Revelation 17-18 would surely have caused persecution. Bruce Metzger writers, “To say directly that God will destroy imperial Rome would have been, of course, altogether treasonous in the eyes of the imperial authorities. So, like a prisoner writing in code from a concentration camp, John characterizes the power of evil as Babylon.”[6] Fifth, clothes and jewelry. The purple and scarlet clothing (Rev 17:4) were the clothes worn only by the uppermost classes of Roman society, emperors family, senators, and equestrians.[7] Additionally, jewelry made of gold and precious gems and pearls (Rev 17:4) suggests the top of the economic life of the empire.[8] Sixth, Rome’s persecution of Christians. Babylon’s streets flowing with the blood of prophets and persecution of God’s holy people around the world (Rev 18:24; cf. Rev 19:2) support Rome’s reputation to persecute Christians.[9] Seventh, trading empire. The mention that no one bought the cargoes of Babylon anymore (Rev 18:11) references Rome’s position as a trading power.[10] Eighth, Rome conquered Jerusalem just has Babylon had done. In 586 BC Babylon decimated the city of Jerusalem and most importantly they destroyed the Jerusalem temple. Rome did a similar destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70, which might be why Rome is called Babylon in Revelation 17-18.[11]

2. Weaknesses. Four pieces of evidence show that Rome likely is not the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. First, Rome is not the only city described with seven hills.[12] Second, widespread knowledge of Rome as “seven hills.” If Rome was known so well as the city of “seven hills” (as evidenced that these seven hills were even featured on Roman coinage[13]) then the idea John revealed Rome as “Babylon” with “seven hills” as a way to mask the identity of Rome is faulty. Since people in John’s day knew that Rome was the city of seven hills, then John’s labeling of the city in that manner still would have been treasonous. Third, which seven emperors? The idea that the seven heads (Rev 17:7-14) refers to seven literal emperors of Rome is difficult to decipher as no one knows which of the emperors to begin counting with. Fourth, little persecution of Christians in Rome. While some Christians were persecuted under Roman rule, Beagley notes that this persecution was “sporadic and local, not the result of an official policy of persecuting Christians.”[14]

B. Babylon as Jerusalem

Another view about the identity of Babylon (yet less popular) is that Babylon represents the holy city of Jerusalem.

Four pieces of evidence support Babylon as Jerusalem. First, seven hills. Jerusalem (in addition to Rome) was categorized by seven notable hills.[15] Second, the title as a prostitute. Calling Babylon a “prostitute” and accusing the city of adultery is a similar way that Israel and Judah were labeled in the Old Testament (Ezek 16:20:3, 30; Hosea 1:2-2:23). Third, substantial imports. The list of substantial imports in Revelation 18:12-13 could also have been attributed to the trade imports typical of Jerusalem.[16] Fourth, Jerusalem as guilty for the blood of prophets. Jesus accused Jerusalem of being guilty for the blood of prophets (Matt 23:35).

C. Babylon as Babylon on the Euphrates River[17]

This view sees Babylon in Revelation 17-18 as the rebuilt city of Babylon on the Euphrates River[18] as the future capital of the world empire.

1. Strengths. Three positions of support stand for Babylon as the future city on the Euphrates River. First, unfulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament. The Old Testament prophecies of Isaiah 13:21-22; 34:11-17 and Jeremiah 51:37 are not yet fulfilled.[19] Second, generally matches description of Revelation 17-18. This city on the Euphrates provides an ideal location for the description of Revelation 17-18 as it relates to politics, geography, and commercial availability.[20] Third, many waters. The many waters of Revelation 17:15 correspond to Babylon’s location on the Euphrates River with its numerous canals, irrigation trenches, and marshes.[21]

2. Weaknesses. The main weakness to this view is that Babylon was no longer a nation at the time of John’s vision.

III. THE IDENTITY OF BABYLON IN REVELATION 17-18

While there appears to be many alleged clear connections to the identity of Babylon being Rome (listed above with numerous strengths), it is important to compare a modern example. How about the city of Dallas as the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18? A quick look at the text and the city of Dallas yields six points of support. First, Dallas’ numerous prostitutes, strip clubs, and evil deeds could cause it to be labeled as a house for demons (Rev 18:2). Second, the sins of this city could be piled as high as heaven (Rev 18:5). Third, a quick look at the multi-million dollar homes in Highland Park could label the city as glorifying herself and living in luxury (Rev 18:7). Fourth, Zales and Tiffanies’ jewelry stores are headquartered here and could be a connection to the buying of gold, silver, and jewels (Rev 18:12, 16). Fifth, jcpenney is also headquartered in Dallas and that could be a connection to the sale of fine linen, purple, silk, and scarlet (Rev 18:12, 16). Sixth, those seven hills of Rev 17:9 could be the seven prominent suburbs of Dallas: Plan, Mesquite, Arlington, Irving, Garland, Richardson, and Frisco. While this might be a facetious look at the book compared to modern life in Dallas, it serves a point that strong correlations can be made to most cities if one is allowed to infer that Babylon was a code name for another city.

IV. THE BEST VIEW – BABYLON ON THE EUPHRATES RIVER

While arguments for the similarities to Rome are strong, there does not appear to be a reason that Jesus would have revealed to John a mysterious code about the future identity of that city without providing an explanation of what that image or picture was.  The best and most likely inference about the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is that it will be the literal city of Babylon located on the Euphrates River.

Bibliography

Beagley, A. J. “Babylon” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Beasley, G. R. “Book of, Revelation,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Boda, Mark and J. Gordon McConville, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Metzger, Bruce. Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation. Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1993.

Mulholland, M. Robert. “Revelation.” Vol. 18 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011.

Thomas, Robert. Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1995.

Walvoord, John F. “Revelation.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

---

[1] Supported by Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 984; Bruce Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1993), 85.

[2] A. J. Beagley, “Babylon” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997),111.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] John Wavoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 971.

[6] Metzger, Breaking the Code, 85.

[7] M. Robert Mulholland, “Revelation,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011), 18:553.

[8] Ibid., 553.

[9] Beagley, “Babylon” 112.

[10] Ibid.

[11] G. R. Beasley, “Book of, Revelation,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 1027.

[12] Beagley, “Babylon,” 112.

[13] Robert Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1995), 295.

[14] Beagley, “Babylon,” 112.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] John Walvoord, “Revelation” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, 973; Robert Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 307.

[18] This location is in southern Mesopotamia, 60 miles southwest of modern Baghdad, sitting on the banks of a canal of the Euphrates River. Mark Boda and J. Gordon McConville, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (Downers Grove, IL: Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2012), p. 53. 

[19] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 307.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 283.

Revelation 3:20 and its intended audience pose a common question among Bible students. The text reads, “Look! I am standing at the door and I am knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will enter the house and I will eat with him and he will eat with me.”[1] Is this a gospel invitation to a lost person? Or is this an invitation to a believer? These two options will be explored in this paper.

I. The Context of Revelation 3:20

Revelation 3:20 is part of the section of messages to the seven churches in the cities of Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7); Syrna (Rev 2:8-11); Pergamum (Rev 2:12-17); Thyatira (Rev 2:12-17); Sardis (Rev 3:1-6); Philadelphia (Rev 3:7-13); Laodicea (Rev 3:14-22). Jesus was the source of these messages based on the description of Jesus being the first and the last (Rev 1:17). Jesus was the living one who died and was alive forever (Rev 1:18a). He held the keys of death and the grave (Rev 1:18b). While this does not explicitly say “Jesus,” the only person that it can refer to which matches that description is Jesus.

II. An Exposition of Revelation 3:20

A. “Look!”

First, Jesus called attention by saying, “Look!’ (NLT) or “Listen” (NET) or “Behold” (ESV). These translations come from the Greek word ἰδου which is an aorist, middle, imperative of εἰδον, which is from the principle part ὁραω meaning “I see, notice, experience.” This word is often used to heighten the awareness of the reader and to grab the reader’s attention.

B. “I am standing at the door”

After grabbing the attention of the readers and hearers Jesus said, “I am standing,” which is the Greek word, ἑστηκα. This is a perfect tense verb but with the present force.[2] One commentary says that this perfect tense can “indicate that Jesus took this stance at some previous point and continues to maintain it.”[3] However, the better explanation is that this verb is “lexically nuanced” because there is little distinction between the act and results.[4]

C. “and I am knocking.”

Included in Jesus’ statement that he was standing at the door was that he also was knocking. This comes from the verb κρουω which means “I strike, knock.” This verb is the present, active, indicative form with a present progressive force. The present progressive force describes a seen that is in progress.[5]

D. “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door”

This first clause, “If anyone hears my voice,” introduces a third class conditional statement with ἐαν plus a verb ἀκουςῃ, which is in the subjunctive mood. This third class conditional statement is uncertain of fulfillment but still is likely to be true.[6] The referent here for “my voice” is Jesus’ voice, originally seen in Rev 1:17-18. The second clause, “and opens the door,” includes the second verb of the third class conditional statement which is uncertain of fulfillment but likely to be true. The verb used here is ἀνοιξῃ which is an action to be followed after the hearing of Jesus’ voice in the first clause. The “door” in this clause is the same door that Jesus was standing at and knocking on earlier in verse.

E. “I will enter the house”

Next, the future tense verb, ἐλευσομαι, is used in a way that if someone both hears Jesus’ voice and opens the door, then Jesus would enter the house. The Greek phrase, προς αὐτον, would seem to be translated “into him,” but this is an incorrect use of ἐλευσομαι προς αὐτον. The correct translation as seen above is “I will enter the house.” That translation is a dynamic translation of “I will enter to/towards him.” Since Jesus was standing at the door and knocking, it is likely that the “entering” of Jesus was to be inside the house. If John was trying to describe that Jesus would “come into him,” he would not have used ἐλευσομαι προς but instead would have used ἐλευσομαι εἰς. Of all eight uses of ἐλευσομαι προς in the New Testament, that phrase is never used to describe penetration into a person. Instead, it is used to describe coming in to the presence of a person or a building. Examples of ἐλευσομαι προς are “the girl hurried back to the king” (Mark 6:25, NLT), “Joseph . . . went to Pilate” (Mark 15:43, NLT), “Gabriel came to her [Mary] (Luke 1:28, NLT), Peter “had a vision in which he saw an angel of God coming toward him” (Acts 10:3, NLT), “you enter the home of Gentiles” (Acts 11:3, NLT), Paul and Silas “returned to the home of Lydia” (Acts 16:40, NLT), Paul “went to the synagogue service” (Acts 17:2, NLT), “Paul went in and prayed for him” (Acts 28:8, NLT). Therefore, it is clear that in Rev 3:20 Jesus would go into the house and eat with the person who let him in. Jesus would not go into the person who let him in, but he would go in to the person who let him through the door.

III. Is Revelation 3:20 to the Lost or to Believers

The question still remains, is Revelation 3:20 a gospel invitation to a lost person or an invitation to believers? It is important to remember that Revelation 3:20 is included in a passage where seven churches are addressed. In this passage Jesus provided a commendation of the first six churches (Ephesus 2:2-3, Symrna 2:9, Pergamum 2:13, Thyatira 2:19, Sardis 3:1b, Philadelphia 3:8-9). However, Jesus had nothing positive to say about the church of Laodicia. From the very beginning Jesus said that they were neither hot nor cold (Rev 3:15), but they were lukewarm. Jesus said that he would spit them out of his mouth (Rev 3:16). The people were content saying that they were rich and had everything that they wanted; therefore they did not need a thing (Rev 3:17). Jesus saw them as wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked (Rev 3:17). Jesus wanted them to buy gold, white garments, and ointment for their eyes (Rev 3:18). Jesus said that he would correct and discipline everyone he loved, so the Laodicea church should be diligent and turn from their lukewarm state (Rev 3:19).

The use of the word “church” lends the interpreter to believe that this is a church of believers, and therefore Revelation 3:20 is an invitation to a believer. This Greek word, ἐκκλησια is used Rev 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 and can be used in the NT several different ways. It can describe a regularly summoned legislative body (assembly) or a causal gathering of people (gathering), but the likely use here in Rev 3:14 to refer to the church in Laodicea is a people with shared belief in Christianity (community or congregation).[7] While it is likely that within any church there are some people who are not true believers, the focus of Revelation 3:20 is directed toward believers.[8]

While the church was lukewarm (Rev 3:15-16) and content in their money (Rev 3:17), Jesus shared that he desired a relationship with them. This church likely included believers as the majority, but those believers had not been in close fellowship with Jesus.

Bibliography

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Mulholland, M. Robert. “Revelation.” Vol. 18 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Walvoord, John F. “Revelation.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, translations in this papers of the author’s.

[2] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 579-580.

[3] M. Robert Mulholland, “Revelation,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011), 18:463.

[4] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 580.

[5] Ibid., 518-519.

[6] Ibid., 699.

[7] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 303-304.

[8] John F. Walvoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 941-942.

Among some of the most difficult books of the Bible to understand is the book of Revelation. Among the most difficult chapters of the Bible to understand is Revelation 11 and the two witnesses described in 11:1-13. In this paper there will be a brief exposition of Rev 11:1-13, an explanation of the common views of Rev 11, and then a position for the most likely view.

I. A Brief Exposition of Revelation 11:1-13

Rev 11 is part of the parenthetical section that began in Rev 10:1. This parenthetical section is a brief interlude (signaled by the summary statement of the sixth trumpet in Rev 9:20-21) between the sixth and seventh trumpet. The two witnesses[1] are introduced in Rev 11:3, “I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will be clothed in burlap and will prophesy during those 1,260 days” (NLT).[2] These witnesses are prophesying for 42 months (1,260 days if 30 days are in a month). This is a reference to the 42 months mentioned in verse two as part of the seven year Great Tribulation period. It is important to notice that these are two prophetic voices for the future as indicated by δώσω “I will give” and προφητεθσσιν “they will prophesy.” Who are these two witnesses? Revelation 11 says that they are two olive trees and two lampstands which stand before the Lord of all the earth (11:4). This is a reference to Zerubbabel and Joshua[3] which were mentioned Zech 4:2-14. In this prophesy the two olive trees “represent the two who are anointed to serve the LORD of all the earth.”[4]  

If anyone tries to harm these two witnesses fire flashes from their mouths. It consumes their enemies, and those enemies die (11:5, 10). Based on the text the witnesses are sent to prophesy and only inflict harm on others when others try to harm them. The two witnesses will have power to shut the sky so that no rain falls during their prophesies (11:6). Power over the rain and dew has only been exhibited by Elijah (1 Kings 17:1) and God.  Whether heavenly or earthly beings, these two witnesses are given some level of authority over God’s creation. Their power over God’s creation is also seen in how they will have the power to turn rivers and oceans into blood (11:6). The ability to turn water into blood was only seen by Moses and Aaron during their interactions with Pharaoh of Egypt (Exod 7:19-20). Furthermore, the witnesses will be able to strike the earth as often as they want with every kind of plague (11:6). 

The main job of these two witnesses will be to prophesy (11:3) and testify (11:7). Once that testimony is complete they will be killed by the beast that comes up out of the bottomless pit (11:7). Because these two witnesses are killed they cannot be God but instead some type of his created being. The beast that comes up out of the bottomless pit is the Antichrist which is mentioned nine other times in Revelation (13:1; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 17:3, 13; 19:20; 20:10).

After the death of the two witnesses their bodies will lie in the main street of Jerusalem for three and a half days (11:8-9a). During those three and a half days all the peoples, tribes, languages, and nations will stare at the bodies of the two witnesses, yet no one will be allowed to bury them (11:9). This indicates that the witnesses have bodies in the physical sense because those bodies will lay in the street and were seen by people (11:8). All the people who belong to this world will gloat over the deaths of the two witnesses by giving presents to each other as a way to celebrate the death of the two witnesses (11:10).

Yet, after those three and a half days God will breathe life into the two witnesses and they will stand up (11:11). When the two witnesses stand up terror strike all the people who were staring at them (11:11). Next a loud voice from heaven will call the two witnesses, “Come up here.” Then the two witnesses will rise to heaven as their enemies watch (11:13).  At the same time there will be a terrible earthquake which destroys 10 percent of the city and 7,000 people will die. Those that do not die will be terrified and gave glory to God of heaven (11:13).

II. Common Views on the Identity of the Two Witnesses

A. Moses and Elijah

What appears to be the most common view on the identity of these two witnesses is that they will be Moses and Elijah. [5] This view sees Moses and Elijah as God’s messengers representing the Jewish Christian community until the end of history. [6]

1. Support for this View. The signs and wonders in Revelation 11:5-6 do appear to match the works and miracles of Moses and Elijah (as referenced above). Elijah called down fire from heaven (1 Kings 1:10) and he shut off rain from heaven (1 Kings 17:1). Moses turned water into blood and struck the earth with plagues (Exod 7:14-11:10). In addition to their works matching the two witnesses, the prophet Malachi predicted the return of Elijah (Mal 4:5) and Moses predicted a prophet like himself would come in the future (Deut 18:15, 18). Furthermore, as mentioned above, the two people transfigured with Christ on the Mount of Olives were Moses and Elijah (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30). Lastly, the mysteries of Moses’ death (Deut 34:5-6; Jude 9) and Elijah’s disappearance from the earth (2 Kings 2:11) might corroborate with these two witnesses in the future.[7]

2. Objections to this View. John the Baptist fulfilled Malachi’s prophesy about the return of Elijah (Matt 11:14; Mark 9:11-13). Moses did die (Deut 34:5-6), which means Moses would have to die twice if he will be one of the witnesses. While the two witnesses are similar toMoses and Elijah this does not mean they are the same persons.[8]

B. Enoch and Elijah

Similar to the view that the two witnesses will be Moses and Elijah is the view that the two witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah. The basis for this view is that neither of these men died during their life in the Old Testament.

1. Support for this View. The Old Testament is clear that both Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) were taken to heaven before their deaths. However, the New Testament also says that all men must die (Heb 9:27) so some believe these two men have to return at some point in the future. Additionally, 1 Enoch 90:31 and 4 Ezra 6:26 referred to a ministry that Enoch and Elijah would have that is similar to the description of the two witnesses in Revelation 11:1-13.[9]

2. Objections to this View. Not everyone has to die because people who are alive when the LORD returns will not physically die (1 Thes 4:17). This means that saints alive at the end of the Tribulation will enter the Millennial Kingdom without ever having to die.[10]

C. The Church

Another view of the identity of the two witnesses is that they are the Church. People who hold this view see the two witnesses as the “True Church” and the “Word of God” who faithfully bear testimony.[11]

1. Support for this View. Support for this view is based on the idea that the beast would not likely make a war against just two people (Rev 11:7), but instead he would make war against a large army.[12] This interpretation is based on the two witnesses being connected to the lampstands (Rev 11:4) as symbols for the church earlier in the book of Revelation (Rev 1:20; 2:1).

2. Objections to this View. First, only people can wear burlap or sackcloth (Rev 11:3). The text also leads the reader to believe that these two witnesses will have distinct and individual identities and powers (11:5-6). Lastly, if the two witnesses were the church then it would mean that the church experiences martyrdom; therefore there would be no one left to populate the Millennium.[13]

III. CONCLUSION ON THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO WITNESSES

While a brief exposition of Revelation 11:1-13 has been shared along with the three most popular views of the witnesses’ identities, no conclusion can be provided. While there are connections and allusions of these two witnesses to the 6,500 years of past history in the Bible, there is no clear indication of who these two witnesses will be in the future history. Similar to John Walvood, this author believes, “While there is room for considerable discussion of these various views, the fact is that the passage does not identify the two witnesses, and they probably do not have historic identification.”[14]

Bibliography

Halley, Henry. Halley’s Bible Handbook. 24^th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: 1965.

Lindsey, F. Duane. “Zechariah.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Marvin Pate, C. Marvin. “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation.” In Four Views on the Book of Revelation. Edited by Stanley Gundry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1998.

Mulholland, M. Robert. “Revelation.” Vol. 18 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011.

Thomas, Robert. Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995.

Walvoord, John F. “Revelation.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

---

[1] A possible connection and support for the idea of two witnesses comes from the requirement of two witnesses for legal testimony in order to secure a conviction according to the Mosaic Law. See Deut 17:6; 19:5; Numb 35:30; cf. Heb 10:28.

[2] For the sake of clarity this author refers to these people beings as “witnesses” throughout this paper. However, they are called “witnesses” only in 11:3, then are called “prophets” in 11:4, 10, 12 according to the New Living Translation.

[3] John Walvood “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 956.

[4] Duane Lindsey, “Zechariah” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1556.

[5] M. Robert Mulholland, “Revelation,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011), 18:496.

[6] C. Marvin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, edited by Stanley Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1998), 169-170.

[7] Robert Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995), 89-90.

[8] Ibid., 89-90.

[9] Ibid., 88.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Henry Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 24^th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1965), 721.

[12] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 87-88.

[13] Ibid, 87-88.

[14] John F. Walvorod “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, 956.

I. An Approach and Outline of the Book of Revelation

A. An Approach to the Book of Revelation

Hermeneutics and the book of Revelation are closely tied together. This author approaches the book of Revelation from the “futurist” and premillennial view. The premillennial position believes that Christ will come again and establish a literal 1,000 year reign on earth before the new heaven and new earth are created. Currently, the conditions of the world are a result of Christ ascending to heaven (Acts 1), Christ sitting at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit indwelling believers. The futurist and premillennial views believe the book of Revelation unfolds in a chronological time table (for the most part ). Most importantly, is the section of Revelation 19-22 which consists of separate events that happen one after the other.[1] They are not the same event, nor are they different events told out of chronological order (often called the “recapitulation theory”). The “futurist view” will be explained later in the section, “An Outline of Revelation.”

B. Other Views on the Millennium

1. Postmillennialism.^[2] The postmillennial view states that Christ’s glorious return to the earth will happen after the nonliteral 1,000 year reign of believers on earth. While the premillennialist says Christ comes to bind Satan, the postmillennialist says that Christ already bound Satan when Christ came in the first century. Therefore, the Christian, according to the postmillennial position, is already in the non-literal 1,000 year reign. This means that Satan still has some level of dominion over the world now, but it is not in the same way that he did before Jesus came to earth in the first century AD. The postmillennial position is partially based on Isaiah 2:2-4 and Jeremiah 31. They often see Judah and Jerusalem in Isa 2 as representative of the whole people of God because they believe the “mountain,” “house of the God of Jacob,” and “Zion” referenced in these texts refer to the church, not to the nation of Israel. A belief that the church is now in the nonliteral 1,000 year reign means there is an expectation that a large percentage of the world’s population will turn to Christ by the spirit-blessed proclamation of the gospel.

2. Amillennialism.^[3] The amilliennial view believes that the day lies ahead when Christ will come again, believers will be resurrected, there will be judgment for all, the New Heaven and New Earth will be created, the final kingdom will be inaugurated, and those who have been redeemed will be in a blessed state. This “day” according to the amillennial view is a short period of time in which all of these events happen at once. There is not a literal 1,000 year of reign of Christ (premillennial), nor is there a non-literal 1,000 year reign of believers (postmillennial). In addition, the amillennialist does not believe that the Old Testament teaches a future millennial kingdom of Christ but rather that the Old Testament prophets speak of the Messiah’s everlasting kingdom and blessing (Gen 17:7-8; 48:4; 2 Sam 23:5; 1 Chr 16:17-18; Ps 105:10-11; Isa 45:17; 55:3; 61:7-8; Jer 32:40; 50:4-5; Ez 16:60; 37:26; Dan 4:3, 34; 7:14, 27; 12:2). Additionally, the promise of the Old Testament for Israel to take the promised land is no longer binding, but instead it is now promised to the “elect in Christ.” As a result of this there will be a restoration and renewal of the earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:1) which should be seen as the New Heaven and New Earth, not for a 1,000 years but for eternity (p. 91). Therefore, the amillennial view does not see Romans 11 or Revelation 20 as describing a 1,000 year reign with Christ at the beginning (premillennial) or end (postmillennial).

C. An Outline of Revelation

Rev 1:19 outlines the entire book when Jesus told John, “Write what you saw, what is, and what will be after these things” (NET). The words “what you saw” refer to Revelation 1:1-18. The words “what is” refer to the seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 that existed at the time of John’s vision. The words “and what will be after these things” refer to Revelation 4-22 as future events that have not yet occurred.[4] In summary, here is a broad outline of the book of Revelation,

Introduction: “The things which you have seen” (1:1-20) – The Christ

Letters to the 7 Churches: “The things which are” (2-3) – The Churches

The Last Times: “The things which will take place after this” (4-22) – The Consummation[5]

II. Exposition of Rev 20:1-10

Revelation 20:1-10 is part of the second coming of Christ which started in Revelation 19:11.[6] In chapter 19, John saw Christ (19:11-13) come down to earth with his armies (19:14). The beast and the kings of the world gathered for battle (19:19). However, Christ and his angels captured the beast and the false prophet, and they were thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur (19:20). With Christ having dealt with the beast and the false prophet (Rev 19:11-20), it is a natural progress for Christ to turn next to Satan in Revelation 20:1-10.

A. Satan Bound in the Bottomless Pit (Rev 20:1-3)

1. An Angel Came Down from Heaven (v. 1). This is an “angel;” it is not Jesus. While Mulholland states that this “can be none other than Jesus, the Messiah,” that is unlikely since Jesus already descended to earth in 19:11. Additionally, the word ἀγγελος (messenger, angel) used here is never used to describe Jesus.[7] If this “angel” was Jesus, then it is the first and only time the word ἀγγελος is used to describe Jesus.[8] The being John saw was an angel coming down from heaven with a key to the bottomless pit.

2. The Angel Seized Satan and Bound Him for a Thousand Years (v. 2). This verse makes it very clear who the dragon of the passage was. He was the “old serpent” who was “the devil” who was “Satan.” Earlier in Revelation, “this great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels” (Rev 12:9).[9] The important conclusion here is that the dragon was Satan (the devil), and thereby a literal and a real person.

Additionally, Rev 20:2 tells of how Satan was bound in chains for a thousand years. If Rev 20 is telling of future events (as described earlier in this paper), then Satan is not bound now, but will be bound in the future. The fact that Satan is active in the current world is attested to by Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Tim 1:20; 1 Peter 5:8.

Some might ask how a spiritual being can be “bound.” In some respects this is a mystery, but not a new biblical idea. “Angels” were bound in Revelation 9:14 and the “gods in the heavens” (NLT) or “heavenly forces in the heavens” (NET) were bound in Isaiah 24:21. This is a mystery yet also had already occurred within biblical revelation.

3. The Angel Locked Satan for a Thousand Years (v. 3). The angel whom John saw come down from heaven (20:1) is the one who seized the dragon (20:2), and then shut and locked him in the bottomless pit. The “bottomless pit” where Satan was thrown was not a new place, but instead was a place that already existed. “For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). This “bottomless pit” mentioned in Revelation 20:3 has been also mentioned in Revelation 9:1-12 as part of the fifth trumpet. It was the place that the beast came up out of in Revelation 11:7-8. 

This verse makes it clear that Satan is not yet bound by Jesus; therefore this millennium (whether literal or figurative 1,000 years) is still a future event because Satan is not yet bound.[10] Evidence that Satan is not currently bound is based on Scripture which has already been cited (2 Cor 4:4; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 Tim 3:7; 2 Tim 2:26; Eph 2:2; John 12:31; Eph 6:12). Contrary to the amillennial view, this not the same “bind” to Satan as described in Mark 3:27; John 12:31; Col 2:15; 1 Peter 3:18-19. How are they different? Grant Osborne believes that Jesus somewhat bound Satan in Jesus’ first advent, “Satan is not inactive but rather restricted. He cannot stop the missionary enterprise of God’s people; he can deceive the unsaved but cannot keep them from turning to Jesus if drawn by the Spirit. . . The devil is curtailed but not powerless. . . Satan is restricted in this aeon, but only with respect to believers (who are ‘kept by the power of God,’ 1 Pet. 1:5).”[11] The event that bound Satan here makes it clear that Satan was not allowed to deceive the nations anymore. He was bound in chains (v. 2), shut in the bottomless pit (v. 3), and the bottomless pit was locked (v. 3).

B. A Thousand-Year Reign with Christ (Rev 20:4-6)

1. Saints Will Reign with Christ for a Thousand Years (v. 4). The identity of these people reigning with Christ has met with many interpretations. One interpretation is that the saints are representatives of the church (see Rev 4:4; 5:8-10; 7:13; 11:16). Another option is that these saints are martyrs seen at earlier points in the book (Rev 6:9-11; 16:6; 18:20, 24; 19:2).[12] Some people say that these saints are apostles and some of the saints (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2-3). Another option is that these are armies of Christ seen in Rev 19:14.[13] Mulholland believes “these people are souls who had not yet experienced a physical resurrection”[14] based on the link to Revelation 6:9-11. Osborne sees this as a possible “heavenly tribunal” compared to Revelation 4:4 and 11:16 where twenty-four elders sat on thrones, wore white, and had crowns on their heads.[15] Or they could be all of the saints (Luke 22:30; 1 Cor 6:4) with martyrs as a special group within the larger group of saints.[16]

While it is unclear exactly who the ones reigning with Christ will be, it is clear that this is the fulfillment of prophesies (Isa 2:2-4; Dan 2:24-35, 44; 7:22; Micah 4:1-8) shared by both Daniel and Jesus. “Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will last forever, and all rulers will serve and obey him” (Dan 7:27).  Jesus also shared that “when the world is made new and the Son of Man sits upon his glorious throne, you who have been my followers will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28).

Later in Revelation 20:4 Jesus revealed to John that the souls had not worshipped the beast or his statue nor accepted his mark on their foreheads or hands. The beast mentioned here is the same beast in Revelation 13:11-18. This beast had required all the people to worship him (Rev 13:2, 12; cf. 13:1-8). The mark on the peoples foreheads and hands in Revelation 20:4 is the mark that the beast required everyone to have (small and great, rich and poor, free and slave) in Revelation 13:16.

John also observed that the ones reigning with Christ “came back to life again.” This is the future bodily resurrection of martyrs who are mentioned earlier in this long verse. This is “the only hermenetutically sound theory.”[17] This is because ζαω (“I live”) always speaks of a bodily resurrection when in the context of bodily death in the New Testament (John 11:25; Acts 1:3; 9:41). Furthermore, in Revelation it is a frequent way of referring to resurrection (1:18; 2:8; 13:14; 20:5). Additionally, John used the word ἀναστασις (“resurrection”) which almost always refers to physical resurrection.[18]

As a result, this “came back to life again” does not mean that these people were simply “raised to new life from the deadness of their former life”[19] as Mulholland proposes. While the New Testament does speak of death of the old life and a resurrection to new life (Rom 6:1-14; Eph 2:4-5), the consummation of the ends times is a different context and different purpose in God’s program. Mulholland attempts to support his view that Revelation 20:4 is similar to the image of Ephesians 2:4-5 of “old life” and “new life” based on the “gnomic fashion” aorist tense of the verbs in both passages.[20] Yet a “gnomic fashion” of the aorist tense expressing a general truth or reality is not the only way to see the verbs being used here. With reference to συνεκάθισεν (“he sat down”), in Eph 2:6 Wallace tentatively labels those aorist verbs as “propleptic (futuristic) aorist” which describe an event that is not yet past as though it was already completed.[21] Regarding the aorist verb, ἐζησαν (“they came to life”), in Revelation 20:4 Wallace categorizes this as an “ingressive” aorist which stressed the beginning of an action or entrance into a state.[22] While Mulholland’s attempt to explain this resurrection as transfer from “old life” to “new life” is based on Paul’s writings, his grammatical understanding and basis are weak.[23]

2. The First Resurrection (v. 5). Revelation 20:5 mentions that Revelation 20:4 has described the first resurrection. Then a parenthetical note states that the rest of the believers will not come back to life until the thousand years had ended. An understanding of resurrection existed during John’s time of writing Revelation as evidenced in Jesus’ time on earth (Matt 22:28; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 14:14 John 5:29; 11:24; Acts 17:32; 1 Cor 15:12), and even stretched back to Ezekiel’s prophesies (Ezek 37:10).

The first resurrection is important to note. Is this truly the “first” resurrection? No, because Christ was the first resurrection. Then there was the resurrection of many, which occurred when Christ died (Matt 27:52-53). This was the “first” resurrection in Revelation 20 as compared to the “last” resurrection just a few verses later in this same chapter (Rev 20:12-13),[24] which was followed by the second death (Rev 20:6, 14). In other words, this is the “first” resurrection “in the sense of before. All the righteous, regardless of when they are raised, take part in the resurrection which is first or before the final resurrection (of the wicked dead) at the end of the Millennium.”[25]

What exactly does the “first resurrection” refer to in this passage? Thomas states that it refers to the resurrection of the martyrs at the end of Revelation 20:4.[26] Or, it can refer to the resurrection of all of the saints. More importantly, Revelation 20:5 supports the idea of resurrection by stages. In this manner, Christ was the “firstfruits” (1 Cor 15:23), a few saints were resurrected (Matt 27:52-53), the church will be raptured (1 Thess 4:13-18), the two witnesses will be resurrected (Rev 11:3, 11), and then here is the resurrection of the martyred dead (Rev 20:4-5).[27]

The “rest of the dead” that are resurrected at the end of the Millennium (1 Cor 15:51-58; 2 Cor 15:23-24; 1 Thes 4:13-18) are probably the wicked who are resurrected in Revelation 20:11-14.[28] Some believe the rest of the dead might be the non-saints of the old covenant. Others see it as a resurrection of the spiritually dead or everyone who is physically dead except martyrs.[29] This is a complex matter as Osborne reveals, “But who are the ‘rest of the dead?’ If one takes 20:4 as referring only to the martyrs, 20:5 will be all the other saints who have died as well as the unbelievers (so Beckwich, Caird, Mounce, Aune). For whose who see 20:4 as referring to all the saints in some way (Ladd, Johnson, Tomas, Beale), however, the ‘rest of the dead’ would be unbelievers.”[30]

3. The Second Death Holds No Power over Those in the First Resurrection (v. 6). From this verse it appears that there will be two resurrections and two deaths. The second death mentioned here is explained later in Revelation 20:14, “Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death.” This “second death” is a physical punishment to the body and soul.

The second death will not affect those who are holy, blessed, and priests of God and Christ. Furthermore, these people will reign with Christ for a thousand years because God has made his believers a kingdom of priests (Rev 1:6; cf. Exod 19:6; 1 Peter 2:5). Earlier in Revelation the four living beings and twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb (5:8) and they sang to the Lamb, “You have caused them [people from every tribe, language, people, and nation] to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth” (Rev 5:10). This reign with Christ will “consist of the privilege of unlimited access to and intimate fellowship with God.”[31]

C. The Defeat of Satan (Rev 20:7-10)

1. Satan Is Let Out of Prison after 1,000 Years (v. 7). At the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth Satan will be let out of the prison where he was bound in Revelation 20:2-3. This 1,000 years is the sixth and final reference to a 1,000 years of Christ’s reign on earth in Revelation 20 (Rev 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and a brief comment on the “period of time” is needed.

Amillennials[32] and postmillennials[33] advocate that seeking to define this thousand years based on Revelation 20:1-10 is a case of allowing the “tail to wag the dog”[34] because Revelation 20 is the only place where 1,000 years is mentioned.  However, of the entire Bible, Revelation 20:1-10 is the most direct description available to Christians about the return of Christ and his time on earth. John mentioned six times in six verses that Christ’s time on earth will be 1,000 years. Thus this probably has some level of significance and seeks to make it clear how long that period will be. Furthermore, the number “1,000” is not a highly symbolic number as some see the numbers of three, seven, twelve, etc., making it unlikely that 1,000 is a symbolic, non-literal number.

In their support that this is not a literal 1,000 year reign amillennials and postmillennials will advocate that based on Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 the mention of 1,000 years does “not point to a literal one thousand calendar years; rather they evoke the notion of longevity.”[35] Moses’ prayer in the psalms said to God, “For you [God], a thousand years are as a passing day, as brief as a few night hours” (Pss 90:4). Peter wrote, “A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day” (2 Peter 3:8). While it is true that time to humans does not equal time to God (as Moses and Peter clearly explained), it is imperative to remember that both of these verses nonetheless describe a literal 1,000 years to human beings on earth. In other words, “To say that the period with man is only one day with God, does not deny that it is actually a thousand years with God too. The point is that time does not limit an eternal God, not that He is ignorant of what time means with man.”[36] As far as can be understood, the literal understanding of the book of Revelation (as has been attempted to be consistently applied throughout this paper) means that Christ’s reign on earth will be for a thousand years before Satan is let out of prison (Rev 20:7).

2. Satan Deceives the Nations One Last Time (v. 8). While the events of Revelation 20:8 are similar to Revelation 16:13-14, these are different events.[37] Why? Satan had to gather a new army for battle in Revelation 20:8 because the army he gathered in Revelation 16:13-14 was destroyed in Revelation 19:20. (Seeing Rev 16:4 and Rev 20:8 as the same event is called the “recapitulation theory” as mentioned earlier). During the 1,000 years of Christ reign new people were born and comprise the “pool” of people which Satan was able to deceive and gather for one more battle.[38] With this event is becomes clear (again) that Satan’s main mission on earth was deception (seen in Rev 12:9; 13:14; 19:20; Rev 20:3, 10). In this way Satan did not overpower people but rather he deceived them.[39]

3. Satan and His Army Surrounded Jerusalem Then Fired Consumed The Army (v. 9). After Satan had deceived the nations and gathered his army (Rev 20:8), John witnessed him surround God’s people and the beloved city. Then, fire came down from heaven and consumed the armies. The identity of the “beloved city” here is Jerusalem. In other places in the Bible, Jerusalem is called the city God loves and the place which held a special place in his heart (Pss 78:68; 87:2; 122:6; 132:12-14; Isa 2:1-5; 52:9-10; 56:7; 60:9, 14-15; 62:3; 66:18; Jer 11:15; Zeph 3:17). In an attempt to see Revelation as a literal predication of future events, this “beloved city” is likely Jerusalem.

The picture of fire coming down from heaven and consuming Satan’s attacking army should not surprise readers because fire was regularly used by God as a source of divine punishment. In Ezekiel fired rained down on Magog and all its allies (Ezek 39:6). Fire was also seen as divine judgement in Gen 19:24; Exod 9:23-34; Lev 9:24; 10:2; Num 11:1; 16:35; 26:10; 1 Kings 18:38; 2 Kings 1:10, 14; 1 Chron 21:26; 2 Chron 7:1-3; Pss 11:6.

4. The Devil Joined the Beast and False Prophet in the Lake of Burning Sulfur (v. 10). After fire came down and consumed Satan’s last army (Rev 20:9), he was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The beast and false prophet where already in the fiery lake of burning sulfur (Rev 19:20) as a result of Christ’s return to the earth shortly before the beginning of the 1,000 years (Rev 19:11-21). Here Satan joins his protégés. Thomas correctly connects this event as the ultimate bruising of Satan’s head originally shared in Genesis 3:15 and again in John 12:31, which means that Satan’s presence in the fiery lake was not a new revelation, for that has always been Satan’s ultimate destiny.[40] Furthermore, Christ’s triumph over Satan has also been foretold and is not a new revelation. “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne . . . Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons’” (Matt 25:31, 41).

The last line of v. 10 shows the pain that Satan, the beast, and the false prophet will face as they are tormented day and night forever and ever. John’s vision makes it clear that this is real, physical pain, “The reality of unbearable pain inflicted on Satan is unquestionable.”[41] This place of punishment is possibly referenced prior in the Bible (Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Mark 9:48; Luke 12:47-48; 13:28) as the place of unending torment[42] and eternal punishment[43]

III. CONCLUSION ON REVELATION 20:1-10 AND THE MILLENNIUM

This study has examined Jesus’ revelation to John about the future 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. While every position taken on the millennial kingdom has weaknesses, this expositional study has attempted to explain Revelation 20:1-10 in a way that matches the predication of future events (Rev 1:19) alongside additional biblical revelation about the future worldwide kingdom (Isa 2:2-4; Dan 2:34-35, 44; Micah 4:1-8). Christ will return someday (Rev 19:11) and that return will mean that Christ will reign for 1,000 years (Rev 20:4-5) with those who will be resurrected from the dead (Rev 20:4-5). In a way that matches the glory and power believers know God has, that 1,000 year will culminate with a defeat of Satan (Rev 20:7-10).

Bibliography

Blass, F. and A. DeBrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blevins, James. “Revelation, Book of,” in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press, 2001,761.

Gentry, Kenneth. “Postmillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.

Halley, Henry. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959.

Halley, Henry. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965.

Hitchcock, Hitchcock. “Book of Revelation.” Unpublished class notes for BE107. Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semesters, 2015.

Kittel, Gerhard. “Αγγελος” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, vol. 1, 74-87. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964.

Metzger, Bruce. Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation. Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1993.

Mulholland, M. Robert. “Revelation.” Vol. 18 of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011.

Osborne, Grant. Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Robert Thomas, Robert. “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

  Strimple, Robert. “Amillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.

Thomas, Robert. Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1995.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. By Darrell Bock.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Walvoord, John F. “Revelation.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

---

[1] Grant Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 715.

[2] Kenneth Gentry, “Postmillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 11-57.

[3] Robert Strimple, “Amillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium, 81-129.

[4] Robert Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 186, 215.

[5] Mark Hitchcock, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ,” unpublished class notes for BE107 (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall Semesters, 2015), 4-5.

[6] See Christ’s second coming as part of God’s plan: Isa 9:6-7; Jere 23:1-8; Ezek 37:15-28; Dan 2:44-45; 7:13-14; Hosea 3:4-5; Amost 9:11-15; Micah 4:7; Zech 2:10-12; 12; 14:1-9; Matt 19:28; 24:27-31; 25:6, 31-46; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 12:35-40; 17:24-37; 18:8; 21:25-28; Acts 1:10-11; 15:16-18; Rom 11:25-27; 2 Thess 2:8; 2 Peter 3:3-4; Jude 14-15; Rev 1:7-8; 2:25-38; 16:15; 22:20.

[7] Gerhard Kittel, “Αγγελος” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.Gerhard Kittel, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964), 83-87.

[8] While Jesus did say in Rev 1:18 that he held the keys of death and the grave it is not necessary to equate Jesus with the angel who held the key to the “bottomless pit” in Rev 20:1. In Rev 9:1 John saw “the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen to earth from the sky, and he was given the key to the shaft and the bottomless pit.” Here the key to the bottomless pit was given to an angel, not Jesus. Additionally, Mulholland’s argument that this “angel” was Jesus based on Rev 1:18 is faulty because in 1:18 Jesus held the keys τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου (“of death and hades”) while in Rev 20:1 the angel holds the keys to the τῆς ἀβύσσου (“the underworld/abyss” or “bottomless pit” as the NLT translates it). These are separate places, therefore a connection between Jesus and the angel based on the place they have a key to is incorrect.

[9] This “devil” was the same person that tempted Jesus in the desert, “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted thereby the devil” (Matt 4:1). While in the desert being tempted Jesus said, “Get out of here, Satan” (Matt 4:10). The title used for the devil as “Satan” is also used in Matt 16:23; Luke 10:18; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; Rom 16:20; 1 Co4 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess 2:18; Rev 2:24; 20:7. Also see the devil mentioned in Matt 25:41; John 8:44; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:7, 11; 2 Tim 3:3; Tit 2:3; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8; Rev 12:9; 20:2, 10.

[10] John Wavoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 979.

[11] Osborne, Revelation, 702.

[12] Walvoord notes that “what John saw was not all the souls in heaven but a particular generation of martyred dead who had been contemporaneous with the world ruler, the beast out of the sea (13:1).” Walvoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 979.

[13] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 413-414.

[14] M. Robert Mulholland, “Revelation,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2011), 18:577.

[15] Osborne, Revelation, 703.

[16] Ibid., 704.

[17] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 417.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Mulholland, “Revelation,”577.

[20] Mulholland, “Revelation,”577.

[21] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 563-564.

[22] Ibidl., 558-559.

[23] While “Gnomic Aorist” is a valid category of Greek Grammar, there are also others. Blass and DeBrunner list four: ingressive (inceptive), complexive (constative), gnomic and futuristic aorist, and epistolary aorist (F. Blass and A. DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 171-172).  Wallace lists seven: constative, ingressive, consummative, gnomic, epistolary, proplectic, immediate poast aorist/dramatic (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 557-565)

[24] Haley, Haley’s Bible Handbook, 737.

[25] Wavoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 980.

[26] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 419.

[27] Wavoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 980.

[28] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 418.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Osborne, Revelation, 707.

[31] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 422.

[32] Robert Strimple, “Amillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, 118-129.

[33] Kenneth Gentry, Jr., “Postmillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium, 50-55.

[34] James L. Blevins, “Revelation, Book of,” in Mills, ed., Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, (Mercer University Press, 2001),761.

[35] Mulholland, “Revelation,” 579.

[36] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 407.

[37] Wavoord, “Revelation” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 981.

[38] Haley, Haley’s Bible Handbook, 736.

[39] Osborne, Revelation, 711.

[40] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 426.

[41] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 426.

[42] Ibid., 427.

[43] Osborne, Revelation, 716.

THE CONTEXT OF 1 PETER AND SUFFERING IN THE FIRST-CENTURY AND EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

It’s been said that every text has a context. As the text of 1 Peter directly teaches Christians why they are suffering and how to endure suffering, we must ask what was the suffering that Peter’s readers were enduring? This paper is my attempt, as a local pastor preaching 1 Peter to a local church, to understand the context of the text of 1 Peter.  

THE REGION OF PETER’S READERS AND THE LETTER’S DESTINATION

The apostle Peter addresses his letter to those “who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet 1:1b).[1] Most Christians probably only recognize “Galatia” and “Asia” among these five locations. Peter’s reference likely refers to a group of believers that are scattered among a large geographical area. These five regions cover approximately 300,000 square miles.[2] This is likely the entire region of modern-day Turkey. However, it is not clear if Peter is talking about Roman provinces or if he’s referring to general geographical regions. An American comparison would be if someone discusses the state of Colorado or the Rocky Mountains.

The Traveler’s Itinerary

The order of the regions Peter lists likely reflects someone arriving by sea in the port of Pontus, visiting the churches in the districts named in that order, then returning to Bithynia.[3] “The most likely scenario is that the bearer of the letter traveled roughly in a circle, delivering it to churches in each region successively.”^[4]

The People of the Region

This region was economically prosperous. Thus a wide range of wealthy land owners and merchants were present alongside the poorer working class.[5] The churches of this area were likely made up of working class citizens or slaves since Peter gives each group a specific exhortation in this letter (see 1 Pet 2:11–17, 18–25). However, there is no exhortation to masters or slave owners.  

THE PROBLEM OF SUFFERING

In their chapter on 1 Peter, scholars Douglas Moo and D. A. Carson say the issue of suffering “lies beneath virtually every verse of this letter.”[6] Peter’s references to trials and suffering in this letter seem to be stronger than the typical struggles of ordinary life (illness, poverty, death, etc.).[7] It appears to be persecution specifically targeted to Christians.

THE PAGAN ATTITUDE TOWARD CHRISTIANS[8]

The upper-class of Romans called Christianity a “superstition” (Acts 25:19). Christians were viewed in a circumspect and confusing manner because of their withdrawal from the activities of pagan society.[9] Various historians, philosophers, and even comedians have written about how Christians were viewed in and following the first-century. Let’s evaluate a few of these within their historical and literary context.

Characterization of Christians by Tacitus

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56–120) was a Roman historian, senator, and aristocrat. Tacitus is famous for calling Christians “hideous and shameful” as well as “a deadly superstition.”[10] Tacitus’ work, Annals, chronicles Roman history from AD 14 to 68. He likely wrote Annals from AD 115–117.[11]

            Tacitus makes it clear that Romans viewed Christians with hostility. Later in the same work, Annals 15.44.4, he accuses Christians of having a “hatred against the human race.”      

            This accusation likely is based on two practices of Christians. (We might label them as “omissions” or “withdrawals” of Christians.) First, Christians were hesitant to engage in communal acts of reverence for the emperor.[12] Second, Christians were monotheistic which meant they did not practice in or actively participate in the communal events intended to appease many of the gods and goddess of the polytheistic first-century culture. These two “withdrawals” or “omission” from the community caused confusion, suspicion that eventually led to hostility, and affliction toward Christians.

Confusion of Christians as Described by Minucius Felix

The language first-century Christians used was confusing and often misunderstood. Minucius Felix (died AD 250) was a Roman lawyer and early Christian apologist. His work, Octavius, is a dialogue between a skeptic pagan named Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius. Minucius was the one, apparently, arbitrating between the two men.[13] Minucius was a friend of Octavius and apparently wrote the work we now know as Octavius for educated non-Christians. In that work, Octavius, Minucius explains some of the common things that pagans misunderstood about Christians.

            Pagans had heard Christians talk of “eating the body” and “drinking the blood” of Christ (Oct. 9). No one can blame outsiders from potential confusion, even if it was meant as satire, that Christians were cannibals. Outside pagans also, as a byproduct of a heavily sexualized culture, made wrong conclusions about “brothers and sisters” becoming “united as one” in marriage. Pagans who did not understand Christian language wrongly assumed Christians of incest because they married brothers and sisters in the Christian faith (Oct. 9).[14]

            Minucius also makes it clear that Christians had suffered greatly because of gossip about these things. Minucius recounts how many people had claimed that “Christians worshipped monsters, devoured infants, mingled in incestuous banquets.”^[15] Minucius again recounts, “fables as these were always set afloat by those (newsmongers), and were never either inquired into nor proved”^[16] (Oct. 18).

Criticism of Christians as Described by Lucian of Samosata

By the second century Christians were considered the objects of humor. Lucian of Samosata (AD 125–180) was a comedian famous for making fun of the practices, beliefs, and culture of Christians. In his work, On the Death of Peregrinus, Lucian makes fun of Christians for being gullible and accepting. In Lucian’s work, On the Death of Peregrinus, Peregrinus is an imposter of Christianity because he knows the people will support him when he gets in trouble. Lucian retells Peregrinus’ activities that Peregrinus intentionally does because he knows Christians will come to his aid. Peregrinus was not a Christian, but did this as a way to enrich himself. The work, while sometimes questioned for historical accuracy, is intended to mock Christians as gullible and stupid.

SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING PETER’S FIRST LETTER

Peter was likely in Jerusalem for the “Jerusalem Council” of AD 49, but he did not remain in Palestine. He likely traveled to Corinth (stopping in Antioch and Asia Minor) in the early 50s.[17] After this, he likely traveled to Rome and was killed during the massacres of Christians under Emperor Nero after the Great Fire in Rome in 64.

            Peter travelled a northerly route between Corinth (1 Cor 9:5) and Antioch which is how he became acquainted with Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Peter probably trained and encouraged believers to go and share the gospel in other areas (as seen in 1 Pet 1:12, 23–25).[18]

            Clement, the Bishop of Rome, wrote in the mid 90s that Peter had come to Rome and settled there until his death.[19] Clement describes this in 1 Clement 5:4–5, “Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”[20]

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE SUFFERING REFERENCED IN PETER’S FIRST LETTER

I believe the correct context about the text of 1 Peter is this: Peter’s readers were experiencing an unofficial hostility from the general Roman population. Peter’s readers had refused to engage in religious customs associated with Roman government, they abstained from immoral practices that everyone else enjoyed, they gathered regularly to fellowship around the Lord’s Supper which included eating Christ’s “body” and drinking his “blood,” and only married fellow “brothers and sisters” of their faith. Because of this, they were met with suspicion, ridicule, and hostility.[21] I agree with Douglas Moo and D. A. Carson who state, “The readers of 1 Peter were probably being criticized, mocked, discriminated against, and perhaps even brought into court on trumped-up charges.”[22]

            Based on this quotation and other references I’ve shared throughout this article, most scholars believe Peter spent the last decade of his life doing ministry to Jews in Rome.[23] Interestingly, when Paul arrives in Rome (probably in the early sixties) the unbelieving Jews in Rome were already aware of Christian teaching (Acts 28:22). Thus, some who believe Paul’s statement, “And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation” (Rom 15:20), is a reference to Peter’s ministry in Rome, which is where he was when he wrote 1 Peter.[24]

---

[1] Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 52.

[3] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, revised edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 784.

^[4] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 52.

[5] Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 784.

[6] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 638.

[7] Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 639.

[8] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3^rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 592–620.

[9] Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 593.

[10] Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.2–8.

[11] Darrell L Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 49.

[12] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 50.

[13] Robert Earnest Wallis, “Introductory Note to Minucius Felix, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “Introductory Note to Minucius Felix,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 170.

[14] Minucius Felix, “The Octavius of Minucius Felix,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 178.

^[15] Minucius Felix, “The Octavius of Minucius Felix,” 190.

^[16] Minucius Felix, “The Octavius of Minucius Felix,” 190.

[17] Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 301.

[18] Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 302.

[19] Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 302.

[20] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.

[21] Moo and Carson, Introduction to the New Testament, 639.

[22] Moo and Carson, Introduction to the New Testament, 639.

[23] Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 303.

[24] Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 303.

An Overview of the Book of Psalms

Authors of the Different Psalms: David (73), Solomon (2), Sons of Korah[1] (12), Asaph[2] (12), Heman[3] (1), and Ethan[4] (1)

Dates When the Psalms Were Written: 1446-931 BC

Outline of the Book of Psalms:

-Book 1 (1-41)            -Book 2 (42-72)          -Book 3 (73-89)

-Book 4 (90-106)        -Book 5 (107-150)

The Types of Psalms

Praise. Talk excitedly about God and thank him. (Psalms 8, 19, 29, 30, 33, most of 36-51, 113-118, 120-136, 140-150.)

Lament. Plea to God to intervene in a crisis. Some lament psalms are individual and some are community. (Psalms 3, 5-7, 12-13, 22, 44, 60, 74, 79, 80, 83, 85, 90, 102, 123, 126, 130, 137)

Messianic. Refer to the Messiah and the hope he brings. (Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22-24, 40-41, 45, 68-69, 72, 89, 102, 110, 118.)

Pilgrim. Sung while the Jews were traveling to Jerusalem for the national feast days. These are also called psalms of ascent. (Psalms 120-134). 

Alphabetical. Several psalms are acrostic. Each verse or section begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet. (Psalms 9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 110, 112, 119, 145.)

Wisdom. These overlap with the psalms of praise, but have a special emphasis on understanding. (Psalms 1, 10, 12, 15, 19, 32, 34, 36, 49, 50, 52, 53, 73, 78, 82, 91, 92, 94, 111, 112, 119, 119, 127, 128, 139.)

Imprecatory. These are often psalms of “prayer” that can be called “oracles of judgment.” In these psalms the author prays for God’s justice to prevail on earth. These are prayers that enemies (nations or individual people) would be overthrown. (Psalms 7, 35, 52, 48, 49, 59, 83, 109.

(This section adapted from Ken Hanna, From Moses to Malachi, (Nashville, TN: WestBow Press, 2015), 281-287).

Poetry in the Hebrew Scriptures

Hebrew poetry is not about rhyme of sound, but instead about rhyme of thought. Hebrew poetry consists of “parallelism” in which lines of controlled length normally work together in sets called “bicolon” (2 lines) or “tricolon” (3 lines). The lines normally work together thematically and harmonize with each other.[5] (There also is cadence and wordplay that occurs in Hebrew poetry, but that’s largely lost in English translations.) Parallelism is a “statement and restatement of the same basic truth in different words with great art, style, and imagery.”[6] All of this is done with structure and symmetry. 

Synonymous (Iterative) Parallelism (Pss 2:3; 46:7; 103:6). The second line restates some or all of the first line in different words/images.        

“Why are the nations in an uproar

And the peoples devising a vain thing?” ~ Pss 2:1

“O Lord, how my adversaries have increased!

Many are rising up against me.” ~ Psalm 3:1

Antithetic (Contrastive) Parallelism (Pss 1:6; 13:9; Prov 27:6). The second line affirms the truth of the first line in an opposite way.

“How blessed is the man who has made the Lord his trust,

And [how blessed is the man who] has not turned to the proud, nor to those who lapse into falsehood.” ~ Psalm 4:4

Climatic Parallelism. The second line repeats part of the first line exactly and then adds a conclusion (Pss 22:4; 96:7).[7] These are rare.

Pss 29:1 ~ “Ascribe to the Lord, O sons of the mighty,

           Ascribe to the Lord [O sons of the mighty] glory and strength.”

Synthetic (Completive) Parallelism (Pss 2:6; 104:27). The second line completes something introduced in the first line. The second line repeats the thought of the first line and then adds a conclusion.

“Come, let us worship and bow down,

Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.” ~ Psalm 95:6

---

[1] See Numbers 16; 26:9-11.

[2] See Ezra 2:41.

[3] See 1 Kings 4:31.

[4] See 1 Chronicles 15:19.

[5] Brian Webster, The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 296

[6] Mark Bailey, Bible Study Methods and Hermeneutics, BE101, DTS.

[7] Leland Ryken, Sweeter than Honey, Richer Than God (Weaver Book Company, 2015), 70–73.

Some scholars say that the Genesis 1 creation account is a literary “polemic” which was meant to refute ancient Near Eastern creation mythologies.[1] Others say the Genesis 1 creation account is radically different and that the similarities are simply coincidental.[2] Furthermore, some even advance that the creation accounts of Babylon have influenced the narratives of the Gospels in Matthew and Mark as well as Paul’s account of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians.[3] This article will examine the similarities and differences between the Israelite creation account of Genesis 1 and the ancient Near Eastern creation myths of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, and Canaan.

ISRAELITE CREATION ACCOUNT

Context of the Israelite Creation Account

Moses wrote the book of Genesis after the Israelites had left Egypt while they were in the wilderness. The Israelites had just left their homes and were trying to understand who this mighty and powerful God was that had just brought them out of Egypt. Moses’ description of God and the creation of the world in Genesis told the Israelites where they came from and who created them. In this way, Moses was revealing to Israel what kind of God was forming them into a nation.[4]

Content of Creation in Genesis 1

On day one God creates light from darkness and provides light for his creation (Gen 1:3–5). On day two God separates the waters above from the waters below (Gen 1:6–8). On day three God completes his three-day process of forming the earth for life by separating land from sea and by starting vegetation life (Gen 1:9–13). On day four God replaces the light from creation on day one with light from the sun for day and light from the moon at night (Gen 1:14–19). On day five God fills the waters with swimming creatures and fills the skies with flying creatures, then blesses them with the desire to multiply (Gen 1:20–23). On day six God creates man in his image (Gen 1:26–27), blesses humanity to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28–30), and called all he created very good (Gen 1:26–31). On day seven God completed his creation, ceased from his work, and consecrated the seventh day (Gen 2:1–3).

Structure of Genesis 1 and the Israelite Creation Account

While most exegetical studies of the Israelite creation account focus on the sequence of creation, the structure of Genesis 1 must also be examined. Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of creation, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”[5] This is the main clause or title given for the chapter. Genesis 1:2 reveals a state of chaos, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”This verse contains three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information. We could see these three clauses as the “circumstances” of the earth before creation. This state of chaos reveals that the earth is without shape (Gen 1:2a), without light (Gen 1:2b), and is present with God (Gen 1:2c). This structure is vital to a correct understanding of the Israelite creation account compared to ancient Near Eastern accounts because in Genesis 1 God creates from something. For the sake of this paper, Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of what follows in Genesis 1:3–2:3, thus something exists in Genesis 1:2 when God begins to create in Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:3—2:3 contains the narrative sequence.[6]

            Many conservative evangelical scholars have interpreted Genesis 1:3—2:3 as narrative history, not as poetry, parable, prophetic, allegory, or myth. The syntax of Genesis 1:3—2:3 suggests it should be considered historical narrative just like one would read the account of Ezra returning to Judah from Persia, Daniel’s experience in Babylon, or the splitting of Israel among Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The Genesis 1 creation account follows the normal form of historical narrative seen throughout the Old Testament canon. This pattern reveals past events by starting with the verb first (preterite / vayyiqtol / vav plus imperfect consecutive), then subject, then object.[7] For those reasons Genesis 1 is viewed as historical narrative, not part of the wisdom genre and poetic nature of Hebrew syntax often found in the Psalms, Proverbs, and the book of Job.

A Single God Created the Earth Divine Fiat and Ex Nihilo

Systematic theologians assert that the Old Testament teaches one God created the earth divine fiat (by mere command) and ex nihilo (from nothing). In this manner of creation there was no cosmic struggle between God and something else. In the Israelite creation account God is the subject of the creative acts seen in Gen 1:1, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24; 2:2. He is the single supreme deity in the Israelite creation account. Not only is he the only God, but he existed before creation and outside of that creation.[8] In the Israelite creation account God does not use matter or human beings to create. Instead, Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6-9, and Romans 4:14 all affirm that God merely spoke and creation emerged.

Biblical References to the Creation Account

Various passages throughout the Bible attest to the Genesis creation account as a historical event. When Jesus was asked about the topic of divorce he said that God made human beings “male and female from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:5-6, NLT). Paul describes God as having “existed before anything else and he holds all creation together” (Col 1:17, NLT). The half-brother of Jesus told believers that God “created all the lights in the heavens” (James 1:17, NLT). Extending the creation account beyond just the Israelites was Melchizedek who blessed Abram by “God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth” (Gen 14:19, NLT). Lastly, Revelation 3:14 describes God’s “new creation” which implies something old which had already been created. In addition to these passages, numerous others point to the biblical account of creation as a historical event.[9]

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CREATION MYTHS

Confusion often arises when looking at ancient Near Eastern creation myths because unlike the Israelites’ single account, many ancient Near Eastern cultures had multiple creation accounts. The myths often varied depending on which city they were told in and which god belonged there.[10]

Egyptian Creation Myths

Some believe that there were three creation myths in Egypt[11] while others believe there were four.[12] More than one creation myth creates contradictions about how the world was created and who created it.[13] Therefore, as far as the Egyptian perspective, “There is no single Egyptian account known to date that describes the complete Egyptian perspective on creation. Instead, we have to put together a mosaic of bits and pieces recorded in various documents.”[14]

            The Egyptian creation myth is “thoroughly devoted to Theogony—birth of the gods as they took their forms in the creation of nature.”[15] At the beginning of creation there was only an “infinite dark, watery, chaotic sea.”[16] The gods mentioned in the Egyptian creation accounts were Nun (who existed in the primordial waters), Atum (who emerged from the waters), Enead who was the manifestation of the creation of the material world (generated by Atum), and Re/Re-Amun (the sun).[17] Later, humanity was created by accident, and at the end of the day the creator god rested. Finally pharaoh was born as the firstborn of Re/Re-Amun.[18] Everything was done in a single day[19] mostly by sneezing, spitting, and masturbation.[20] Man was created in the image of Re, or Khnum fashioned man on a patters wheel with the breath of god (if that god was Re, Hekat, or Aton is unclear) or man sprang from the eye of Atum.[21]

Sumerian Creation Myths

The Sumerian creation myth exists because the gods needed relief from laboring for self sustenance.[22] In this myth the goddess Nammu is the one who made the earth,[23] but the creation of man was merely an afterthought as a result of the gods’ desire for laborers.[24] The resulting creation myth of Sumaria is in close connection with the Babylonian Atrahasis epic and Enuma Elish epic.[25]

Canaanite Creation Myths

There are no clear cosmologies about creation in the Canaanite materials. What is known is that El (the head of the Canaanite pantheon) and his wife, Asherah, were creators. El is described as the creator of the earth, gods, and men.[26] Later, El was eclipsed by his son, Baal, who was the storm god and later a fertility god. While little is known of the Canaanite creation account there were “battles between Baal and the Sea (Yamm) and Death (Mot).[27]

Mesopotamian and Babylonian Creation Myths

Numerous gods are named in the two Mesopotamian and Babylonian creation myths. One of the myths is the Enuma Elish epic. The beginning of creation starts with the primordial waters consisting of two gods: Tiamat (salt water god of the deep) and Apsu (fresh water god). A third god, Mummu, appeared later as “vizier” to Apsu. The fresh water and salt water mixed to make the first generation of gods. As a result of the noise of those new gods Apsu could not sleep so he decided he was going to kill the created gods. However, Ea (the god of rivers and streams) found out about Apsu’s plan to kill the new gods so he put Apsu to sleep and then killed Apsu. Ea then fathered his own gods beginning with Marduk (the god of storm).[28] Marduk is said to have become the king of the remaining gods because he defeated and killed his rival gods.[29] When defeating the god Tiamat Marduk used her body—cut in half—to separate the land and the sky.[30] Mankind was created by mixing flesh and blood of a killed god (or gods)[31] with clay. This formed man and gave the spirit of god to man.[32] The other account of Mesopotamian and Babylonian creation myths is Atrahasis. In the Atrahasis epic the god, Ea, created seven human couples to take over the work of the lesser gods. Those lesser gods were in charge of tilling the land and growing food for the greater gods. When they tired and went on strike, Ea created seven human couples to replace the lesser gods’ role in tilling the ground and growing food.[33]

CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY

Continuity

            The Source of Creation. One of the common features seen in the ancient Near Eastern creation myths and the Israelite account is land emerging from the waters. In the Israelite creation account we have the earth being formless, empty, and darkness covering the deep waters (Gen 1:2). Later, on the third day of creation God allows land to “appear” because the water beneath the sky flowed into one place (Gen 1:9). The Egyptian creation account reveals that land emerged only after the water had receded.[34] Another continuity is that in the Israelite creation account mankind was formed by God; in the ancient Near Eastern myths the gods create humankind with matter from the earth. The Israelite creation says that God made human beings in his image (Gen 1:26–27) and later reveals that he “formed the man from the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7). The Babylonian account reveals that humans were made from the “clay,” but that clay was mixed with “the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).”[35] 

            The Sequence of Creation. Many of the creation events in ancient Near Eastern myths follow the basic structure of the Israelite creation account. While the overall storyline of the Israelite creation account is different than Egypt’s cosmology, most of the other factors of Egypt’s creation myths and other ancient Near Eastern creation myths follow a similar pattern and theme.[36] James Atwell[37] shows the Enuma Elish (Babylonian) chronology closely follows the Israelite account. Both begin with a divine spirit existing external to matter, the matter was full of darkness, and light came from the gods (Enuma Elish) while God created light (Israel). Next was creation of firmament, then creation of dry land, later creation of luminaries, the creation of man, and finally the gods rest and celebrate (Enuma Elish) and God rests and sanctifies the seventh day (Israelite).[38] Furthermore, Soden and Miller relate God’s rest and sanctification of the seventh day of creation to Egypt’s Memphite Theology (one of three or four different creation cosmologies of Egypt). In the Memphite Theology “Ptah rested when all the creating was done and all the gods were settled.”[39] As seen above, there is similarity in the chronology of the Israelite creation account to Babylonia and one of the Egyptian cosmologies.

            The Substance of Creation. The Israelite creation account also matches the Egyptian creation myths in describing “primordial waters” (or “watery”),[40] which would eventually be formed into the earth.[41] Related to the wateriness of the earth in its precreated condition is also the darkness that covered the earth. That darkness is common in the Enuma Elish[42] and Egyptian creation myths.[43] Another brief continuity occurs in the Egyptian “Hermopolis” creation cosmology where the light came from Atum (the sun-god) before formal creation of the sun.[44] The same concept of “light” before the creation of the sun is in the Israelite creation account when God created light on day one (Gen 1:3) but the sun was not created until day four (Gen 1:14–18). In addition, the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern cosmologies focus on a separation between the heavens and the earth. The Sumerians said that the heavens were separated from the earth by the air-god Enil. The Babylonian Enuma Elish made heaven from the upper part of the slain Tiamat. The Egyptian myth tells of Shu, the air god, pushing up Nut (sky goddess) from Geg (earth god) which eventually separated the earth from the sky.[45] In the Israelite creation account God separated the waters of the heavens (sky) and the waters of the earth (Gen 1:6–8).

Discontinuity

Most conservative evangelical scholars would place Genesis 1 and ancient Near Eastern creation accounts into different literary genres. Most view the Israelite creation account as a literal event.[46] Unlike the ancient Near Eastern myths, the “Israelites’ knowledge of God, therefore, was not founded in the first instance on the numinous awareness of nature, as was the case in polytheism. It was based on historical event.”[47] Furthermore, the “God of Israel has no mythology.”[48] The ancient Near Eastern accounts from Egypt, Sumeria, Canaan, and Babylon are normally placed in the literary genre of myth. An ancient Near Eastern myth has possible historical reference contained within its narrative, but an ancient Near Eastern myth does not expressively affirm the historicity of particular features of its narrative.[49] According to Kenton L. Sparks ancient Near Eastern myth “refers to stories in which the gods are major actors and the setting is either in the early cosmos or in the heavens.”[50] Sparks later elaborates, “We must contend as well with the possibility that ancient myth writers sometimes believed their myths to be inspired and hence factually reliable.”[51] Therefore, before examining the stated discontinuities of the ancient Near Eastern creation myths and Israelite creation account it is important to realize some conservative evangelical scholars believe the Israelite account is talking about factual history while the ancient Near Eastern accounts are myths.

            The Source of Creation. The most striking difference between the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern myths is the God (singular) of Israel versus gods (plural) of the ancient Near East. Almost all ancient Near Eastern creation myths involve a myriad of gods[52] while Israel had one God. Another strong discontinuity is the absence of combat and struggle in the Israelite creation account compared to the constant struggle and combat in the ancient Near Eastern creation myths.[53] With regard to the Israelite creation account “any notion of a combat, struggle, or force is absent in both of these creation acts”[54] As Kenneth Kitchen explains, “Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents a calm, stately vista of creation of the cosmos by one supreme deity, untrammeled by complex mythologies or subplots.”[55]

            The Substance of Creation. Unlike the ancient Near Eastern creation myths, the Israelite creation account did not deify or worship the created matter. In this way, Genesis 1 rejects the Egyptian method of deifying the sky, ground, and air.[56] The Egyptian creation myths saw the material world (created matter) as the “embodiment, physical manifestation, or terrestrial incarnation of the individual gods.”[57] For example, the sun was the god Re, the sky was Nut, the ground was Geb, dry air was Shu, moist humidity was Tefnut, the primordial sea was Nun.[58] The Israelite creation account clearly rejects this deification of the created material world. Instead, according to the Israelite creation account, man was to govern the earth and reign over everything on earth (Gen 1:28). Adding to the differences between this creation account and ancient Near Eastern myths is the relationship established between God and man. The ancient Near Eastern myths had humans being made to serve the gods and do the work that the gods had gone on strike from. Yet, in the Israelite creation account God entrusted humans to reign and govern his creation on his behalf (Gen 1:26, 28).

            Another difference is seen in how the Israelite creation account describes the beginning of the human race with a single couple, Adam and Eve. This description of the beginning of humanity is unique because, “nowhere in the ancient texts are human origins depicted in terms of a single couple being created as progenitors of the entire human race. Consequently, if the biblical text includes that idea, it is not doing so in conformity with its ancient Near Eastern environment.”[59] The closest relation to the Israelite creation account of a single couple at the start of the human race is the Atrahasis epic in which the god Ea created seven human couples. Yet the purpose of creating those couples was to take over the work of the lesser gods’ job of growing food for the greater gods.[60] The relationship between this first couple in the Israelite creation account is also a reminder that God provides for his creation when he says to Adam and Eve, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Gen 2:16).[61]

CONCLUSION

This has been an examination of the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern creation myths. There is a strong similarity among these accounts regarding the sequence of creation. And there are subtle continuities regarding the beginning of creation consisting of water as well as continuity of man being formed with matter from the earth.

            However, there are more discontinuities and stronger contrasts among those discontinuities. The first is that the Israelite creation account is often considered a literal and historical creation account compared to the ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Second, there is one supreme and powerful creator in the Israelite creation account while there are many gods mixed into the ancient Near Eastern creation myths. There is no supernatural struggle in the Israelite creation account because God alone created the world. Third, while the ancient Near Eastern creation myths deify the created matter (water, sun, etc.) as “gods,” the only God in the Isrealite creation account is the God which created the earth. Fourth, humanity is entrusted to rule over God’s creation in the Israelite creation account while humans are often depicted in the ancient Near Eastern myths as servants and laborers to the needs of gods. Fifth, the Israelite creation account starts with a single couple as the beginning of the human race which is completely unique from other ancient Near Eastern accounts.

            In light of the evidence presented in this paper there does appear to be some continuity between the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern myths, but the discontinuities are more common and present stronger contrasts. 

            With that stated, readers need to reconcile how these similarities occurred. Was there an oral history of the creation which followers of Yahweh shared and overtime that oral history was adapted into other cultures? Was Moses taking the ancient Near Eastern creation myths (which would he would have known in Egypt) and attributed them to Yahweh? Or are the similarities merely coincidental? This paper has shown there are some similarities, but how those similarities occurred and what they mean are debated among evangelical scholars.

Bibliography

Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Atwell, James. “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1.” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000): 441-447.

Barton, George. “Were the Biblical Foundations of Christian Theology Derived from Babylonia?” Journal of Biblical Literature 40, no. 20 (1921): 87-103.

Bulkeley, Tim. “God as Mother? Ideas to Clarify Before We Start.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 17 (2004): 107-118.

Hasel, Gerhard. “Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology.” Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974): 81-102.

Hoffmeier, James. “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 in Light of Egyptian Cosmology.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Society 15 (1983): 39-49.

Johnston, Gordon. “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths.” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (2008): 178-194.

Kitchen, Kenneth. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Miller, Johnny and John Soden. In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2012.

NET Bible, Full Notes Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson and Biblical Studies, 2019.

Ross, Allen P. “Genesis.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Sparks, Kenton L. “Genesis 1-11 as Ancient Histography.” In Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, 110-139. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

Walton, John. “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View.” In Four Views on the Historical Adam, 89–118. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Webster, Brian L. The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Wenham, Gordon. “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, 73-97. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

Wright, George. The Old Testament Against Its Environment. SCN Press, 1962.

---

[1] Gordon Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (2008): 194.

[2] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 420–435.

[3] George Barton, “Were the Biblical Foundations of Christian Theology Derived from Babylonia?” Journal of Biblical Literature 40, no. 20 (1921): 96.

[4] Allen P. Ross, “Genesis” in Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 27.

[5] Unless otherwise noted, Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

[6] NET Bible, Full Notes Edition (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson and Biblical Studies Press, 2019), 2.

[7] Brian L. Webster, The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 108, 264; Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 86.

[8] Some who do not follow the structure described in the previous section would say God also created ex nihilo because there was nothing before he began to create. Before God began to speak the world into creation (Gen 1:3) the world was formless, empty, and dark (Gen 1:2).

[9] Gen 6:7; Job 40:19; Pss 33:6–9; 102:25-26; 104; 148:1–6; Prov 8:22; Ecc 12:1; Isa 40:28; 43:1, 7; 44:24; 45:8–9; 51:13; 54:16; 65:17; Jer 51:19; John 1:3; Rom 1:20, 25; 4:17; Eph 3:9, 14–15; Col 1:16-7; and Heb 1:2–3.

[10] Tim Bulkeley, “God as Mother? Ideas to Clarify Before We Start,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 17 (2004): 109.

[11] One is Heliopolis, another is Memphis, and the final one is Hermopolis. See James Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000), 449

[12] Pyramid Texts (PT), Coffin Texts (CT), Book of the Dead, and Shabaka Stone. See Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 181.

[13] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 454.

[14] Johnny Miller and John Soden, In the Beginning. . . We Misunderstood (Grand Rapids, MI: 2012), 77.

[15] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 194.

[16] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 78.

[17] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 182.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 80.

[20] Ibid., 78.

[21] Ibid., 79.

[22] Gerhard Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974): 90.

[23] Ibid., 83.

[24] Ibid., 90.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 139–140.

[27] Ibid., 142.

[28] Ibid., 114.

[29] Bulkeley, “God as Mother?,” 108.

[30] Ibid. 

[31] “Man is formed from clay mingled with the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).” James Hoffmeier, “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 15 (1983): 47. Also see George Barton, “Christian Theology from Babylonia?,” 88.

[32] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 117.

[33] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, edited Charles Halton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 85.

[34] Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology,” 46.

[35] Ibid., 47.

[36] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 182.

[37] Also see Barton, “Were the Biblical Foundations of Christian Theology Derived from Babylonia?,” 93.

[38] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 445.

[39] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 93.

[40] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 451.

[41] Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology,” 44; Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 178–179.

[42] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 452.

[43] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 185.

[44] Ibid., 186.

[45] Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,”87. Also see Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 456.

[46] Gen 6:7; 14:19; Pss 33:6–9; 102:25–26; 104; Isa 40:28; 43:1, 7; 44:24; 45:8–9; 51:13; 54:16; 65:17; Jer 51:19; Mark 10:5–6; John 1:3; Rom 1:20, 25; 4:17; Eph 3:9, 14–15; Col 1:16–17; Heb 1:2-3; James 1:17–18.

[47] George Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment (SCM Press, 1962), 22.

[48] Ibid., 26.

[49] Wenham, “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory,” 84.

[50] Kenton L. Sparks, “Genesis 1–11 as Ancient Histography,” 122–123.

[51] Ibid., 123.

[52] Bulkeley, “God as Mother?,” 110.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” 88. Gordon Johnston also affirms this view saying, “More significantly there is no hint of divine conflict between God the primordial waters in Genesis 1.” Gordon Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Egyptian Myths” 179.

[55] Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 427.

[56] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 190.

[57] Ibid., 192.

[58] Ibid., 192.

[59] John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View,” in Four Views on the Historical Adam, edited by Matthew Barret and Ardel Caneday (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 2013), 99.

[60] Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory,” 85.

[61] One element of the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern creation myths was examined yet was not determined which side of the evidence to be placed. This was the notion of God’s creation divine fiat (mere command). The Israelite creation account is clear that God merely “said” (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24) and material creation emerged. While Gordon Johnston (“Genesis and Ancient Creation Myths”, pp. 187–188) and Gerhard Hasel (“Polemic Nature of Genesis Cosmology,” pp. 90–91) each say that creation by mere command is unique only to the Israelite creation account, Miller and Soden (In the Beginning, p. 87) and James Atwell (“Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” p. 465) believe that creation by mere command was common in ancient Near Eastern myths. Therefore, a decision was not made as to whether creation divine fiat was a continuity or discontinuity. 

The Bible makes it clear that Christ died on cross (Matt 27:32-61; Mark 15:33-47; Luke 23:44-56; John 19:28-42) and three days later Jesus came back to life and left the tomb in which he was buried (Matt 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10; Acts 1:4-8; 9:1-9; 1 Cor 15:6-8).

I love the Bible and trust it as a reliable and credible witness to events that occurred in the first century. Yet, the Bible is not the only witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Based on my research there are five different categories of sources that contain at least thirteen different independent references to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

ANCIENT HISTORIANS

The first category comes from ancient historians. Tacitus was a first century Roman historian and politician who wrote about a Christian that suffered under Pontius Pilate (the man who sentenced Christ to death).[1] Josephus was a Roman-Jewish historian and military leader. He lived AD 37-97 and said that Jesus died and appeared “alive” again to his disciples.[2] Thallus was a historian who wrote a three-volume history of events in the Mediterranean region. He wrote about the physical events of Jesus’s death just as they were recorded in Luke 23:44-45. Scholars say Thallus wrote in AD 52 while Luke did not write his Gospel until AD 65.[3]

JEWISH SOURCES

A second category Jewish sources. The Talmud was a textbook for Jewish Rabbis on laws and theology that’s dated from AD 70-200. It directly references the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.[4] The Toledoth Jesu is a fifth century alternative history of Jesus that states that Jesus was in a tomb but was resurrected and not at the tomb when people came to see him days after his death.[5]

GENTILE SOURCES

A third category is Gentile sources. Lucian was a Syrian satirist, speaker, and writer that used sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek style. He lived AD 125-180 and said that Jesus was the founder of Christianity and was “crucified” for it.[6] Mara Bar-Seraphone was a Syrian (late first century) who wrote a letter to his son describing how the Jews “executed” Jesus.[7]

GNOSTIC SOURCES

A fourth category is “gnostic” sources which talk about Jesus directly but are much less credible than books that are in the Bible. The Gospel of Truth (second century) referenced Jesus as a historical person who had a “death for many . . . nailed to a tree.”[8] The Treatise on the Resurrection (late second century) says that Jesus died and came back to life. The Gospel of Thomas (second century) records Jesus’s death. The Gospel of Peter describes how Mary and other women went to the tomb of Jesus but he was not there.

LOST SOURCES

The fifth category is “lost” sources which we do not have copies of, but portions of these writings are quoted in writings that we do have. The Acts of Pontius Pilate says that in Jesus’s crucifixion he was pierced in his hands and feet. Phlegon (born in AD 80) wrote that Jesus was alive, died, and arose to life after his death.[9]

By no means is this an exhaustive list (just a simple one compiled by a church pastor). There are other “evidences” that Jesus lived, died, and came back to life. I encourage you to do your own search and investigate the claims of Scripture for yourself.

---

[1] Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.

[2] Josephus, Antinquities 18:3.

[3] Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Julius Africanus in 221 quotes the words fof Thallus.

[4] Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a in the Babylonian Talmud.

[5] I have not been able to find the citation of this directly.

[6] Lucian, Death of Pelegrine, 11-13.

[7] British Museum, Syrian MS, add. 14, 658; cited in Habermas, 200.

[8] Gospel of Truth, probably written by Valentinus. See 30:27-33; 31:4-6; 20:11-14, 25-34.

[9] cited by Origen, 4:455; cf. Habermas, 210; Anderson, 19. Origen 14, Julius Africanus, 18.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSIM

Young earth creationism believes the earth was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days with the appearance of age. In other words, God created the universe and our world about 6,000-10,000 years ago. (Views vary depending on potential gaps in genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10-11.) Most young earth creationists believe God created a “mature” earth with the appearance of age. Because the earth was created “good” and “perfect” there was harmony and not “survival of the fittest” before the fall of Genesis 3.

Strengths

• The Hebrew word yom is literal when used with cardinal and ordinal numbers.
• The phrases “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless there are literal days being described.
• Exodus 20:8-11 teaches Israel to work six days and rest on the seventh day following God’s example. This implies literal days.
• There was no death before the Fall in Genesis 3, therefore time and creation operated very differently.
• Noah’s Flood radically changed the earth, therefore time and aging of the earth was very different than now.
• Statements of Jesus, the Apostles, and Isaiah indicated that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Job 12:7-10; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Luke 11:50-51; Rom 1:20)
• Historical theology supports this interpretation with 1,800 years of Christian history and 1,400 years of Jewish history
• If we believe in God performing miracles and acting supernaturally, then creating everything we see in seven days is certainly within His potential.
• When the Bible describes the creation of the earth by God it is always as a past action not something that was in progress.
• Hebrew syntax supports a plain-literal interpretation of six days of creation over twenty-four hour periods. Genesis 1-2 does not follow the pattern if Hebrew poetry or allegory.
• If Moses wanted to indicate creation took place over millions or billions of years there are other Hebrew words he would have used.
• God uses words of time to describe time in ways we can understand it (Pss 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).

Weaknesses

• Young earth creationism does not match what most agnostic and atheistic scientists believe in physical science, life science, experimental science, or historical science teaches.

Other Names

• Immediate Creation
• Recent Creation
• Gap Theory

Further Reading

• Ken Ham, “Young Earth Creationism” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 19-31.
• Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961)
• Henry Morris, Biblical Creationism (Baker, 1993)
• AC Custance, Without Form and Void (Doorway Papers, 1970)
• Henry Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1989)
• John C. Witcomb, Jr., The Early Earth (rev. ed., Baker, 1986)
• John C. Witcomb, Jr., The World that Perished (Baker, 1988)
• Ken Ham, The Answers Book (rev. ed., Master Books, 2000)

Popular Supporters

• David Jeremiah
• John MacArthur
• J. Vernon McGee
• John Calvin
• Martin Luther

OLD EARTH CREATIONISM

According to Old Earth Creationism life appeared gradually over billions of years and that God miraculously intervened to create earth’s first life. In this view the six days of Genesis 1 are actually six long eras.  Adam and Eve were created 12,000-135,000 years ago during the last ice age. Old Earth Creationism views all humans as descendants of two historical persons, and distinct from Neanderthals and Homo erectus. A key part of Old Earth Creationism is the utilization of what they call “constructive integration” which sees Scripture and science as compliments to each other and not in conflict. They see nature as providing observable, measurable, and verifiable information about God’s supernatural handiwork as each successive act prepares for the next. When “mass speciation” events appear in science it is because of divine intervention. Specifically, God introduces diverse species appropriate for Earth’s changing conditions. Old Earth Creationism believes God’s message and meaning is conveyed by biblical authors through figurative language. According to this view, the universe began in a transcendent event, it unfolds for the benefit of humanity, and is sustained continuously according to nature’s laws. Thus the laws of physics have stayed the same (by that they mean the Fall and Flood did not change science as we see it). Old Earth Creationism does not believe in a literal worldwide Flood and diminishes the effects of the Fall on the environment that supports life.

Strengths

• Believes there are twenty major passages and hundreds of additional verses that provide commentary on the natural realm, which they believe is a scientifically testable model.
• The events that occur on the sixth-day appear to need to take longer than a day (Gen 2:9, 19, 21-22, 23; cf. Gen 29:34-35; 30:20; 46:30; Judg 15:3).
• Place a strong emphasis on Genesis 1-11; Job 37-39; Psalm 104; Proverbs 8
• Seventh-day continuation is not a “day” (Heb 4:4-11), therefore it appears to continue and not “end” like others.
• Time according to God is different than time according to us (Pss 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).
• God’s eternality compared ours is unmeasurable (Pss 90:2-6; Prov 8:22-31; Ecc 1:3-11; Micah 6:2).
• Statements about the earth’s age seem to imply it is very old (Hab 3:6; 2 Peter 3:5).
• There is an exception to the Hebrew word for day, yom, as “24hr” period of time when it is used with an ordinal number (Hosea 6:2).
• The Sabbath gets implemented as “years” in the Law (Exod 20:10-11; Lev 25:4).
• The “evening” and “morning” statements don’t make sense until the sun was created (Gen 1:5, 8, 13; cf. 14-19)

Weaknesses

• Utilizes poetic passages—allegedly about creation—in Job 38-39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 to reinterpret the historical narrative of Genesis 1-2.
• If God can create supernaturally and miraculously, then it is possible He can create everything not just in six days but instantaneously.
• The Bible does not describe creation as a process.
• The Bible describes the Flood narrative of Genesis 6-8 as worldwide, not local.
• Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 describe time according to our perspective and not God’s perspective.
• Death did not begin until Adam’s sin and humankind’s fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12-21)
• A forced reconciliation and realignment of what science teaches with what is in the Bible. This leads to criticism from both Young Earth Creationists and Theistic Creationists.
• Requires a new reading and new interpretation of Genesis 1 (that did not exist until the 1800s) based on the claims of science.
• Requires a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 as scientific beliefs change over time (Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, genetics, big bang, astronomy, etc.)
• Sometimes it appears they are saying more than what the text is saying (Job 37-39; Psalm 104, Prov 8). Specifically, the passages they claim describe “mass speciation” events and “mass extinction” events do not appear to be describing those events (Psalm 104:29-30)
• Most DNA and genetic theory do not believe that humanity descended from one man and one woman (but that “number” is declining).
• Places too much emphasis on general revelation and diminishes the significance of special revelation.
• According to science birds (created on day five of Genesis 1) appeared hundreds of millions of years after land animals (created on day six of Genesis 1)
• According to science seed and fruit bearing plants (created on day three of Genesis 1) appeared hundreds of millions of years after sea creatures (created on day five of Genesis 1).
• The Hebrew word yom is literal when used with cardinal and ordinal numbers.

Other Names

• Progressive Creationism

Further Reading

• Hugh Ross, “Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism” Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 71-100.
• Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution (Bethany House, 1985)
• Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (NavPress, 2004)
• B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Eerdmans, 1964)
• Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, 2^nd ed. (RTB Press, 2014)

Popular Supporters

• Ray Stedman

EVOLUTIONARY CREATION

Evolutionary creation holds two beliefs: evolution is real and the Bible is true. In the evolutionary process God chose at times to act supernaturally and evolution is the mechanism that God used to achieve His purposes over billions of years. In Evolutionary Creation all species arose through gradual change and are related by a tree of common ancestry. Our human ancestors were a group of several thousand humans that evolved from apes. In this view the first humans lived 150,000-200,000 years ago. The evolutionary process results in natural selection, microevolution, and macroevolution. Evolutionary Creationists state that the Gospel is the central message of Scripture and that Scripture is authoritative not inerrant. This view rejects a literal interpretation of all aspects of creation described in Scripture. Evolutionary Creationism does not see science as a tool for ascribing truth or reliability of Scripture. It states that the Bible does not make scientific predictions, believes geological evidence does not support a worldwide flood, and believes the basic laws of physics did not change with the Flood or Fall (since those were not literal events).

Strengths

• Human “genome” is similar to chimpanzees and also has extra pointless “junk” in our genome as other animals have too.
• States that the Bible does not intend to use scientific language.
• Believes science and the natural laws that it discovers are a testimony to God’s care of all matter and mechanisms.
• Has support from geological evidence. Annual layers of ice from glaciers have been counted back over 100,000 years in Greenland and over 700,000 years in Antarctica. Annual layers of sedimentary rock formed at the bottom of lakes and shallow seas show millions of years of deposits. Radiometric dating is possible for some atoms that are radioactive and decay over time.  For example, a rock formation in Greenland has been dated to 3.6 billion years old. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated to 4.5 billion years old.
• Has support from astronomical evidence because light takes time to travel. The light we see from Andromeda galaxy (the closest galaxy) takes 2.5 million years to reach us.
• States that Genesis focuses on who and why of creation; not on how and when.

Weaknesses

• While the main focus of Genesis is who God is, there is still a strong focus of how and when it happened. Specifically, there are statements about the order of creation and time it took to make that creation.
• Primary focus is on the Book of Nature and not Book of Scripture.
• Refuses the possibility of supernatural interference.
• Evolutionary Creation is contrary to the clear teaching of Genesis 3:20; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12-19; and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 that specifically state all humans descended from one man and one woman, and that our sin nature was inherited from Adam.
• The Bible does not describe creation as in progress.
• Rejects historical doctrine of Christianity that Adam and Eve were literal historical persons.
• Utilizes less clear general revelation to reinterpret special revelation.
• Many scientists—both secular and Christian—question the validity of evolution.
• Adam and Eve were not sole progenitors, thus three possibilities are suggested by Evolutionary Creation. One, Adam and Eve were “ancient representatives” of humanity that God entered into relationship with 200,000 years ago in Africa. Two, Adam and Eve were “recent representatives” living 6,000 years ago in the Ancient Near East. Three, Adam and Eve are viewed not as historical persons but instead as symbolic stories in the genre of the Ancient Near East.
• Evolutionary Creation diminishes the doctrine of humans being made in the image of God, original sin, falsely teaches death before the Fall of Genesis 3, allows for natural evil before the fall of Genesis 3, and allows for a “randomness” of creation.
• Must reinterpret the significance of the Fall of Genesis 3, the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and significance of sin in Romans 5:12-21.
• Animals (specifically fossils) appear long before humans in geological records. Why would there be billions of years of death (fossils) before the Fall of humans and entry of sin and death into the world in Genesis 3.

Other Names

• Theistic Evolution

Further Reading

• Deborah Haarsma, “Evolutionary Creation” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Zondervan, 2017), pp. 124-153.
• Dennis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose (Monarch, 2008)
• Francis Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006)
• Howard Van Till, Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives of the World’s Formation (Eerdmans, 1990)
• Howard Van Till, The Fourth Day, (Eerdmans, 1986)

Popular Supporters

• Deitrich Bonhoeffer

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Intelligent design advocates that a scientific understanding of what we see requires an intelligent “being” as creator. In other words, there was a guiding influence over evolutionary force, not a process of random selection. This is a new faith-based alternative to evolution, however there is no specific designation to the intelligence except for a “creator” or “god.” This view is an “age-neutral theory” to the earth and universe. It does not take a position on how to interpret the book of Genesis or the age of the earth. Intelligent Design proponents believe there are tell-tale features in digital code in DNA, miniature circuits and machines in cells, as well as constants of physics which all point to an intelligent cause. In summary, the creative action of a conscious and intelligent being is an adequate cause for the origin of the things we see.

Strengths

• DNA shows appearance of design because of the specific way that nucleotide bases are arranged in DNA. They are arranged in an exact way that allows them to properly function.
• Genetic information shows a creator making important changes over time. In other words, there are necessary changes in genetic information that are too complex to be random. An example is “function proteins” being developed that are required for life, yet impossible to have been the result of random development.
• Chemical evolutionary theory and the origin of information shows a creative influence. A living cell is too complex to just appear and it must have had a designer. RNA molecules are arranged in such a complex and complimentary way that they could not have found themselves in their current form without a designer.
• Closely follows the discoveries and interpretations of science, but attributes what it sees to a designer, not randomness.
• There are few evidence-based objections.
• Arguments are consistent with what Scripture teaches in Romans 1:20, Acts 14:15-17, Psalm 19:2, Job 12:7-10.

Weaknesses

• Proudly declares the theory is not based on the Bible, but is instead based on scientific discoveries related to intelligent causes. In other words, Intelligent Design is not derived from a religious text, but an inference from science.
• Intelligent Design proponents might have a variety of interpretations of Genesis 1, or they may have none at all.
• Must reinterpret the significance of the Fall of Genesis 3, the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and significance of sin in Romans 5:12-21.
• Is not specific about the date of the earth or creation.
• Some suggest it is “religion masquerading as science.”
• Is too vague in its belief about a “creator” or “god”
• The Bible is completely left out of all arguments.
• Only focuses on origin of creation and does not address the process of creation.
• No Intelligent Design leaders have given serious consideration or explanation of what God said about creation in Genesis 1-2, the Flood in Genesis 6-9, or the age of the earth.

Further Reading

• Stephen Meyer, “Intelligent Design” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 177-208.
• Michele Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1996)
• Michele Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Free Press, 2008)
• Charles Thaxton et al., The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (The Philosophical Library, 1984)
• Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (InterVarsity, 1991)
• Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2009)
• Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2013)

Popular Supporters

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CREATION MYTH

While Genesis 1 is likely literal the structure of Genesis 1 is more theological and artistic than literal. In other words, Moses shaped the theology and history as recorded in Genesis 1 based on the genre of literature that was circulating at the time he wrote the Pentateuch. Some scholars say that the Genesis 1 creation account is a literary “polemic” which was meant to refute Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) creation mythologies of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, and Canaan. However, debates within this view are about if Moses took ANE creation myths and attributed them to the God of Israel, or was Moses’ creation story in Genesis 1 the original creation story that other ANE cultures intentionally took and changed to their own culture.

Strengths

• There are similarities in the source of creation. In both ANE creation myths and in Genesis land emerges from the waters. In Israel God made humans in His image and formed the man from the dust of the ground. In Babylon humans were made from the “clay,” but that clay was mixed with “the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).”    
• There are some similarities in the sequence of creation. Many of the creation events in ANE myths follow the basic structure of the Israelite creation account. The Enuma Elish (Babylonian) begins with a divine spirit existing external to matter, the matter was full of darkness, and light came from the gods. Next was creation of firmament, dry land, luminaries, man, then the gods rest and celebrate. God’s rest on the seventh day of creation relates to Egypt’s Memphite Theology where Ptah rested when creating was done and all gods were settled.
• There are some similarities in the substance of creation. The Egyptian creation myths describe “primordial waters”, which would eventually be formed into the earth. Darkness is common in the Enuma Elish and Egyptian creation myths. In the Egyptian “Hermopolis” light came from Atum (the sun-god) before formal creation of the sun. The Sumerians said that the heavens were separated from the earth by the air-god Enil. The Babylonian Enuma Elish made heaven from the upper part of the slain Tiamat. The Egyptian myth tells of Shu, the air god, pushing up Nut (sky goddess) from Geg (earth god) which eventually separated the earth from the sky.

Weaknesses

• The myths often varied depending on which city they were told in and which god belonged there. For example, Egypt had four creation myths.
• There are differences in the source of creation. Almost all ANE creation myths involve a myriad of gods while Israel had one God. In the Israelite creation account there is no combat, struggle, or force, while there was a constant struggle and combat in the ANE creation myths.
• There are differences in the substance of creation. Unlike the ANE creation myths, the Israelite creation account did not deify nor worship the created matter. In this way, Genesis 1 rejects the Egyptian method of deifying the sky, ground, and air. For example, the sun was the god Re, the sky was Nut, the ground was Geb, dry air was Shu, moist humidity was Tefnut, the primordial sea was Nun. The ANE myths had humans being made to serve the gods while in the Israelite creation account God entrusted humans to reign and govern his creation.
• Another difference is the fact that the Israelite creation account describes the beginning of the human race with a single couple, Adam and Eve. There are no ancient texts that describe human origins with a single couple as the beginning of the entire human race.

Other Names

• Archetypal Creation View (of Adam)
• Protohistory
• Historico-Literary Genre
• Genesis as Mythopoeic
• Historico-artistic Creation
• Genesis as Polemic

Further Reading

• Walton, John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View” in Four Views on the Historical Adam (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 89-118.
• Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015)73-97.
• Miller, Johnny and John Soden. In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2012)
• Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
• John Walton, Ancient Israelites Literature in It’s Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989)

Popular Supporters

• Bruce Waltke
• Peter Enns
• Gordon Johnston

How and Why We Have Confidence about Some Old Testament Dates

One of the most difficult subjects of Old Testament studies is biblical chronologies.[1] The authors of Old Testament books wrote to tell the history of Israel from a theological point of view, not necessarily a chronological focus. Therefore, when we try to determine Old Testament dates we need to look at both biblical and non-biblical information, note areas of correlation, and then try to fit that information into a cohesive system.

Firm Dates Known with Certainty in the Old Testament

There are some Old Testament events that can be identified with accuracy. Assyrian and Babylonia chronologies can be correlated with the reign of an Israelite or Judean king and accurate Bible dates can be determined within 10 years between 1,000 BC to 900 BC. After 900 BC the margin for error shrinks to less than a year.[2] This is possible because of the careful records kept by the kings of Assyria, precise records kept by Babylon, as well as a datable astronomical event.

Unfortunately, this type of information is rare and mostly limited to after 1,000 BC. Dates of Abraham’s journey to Canaan (Genesis 12-22) and the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12-18) are less certain. David Howard, who is an Old Testament professor at Bethel Theological Seminary, has said “the Bible does not have exact synchronic references in these earlier periods, and thus we see wider margins for error in dating such events as the exodus.”[3] Therefore, the farther you reach back into Old Testament history the larger the margin of error is. Conversely, more recent Old Testament historical events possess more confidence in their dates such as the ascension of David, Solomon’s rule, the final fall of Jerusalem, the edict of Cyrus, return of Nehemiah, etc.

One of the dates scholars can have confidence in is the ascension of David to the throne in 1010 BC (2 Sam. 1:1-2; 2:1-4).[4] Another date Bible scholars can be sure of is the date of Solomon’s rule (970-931 BC). Kenneth Kitchen, who served as professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool in England, has used Assyrian and Egyptian lists as well as historical records to assign an accurate date to Solomon’s rule that is within one year of accuracy.[5]

Another date we hold with confidence is the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 586 BC. We arrive at this date by starting with the death of King Josiah in 609 BC. Josiah’s death is described in 2 Kings 23:28-30 (as well as 2 Chronicles 35:20-25). A historian from Greece named Herodotus traveled the world and wrote a history of Egypt and Babylon. In his book, Histories, published in 430 BC he records this battle between King Josiah of Judah and Necho of Egypt.[6] The date of this battle is 609 BC.

The date of the battle of Carchemish also helps us firmly establish the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC. Jeremiah 46:1-12 depicts the battle of Carchemish where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed the Assyrian and Egyptian forces (the same Egyptian forces that killed Josiah). This battle is recorded in what is called “The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle” which is housed in the British Museum. The date of the battle of Carchemish is 605 BC.

Next we move on to King Jehoaichin who’s reign ended in Judah in 597 BC. A series of “Babylonian Chronicles” (currently located in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin Germany) were found in the royal archive room of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon. These tablets—dating 595 to 570 BC—record oil and grain given to King Jehoaichin and his sons while they were in captivity in Babylon.

Because of these contemporary records that correlate with biblical events, we hold with confidence that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC. The death of Josiah in 609 BC, the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC, and the end of the reign of Jehoaichin in 597 BC[7] allow us to establish 586 BC as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem because Zedekiah reigned for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18) until King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered Jerusalem and burnt the temple (2 Kings 25).

I hope you can see we don’t have to be wishy washy with some Old Testament dates. Because of biblical records that correlate to contemporary historical events, we can be certain of many Old Testament events after 1,000 BC. A few important ones it’s good to fix our minds on are the division of Israel into a kingdom in the north and south in 931 BC, the fall of Israel in the north to Assyria in 722 BC, the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem in Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BC, and King Cyrus of Persia’s conquering of Babylon in 539 BC which initiated a decree and return of Jews to the land of Judah.

Sources Used to Establish Biblical Chronologies

As we seek to establish a set of Old Testament dates it’s important to evaluate the sources we use to establish those dates.

Biblical Sources

Two sources are explicitly stated in the Old Testament that record events and establish Old Testament chronologies. These two sources are “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29) and “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19). In addition to these two sources in the books of Chronicles and Kings there are many other sources used to establish a biblical chronology. The author of 1 and 2 Chronicles used thirty-two different sources when writing those two books.[8] His sources can be summarized into three categories of official annals, genealogical records, and prophetic recordings. (“The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” and “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” are annals—official court records—kept by the schools of the prophets.)[9] These are the main sources we use to establish reliable Old Testament dates.

Extra-Biblical Sources[10]

Extra biblical materials have not endured the same levels of preservation nor continuous interpretation as the Bible has. Thus we probably should not place a heavy weight on their use. Yet, there are still strong synchronisms that exist between the Babylonia and Assyrian records and the Bible that help us establish reliable dates for Old Testament events.[11]

The nation of Israel was located between Assyria (later Babylonia in the Northeast) and Egypt (in the Southwest). These nations record numerous wars, sieges, and conquering campaigns that they experienced. Because these nations kept detailed records for what they did and when they did them, that information can be reconciled with information in the Old Testament to establish accurate dates for Bible events.[12] These various extra biblical records are records of military campaigns, inscriptions related to a specific victory or dedication, annals which list the major accomplishments of a ruler, and pieces of pottery with inscriptions on them.[13] It is important to remember that these pieces of extra-biblical information supplement the account of the Bible, they do not replace the inspired inerrant text. 

Among some of the most abundant extra-biblical information that helps to establish biblical chronologies are the limmu lists of the nation of Assyria. These are summaries of where and what specific kings did. Historians have provided dates for when they believe these Assyrians kings ruled on the limmu list. Thus, we can use the limmu lists and correlate them with the Assyrian kings that are mentioned in the Bible. (Out of the twenty-two foreign rulers mentioned in 1 and 2 Kings and in 1 and 2 Chronicles, twenty of those kings are attested in ancient near eastern literature.)[14] These lists were records of significant events that occurred each year under that specific king. These lists provide valid information that can be corroborated with the Old Testament and give us confidence when reconstructing the chronology of history that corresponds to biblical history.

I hope your confidence in the dates we set for when Old Testament events happened is strengthened as we look at this information. While we now have a basic understanding of the sources, it’s important to understand the different ways that different countries utilized those sources.

Significant Dating Factors Used to Establish Biblical Chronologies

When establishing a chronology of events in the Old Testament it is important to recognize that neither Judah nor Israel from (931-586 BC) recognized each other’s dating system. (1 Kings 12:16-20 describes how the nation of Israel split into two kingdoms under King Rehoboam in 931 BC.) Each nation wrote its own history using its own dating system. This is one—of many difficulties—that arise when attempting to establish Old Testament chronologies.

Regnal-Year Dating and Co-Regencies

Both Israel and Judah utilized different forms of what is called Regnal-Year Dating. This is a dating system by reference to the years of a king’s reign.[15] Even though both Israel and Judah used regnal-year dating, they utilized this system in different ways. Thankfully the Assyrian and Babylonia kings appear in the Old Testament text (particularly 2 Kings and in Chronicles) which makes it possible to assimilate the regnal dating of the Old Testament with regnal dating of the Assyrian and Babylonian time.[16]

Accession-Year Dating Used by Judah as well as Babylon

Accession-Year Dating is a form of Regnal-Year Dating in which a nation (particularly Babylon and Assyria) counted the year that a new king took his throne as belonging only to the previous king. This meant that the year that a king took the throne was not counted as part of his reign. Therefore his “first year” was actually the second year of reigning as king.

Another way to explain the accession-year system is that it “distinguished a king’s accession year (the incomplete calendar year in which he began to reign) and reckoned by the number of New Year days a king lived in his reign.”[17] This leads to a separate “accession-year” which is excluded from the account of a king’s reign and is rather credited to the previous king whose reign just ended.[18] Accession-year dating was under David and Solomon and continued in Judah after the split of Israel in 931 BC.[19]

Non-Accession-Year Dating Used by Israel and Egypt

Egypt and the Northern Kingdom of Israel recorded what is called Non-Accession-Year Dating. In “Egypt (and elsewhere) the new king reckoned the partial year as his Year 1, disregarding his predecessor. This is the non-accession-year system, or ante-dating. And that’s what the kings of Israel used.”[20] This means that one year would often be counted twice: once for the previous king and once for the new king.[21] Israel in the north used non-accession-year dating starting in 931 BC possibly because it wanted to distinguish itself from Judah in the south (from which it had rebelled) or it might have been used because Jeroboam I (son of Nebat) had spent time in Egypt to escape from King Solomon and learned about that system while there (1 Kings 12:2).[22] Further explanation for the non-accession year system is that “the remainder of a previous king’s last year is counted as the first year of his successor, and then subsequent years are calculated from Nisan to Nisan in Israel, or Tishri to Tishri is Judah.”[23]

Co-Regencies

Another factor that makes creating a biblical chronology difficult is co-regencies. For example, the nation of Judah sometimes made their sons “co-regents” as a way to provide on the job training and to ensure a smooth transition of kingship power.[24] In the nation of Judah we see  Jehoshaphat, Jerhoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh all began as co-regent kings with their father.[25] Because of co-regencies in both Judah and Babylon (Belshazzar, a king in Babylon also was a co-regent with his father, Nabonidus), another layer of complexity is added to the dating of events.

Co-regencies in Scripture are an issue because “sometimes the number given is from the time a ruler became coregent; sometimes it is from the time he became king. Similarly the total years ruled may or may not include co-regency years and unless this is written into the translation it is not possible to make sense of the figures.”[26] This further adds to confusion, not necessarily errors in the biblical text. “When events are dated during the life of a king or coregent . . . it is a fact—which may not be significant—that these are dated according to his kingship. There are no instances of such events dated from the time of the king’s son became coregent.”[27] Even though this information might appear insignificant, it makes establishing a historical chronology difficult.

Factors That Make “Year” Chronologies Difficult

Another factor that makes chronologies of the Old Testament difficult is that the “calendar year” was different than what is used today. Furthermore, the calendar years used by neighboring nations were different than each other. “This ambiguity in dates [which we see today] existed even in ancient times because neighboring kingdoms used different systems. Years in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah began in different seasons; a year in one kingdom, therefore, straddled two years in the other.”[28] No wonder counting years accurately is so complex!

The nation of Israel used a calendar system that went from the month of Nisan to Adar in the Hebrew calendar (approximately April to March).[29] This calendar was also used by the nation of Babylon.[30] The nation of Judah used a calendar system that went from the month of Tishri to Elul in the Hebrew calendar (approximately September to August).[31] This calendar system started under the reigns of David and Solomon and continued after the split of Israel in 931 BC.[32]

Further complicating this is that the calendar systems of Israel, Judah, Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt used do not correlate to the modern January to December yearly calendar currently practiced in the modern world. Even if these nations all kept exact dates, it is difficult for modern scholars to work backward more than 3,000 years, reconcile the modern calendar system to ancient nation calendaring systems, and reconcile different calendar systems with each other independent of the modern calendaring system.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

While there are many factors involved in the process of setting dates of Old Testament events, I hope what you’ve read gives you a greater appreciation for the work that goes into determining the dates that specific Old Testament events happened. And I hope that you have learned to accept some flexibility if some of these dates differ slightly in different study resources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boda, Mark and J. Gordon McConville, Editors. Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012.

Comfort, Philip W., and Walter A. Elwell, eds. Tyndale Bible Dictionary: A comprehensive guide to the people, places, and important words of the Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Drinkard, Joel F., Jr., and E. Ray Clendenen. “Chronology of the Biblical Period.” Edited by Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, and Trent C. Butler. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Gerhald Larsson, “Chronology as a Structural Element in the Old Testament,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, vol. 14, no. 2, (2000): 207-219.

Howard, David. An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1993.

Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” Biblical Archeology Review, September/October 2001, 32-37, 58.

McFall, Leslie. “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles.” Bibleotheca Sacra (Jan-March 1991): 3-45.

Merrill, Eugene. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 2 Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Rusten, E. Michael and Sharon. The Compete Book of When and Where in the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2005.

“The Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy.” In New Living Translation Study Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2007.Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Vol. 1. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Young, Rodger. “When Was Samaria Captured? The Need for Precision in Biblical Chronologies,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society¸ vol. 47, no. 4 (December 2004): 577-595.

---

[1] Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan-March 1991): 42.

[2] David Howard, An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1993), 168-169.

[3] Ibid., 169.

[4] Ibid., 167.

[5] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” Biblical Archeology Review, (September/October 2001), 34.

[6] Herodotus also records many details of the Persian Empire that can be correlated with details recorded in the Bible in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Jeremiah

[7] Philip W. Comfort and Walter A. Elwell, eds., Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 277.

[8] David Howard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 272.

[9] Rodger Young, “When Was Samaria Captured? The Need for Precision in Biblical Chronologies”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society¸ vol. 47, no. 4 (December 2004): 586.

[10] I firmly believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority of Scripture, thus it is difficult to place a high emphasis on extra-biblical materials

[11] David Howard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 168.

[12] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 32-33.

[13] Philip W. Comfort and Walter A. Elwell, eds., Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 272.

[14] Gordon Johnston, “OT in the Public Square: Part Four—Historicity of the Divided Monarch Period” (slide 169) in OT 103 Elements of Hebrew, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2015 .

[15] “The Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in New Living Translation Study Bible, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2007), 562.

[16] Ibid.

[17] “Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7.

[18] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 34.

[19] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563 quoted from Edward R. Thiele, “The Mysterious Number of the Hebrew Kings,” 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1983), 47-51.

[20] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 34.

[21] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7.

[24] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 564.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7. Emphasis added.

[27] Ibid., 41.

[28] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35.

[29] “Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7 and Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35.

[30] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563.

[31] “Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,”7 and Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35.

[32] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563.