“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...” 1 Thessalonians 5:23
In this description to the Thessalonians, Paul begins from the inside and works to the outside. In the description of the Tabernacle to Moses, God begins with the inside and works to the outside (Exodus 25:10ff). In our salvation, God begins with the inside and works to the outside.
...you have got it wrong.
A number of years ago I wrote about the following text (see below), because an author on the liberal ABP (now Baptist New Global) ditched the view of Jesus as the sinless Son of God for a view of Jesus the racist sinner who might be gradually learning better.
Pulpit & Pen Discernment Ministries has recently brought this text and issue back to my attention. On their Facebook page on August 19, they posted a “trans preacher” from the Presbyterian Church USA accusing Jesus of wrong-doing in his treatment of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15). “I want to assure you Jesus can be wrong...He’s wrong, absolutely wrong…” They followed that up on August 20 showing a United Methodist “pastor” accusing Jesus of ethnic prejudice in a “text that has made preachers squirm for ages.” The main reason these liberal preachers must squirm is because they shrink their coverage of Bible “truth” to what Jesus says, but then must subjugate what Jesus says to fit their own predetermined moral codes. When Jesus says something that violates their notions, it is he that they think is wrong rather than they themselves!!
For that reason, I am reposting my earlier writing about this text.
A collated reading of Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30.
Then Jesus arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid; For a certain woman of Canaan [the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation], whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came out of the same coasts and came and fell at his feet: and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But Jesus answered and said unto her: Let the children first be filled. It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she said, Yes. Truth, Lord: yet the dogs under their masters’ table eat of the children’s crumbs which fall from the table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
The above is a collated or combined reading of Matthew and Mark from the King James Bible. I hope no one is troubled by it. The intent is to not to create a new version, but just to get the full description from both the historical accounts while saving a little space.
Many people find this story problematic when they first encounter it. To call this woman a dog and refuse to help her? Where else is one so rebuked by Christ for coming to him? For some it is only problematic to their understanding, for they believe God is sovereign and what he does is right regardless of whether they understand it. For some it is problematic to their faith, for they presuppose certain things are right and then judge that God’s actions must fit into their concepts of right and wrong.
Notes on the text.
a woman of Canaan...The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation. Some critics have complained about the tri-fold description, while themselves using such descriptions for others. The three descriptors may be nationality (Syro-Phenician, as opposed to Lybo-Phenician for example), religion (Greek, heathen, of a different religion) and “race” (Canaan; or just that she resided in the regions called Canaan).
would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. Here speaks the language of accommodation; the language of God as man; anthropomorphism, the perception of human qualities in divine beings. This is how it appeared from all human recognition and understanding.
a woman of Canaan...came out of the same coasts. If Jesus went into the land of Tyre and Sidon, this appears to be the only time he went into Gentile territory. In my opinion, it is more consistent with the text and the “limit” of his mission that he only went very near to the border of that land, but was still in the land of Israel. The woman came out of the coasts/borders of Tyre and Sidon and came to Jesus. As Jesus needed to go through Samaria, so he deliberately placed himself in this woman’s vicinity.
his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away. At first Jesus answered not a word (cf. John 8:6). Her continual crying brought the disciples distress. Whether they wished her sent away full or empty it is not clear, but sent away nevertheless! She crieth after us. She bothers us. She annoys us. She brings us too much attention.
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This first address of Jesus is to the disciples rather than the woman. They were involved in this limited sending (cf. Matthew 10:5) so should be aware of it. Hidden from them was what Simeon saw in the babe in the Temple (cf. Luke 2:3). Jesus’ answer silenced the disciples, but not the woman. We ought always to pray, and not to faint.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Strong in faith, nothing doubting. Instead of being perplexed with doubts, by faith throw yourself at Jesus feet for mercy, “Lord, help me.” So will I go in unto the king, and if I perish, I perish (but I will perish there; cf. Esther 4:16).
It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. To be more offended than the woman is to not have a proper view of the helper, to not have an importunate need, and to be more set on fault-finding than truth-finding. If a 21st century reader is more offended than the “offended party,” then he or she lacks the great faith that resided in that party. Jesus was “Lord” when she asked for help and still “Lord” after he seemed to refuse it. Jesus’ answer was devastating, but not derogatory; trying but yet the truth. Those who deserve nothing will appreciate anything. “Behind a frowning providence, he hides a smiling face.”
And she said, Yes. Truth, Lord. The humble acknowledgement of the importunate. Complain on, O complainer. Deny on, O disbeliever. BUT this woman says “TRUTH!”
the dogs under their masters’ table eat of the children’s crumbs. (These dogs were household pets, not wild scavengers; pets that were near the children under the master’s table (cf Luke 16:21). Something in what Jesus said and how he said it dropped a crumb of hope for the helpless woman. Under the Master’s table a glimmering faith picked up the crumb and cherished it. I shall not be sent away empty for there is enough in the Father’s house and to spare (cf. Luke 15:17).
O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour. Does the text not reveal why He came to the borders of Tyre and Sidon. The disciples understood a get-away. But the woman who heard He was there got what she wanted.
And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flower. The healing was immediately accomplished.
And when she was come to her house, she found... The immediate healing of the daughter was first viewed by the mother on her arrival, though she doubted it not.
Concluding thoughts.
Instead of complaining and condemning, hawing and hemming, and explaining away the Lordship of Christ, realize God moves in mysterious ways; His ways are not our ways (cf. Isaiah 55:8). The Syrophenician woman caught a crumb many theologians have missed!
Jesus commended the woman’s faith. Jesus cured the woman’s daughter. Surely she could not have hoped for more.
Hymn by William Cowper.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Some theologians, feeling the weight of the statement of Jesus to the thief,[i] reorganize the wording as “Verily I say unto thee to day, Thou thou be with me in paradise” (that is, moving the comma after “to day” so to change today to referring to when Jesus made the statement, rather than when the thief would be in paradise). The purpose is to diffuse the strength of Jesus taking the thief with him to paradise on the very day he made the statement. They want to deflect to the idea that Jesus is just saying it today, not that the thief will be in paradise today.
To put the comma after “To day” would be an odd way to speak. When I am telling you something today, I do not have to tell you that I am telling you today. What other day would you be saying it? Translators consistently put the comma before “To day.” Every Bible translation at Bible Gateway that I looked at (even some other than English) has the verse translated in such a way to mean that “to day” refers to when the thief would be in paradise. In some translations, the comma does not come into play due to how the sentences are written. Further, the usage of semeron (σήμερον, today) in Luke demonstrates the same. When there is a quote, semeron (today) goes with the verb in the quote – not with the verb “said” before the quote (in other words, referencing the day on which something significant is happening). See Luke 5:26, 19:5, 19:9 for other examples in Luke. Compare also Mark 14:30, Hebrews 3:7, 3:15, and James 4:13 for other New Testament uses. The word “today” is an adverb that goes with the quote to tell when concerning the statement in the quote. It does not go with “I say” as if telling when “I say” it. The use of “Today I say,....” is not found in the New Testament.
[i] Most often, the objectors are those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul and/or the immediacy of paradise. For example, the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation changes the verse to fit their theology: ‘And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’” Notice, for example, how the incident of the death Stephen fits the theology of Luke 23, with the believer being received by Christ upon death (Acts 7:55-60). Others seem to fear a supposed contradiction between Luke 23:43 and John 20:17, and run from it in this manner (i.e., changing the comma in Luke 23:43).
What follows is four points on John 13:1-17, by the old English commentator Matthew Henry. In the past I have referred to these points by Henry for teaching/preaching on this passage. I believe they are helpful, and share them here for your edification.
I. Christ washed his disciples’ feet that he might give a proof of that great love wherewith he loved them; loved them to the end, vs. 1-2.
II. Christ washed his disciples’ feet that he might give an instance of his own wonderful humility, and show how lowly and condescending he was, and let all the world know how low he could stoop in love to his own. This is intimated, vs. 3-5.
III. Christ washed his disciples’ feet that he might signify to them spiritual washing, and the cleansing of the soul from the pollutions of sin. This is plainly intimated in his discourse with Peter upon it, vs. 6-11
IV. Christ washed his disciples’ feet to set before us an example. This explication he gave of what he had done, when he had done it, vs. 12-17.
The inspired authors were giving the theology and redemptive history of Jesus Christ. They had neither interest in nor reason for answering skeptics. There is obvious intentional difference, with no concern about contradictions. Perhaps that should guide us in our approach. The most obvious distinction is that the trees trace two different lines from David forward. Also Shealtiel and Zerubabbel are in both lines.
Different Timing – Matthew gives the genealogy first, before he relates the virgin birth; Luke gives the genealogy later, after he relates the baptism of John.
Different Types - ascending and descending; Matthew begins in the past and descends to the present; Luke begins in the present and ascends to the past.
Different Trees - Solomon versus Nathan; Matthew traces the line via David’s son Solomon; Luke traces the line via David’s son Nathan (1 Chronicles 3:5; Zechariah 12:12)
Different Terminal -Abraham versus Adam; Matthew begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph; Luke begins with Joseph and ends with Adam.
Different Theological Purpose - Royal Messiah lineage (from Abraham and David) versus Universal Saviour/Creation lineage (from God and Adam).
Different Target - Matthew gives a truncated genealogy of three groups of 14 generations. Luke gives an expanded genealogy of 77 generations, 7 X 11.
Different Explanations:
Liberal/critical
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John circulated as a collection of the Gospels shortly after they were written; then as part of the canon of the New Testament. Why would the two genealogies continue to be circulated together if they were contradictory and unreliable? Maybe there’s something we’re missing that earlier readers got!
Matthew Henry: The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation doth not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (Luke 3:23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est lege--as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; nay, had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.
The rest below is just a mish-mash of stuff I copied. I am leaving it as is, just to have access to it.
https://www.oneforisrael.org/jesus-genealogies-contradictory-or-complimentary/
the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Heli,
which was the son of Matthat,
which was the son of Levi,
which was the son of Melchi,
which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Mattathias,
which was the son of Amos,
which was the son of Naum,
which was the son of Esli,
which was the son of Nagge,
which was the son of Maath,
which was the son of Mattathias,
which was the son of Semei,
which was the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Juda,
which was the son of Joanna,
which was the son of Rhesa,
which was the son of Zorobabel,
which was the son of Salathiel,
which was the son of Neri,
which was the son of Melchi,
which was the son of Addi,
which was the son of Cosam,
which was the son of Elmodam,
which was the son of Er,
which was the son of Jose,
which was the son of Eliezer,
which was the son of Jorim,
which was the son of Matthat,
which was the son of Levi,
which was the son of Simeon,
which was the son of Juda,
which was the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Jonan,
which was the son of Eliakim,
which was the son of Melea,
which was the son of Menan,
which was the son of Mattatha,
which was the son of Nathan,
which was the son of David,
which was the son of Jesse,
which was the son of Obed,
which was the son of Booz,
which was the son of Salmon,
which was the son of Naasson,
which was the son of Aminadab,
which was the son of Aram,
which was the son of Esrom,
which was the son of Phares,
which was the son of Juda,
which was the son of Jacob,
which was the son of Isaac,
which was the son of Abraham,
which was the son of Thara,
which was the son of Nachor,
which was the son of Saruch,
which was the son of Ragau,
which was the son of Phalec,
which was the son of Heber,
which was the son of Sala,
which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Arphaxad,
which was the son of Sem,
which was the son of Noe,
which was the son of Lamech,
which was the son of Mathusala,
which was the son of Enoch,
which was the son of Jared,
which was the son of Maleleel,
which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Enos,
which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam,
which was the son of God.
Abraham begat Isaac;
and Isaac begat Jacob;
and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar;
and Phares begat Esrom;
and Esrom begat Aram;
and Aram begat Aminadab;
and Aminadab begat Naasson;
and Naasson begat Salmon;
and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab;
and Booz begat Obed of Ruth;
and Obed begat Jesse;
and Jesse begat David the king;
and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
and Solomon begat Roboam;
and Roboam begat Abia;
and Abia begat Asa;
and Asa begat Josaphat;
and Josaphat begat Joram;
and Joram begat Ozias;
and Ozias begat Joatham;
and Joatham begat Achaz;
and Achaz begat Ezekias;
and Ezekias begat Manasses;
and Manasses begat Amon;
and Amon begat Josias;
and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel;
and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
and Zorobabel begat Abiud;
and Abiud begat Eliakim;
and Eliakim begat Azor;
and Azor begat Sadoc;
and Sadoc begat Achim;
and Achim begat Eliud;
and Eliud begat Eleazar;
and Eleazar begat Matthan;
and Matthan begat Jacob;
and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
The Big Picture; or, a Forest Full of Trees.
1 Chronicles chapters 1-9.
In 21st century, genealogy is an interesting and fascinating hobby, which can be very rewarding in connecting us to our past. However, at the time the books of Chronicles were written, it was much more important than that. These books were written to a returning people who had been carried captive to a distant land, subjugated by a foreign power (cf. 1 Chronicles 9:1ff.). They have now returned back to their homeland, and they must reestablish themselves as a nation under God and its citizens. For the Jews, genealogies establish one’s tribe, clan, and family. The appointment of David to reign over the house of Israel, and the appointment of the Levites to serve at the house of God (tabernacle, temple) are important features.
There is a brief mention of Saul, followed by the Chronicler putting great emphasis on king David, especially his preparing for the Temple and his son Solomon building the Temple. See, for example, 1 Chronicles 22:2-5 (David prepares material), 1 Chronicles 22:6-19 (Solomon is charged), 1 Chronicles 23:1-26:32 (David organizes Temple worship), 1 Chronicles 27:1-29:9 (David and Solomon). Note also the emphasis on the religious reforms of Asa (2 Chronicles 14:1-15:15), Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17, 19:1-20:30), and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:3-31:21). Not only does the Chronicler positively emphasize the purpose of the book by adding material not in Samuel and Kings, he also emphasizes negatively omitting material found in them. Notice, for example, omissions of 2 Samuel :11:2-12:15; 1 Kings 11:1-40.
Except for the genealogies going back to Adam and forward to those in the exile and return – as well as not going back to Samuel – Chronicles covers the same timeframe as the books of Samuel and Kings.[i] Here is a rough parallel comparing them.
Kingdom of Saul 1 Chronicles 10 1 Samuel 13–31
Kingdom of David 1 Chronicles 11–29 2 Samuel 1–1Kgs 2
Kingdom of Solomon 2 Chronicles 1–11 1 Kings 2–11
The Divided Kingdom 2 Chronicles 1–39 1 Kings 12–2 Kings 25
Two very significant verses:
1 Chronicles 17:24 - Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified for ever, saying, The Lord of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee.
2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
The book of Chronicles begins from the first man in Genesis; the first word of 1 Chronicles is “Adam.” The first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles consists of genealogies. Those mentioned in them run from the first man Adam to six generations after the return from exile in Babylon (1 Chronicles 3:17-24). This covers a period composed of about 3700 years. The Chronicler retells stories of Israel’s past in order to revive Israel’s hope for the future. He was probably living in Jerusalem about 300 years before the coming of Jesus Christ. His writing points Israel toward the new king to come. The present Jews in Jerusalem were born in exile. They had returned to their homeland and needed to reconnect with their ancestry, the Law of Moses, and worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The time period of the kingdom history covered in 1 & 2 Chronicles is the same as that described in 2 Samuel through 2 Kings. Although the time period covered is the same, the perspective is different. For example, the Chronicler includes David’s preparations for the temple, and the worship service of the temple. These are not found in 2 Samuel.
From Adam to the end of David’s reign as king covers almost 3000 years. Adam to the Flood 1656 years (1:1-4); Flood to Isaac 452 years (1:28); Birth of Isaac to the reign of David 886 years.
1 Chronicles 1:1-4. Adam to the Flood, 1656 years.
“Can’t see the forest for the trees” is an expression being too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole. What can we acquire from these genealogies?
On the whole and in the parts:
Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
I recently heard this verse referenced at a graveside, and as we are often wont to do, summarized as “to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” I have no criticism of that, as we generally understand it in that context. However, the three short introductory words are very potent.
“For to me” encompasses a Christian’s hope.
“To me” demonstrates that this is not a universal truth for all people. It is a truth for Paul (to me), and for people in the same category as Paul – born again believers. Unbelievers do not live in Christ and do not gain in death.
“To me” enforces that this statement is not just an abstract notion, but concrete reality. In life Christ lives in us (Galatians 2:20). In life Christ is the matter (Hebrew 12:1-2) and the goal (Titus 2:13). In death we gain relief (Revelation 21:4) and rest (Revelation 14:13). In death we gain reward (2 Timothy 4:6-8), gain union (v. 23; 2 Corinthians 5:8) and reunion (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14).
Did the NKJV translators believe epilepsy is caused by demon possession?[i] Or do they possibly believe the possession described here is not real, but rather figurative? Or something else?[ii]
Lunatick or Epileptic? The Greek word is σεληνιάζεται, which means “lunatic” or “moonstruck.”[iii] Epileptic is a modern interpretation or application.
Whether reading in the King James Bible or a modern translation, the context is clear that this is a case of devil- or demon possession. Jesus rebuked the devil, and the devil was cast out of the man’s son. Again, I ask, do the NKJV translators believe epilepsy is caused by demon possession, or do they possibly believe the possession described here is not real? Or something else? Many modernists reject that Jesus was literally casting out devils. They ascribe this to ignorance of medical conditions. For example, William Barclay writes from his high modern horse, “As was inevitable in that age [emphasis mine], the father attributed the boy’s condition to the malign influence of evil spirits.” In other words, such medical problems as epilepsy were merely associated with demon possession because the people were ignorant and did not know any better! Such an accusation, however, means the inspired writers—and the one who inspired them to write—must have also been ignorant of the cause! God forbid! Do the NKJV translators side with the modernists against God?
Notice also that there are parallel accounts of this incident recorded in Mark 9:14-27 and Luke 9:37-42. These accounts also clearly point to an evil spirit that Jesus cast out. Textual scholars can be like politicians. Politicians create political problems so they can remain relevant by solving them. Scholars create Bible text problems to they can remain relevant by solving them. I think the simple solution is to leave “epilepsy” out of the equation. Doing so stops short of seeming to make a modern medical diagnosis. Most folks today think epilepsy is a neurological disorder caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain, and has nothing to do with demon possession. Whatever the “medical diagnosis” of the boy in Matthew 17, it is clear from the Bible that it was caused by the activity of an evil spirit.[iv] Let God be true, but every man a liar.
Interesting commentary.
Parallels between Adam and the Original Creation and Noah and the Re-Creation.
The Flood defaces the original creation headed by Adam and cleanses the earth for its re-creation headed by Noah. Warren Gage notes striking parallels between the prediluvian and postdiluvian worlds, making Adam the father of all humanity and Noah its father in the postdiluvian world. (1) Both ‘worlds’ are created out of a watery chaos in closely parallel acts (see phases of re-creation below). (2) Both Adam and Noah are uniquely associated with the ‘image of God,’ ‘in the Adam narrative as the basis of man’s identity and in the Noah narrative as the basis of man’s protection’ (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-3). (3) Both ‘walk with God’ (3:8; 6:9). (4) Both rule the animals: Adam by naming (2:19), Noah by preserving (7:15). (5) God repeats almost verbatim his commission to be fruitful, to multiply, and to rule the earth (1:28-30, 9:1-7). (6) Both work the ‘ground’ (cf. 3:17-19; 9:20). (7) Both follow a similar pattern of sinning, the former by eating and the latter by drinking (3:6; 9:21). (8) The immediate result of their sin is shameful nakedness (3:7; 9:21), connected with ‘knowing’ (3:5; 9:24) and being clothed by another (3:21; 9:23). (9) Both have three named sons (4:1-2, 25; 6:10). (10) As a remote result from Adam's sin, judgment falls on all; from Noah’s, a curse on Canaan. (11) Among their three sons is judgment and hope, division into elect and nonelect. The conflict between the seed of the Serpent (i.e., the curse-laden Cainites) and the seed of the woman (i.e., the Yahweh-worshiping Sethites), is now carried on between the cursed seed of Canaan and the seed of Shem, whose God is the Lord. In addition, in both halves of the Prehistory (books 1-3 and 4-6), human disobedience impinges on the heavenly sphere and God responds using the first-person plural (‘like one of us’; ‘let us’; 3:22; 11:7), and alienation is part of his judicial sentence (from the Garden of Eden and from Shinar; 3:24; 11:9; cf. 4:12).”
Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: a Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001, pp. 127-128.
[Note: Waltke’s commentary says that his parallel list is a modification and supplementing of Gage’s parallels, p. 127).]
Seven progressive phases of renewing creation in Noah’s day parallel the first week of creation.
Precreation
Day 2
Day 3
Day 5
Day 6
“the appearance/reappearance of the nuclear family”
The blessing of God on his family/creation
Waltke, pp. 128-129
Prophet, noun. According to Merriam-Webster, may be (1) one who utters divinely inspired revelations; (2) one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; (3) one who foretells future events. The third definition is probably that which comes most readily to mind to modern English speakers. What is a prophet, biblically defined?
The meaning of the word.
As we notice in the introduction, the English word “prophet” includes several different shades of meaning (e.g., 5 at Merriam-Webster, 7 at Dictionary.com). What about the Bible?
The primary Hebrew word for prophet is (נָבִיא nāḇî'). The word “seer” (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê/rā'â) is synonymous for prophet, according to 1 Samuel 9:9. The Hebrew word (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh) is also translated “seer.” In 1 Chronicles 29:29 all three of these Hebrew words are used (נָבִיא nāḇî') (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê) (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh).[i]
The primary Greek for prophet is (προφήτης prophētēs). Greek also has the word (ψευδοπροφήτης pseudoprophētēs) for a false prophet. Hebrew adds descriptors about prophets prophesying falsely rather than having a word “false prophet.”[ii]
The biblical use of the word.
The first use of the word “prophet” in the Bible is found in Genesis 20:7, where God calls Abraham a prophet. There it seems to primarily mean that Abraham is God’s spokesman or representative. The last use of the word “prophets” is found in Revelation 22, which seems to connect both the ideas of God’s spokesmen (v. 9) and the references to future events (v. 6).
God told Moses, “Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). This also seems to emphasize the nature of the prophet as a spokesman (e.g. Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well…and Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, Exodus 4:14, 30). In Exodus 15:20, where Moses’s sister Miriam is referred to as a prophetess, she took a timbrel in her hand and led the women in singing to the LORD – emphasizing the nature of forthtelling. Notice also that the musicians for the tabernacle and temple were considered prophets (1 Chronicles 25:1-3).
The Old Testament prophets spoke for God. In connection with this, some of them also dreamed dreams, saw visions, and foretold the future (Numbers 12:6; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 28:9; Ezekiel 33:33). The word and its related work included “forthtelling” and “foretelling.” The commonality in all of this seems to be that of accurately presenting and representing God’s truth. Those who wrote the Old Testament Scripture, or at least many of them, were considered prophets.
Many times in the New Testament, the word “prophet” refers back to the Old Testament prophet (Matthew 1:22; 2:17; Acts 2;16). “The prophets” may also mean the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:29; 24:27, 44: John 1:45).
However, prophets are also current/active in the New Testament. John the Baptist was a prophet (Luke 7:28), a spokesman for God who came before and announced the coming of the Christ.[iii] Those called prophets in the New Testament include Jesus; Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul (Acts 13:1); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32).[iv] Though prophets and apostles were different – that is, all prophets were not apostles – it seems that by default the Bible considers all the apostles to be prophets, even while not specifically naming each of them them thusly (Acts 4:33; 1 Corinthians 13:2; Revelation 1:3; 18:20: 22:6).
Paul refers to those who speak in the Corinthian assembly as prophets, who could speak in a way to edify, exhort, and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3-5). Though prophecy is a gift (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:32), the prophets are not out of control. They can contain themselves from all speaking at once (1 Corinthians 14:26, 29, 40), and must speak so as to acknowledge that the inspired words of the apostles are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37). (Therefore, they cannot claim a the Spirit made me do it excuse for bad behavior.)
In Titus 1:12, Paul applies the word “prophet” in a “non-biblical” or “non-Christian” sense, calling a spokesman for the Cretians “a prophet.”
Prophecy is a spiritual gift, as we see from Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; 28-31; 13:2; and 14:1-6. Those who prophesy, prophesy according to the proportion of faith with which they are gifted, within the place in the body the Spirit has placed them.
The rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 12:29 indicates that all of God’s people are not prophets (cf. Numbers 11:29). Everyone should be a representative of God in witnessing to and sharing his truths. However, some are gifted to do so in a more official way.
Paul indicates that supernatural tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will cease with the close of the biblical revelation (canon), 1 Corinthians 13:8. “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”
Concluding thoughts on the words and its meaning.
In the Bible, a prophet was a spokesman for God – one who conveyed a message from God to the people. The calling or work included foretelling (proclaiming God’s events and plan for the future) and forthtelling (publishing God’s will and truth in the present). Often this role of prophet combined these two features, for example, using warning of future judgment as a call to present repentance. Prophets guided the people concerning truth, faith, morality, and judgment (cf. Acts 24:25). His duty was not solely about predicting the future – and often not even primarily.
It seems difficult for the average modern English Bible student to think “prophet” and not think of someone who foretold the future. Yet, the common thread of all prophets is not that fact, primarily, but rather of being God’s sent spokesman. Perhaps these thoughts will help. What have I forgotten to consider? If something, please add in the comments.
