SPECIAL TOPIC: ABOMINATIONS

 

“Abominations” (BDB 1072) can refer to several things:

1. things related to Egyptians:

a. they loathe eating with Hebrews, Gen. 43:32

b. they loathe shepherds, Gen. 46:34

c. they loathe Hebrew sacrifices, Exod. 8:26

2. things related to YHWH’s feelings toward Israel’s actions:

a. unclean food, Deut. 14:2

b. idols, Deut. 7:25; 18:9,12; 27:15

c. pagan spiritists, Deut. 18:9,12

d. burning children to Molech, Lev. 18:21-22; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31; 18:9,12; II Kgs. 16:3; 17:17-18; 21:6; Jer. 32:35

e. Canaanite idolatry, Deut. 13:14; 17:4; 20:17-18; 32:16; Isa. 44:19; Jer. 16:18; Ezek. 5:11; 6:9; 11:18,21; 14:6; 16:50; 18:12

f. sacrificing blemished animals, Deut. 17:1 (cf. 15:19-23; Mal. 1:12-13)

g. sacrificing to idols, Jer. 44:4-5

h. remarrying a woman who you have previously divorced, Deut. 24:2

i. women wearing man’s clothes (possibly Canaan worship), Deut. 22:5

j. money from cultic prostitution (Canaanite worship), Deut. 23:18

k. Israel’s idolatry, Jer. 2:7

l. homosexuality (possibly Canaanite worship), Lev. 18:22; 20:13

m. use of false weights, Det. 25:16; Pro. 11:1; 20:23

n. food laws violated (possibly Canaanite worship), Deut. 14:3

3. Examples in Wisdom Literature:

a. Proverbs 3:32; 6:16-19; 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8,9,26; 16:5; 17:15; 20:10,23; 21:27; 28:9

b. Psalms 88:8

c. Job 30:10

4. There is a recurrent eschatological phrase “abomination of desolation,” which is used in Daniel (cf. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). It seems to refer to three different occasions (multiple fulfillment prophecy):

a. Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the interbiblical Maccabean period (cf. I Macc. 1:54,59; II Macc. 6:1-2)

b. the roman general (later Emperor), Titus, who sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in a.d. 70 (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20)

c. an end-time world leader called “the man of lawlessness” (cf. II Thess. 2:3-4) or “the Antichrist” (cf. I John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 13)

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: LATER ADDITIONS TO DEUTERONOMY

 

This paragraph (10:6-9) is seen by many modern scholars to be one of several later editorial additions to the writings of Moses. Although it cannot be proven that this summary is not from the Mosaic period, it is clear that there are several editorial inserts. Israel was in Egypt for centuries and Egyptian scribes, unlike Mesopotamian scribes, were trained to update texts at will. For those of us who believe in the inspiration and protection of divine revelation assert the Spirit’s guidance in the OT related to these supposed additions. They do not affect major doctrines or call into question the historicity of the surrounding texts. It must be admitted by moderns that we simply do not know:

1. the time

2. the author

3. the method of compilation

of the OT in its earliest stages. We presuppositionally accept the MT as preserving the words of God!

A new theory for some of the supposed editorial additions has been suggested by R. H. Polzin, “Deuteronomy” in The Literary Guide to the Bible. It posits the added commends are from a narrator, not an editor. He suggests that this narrator’s comments can be seen in 1:1-5; 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:9, 11, 13b-14; 4:4-5:1a; 10:6-7, 9; 27:1a, 9a, 11; 28:69; 29:1; 31:1, 7a, 9-10a, 14a, 14c-16a, 22-23a, 24-25, 30; 32:44-45, 48; 33:1; 34:1-4a, 5-12. Polzin asserts that this supposed narrator is claiming an authority as reliable as Moses, which sets the stage for the “Deuteronomic history” of Joshua - Kings. This theory would explain the similarities between the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE AGE AND FORMATION OF THE EARTH

I. This area of study is biased because of the assumptions that must be made to even pursue thinking rationally about the subject. The assumptions must be the focus of an evaluation of the differing opinions expressed by cosmologists, geologists and the related sciences compared to theological understanding and interpretations.

II. For science the apparent assumptions are:

A. that the rates of change (i.e. physical, chemical and biological) recorded and measured on the earth today are constant in the past (i.e. uniformitarianism, “the present is the key to the past”)

B. radiometric dating (called absolute dating), which is the chronological key to dating the earth and cosmic events, is bedeviled by several assumptions:

1. the original composition of the rocks (i.e. relation of parent and daughter elements of unstable atomic elements)

2. the exact half-life of these elements

3. temperature also affects parent and daughter percentages in a sample (i.e. time of formation and/or volcanic magma chambers)

4. The original source and timing of the creation of radioactive elements are not certain. Current theories state that the heavier elements are created by thermonuclear reactions in stars and supernovas.

C. that the six assumed sequence principles of geology (called relative dating) affect paleontology:

1. the law of superposition – in an undeformed sequence of sedimentary rocks, the bed layer above is younger and the bell layer below is older

2. the principle of original horizontality – layers of rudimentary rock were deposited in a nearly horizontal plain

3. the principle of cross-cutting relationships – when rocks are cut or offset by a fault, they must be older than the fault

4. the principle of inclusions – rock masses adjacent to one another, one will usually have pieces of the lower one embedded in the above layer which confirms the assumption of #1

5. the principle of correlations – rocks of similar makeup but from different areas must be matched up, when this cannot be done then similar fossils are used to show similar dates of formation

6. the principle of fossil succession – fossil organisms succeed one another in a definite and determinable sequence:

a. widespread fossils

b. limited to a short span of geologic time

III. Some comments by scientists

A. Most scientists realize that true science is a research method which seeks to correlate all known facts and anomalies into a testable theory. Some things by their very nature are not testable.

B. Some comments from scientists about scientific assumptions in this area

1. “The doctrine (i.e. uniformitarianism) should not be taken too literally. To say that geological processes in the past were the same as those occurring today is not to suggest that they always had the same relative importance and operated at precisely the same rate” (Tarbuck and Lutgens, Earth Science, 6^th ed. p. 262).

2. “It is important to realize that an accurate radiometric date can be obtained only if the mineral remains in a closed system during the period of its formation; that is, a correct date is not

possible unless there was neither addition nor loss of parent or daughter isotopes” (Earth Science, 6^th ed. p. 276).

3. “We hasten to stress that this uniformity is an assumption that we make about nature, so is a doctrine rather than a logically proved law” (Dott and Balten, Evolution of the Earth, 4^th ed. p. 44).

4. “The decay constants that characterize radioactive decay rates, and govern the relationship between isotopic data and their corresponding radio isotopic ages are inexactly known. In consequence, the accuracy of some of the most precise dating methods, such as ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique, may be an order of magnitude or more worse than their precision (“Progress and challenges in geochronology” by Renne, Ludwig and Karner in Science Progress (2000), 83 (1), 107).

5. “People without training in science may not understand that any radiometric dating method can only be trusted for samples with ages close to the half-life of the element in question (Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe newsletter).

IV. Assumptions are not unique to the scientific community but obviously also exist in the religious community.

A. Humans are drawn to a unifying principle or model to correlate their sense experience and provide emotional stability. In science this unifying principle has become “evolution.”

1. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing man,” Science, 155, 409-415, “Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from animals, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future.”

2. Brian J. Alters and Sandra M. Alters, Defining Evolution, p. 104, “evolution is the basic context of all biological sciences...evolution is the explanatory framework, the unifying theory. It is indispensable to the study of biology, just as the atomic theory is indispensable to the study of chemistry.”

B. For many conservative Christians the unifying theory (i.e. interpretation) has become a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. This is true for young earth literalists (Creation Research Society dates the earth at about 10,000 years) and old earth literalists (Reasons to Believe dates the earth in light of modern geology at 4.6 billion years). One’s interpretation of Scripture becomes a lens through which all else is viewed and evaluated. One cannot fault subjective assumption, for all

human knowledge is at some level pre-suppositional. However, the evaluation of one’s presuppositions is crucial for a proper evaluation of their “truth” statements.

C. Fundamental Christianity is trying to clothe itself in “scientific” argument when the central issue is a hermeneutical methodology. This is not to imply that “modern evolutionary science” is not pre-suppositional or that its conclusions are not shaped by an a priori world-view. We must be careful and analytical of both. There seems to be evidence on both sides. I must ask myself to which view am I naturally, emotionally or educationally drawn (i.e. self-fulfilling assumption)?

V. Personal conclusion

A. Since I am a theologian, not a scientist, it was crucial for me to read and assimilate as much as I could from modern uniformitarian science. I am not personally agitated by “evolution” but by “naturalism” (one definition made popular by Carl Sagan is, “the universe is all that was, all that is and all that will be”).

I realize this is a bias, but my unifying theory is supernaturalism and special creationism, however, I do not deny or feel threatened by evolution. My basic perspective is that there is a personal God Who initiated and directs the process for a purpose! For me “intelligent design” becomes a reasonable theory (cf. M. J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box and William A. Demski, ed. Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design). It is the “randomness” of evolution and the “agentlessness” of naturalism that causes me personal pain and confusion. Process is an obvious part of life. I must be sure that I do not embrace what is comfortable without evaluation. I have tried to identify my assumptions:

1. Genesis 1-3 (and for that matter, much of the book of Revelation), is not intended by its original inspired author to be taken literally. “How it all began” and “How it will all end” is veiled in literary genre.

2. Evolution is obvious at certain levels (“horizontal evolution,” “micro-evolution,” evolution within species) but not the only unifying factor for life on this planet nor the development of the universe. There is mystery here! I feel personally comfortable with the Bible (i.e. special revelation) telling me the “Who” and the “why” and nature (i.e. natural revelation), that is, modern scientific research, telling me the “how” and the “when” based on developing models and theories.

3. Even the ultimate reality of “theistic evolution” would not cause me to reject any of my faith assumptions. See Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the World’s Between Faith and Biology. I do have faith assumptions (as do you)! My world-view is biblical Christianity. My world-picture is a growing and changing understanding.

B. The “real” age of the earth is not an issue in my theology except:

1. The apparent “Big Bang” concept of universal organization of matter which asserts a beginning to the universe seems to limit the possibilities of an unlimited time for evolutionary development (i.e. naturalism).

2. The starts and stops in the fossil records may imply a “punctuated equilibrium” which asserts that evolutionary chance occurs in spurts (possibly God’s on-going creative acts) and not necessarily only gradual change over time.

3. An old earth and a recent special creation of humanity is a pre-suppositional model I choose to embrace until I understand more from my study of the Bible, archaeology and modern science. The order of these shows my bias (but we all have them)!

4. Science is not an enemy to me, nor a savior! It is so exciting to live in this age of increasing knowledge! It is so comforting to be a hermeneutically informed believer! Integration of faith and reason, or the Bible and Science, with credibility, is a wonderful possibility!

VI. Present assumptions as to the age of the earth

A. The radiometric dating of moon rocks and meteors has been consistent at 4.6 billion years. They contain the same elements as the planets of this solar system so the inference is that our sun and its associated planets, comets and asteroids were formed at this time. The oldest earth rocks have been radiometric dated at 3.8 billion years.

B. A date for the supernatural creation of the first human pair (Homo sapiens) is a more difficult issue but it is in the tens of thousands degree range, possibly 40,000.

Time is only an issue to those of us created in a chronological sequential time frame. God is not affected by the passing of time. I believe the earth and its environment was created over time for the specific purpose of providing a “place” for God to fellowship with His highest creation, who was created by Him in His image. The only source for these beliefs is an inspired Bible. I cling to it and allow modern science to increase my understanding of the physical aspects of God’s creative activity.

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: THIS AGE AND THE AGE TO COME

 

The OT prophets viewed the future as an extension of the present. For them the future will be a restoration of geographical Israel. However, even they saw it as a new day (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22). With the continued willful rejection of YHWH by the descendants of Abraham (even after the exile) a new paradigm developed in Jewish intertestamental apocalyptic literature (i.e., I Enoch, IV Ezra, II Baruch). These writings begin to distinguish between two ages: a current evil age dominated by Satan and a coming age of righteousness dominated by the Spirit and inaugurated by the Messiah (often a dynamic warrior).

In this area of theology (eschatology) there is an obvious development. Theologians call this “progressive revelation.” The NT affirms this new cosmic reality of two ages (i.e., a temporal dualism):

Jesus	Paul	Hebrews
Matthew 12:32 Matthew13:22 & 29 Mark 10:30 Luke 16:8 Luke 18:30 Luke 20:34-35	Romans 12:2 I Cor. 1:20; 2:6,8; 3:18 II Cor. 4:4 Galatians 1:4 Eph. 1:21; 2:1,7; 6:12 I Timothy 6:17 II Timothy 4:10 Titus 2:12	1:2 6:5 11:3

In NT theology these two Jewish ages have been overlapped because of the unexpected and overlooked predictions of the two comings of the Messiah. The incarnation of Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies of the inauguration of the new age (Dan. 2:44-45). However, the OT also saw His coming as Judge and Conqueror, yet He came at first as the Suffering Servant (cf. Isaiah 53), humble and meek (cf. Zech. 9:9). He will return in power just as the OT predicted (cf. Revelation 19). This two-stage fulfillment caused the Kingdom to be present (inaugurated), but future (not fully consummated). This is the NT tension of “the already, but not yet”!

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

 

The church, following Paul, has focused on Genesis 3 as the source of human sin/evil. This developed into an Augustinian/Calvinistic emphasis on total depravity (i.e., human inability to respond to God unaided). This became one of the five pillars of Calvinism and a basic principle of Christianity.

However, the rabbis never focused on Genesis 3 as the source of evil (some did focus on Genesis 6), but on individual responsibility based on knowledge and commitment. They would posit two intents (netzers), one good and one evil. The classical example would be the saying, “in every human heart are two dogs, one evil and one good. The one that is fed the most becomes the biggest.” Therefore, humans are only responsible after a period of maturity and covenant knowledge/commitment (i.e., Bar Mitzvah for boys at age 13 and Bat Mitzvah for girls at age 12). Other biblical examples of this theological perspective are Jonah 4:11 and Isaiah 7:15-16.

 

To put this is in contrasting terms:

1. Paul/Augustine/Calvin focused on God’s sovereignty and human inability.

2. Rabbis/Jesus/Paul focused on covenantal responsibility.

It is not an either/or, but a both/and! Be careful of theological systems! Realize that biblical truth is presented in tension-filled pairs. Believers are to live godly lives within the tension, not desire quick, easy answers or playing the blame game!

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: ALCOHOL (fermentation) AND ALCOHOLISM (addiction)

I. Biblical Terms

A. Old Testament

1. Yayin - This is the general term for wine (BDB 406), which is used 141 times. The etymology is uncertain because it is not from a Hebrew root. It always means fermented fruit juice, usually grape. Some typical passages are Gen. 9:21; Exod. 29:40; Num. 15:5,10.

2. Tirosh - This is “new wine” (BDB 440). Because of climatic conditions of the Near East, fermentation started as soon as six hours after extracting the juice. This term refers to wine in the process of fermenting. For some typical passages see Deut. 12:17; 18:4; Isa. 62:8-9; Hos. 4:11.

3. Asis - This is obviously alcoholic beverages (“sweet wine” BDB 779, e.g., Joel 1:5; Isa. 49:26).

4. Sekar - This is the term “strong drink” (BDB 1016). The Hebrew root is used in the term “drunk” or “drunkard.” It had something added to it to make it more intoxicating. It is parallel to yayin (cf. Prov. 20:1; 31:6; Isa. 28:7).

B. New Testament
 

               1.  Oinos - the Greek equivalent of Yayin.

2.  Eos oinos (new wine) - the Greek equivalent of tirosh (cf. Mark 2:22).

3. Gleuchos vinos (sweet wine, asis) - wine in the early stages of fermentation (cf. Acts 2:13).

II. Biblical Usage

A. Old Testament

1. Wine is a gift of God (Gen. 27:28; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; Hos. 2:8-9; Joel 2:19,24; Amos 9:13; Zech. 10:7).

2. Wine is a part of a sacrificial offering (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:7,10; 28:14; Deut. 14:26; Judg. 9:13).

3. Wine is used as medicine (II Sam. 16:2; Prov. 31:6-7).

4. Wine can be a real problem (Noah - Gen. 9:21; Lot - Gen. 19:33,35; Samson - Judg. 16:19; Nabal - I Sam. 25:36; Uriah - II Sam. 11:13; Ammon - II Sam. 13:28; Elah - I Kin. 16:9; Benhadad - I Kin. 20:12; Rulers - Amos 6:6; and Ladies - Amos 4).

5. Wine can be abused (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-35; 31:4-5; Isa. 5:11,22; 19:14; 28:7-8; Hosea 4:11).

6. Wine was prohibited to certain groups (Priests on duty, Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21; Nazarites, Num. 6; and Rulers, Prov. 31:4-5; Isa. 56:11-12; Hosea 7:5).

7. Wine is used in an eschatological setting (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18; Zech. 9:17).

B. Interbiblical

1. Wine in moderation is very helpful (Ecclesiasticus 31:27-30).

2. The rabbis say, “Wine is the greatest of all medicine, where wine is lacking, then drugs are needed.” (BB 58b).

C. New Testament

1. Jesus changed a large quantity of water into wine (John 2:1-11).

2. Jesus drank wine (Matt. 11:18-19; Luke 7:33-34; 22:17ff).

3. Peter accused of drunkenness on “new wine” at Pentecost (Acts 2:13).

4. Wine can be used as medicine (Mark 15:23; Luke 10:34; I Tim. 5:23).

5. Leaders are not to be abusers. This does not mean total abstainers (I Tim. 3:3,8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; I Pet. 4:3).

6. Wine used in eschatological settings (Matt. 22:1ff; Rev. 19:9).

7. Drunkenness is deplored (Matt. 24:49; Luke 11:45; 21:34; I Cor. 5:11-13; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; I Pet. 4:3; Rom. 13:13-14).

III. Theological Insight

A. Dialectical tension

1. Wine is the gift of God.

2. Drunkenness is a major problem.

3. Believers in some cultures must limit their freedoms for the sake of the gospel (Matt. 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23; I Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14).

B. Tendency to go beyond given bounds

1. God is the source of all good things.

2. Fallen mankind has abused all of God’s gifts by taking them beyond God-given bounds.

C. Abuse is in us, not in things. There is nothing evil in the physical creation (cf. Mark 7:18-23; Rom. 14:14,20; I Cor. 10:25-26; I Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:15).

IV. First Century Jewish Culture and Fermentation

A. Fermentation begins very soon, approximately 6 hours after the grape is crushed.

B. Jewish tradition says that when a slight foam appeared on the surface (sign of fermentation), it is liable to the wine-tithe (Ma aseroth 1:7). It was called “new wine” or “sweet wine.”

C. The primary violent fermentation was complete after one week.

D. The secondary fermentation took about 40 days. At this state it is considered “aged wine” and could be offered on the altar (Edhuyyoth 6:1).

E. Wine that had rested on its lees (old wine) was considered good but had to be strained well before use.

F. Wine was considered to be properly aged usually after one year of fermentation. Three years was the longest period of time that wine could be safely stored. It was called “old wine” and had to be diluted with water.

G. Only in the last 100 years with a sterile environment and chemical additives has fermentation been postponed. The ancient world could not stop the natural process of fermentation.

V. Closing Statements

A. Be sure your experience, theology, and biblical interpretation does not depreciate Jesus and first century Jewish/Christian culture! They were obviously not total-abstainers.

B. I am not advocating the social use of alcohol. However, many have overstated the Bible’s position on this subject and now claim superior righteousness based on a cultural/denominational bias.

C. For me, Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8-10 have provided insight and guidelines based on love and respect for fellow believers and the spread of the gospel in our cultures, not personal freedom or judgmental criticism. If the Bible is the only source for faith and practice, then maybe we must all rethink this issue.

D. If we push total abstinence as God’s will, what do we imply about Jesus, as well as those modern cultures that regularly use wine (e.g., Europe, Israel, Argentina)?

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: ALMSGIVING

I. The term itself

A. This term developed within Judaism (i.e., the Septuagint period).

B. It refers to giving to the poor and/or needy.

C. The English word “almsgiving” comes from a contraction of the Greek term eleēmosunē.

II. Old Testament concept

A. The concept of helping the poor was expressed early in the Torah (writings of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy).

1. typical context, Deut. 15:7-11

2. “gleaning,” leaving part of the harvest for the poor, Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:20

3. “sabbath year,” allowing the poor to eat the produce of the seventh, fallow year, Exod. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:2-7.

B. The concept was developed in Wisdom Literature (selected examples)

1. Job 5:8-16; 29:12-17 (the wicked described in 24:1-12)

2. the Psalms 11:7

3. Proverbs 11:4; 14:21,31; 16:6; 21:3,13

III. Development in Judaism

A. The first division of the Mishnah deals with how to treat the poor, needy, and local Levites.

B. Selected quotes

1. “as water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin” (Ecclesiasticus [also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sirach] 3:30, NRSV)

2. “store up almsgiving in your treasury and it will rescue you from every disaster” (Ecclesiasticus 29:12, NRSV)

3. “for those who act in accordance with truth will prosper in all their activities. To all those who practice righteousness ⁷give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. ⁸If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. ⁹So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. ¹⁰For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. ¹¹Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.” (Tobit 4:6-11, NRSV)

4. “⁸Prayer and fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than wealth with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to lay up gold. ⁹For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life.” (Tobit 12:8-9, NRSV)

C. The last quote from Tobit 12:8-9 shows the problem developing. Human actions/human merits were seen as the mechanism for both forgiveness and abundance.

This concept developed further in the Septuagint, where the Greek term for almsgiving (eleēmosunē) became a synonym for righteousness (dikaiosunē). They could be substituted

each other in translating the Hebrew terms hesed (God’s covenant love and loyalty, cf. Deut. 6:25; 24:13; Isa. 1:27; 28:17; 59:16; Dan. 4:27).

D. Human acts of compassion became a goal in themselves to achieve one’s personal abundance here and salvation at death. The act itself, instead of the motive behind the act, became theologically preeminent. God looks at the heart, then judges the work of the hand. This was the

teaching of the rabbis, but it somehow got lost in the pursuit of individual self righteousness (cf. Micah 6:8).

IV. New Testament reaction

A. The term is found in:

1. Matt. 6:1-4

2. Luke 11:41; 12:33

3. Acts 3:2-3,10; 10:2,4,31; 24:17

B. Jesus addresses the traditional Jewish understanding of righteousness (cf. II Clement 16:4) in His Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5-7) as referring to

1. almsgiving

2. fasting

3. prayer

SPECIAL TOPIC: AMEN

I. OLD TESTAMENT

A. The term “Amen” is from a Hebrew word for truth (emeth) or truthfulness (emun, emunah) and faith or faithfulness.

B. Its etymology is from a person’s physical stable stance (BDB 52-54). The opposite would be one who is unstable, slipping (cf. Deut. 28:64-67; Ps. 40:2; 73:18; Jer. 23:12) or stumbling (cf. Ps. 73:2). From this literal usage developed the metaphorical extension of faithful, trustworthy, loyal, and dependable (cf. Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4).

C. Special usages:

1. a pillar, II Kgs. 18:16 (I Tim. 3:15)

2. assurance, Exod. 17:12

3. steadiness, Exod. 17:12

4. stability, Isa. 33:6; 34:5-7

5. true, I Kgs. 10:6; 17:24; 22:16; Prov. 12:22

6. firm, II Chr. 20:20; Isa. 7:9

7. reliable (Torah), Ps. 119:43,142,151,168

D. In the OT two other Hebrew terms are used for active faith:

1. bth, trust (BDB 105)

2. yr’, fear, respect, worship (BDB 431, cf. Gen. 22:12)

E. From the sense of trust or trustworthiness developed a liturgical usage which was used to affirm a true or trustworthy statement of another (cf. Deut. 27:15-26; Neh. 8:6; Ps. 41:13; 70:19; 89:52; 106:48).

F. The theological key to this term is not mankind’s faithfulness, but YHWH’s (cf. Exod. 34:6; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 108:4; 115:1; 117:2; 138:2). Fallen humanity's only hope is the merciful faithful covenant loyalty of YHWH and His promises.

Those who know YHWH are to be like Him (cf. Hab. 2:4). The Bible is history and a record of God restoring His image (cf. Gen. 1:26-27) in mankind. Salvation restores mankind’s ability to have intimate fellowship with God. This is why we were created.

II. NEW TESTAMENT

A. The use of the word “amen” as a concluding liturgical affirmation of the trustworthiness of a statement is common in the NT (cf. I Cor. 14:16; II Cor. 1:20; Rev. 1:7; 5:14; 7:12)

B. The use of the term as a close to a prayer is common in the NT (cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; 6:18; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; II Thess. 3:18; I Tim. 1:17; 6:16; II Tim. 4:18).

C. Jesus is the only one who used the term (often doubled in John) to introduce significant statements (cf. Luke 4:24; 12:37; 18:17,29; 21:32; 23:43)

D. It is used as a title for Jesus in Rev. 3:14 (possibly a title of YHWH from Isa. 65:16).

E. The concept of faithfulness or faith, trustworthiness, or trust is expressed in the Greek term pistos or pistis, which is translated into English as trust, faith, believe.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: AMORITE

 

The term “Amorite” is used in three senses.

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: Ancient near Eastern Weights and Volumes (Metrology)

 

The weights and measurements used in commerce were crucial in ancient agricultural economy. The Bible urges the Jews to be fair in their dealings with one another (cf. Lev. 19:35-36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:1). The real problem was not only honesty, but the non-standardized terms and systems used in Palestine. It seems that there were two sets of weights; a “light” and a “heavy” of each amount (see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, p. 831). Also the decimal system (base of 10) of Egypt had been combined with the sexagesimal (base of 6) of Mesopotamia.

Many of the “sizes” and “amounts” used were based on human body parts, animal loads, and farmer’s containers, none of which were standardized. Therefore, the charts are only estimations and are tentative. The easiest way to show weights and measures is on a relational chart.

I. Volume terms used most often

A. Dry measures

1. Homer (BDB 330, possibly a “donkey-load,” BDB 331), e.g., Lev. 27:16; Hosea 3:2

2. Letekh (or lethech, BDB 547), cf. Hosea 3:2

3. Ephah (BDB 35), e.g., Exod. 16:36; Lev. 19:36; Ezek. 45:10-11,13,24

4. Se’ah (BDB 684, e.g., Gen. 18:6; I Sam. 25:18; I Kgs. 18:32

5. Omer (BDB 771 II, possibly “a sheaf: [a row of fallen grain], BDB 771 I), e.g., Exod. 16:16,22,36; Lev. 23:10-15

6. ‘Issaron (BDB 798, “a tenth part”), e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 14:21

7. Qav (or Kab, BDB 866), cf. II Kgs. 6:25

B. Liquid Measures

1. Kor (BDB 499), e.g., I Kgs. 5:2,25; Ezek. 45:14

2. Bath (BDB 330, equal to a homer), e.g., II Chr. 2:10; Ezek. 45:10-11,14

3. Hin (BDB 228), e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 19:36; Ezek. 45:24

4. Log (BDB 528), cf. Lev. 14:10,12,15,21,24

C. Chart (taken from Roland deVaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1, p. 201 and Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 16, p. 379.

                                

homer (dry) = kor (liquid)	1
ephah (dry) = bath (liquid)	10	1
se’ah (dry)	30	3	1
hin (liquid)	60	6	2	1
omer/issaron (dry)	100	10	-	-	1
qav/kab (dry)	180	18	6	3	-	1
og (liquid)	720	72	24	12	-	4	1

II. Weight terms used most often

A. The three most common weights are the talent, the shekel, and the gerah.

1. The largest weight in the OT is the talent. From Exod. 38:25-26 we learn that one talent equals 3,000 shekels (i.e., “Round weight,” BDB 503).

2. The term shekel (BDB 1053, “weight”) is used so often that it is assumed, but not stated in the text. There are several values of shekel mentioned in the OT.

a. “commercial standard” (NASB of Gen. 23:16)

b. “the shekel of the sanctuary” (NASB of Exod. 30:13)

c. “by the king’s weight” (NASB of II Sam. 14:26), also called “royal weight” in the Elephantine papyri.

3. The gerah (BDB 176 II) is valued at 20 per shekel (cf. Exod. 30:13). These ratios vary from Mesopotamia to Egypt. Israel followed the evaluation most common in Canaan (Ugarit)

4. The mina (BDB 584) is valued at either 50 or 60 shekels. This term is found mostly in later OT books (i.e., Ezek. 45:12; Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70-71). Ezekiel used the 60 to 1 ratio, while Canaan used the 50 to 1 ratio.

5. The beka (BDB 132, “half a shekel,” cf. Gen. 24:22) is used only twice in the OT (cf. Gen. 24:22; Exod. 38:26) and is valued at one-half a shekel. Its name means “to divide.”

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

 

It is obvious that deity manifests Himself physically in human form in the OT. The question for Trinitarians becomes which person of the Trinity fulfills this role. Since God the Father (YHWH) and His Spirit are consistently non-corporal, it seems possible to suggest that these human manifestations are the pre-incarnate Messiah.

To demonstrate the difficulties one faces in trying to identify a theophany from an angelic encounter the following list is illustrative:

1. the angel of the Lord as an angel

a. Gen. 24:7,40

b. Exod. 23:20-23; 32:34

c. Num. 22:22

d. Jdgs. 5:23

e. II Sam. 24:16

f. I Chr. 21:15-30

g. Zech. 1:12-13

2. the angel of the Lord as theophany

a. Gen. 16:7-13; 18:2,16,17-21,22-33; 22:11-15; 31:11,13; 48:15-16

b. Exod. 3:2,4; 14:19 (13:21)

c. Jdgs. 2:15; 6:22-24; 13:3-23

d. Hosea 12:3-4

e. Zech. 3:1-5

SPECIAL TOPIC: ANGELS AND THE DEMONIC

A. Ancient peoples were animists. They attributed personality to forces of nature, animals, natural objects, and traits of human personality. Life is explained through the interaction of these spiritual entities with mankind.

B. This personification became polytheism (many gods). Usually the demonic (genii) were lesser gods or demigods (good or evil) that impacted individual human lives.

1. Mesopotamia, chaos and conflict

2. Egypt, order and function

3. Canaan, see W. F. Albright’s Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Fifth Edition, pp. 67-92

C. The OT does not dwell on or develop the subject of lesser gods, angels, or the demonic, probably because of its strict monotheism (cf. Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 33:26; Ps. 35:10; 71:19; 86:6; Isa. 46:9; Jer. 10:6-7; Mic. 7:18). It does mention the false gods of the pagan nations (Shedim, cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37) and it does name some of them.

1. Se’im (satyrs or hair demons, cf. Lev. 17:7; II Chr. 11:15)

2. Lilith (female, a seducing demon, cf. Isa. 34:14)

3. Mavet (Hebrew term for death used for Canaanite god of the underworld, Mot, cf. Isa. 28:15, 18; Jer. 9:21; and possibly Deut. 28:22)

4. Resheph (plague, cf. Deut. 33:29; Ps. 78:48; Hab. 3:5)

5. Dever (pestilence, cf. Ps. 91:5-6; Hab. 3:5)

6. Az’azel (name uncertain, but possibly a desert demon or place name, cf. Lev. 16:8,10,26)

(These examples are taken from Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 5, p. 1523.) However, there is no dualism or angelic independence from YHWH in the OT. Satan is a servant of YHWH (cf. Job 1-3; Zech. 3), not an enemy (cf. A. B. Davidson, A Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 300-306).

D. Judaism developed during the Babylonian exile (586-538 b.c.). It was theologically influenced by the Persian personified dualism of Zoroastrianism, a good high god called Mazda or Ormazd and an evil opponent called Ahriman. This allowed within post-exilic Judaism the personified dualism between YHWH and His angels and Satan and his angels or demons. Judaism’s theology of personified evil is explained and documented well in Alfred Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2, appendix XIII (pp. 749-863) and XVI (pp. 770-776). Judaism personified evil in three ways.

1. Satan or Sammael

2. the evil intent (yetzer hara) within mankind

3. the Death Angel

Edersheim characterizes these as (1) the Accuser; (2) the Tempter; and (3) the Punisher (vol. 2, p. 756). There is a marked theological difference between post-exilic Judaism and the NT presentation and explanation of evil.

 

E. The NT, especially the Gospels, asserts the existence and opposition of evil spiritual beings to humanity and to YHWH (in Judaism Satan was an enemy to mankind, but not to God). They oppose God’s will, rule, and kingdom.

Jesus confronted and expelled these demonic beings, also called (1) unclean spirits (cf. Luke 4:36; 6:18) or (2) evil spirits (cf. Luke 7:21; 8:2). Jesus clearly made a distinction between illness (physical and mental) and the demonic. He demonstrated His power and spiritual insight by recognizing and exorcizing these evil spirits. They often recognized Him and attempted to address Him, but Jesus rejected their testimony, demanded their silence, and expelled them. Exorcisms are a sign of the defeat of Satan’s kingdom.

There is a surprising lack of information in the NT Apostolic letters on this subject. Exorcism is never listed as a spiritual gift nor is a methodology or procedure for its use given for future generations of ministers or believers.

F. Evil is real; evil is personal; evil is present. Neither its origin nor purpose is revealed. The Bible asserts its reality and aggressively opposes its influence. There is no ultimate dualism in reality. God is in total control; evil is defeated and judged and will be removed from creation.

G. God’s people must resist evil (cf. James 4:7). They cannot be controlled by it (cf. I John 5:18), but they can be tempted and their witness and influence damaged (cf. Eph. 6:10-18). Evil is a revealed part of the Christian’s world-view. Modern Christians have no right to redefine evil (the demythologizing of Rudolf Bultmann); depersonalize evil (the social structures of Paul Tillich), nor attempt to explain it completely in psychological terms (Sigmund Freud). Its influence is pervasive, but defeated. Believers need to walk in the victory of Christ!

C. Human emotions (some examples)

1. regret/repent - Gen. 6:6,7; Exod. 32:14; Jdgs. 2:18; I Sam. 15:29,35; Amos 7:3,6

2. anger - Exod. 4:14; 15:7; Num. 11:10; 12:9; 22:22; 25:3,4; 32:10,13,14; Deut. 6:5; 7:4; 29:20

3. jealousy - Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 32:16,21; Josh. 24:19

4. loath/abhor - Lev. 20:23; 26:30; Deut. 32:19

D. Family terms (some examples)

1. Father

a. of Israel - Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 39:5

b. of the king - II Sam. 7:11-16; Ps. 2:7

c. metaphors of fatherly action - Deut. 1:31; 8:5; 32:1; Ps. 27:10; Pro. 3:12; Jer. 3:4,22; 31:20; Hosea 11:1-4; Mal. 3:17

2. Parent - Hosea 11:1-4

3. Mother - Ps. 27:10 (analogy to nursing mother); Isa. 49:15; 66:9-13

4. Young faithful lover - Hosea 1-3

II. Reasons for the use of this type of language

A. It is a necessity for God to reveal Himself to human beings. The very pervasive concept of God as male is an anthropomorphism because God is spirit!

B. God takes the most meaningful aspects of human life and uses them to reveal Himself to fallen humanity (father, mother, parent, lover)

C. Though necessary, God does not want to be limited to any physical form (cf. Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5)

D. The ultimate anthropomorphism is the incarnation of Jesus! God became physical, touchable (cf. I John 1:1-3). The message of God became the Word of God (cf. John 1:1-18).

SPECIAL TOPIC: FAITH (PISTIS [noun], PISTEUŌ, [verb], PISTOS [adjective])

A. This is such an important term in the Bible (cf. Heb. 11:1,6). It is the subject of Jesus’ early preaching (cf. Mark 1:15). There are at least two new covenant requirements: repentance and faith (cf. 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).

B. Its etymology

1. The term “faith” in the OT meant loyalty, fidelity, or trustworthiness and was a description of God’s nature, not ours.

2. It came from a Hebrew term (emun, emunah, BDB 53), which meant “to be sure or stable.” Saving faith is mental assent (set of truths), moral living (a lifestyle), and primarily a relational (welcoming of a person) and volitional commitment (a decision) to that person.

C. Its OT usage

It must be emphasized that Abraham’s faith was not in a future Messiah, but in God’s promise that he would have a child and descendants (cf. Gen. 12:2; 15:2-5; 17:4-8; 18:14). Abraham responded to this promise by trusting in God. He still had doubts and problems about this promise, which took thirteen years to be fulfilled. His imperfect faith, however, was accepted by God. God is willing to work with flawed human beings who respond to Him and His promises in faith, even if it is the size of a mustard seed (cf. Matt. 17:20).

D. Its NT usage

The term “believed” is from the Greek term (pisteuō), which can also be translated “believe,” “faith,” or “trust.” For example, the noun does not occur in the Gospel of John, but the verb is used often. In John 2:23-25 there is uncertainty as to the genuineness of the crowd’s commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Other examples of this superficial use of the term “believe” are in John 8:31-59 and Acts 8:13, 18-24. True biblical faith is more than an initial response. It must be followed by a process of discipleship (cf. Matt. 13:20-22,31-32).

E. Its use with prepositions

1. Eis means “into.” This unique construction emphasizes believers putting their trust/faith in Jesus:

a. into His name (John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; I John 5:13)

b. into Him (John 2:11; 3:15,18; 4:39; 6:40; 7:5,31,39,48; 8:30; 9:36; 10:42; 11:45,48; 17:37,42; Matt. 18:6; Acts 10:43; Phil. 1:29; I Pet. 1:8)

c. into Me (John 6:35; 7:38; 11:25,26; 12:44,46; 14:1,12; 16:9; 17:20)

d. into the Son (John 3:36; 9:35; I John 5:10)

e. into Jesus (John 12:11; Acts 19:4; Gal. 2:16)

f. into Light (John 12:36)

g. into God (John 14:1)

2. En means “in” as in John 3:15; Mark 1:15; Acts 5:14

3. Epi means “in” or upon, as in Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5,24; 9:33; 10:11; I Tim. 1:16; I Pet. 2:6

4. The dative case with no preposition as in Gal. 3:6; Acts 18:8; 27:25; I John 3:23; 5:10

5. Hoti, which means “believe that,” gives content as to what to believe

a. Jesus is the Holy One of God (John 6:69)

b. Jesus is the I Am (John 8:24)

c. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 10:38)

d. Jesus is the Messiah (John 11:27; 20:31)

e. Jesus is the Son of God (John 11:27; 20:31)

f. Jesus was sent by the Father (John 11:42; 17:8,21)

g. Jesus is one with the Father (John 14:10-11)

h. Jesus came from the Father (John 16:27,30)

i. Jesus identified Himself in the covenant name of the Father, “I Am” (John 8:24; 13:19)

j. We will live with Him (Rom. 6:8)

k. Jesus died and rose again (I Thess. 4:14)

SPECIAL TOPIC: BLAMELESS, INNOCENT, GUILTLESS, WITHOUT REPROACH

A. Opening Statements

1. This concept theologically describes mankind’s original state (i.e., Gen. 1, the Garden of Eden).

2. Sin and rebellion have decimated this condition of perfect fellowship (i.e., Gen. 3).

3. Humans (male and female) long for the restoration of fellowship with God because they are made in His image and likeness (i.e., Gen. 1:26-27).

4. God has dealt with sinful mankind in several ways

a. godly leaders (i.e., Abraham, Moses, Isaiah)

b. sacrificial system (i.e., Lev. 1-7)

c. godly examples (i.e., Noah, Job)

5. Ultimately God provided the Messiah

a. as full revelation of Himself

b. as the perfect sacrifice for sin

6. Christians are made blameless

a. legally through Christ’s imputed righteousness

b. progressively through the work of the Spirit

c. the goal of Christianity is Christlikeness (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; Eph. 1:4), which in reality, is the restoration of the image of God lost in the fall of Adam and Eve

7. Heaven is a restoration of the perfect fellowship of the Garden of Eden. Heaven is the New Jerusalem coming down out of God’s presence (cf. Rev. 21:2) to a purified earth (cf. II Pet. 3:10). The Bible begins and ends on the same themes.

a. intimate, personal fellowship with God

b. in a garden setting (Gen. 1-2 and Rev. 21-22)

c. by prophetic statement, the presence and companionship of animals (cf. Isa. 11:6-9)

B. Old Testament

1. There are so many different Hebrew words that carry the concept of perfection, blamelessness, innocence that it would be hard to name and show all the intricate relationships.

2. The main terms carrying the concept of perfection, guiltlessness, or innocence (according to Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 94-99) are:

a. shalom

b. thamam

c. calah

3. The Septuagint (i.e., the Bible of the early church) translates many of these concepts into Koine Greek terms used in the NT.

4. The key concept is connected to the sacrificial system.

a. amōmos (cf. Exod. 29:1; Lev. 1:3,10; 3:1,6,9; Num. 6:14; Ps. 26:1,11)

b. amiantos and aspilus also have cultic connotations

C. New Testament

1. the legal concept

a. Hebrew legal cultic connotation is translated by amōmos (cf. Eph. 5:27; Phil. 2:15; I Pet. 1:19)

b. Greek legal connotation (cf. I Cor. 1:8; Col. 1:22)

2. Christ is the sinless, blameless, innocent One (amōmos) (cf. Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 1:19)

3. Christ’s followers must emulate Him (amōmos) (cf. Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Phil. 2:15; Col. 1:22; II Pet. 3:14; Jude 24; Rev. 14:5)

4. This concept is also used of church leaders

a. anegklētos, “without accusation” (cf. I Tim. 3:10; Titus 1:6-7)

b. anepileptos, “above criticism” or “no handle for reproach” (cf. I Tim. 3:2; 5:7; 6:14; Titus 2:8)

5. The concept of “undefiled” (amiantos) is used of:

a. Christ Him