Bible Articles

Books of Maccabees A book in the Old Testament Apocrypha

2008-07-20T07:34:00.000-07:00

General Information
The books of the Maccabees consist of four Jewish books named after Judas Maccabeus, the hero of the first two. The books do not appear in the Jewish Bible, but 1 and 2 Maccabees are included in the Greek and Latin canon and in the Protestant Apocrypha. Books 1 and 2 provide a vivid account of Jewish resistance to the religious suppression and Hellenistic cultural penetration of the Seleucid period (175 - 135 BC).

They also contain partial records of the Hasmonean (or Maccabean) dynasty, which achieved Jewish political independence during the resistance to the Seleucids and maintained it until 63 BC. Written about 110 BC, 1 Maccabees has more historical scope and detail than the others and displays Hasmonean sympathies. Dated prior to 63 BC, 2 Maccabees epitomizes an earlier work by Jason of Cyrene and has modest historical value. A historically dubious but edifying account of the persecution of Egyptian Jews by Ptolemy IV (r. 221 - 204 BC) constitutes 3 Maccabees, which was written about 50 BC. The last book, 4 Maccabees, originally written in Greek probably about AD 25, is primarily a philosophical discussion of the primacy of reason, governed by religious laws, over passion.
BELIEVEReligiousInformationSourceweb-site

K Gottwald
BibliographyJ A Goldstein, 1 Maccabees (1976); M Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (1953); R H Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (1949); D S Russell, Between the Testaments (1960); S Tedesche and S Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees (1950) and The Second Book of Maccabees (1954).

Mac'cabeesAdvanced Information
This word does not occur in Scripture. It was the name given to the leaders of the national party among the Jews who suffered in the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, who succeeded to the Syrian throne B.C. 175. It is supposed to have been derived from the Hebrew word (makkabah) meaning "hammer," as suggestive of the heroism and power of this Jewish family, who are, however, more properly called Asmoneans or Hasmonaeans, the origin of which is much disputed. After the expulsion of Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt by the Romans, he gave vent to his indignation on the Jews, great numbers of whom he mercilessly put to death in Jerusalem. He oppressed them in every way, and tried to abolish altogether the Jewish worship.
Mattathias, and aged priest, then residing at Modin, a city to the west of Jerusalem, became now the courageous leader of the national party; and having fled to the mountains, rallied round him a large band of men prepared to fight and die for their country and for their religion, which was now violently suppressed. In 1 Macc. 2: 60 is recorded his dying counsels to his sons with reference to the war they were now to carry on. His son Judas, "the Maccabee," succeeded him (B.C. 166) as the leader in directing the war of independence, which was carried on with great heroism on the part of the Jews, and was terminated in the defeat of the Syrians.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
Books of the Mac'cabeesAdvanced Information
There were originally five books of the Maccabees. The first contains a history of the war of independence, commencing (B.C. 175) in a series of patriotic struggles against the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, and terminating B.C. 135. It became part of the Vulgate Version of the Bible, and was thus retained among the Apocrypha. The second gives a history of the Maccabees' struggle from B.C. 176 to B.C. 161. Its object is to encourage and admonish the Jews to be faithful to the religion of their fathers. The third does not hold a place in the Apocrypha, but is read in the Greek Church. Its design is to comfort the Alexandrian Jews in their persecution. Its writer was evidently an Alexandrian Jew. The fourth was found in the Library of Lyons, but was afterwards burned. The fifth contains a history of the Jews from B.C. 184 to B.C. 86. It is a compilation made by a Jew after the destruction of Jerusalem, from ancient memoirs, to which he had access. It need scarcely be added that none of these books has any divine authority.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

The Athanasian Creed, Quicunque

2008-07-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

(QUICUNQUE VULT)

[Alternate readings in brackets] Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance [Essence].
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate [uncreated], the Son uncreate [uncreated], and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].

The Father incomprehensible [unlimited], the Son incomprehensible [unlimited], and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited].
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles [infinites], nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible [infinite].

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another [there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less];
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must [let him] thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Who although he be [is] God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking assumption of the Manhood into God;

One altogether, not by confusion of Substance [Essence], but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world], rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God [God the Father] Almighty,

From whence [thence] he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies
And shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he cannot be saved.

Athanasian Creed
Latin Version
Symbolum Quicunque

Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:
Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.
Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur.
Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes.
Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:
Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.
Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus.
Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus.
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.
Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.
Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus.
Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur:

Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur.
Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus.
Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus.
Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.
Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.
Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus:
Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales.
Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit.

Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.
Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat.
Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est.
Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.

Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.
Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem.
Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.
Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae.
Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.
Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis].
Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos.
Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis;
Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.

Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.
Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.

The Athanasian Creed, Quicunque
Advanced Information The Athanasian Creed is one of the three ecumenical creeds widely used in Western Christendom as a profession of the orthodox faith. It is also referred to as the Symbolum Quicunque because the first words of the Latin text read, Quicunque vult salvus esse...("Whoever wishes to be saved...").

According to tradition Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, was the author of the creed. The oldest known instance of the use of this name is in the first canon of the Synod of Autun, ca. 670, where it is called the "faith" of St. Athanasius. Although doubts concerning the Athanasian authorship had been expressed in the sixteenth century, Gerhard Voss, a Dutch humanist, demonstrated the impossibility of reconciling the facts known about the creed with the age of Athanasius. He published his findings in 1642. Subsequent scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant, has confirmed the verdict of Voss. Among other factors the Athanasian Creed is clearly a Latin symbol, whereas Athanasius himself wrote in Greek. Moreover, it omits all the theological terms dear to Athanasius such as homoousion, but it includes the filioque popular in the West.

There have been many suggestions as to the identity of the actual author. One of the more widely held theories is that the date of the creed was ca. 500, the place of composition a south Gaul location influenced by theologians of Lerins, and the special theological issues both Arianism and Nestorianism. These conclusions disqualify Ambrose of Milan even though several eminent scholars point to him as author. Caesarius of Arles perhaps comes closest to the above specifications. However, the question of authorship and origin remains open. The earliest copy of the text of the creed occurs in a sermon of Caesarius early in the sixth century. Other manuscripts containing the creed have been dated in the latter part of the seventh and eighth centuries. In these earliest mentions it appears that its functions were both liturgical and catechetical.

The creed was counted as one of the three classic creeds of Christianity by the time of the Reformation. Both Lutheran and Reformed confessional statements recognize the authoritative character of the Quicunque (with the exception of the Westminster Confession, which accords it no formal recognition). However, the contemporary liturgical use of the creed is largely confined to the Roman and Anglican communions.

Structurally the creed is composed of forty carefully modeled clauses or verses, each containing a distinct proposition. These clauses are divided into two clearly demarcated sections. The first centers on the doctrine of God as Trinity. The precise formulation of the doctrine is designed on the one hand to exclude unorthodox viewpoints, and on the other hand to express the insights explicit in the church under the influence of Augustine's teaching. Consequently this part of the creed expresses what the church felt to be the necessary understanding of God, the holy Trinity, calling it the fides catholica. The paradox of the unity and the Trinity of God is affirmed in the face of modalism, which attempted to solve the paradox by insisting on the unity while reducing the Trinity to mere successive appearances, and the Arians, who tried to resolve the difficulty by rejecting a unity of essence by dividing the divine substance.

The second section of the Athanasian Creed expresses the church's faith in the incarnation by affirming the doctrinal conclusions reached in controversies regarding the divinity and the humanity of Jesus. The creed does not hesitate again to affirm a doctrine which in human experience is paradoxical, that in the incarnation there was a union of two distinctly different natures, the divine and the human, each complete in itself, without either losing its identity. Yet the result of this union is a single person. The creed thus repudiates the teachings that Christ had but one nature (Sabellianism), or that the human nature was incomplete (Apollinarianism), or that the divine nature was inferior to that of the Father (Arianism), or that in the union of the two natures the identity of one was lost so that the result was simply one nature (Eutychianism).
It has been said that no other official statement of the early church sets forth, so incisively and with such clarity, the profound theology that is implicit in the basic scriptural affirmation that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." The somewhat technical case of its phraseology notwithstanding, the concern of the Athanasian Creed is to assert a conception of the Triune God which is free from anthropomorphic polytheism and a conception of the incarnation which holds in tension the vital data concerning Christ's humanity and divinity. It is this doctrinal perspective which lends significance to the clauses at the beginning and end of the two parts of the creed ("whoever wishes to be saved must think thus" about the Trinity and the incarnation). They do not mean that a believer must understand all theological details to be saved or that he must memorize the language of the creed. What is intended is the fact that the Christian faith is distinctly Christocentric, trusting in Christ as Savior. The church knows no other way of salvation and therefore must reject all teachings which deny his true deity or his real incarnation.

The creed does not specify the authority, either the Bible or church, upon which it makes its affirmations. However, it is a scriptural creed because it uses the ideas and sometimes the words of Scripture. It is a church creed because it is a consensus within the Christian fellowship. The Athanasian Creed remains a superb compendium of Trinitarian and Christological theology and offers itself as a ready outline for catechetical purposes in keeping with its original intent.
J F Johnson(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyJ. N. D. Kelly, The Athanasian Creed; D. Waterland, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed; C. A. Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.
With kind permision: Believe

Gospel According to Luke

2008-07-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

General Information
The Gospel According to Luke is the third book of the New Testament of the Bible. Because of its similarities to the Gospels According to Mark and Matthew, it is classified with them as the synoptic Gospels. Although the Gospel was traditionally ascribed to Luke, a companion of Paul (Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11), most modern scholars think that it was written between AD 80 and 90 by a Gentile Christian who wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a sequel. The Gospel characteristically teaches a message of universal salvation addressed to all people, not only to the Jews.

Luke's Gospel can be divided into five major sections: a prologue (1:1 - 4); infancy narrative (1:5 - 2:52); ministry in Galilee (3:1 - 9:50); journey to Jerusalem (9:51 - 21:38); and the passion and resurrection (22:1 - 24:53). The conclusion sets the scene for the spread of the Christian word, as recounted in the Acts.

In common with the other Gospels, Luke relates the principal events of Christ's public life. Passages peculiar to Luke include the parable of the good Samaritan (10:25 - 37), the prodigal son (15:11 - 32), and Christ's words to the women of Jerusalem and to the good thief (23:27 - 31, 43). Commentators point out the prominence given to women. Examples include the story of Elizabeth (1:5 - 66), Mary's part in the infancy narrative (1:5 - 2:52), and the widow of Naim (7:11 - 17). Luke also contains three hymns that have become an important part of liturgy: the Magnificat (1:46 - 55), the Benedictus (1:68 - 79), and the Nunc Dimittis (2:29 - 32).
Anthony J Saldarini BibliographyG B Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (1963); F Danker, Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke (1972); J M Dawsey, The Lukan Voice (1986); F Evans, Saint Luke (1990).
Gospel According to Luke
Brief Outline
Jesus' thirty years of private life (1-4:13)
Galilean Ministry of Jesus (4:14-9:50)
Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51-19:44)
Last days of Jesus in Jerusalem, His Crucifixion and Burial (19:45-23:56)
Resurrections and appearances of the Risen Lord and His Ascension (24:1-53)

Luke
Advanced Information Luke, the evangelist, was a Gentile. The date and circumstances of his conversion are unknown. According to his own statement (Luke 1:2), he was not an "eye-witness and minister of the word from the beginning." It is probable that he was a physician in Troas, and was there converted by Paul, to whom he attached himself. He accompanied him to Philippi, but did not there share his imprisonment, nor did he accompany him further after his release in his missionary journey at this time (Acts 17:1). On Paul's third visit to Philippi (20:5, 6) we again meet with Luke, who probably had spent all the intervening time in that city, a period of seven or eight years. From this time Luke was Paul's constant companion during his journey to Jerusalem (20:6-21:18). He again disappears from view during Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem and Caesarea, and only reappears when Paul sets out for Rome (27: 1), whither he accompanies him (28:2, 12-16), and where he remains with him till the close of his first imprisonment (Philemon 24; Col. 4:14).
The last notice of the "beloved physician" is in 2 Tim. 4:11. There are many passages in Paul's epistles, as well as in the writings of Luke, which show the extent and accuracy of his medical knowledge.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Gospel according to Luke
Advanced Information The Gospel according to Luke was written by Luke. He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord's ministry, but to have gone to the best sources of information within his reach, and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4). The authors of the first three Gospels, the synoptics, wrote independently of each other. Each wrote his independent narrative under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Each writer has some things, both in matter and style, peculiar to himself, yet all the three have much in common.
Luke's Gospel has been called "the Gospel of the nations, full of mercy and hope, assured to the world by the love of a suffering Saviour;" "the Gospel of the saintly life;" "the Gospel for the Greeks; the Gospel of the future; the Gospel of progressive Christianity, of the universality and gratuitousness of the gospel; the historic Gospel; the Gospel of Jesus as the good Physician and the Saviour of mankind;" the "Gospel of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man;" "the Gospel of womanhood;" "the Gospel of the outcast, of the Samaritan, the publican, the harlot, and the prodigal;" "the Gospel of tolerance." The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is fitly expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38; comp. Luke 4: 18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenic world." This Gospel is indeed "rich and precious." "Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself.

In many instances all three use identical language." (See Matthew; Mark) There are seventeen of our Lord's parables peculiar to this Gospel. (See List of Parables in Appendix.) Luke also records seven of our Lord's miracles which are omitted by Matthew and Mark. (See List of Miracles in Appendix.) The synoptical Gospels are related to each other after the following scheme. If the contents of each Gospel be represented by 100, then when compared this result is obtained: Mark has 7 peculiarities, 93 coincidences. Matthew 42 peculiarities, 58 coincidences. Luke 59 peculiarities, 41 coincidences. That is, thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke are taken up in describing the same things in very similar language. Luke's style is more finished and classical than that of Matthew and Mark.
There is less in it of the Hebrew idiom. He uses a few Latin words (Luke 12:6; 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words except sikera, an exciting drink of the nature of wine, but not made of grapes (from Heb. shakar, "he is intoxicated", Lev. 10:9), probably palm wine. This Gospel contains twenty-eight distinct references to the Old Testament. The date of its composition is uncertain. It must have been written before the Acts, the date of the composition of which is generally fixed at about 63 or 64 A.D. This Gospel was written, therefore, probably about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. Others have conjectured that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there. But on this point no positive certainty can be attained.

It is commonly supposed that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation of Paul. Many words and phrases are common to both; e.g. Compare Luke 4:22 with Col. 4:6. Compare Luke 4:32 with 1 Cor. 2:4. Compare Luke 6:36 with 2 Cor. 1:3. Compare Luke 6:39 with Rom. 2:19. Compare Luke 9:56 with 2 Cor. 10:8. Compare Luke 10:8 with 1 Cor. 10:27. Compare Luke 11:41 with Titus 1:15. Compare Luke 18:1 with 2 Thess. 1:11. Compare Luke 21:36 with Eph. 6:18. Compare Luke 22:19, 20 with 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Compare Luke 24:46 with Acts 17:3. Compare Luke 24:34 with 1 Cor. 15:5.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Luke Chapter 24
From: Home Bible Study Commentary by James M. Gray First Day of the Week
The order of our Lord's appearances on this day was given in the comment on Matthew 28, and need not be repeated. Indeed all of the events in the chapter were dealt with there, except the walk to Emmaus (vv. 13-35). Three score furlongs represent nearly eight miles (v. 13). Cleopas, one of the two on this journey is not met with elsewhere, and is to be distinguished from the "Clopas" of John 19:25. Luke has sometimes been identified as the other, but this is conjecture. The story runs on smoothly and requires little explanation; but, following Stuart, we remark on the wisdom Christ displayed in dealing with the men. He brought them to the written word, and He left them there (vv. 25-27), furnishing no fresh revelation, but expecting them to rest on the old one. What He expected of them, He still expects of His disciples, and the sooner we realize and act on it, the sooner will we have peace. Another interesting item is the reference to Simon Peter (v. 34) which no other evangelist mentions, but which Paul records later (1 Corinthians 15: 5). The reason for silence concerning it was the question of communion with His Lord that had to be settled for Peter. Could he again enjoy it after what he had done? "That visit settled it," says Stuart: "We say visit because evidently it was the Lord who sought him out."

He "hath appeared unto Simon." The effect of this interview on Peter is seen in John 21:7. Luke is very definite concerning the evidences of Christ's resurrection. "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (39). There is no mention of blood, for that is the life of the flesh (Lev. 17:14), and was poured out when He died for guilty men. Luke's version of the commission to the disciples is new, in that "repentance and remission of sins" were to "be preached in His Name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (v. 47). This is "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20 : 24), and is to be distinguished from the gospel of the Kingdom which our Lord Himself and His disciples preached throughout His earthly life.

That gospel will be preached again as we have seen (Matt. 24 : 14), but not until after the translation of the church, and Israel takes up her mission once more among the Gentiles. Power was needed for the preaching of this gospel, and it is promised (v. 49), but our Lord must first ascend ere it can be "shed forth," hence the record following (vv. 50-51). This reference to the ascension in Luke makes his Gospel the most complete outline of the four, for it begins with the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist as none of the others do, and closes with this event which Mark alone alludes to but in the briefest manner. Speaking of verse 51, the Scofield Bible says very beautifully, "the attitude of our Lord here characterizes this age as one of grace, an ascended Lord is blessing a believing people with spiritual blessings.
The Jewish, or Mosaic age was marked by temporal blessings as the reward of an obedient people (Deut. 28 : 1-15). In the Kingdom or Millennial age, spiritual and temporal blessings unite."

Questions 1. Have you reviewed the order of our Lord's appearances? 2. How was Christ's wisdom displayed on the walk to Emmaus? 3. What reason for silence is suggested in regard to our Lord's appearance to Simon? 4. Why is the mention of "blood" omitted in the testimony to Christ's bodily resurrection? 5. What is the distinction between the two "gospels" mentioned? 6. In what sense is the third Gospel the completest? 7. Distinguish among the three ages, the Jewish, Christian and Millennial.

With kind permision: Believe

Last Supper, Lord's SupperGeneral

2008-07-13T12:18:00.000-07:00

General Information
The meal shared by Jesus Christ and his disciples on the night before he was crucified is called the Last Supper (Matt. 26:20 - 29; Mark 14:17 - 25; Luke 22:14 - 38; John 13:1 - 17:26). It was the occasion of his institution of the Eucharist, when he identified the broken bread with his body and the cup of wine with his blood of the new Covenant. The ritual was that of a Jewish religious meal, which was given new meaning for Jesus' followers when they performed it in remembrance of him. Christians differ as to the meaning of the words of Jesus, the exact relationship of the bread and wine to his body and blood, and the frequency with which the rite is to be repeated. The Last Supper was also the occasion on which Jesus washed his disciples' feet and commanded them to wash one another's feet. It has been the subject of art from earliest times. L L Mitchell

BibliographyO Cullman, Early Christian Worship (1953); G Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (1945); J Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (1955); J Kodell, The Eucharist in the New Testament (1988); L L Mitchell, The Meaning of Ritual (1977).
Last Supper, Lord's SupperGeneral Information
There are several distinct understandings of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in modern Churches.

Transubstantiation The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church follow this understanding. This involves a 'real' (physical) presence of the 'flesh' and 'blood' of Christ in the bread and wine.

According to this position, the substance, or inner reality, of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, but the accidents, or external qualities known through the senses (color, weight, taste), remain unchanged.

Catholics believe this transformation occurs at the moment of the Priest's enunciating the words. Orthodox believe that they must invoke the Holy Spirit to accomplish the transformation. Catholics believe the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper has a 'sacrificial' nature, where Christ is the SAME victim in the Eucharist as He was on the Cross.

All of the Protestant views below considered Transubstantiation to be "bloody" and disgusting!
Consubstantiation The Lutheran Church follows this understanding, which holds that Christ is present along with the unchanged reality of the bread and wine.

Luther believed that the words "This is my body, this is my blood" must be interpreted literally as teaching that Christ's body and blood were present in the sacrament "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine. Furthermore, he viewed the sacrament as a means of grace by which the participant's faith is strengthened. This still signifies a 'physical' presence of Christ in the Supper, but not in a 'bloody' way.

Symbolic Commemoration or Memorialism Zwingli believed that Christ was present in and through the faith of the participants, but that this presence was not tied to the elements and depended completely upon the faith of the communicants. In contrast to Luther he interpreted the sacrament as a commemoration of the death of Christ, in which the church responded to grace already given, rather than a vehicle of grace.
Zwingli did not accept a 'real' presence of Christ in the Supper, and didn't see a 'real' feeding of the faithful on Him.

Spiritual Calvin believed that there is a real reception of the body and blood of Christ in the supper, only in a spiritual manner. The sacrament is a real means of grace, a channel by which Christ communicates himself to us.

Luther and Calvin agreed that communion with a present Christ who actually feeds believers with his body and blood is what makes the sacrament. The question between them was the manner in which Christ's body exists and is given to believers.
Calvin held that, while Christ is bodily in heaven, distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit, who vivifies believers with Christ's flesh. Thus the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood. "We must hold in regard to the mode, that it is not necessary that the essence of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place.

The real difference between Luther and Calvin lay in the present existence of Christ's body. Calvin held that it is in a place, Heaven, while Luther said that it has the same omnipresence as Christ's divine nature.

Lord's SupperGeneral Information
The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth, - 1Co 11:23-26
and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. - 1Co 10:16
What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper? It is required of them who would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, - 1Co 11:28,29
of their faith to feed upon him, - 2Co 13:5
of their repentance, - 1Co 11:31
love, - 1Co 11:18-20
and new obedience, - 1Co 5:8

lest coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. - 1Co 11:27-29
What is meant by the words, "until he come," which are used by the apostle Paul in reference to the Lord's Supper? They plainly teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ will come a second time; which is the joy and hope of all believers. - Ac 1:11 1Th 4:16
C Spurgeon

Lord's SupperAdvanced Information
In each of the four accounts of the Lord's Supper in the NT (Matt. 26:26 - 30; Mark 14:22 - 26; Luke 22:14 - 20; 1 Cor. 1:23 - 26) all the main features are included. The accounts of Matthew and Mark have close formal affinities. So have those of Luke and Paul. The main differences between the two groups are that Mark omits the words "This do in remembrance of me" and includes "shed for many" after the reference to the blood of the covenant. Instead of the Lord's reference to his reunion with the disciples in the fulfilled kingdom of God, common to the Synoptic Gospels, Paul has a reference to proclaiming the Lord's death "till he come."
The meaning of Jesus' action has to be seen against its OT background. Questions are legitimately raised, however, about the actual nature and timing of the meal. The accounts seem to be at variance. The Fourth Gospel says that Jesus died on the afternoon when the passover lamb was slain (John 18:28). The Synoptic accounts, however, suggest that the meal was prepared for, and eaten, as if it were part of the community celebration of the passover feast that year in Jerusalem after the slaying of the lambs in the temple.

The Synoptic accounts raise further problems. It has been thought unlikely that the arrest of Jesus, the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and the carrying of arms by the disciples could have taken place if the meal had coincided with the official passover date. Could Simon of Cyrene have been met coming apparently from work in the country, or could a linen cloth have been purchased for Jesus' body, if the feast was in progress?

To meet all such difficulties several suggestions have been made. Some have held that the meal took the form of a kiddush, a ceremony held by a family or brotherhood in preparation for the Sabbath or for a feast day. It has also been suggested that the meal could have been the solemn climax, before Jesus' death, of other significant messianic meals which he had been accustomed to share with his disciples, in which he and they looked forward to a glorious fulfillment of hope in the coming kingdom of God.

Such theories present as many new difficulties as those they claim to solve. Moreover, many of the features and details of the meal accounted for indicate that it was a passover meal. (They met at night, within the city; they reclined as they ate; the wine was red; wine was a preliminary dish.) Jesus himself was concerned to explain what he was doing in terms of the passover celebration. Scholars who regard the meal as a passover explain the attendant strange circumstances, and various theories have been produced to harmonize all the accounts. One theory is that disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees led to different dates being fixed for the celebration of the feast in this year.

Another theory suggests that Jesus held an irregular passover, the illegality of which contributed to his being betrayed by Judas and arrested. (Such a theory could explain why there is no mention of a passover lamb in the account.) Attention has been drawn to the existence of an ancient calendar in which the calculations of the date of the passover were made on premises different from those made in official circles. The following of such a calendar would have fixed the date of the feast a few days earlier than that of its official celebration.

There is no doubt that Jesus' words and actions are best understood if the meal is regarded as taking place within the context of the Jewish passover. In this the people of God not only remembered, but again lived through, the events of their deliverance from Egypt under the sign of the sacrificed paschal lamb as if they themselves participated in them (see Exod. 12). In this context, giving the bread and wine as his body and blood, with the words, "this do in remembrance of me," Jesus points to himself as the true substitute for the paschal lamb and to his death as the saving event which will deliver the new Israel, represented in his disciples, from all bondage. His blood is to be henceforth the sign under which God will remember his people in himself.

In his words at the table Jesus speaks of himself not only as the paschal lamb but also as a sacrifice in accordance with other OT analogies. In the sacrificial ritual the portion of peace offering not consumed by fire and thus not offered to God as his food (cf. Lev. 3:1 - 11; Num. 28:2) was eaten by priest and people (Lev. 19:5 - 6; 1 Sam. 9:13) in an act of fellowship with the altar and the sacrifice (Exod. 24:1 - 11; Deut. 27:7; cf. Num. 25:1 - 5; 1 Cor. 10). Jesus in giving the elements thus gave to his disciples a sign of their own fellowship and participation in the event of his sacrificial death.

Moreover, Jesus included in the Last Supper the ritual not only of the paschal and sacrificial meal but also of a covenant meal. In the OT the making of a covenant was followed by a meal in which the participants had fellowship and were pledged to loyalty one to another (Gen. 26:30; 31:54; 2 Sam. 3:20). The covenant between God and Israel at Sinai was likewise followed by a meal in which the people "ate and drank and saw God." The new covenant (Jer. 31:1 - 34) between the Lord and his people was thus ratified by Jesus in a meal.

In celebrating the Supper, Jesus emphasized the messianic and eschatological significance of the passover meal. At this feast the Jews looked forward to a future deliverance which was foreshadowed in type by that from Egypt. A cup was set aside for the Messiah lest he should come that very night to bring about this deliverance and fulfill the promise of the messianic banquet (cf. Isa. 25 - 26; 65:13, etc.). It may have been this cup which Jesus took in the institution of the new rite, indicating that even now the Messiah was present to feast with his people.

After the resurrection, in their frequent celebration of the Supper (Acts 2:42 - 46; 20:7), the disciples would see the climax of the table fellowship which Jesus had had with publicans and sinners (Luke 15:2; Matt. 11:18 - 19) and of their own day - to - day meals with him. They would interpret it not only as a bare prophecy but as a real foretaste of the future messianic banquet, and as a sign of the presence of the mystery of the kingdom of God in their midst in the person of Jesus (Matt. 8:11; cf. Mark 10:35 - 36; Luke 14:15 - 24). They would see its meaning in relation to his living presence in the church, brought out fully in the Easter meals they had shared with him (Luke 24:13 - 35; John 21:1 - 14; Acts 10:41). It was a supper in the presence of the risen Lord as their host. They would see, in the messianic miracle of his feeding the multitude, his words about himself as the bread of life, a sign of his continual hidden self giving in the mystery of the Lord's Supper.

But they would not forget the sacrificial and paschal aspect of the Supper. The table fellowship they looked back on was the fellowship of the Messiah with sinners which reached its climax in his self identification with the sin of the world on Calvary. They had fellowship with the resurrected Jesus through remembrance of his death. As the Lord's Supper related them to the coming kingdom and glory of Christ, so did it also relate them to his once - for - all death.
It is against this background of thought that we should interpret the words of Jesus at the table and the NT statements about the Supper. There is a real life giving relationship of communion between the events and realities, past, present, and future, symbolized in the Supper and those who participate in it (John 6:51; 1 Cor. 10:16). This communion is so inseparable from participation in the Supper that we can speak of the bread and the wine as if they were indeed the body and blood of Christ (Mark 14:22, "This is my body"; cf. John 6:53). It is by the Holy Spirit alone (John 6:53) that the bread and wine, as they are partaken by faith, convey the realities they represent, and that the Supper gives us participation in the death and resurrection of Christ and the kingdom of God. It is by faith alone that Christ is received into the heart at the Supper (Eph. 3:17), and as faith is inseparable from the word, the Lord's Supper is nothing without the word.

Christ is Lord at his table, the risen and unseen host (John 14:19). He is not there at the disposal of the church, to be given and received automatically in the mere performance of a ritual. Yet he is there according to his promise to seeking and adoring faith. He is present also in such a way that though the careless and unbelieving cannot receive him, they nevertheless eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:27).

In participating by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ which was offered once - for - all on the cross, the members of the church are stimulated and enabled by the same Holy Spirit to offer themselves to the Father in eucharistic sacrifice, to serve one another in love within the body, and to fulfill their sacrificial function as the body of Christ in the service of the need of the whole world which God has reconciled to himself in Christ (1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:1).
There is in the Lord's Supper a constant renewal of the covenant between God and the church. The word "remembrance" (anamnesis) refers not simply to man's remembering of the Lord but also to God's remembrance of his Messiah and his covenant, and of his promise to restore the kingdom. At the Supper all this is brought before God in true intercessory prayer.

R S Wallace

BibliographyJ Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus; A J B Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the NT; G Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology; I H Marshall, Lord's Supper and Last Supper; F J Leenhardt and O Cullmann, Essays in the Lord's Supper; J J von Allmen, The Lord's Supper; M Thurian, The Eucharistic Memorial; E J F Arndt, The Font and the Table; M Marty, The Lord's Supper; E Schillebeeckx, ed., Sacramental Reconciliation.

Lord's SupperAdvanced Information
The Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), called also "the Lord's table" (10:21), "communion," "cup of blessing" (10:16), and "breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42). In the early Church it was called also "eucharist," or giving of thanks (comp. Matt. 26:27), and generally by the Latin Church "mass," a name derived from the formula of dismission, Ite, missa est, i.e., "Go, it is discharged." The account of the institution of this ordinance is given in Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:19, 20, and 1 Cor. 11: 24-26. It is not mentioned by John. It was designed, (1.) To commemorate the death of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me." (2.) To signify, seal, and apply to believers all the benefits of the new covenant. In this ordinance Christ ratifies his promises to his people, and they on their part solemnly consecrate themselves to him and to his entire service. (3.) To be a badge of the Christian profession. (4.) To indicate and to promote the communion of believers with Christ. (5.) To represent the mutual communion of believers with each other. The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. The kind of bread, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified. Christ used unleavened bread simply because it was at that moment on the paschal table. Wine, and no other liquid, is to be used (Matt. 26:26-29). Believers "feed" on Christ's body and blood, (1) not with the mouth in any manner, but (2) by the soul alone, and (3) by faith, which is the mouth or hand of the soul. This they do (4) by the power of the Holy Ghost. This "feeding" on Christ, however, takes place not in the Lord's Supper alone, but whenever faith in him is exercised. This is a permanent ordinance in the Church of Christ, and is to be observed "till he come" again.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Views of Lord's SupperAdvanced Information
The NT teaches that Christians must partake of Christ in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23 - 32; cf. Matt. 26:26 - 29; Luke 22:14 - 23; Mark 14:22 - 25). In a remarkable discourse Jesus said that his disciples had to feed on him if they were to have eternal life (John 6:53 - 57). The setting of that discourse was the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus used the occasion to tell the multitude that it should not be as concerned about perishable food as about the food that lasts forever, which he gives them. That food is himself, his body and his blood. Those who believe in him must eat his flesh and drink his blood, not literally, but symbolically and sacramentally, in the rite he gave the church. Through faith in him and partaking of him they would live forever, for union with him means salvation.

The setting for the institution of the Lord's Supper was the passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples in remembrance of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Matt. 26:17; John 13:1; Exod. 13:1 - 10). In calling the bread and wine his body and blood, and saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," Jesus was naming himself the true lamb of the passover whose death would deliver God's people from the bondage of sin. Thus Paul writes, "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor. 5:7; cf. John 1:29).

TransubstantiationThe doctrine of the Lord's Supper first occasioned discord in the church in the ninth century when Radbertus, influenced by the hankering for the mysterious and supernatural which characterized his time, taught that a miracle takes place at the words of institution in the Supper. The elements are changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Radbertus was opposed by Ratramnus, who held the Augustinian position that Christ's presence in the Supper is spiritual. The teaching and practice of the church moved in Radbertus's direction, a doctrine of transubstantiation; namely, that in the Supper the substance in the elements of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the accidents, i.e., the appearance, taste, touch, and smell, remain the same. In the eleventh century Berengar objected to the current idea that pieces of Christ's flesh are eaten during Communion and that some of his blood is drunk.

With sensitivity he held that the whole Christ (totus Christus) is given the believer spiritually as he receives bread and wine. The elements remain unchanged but are invested with new meaning; they represent the body and blood of the Savior. This view was out of step with the times, however, and transubstantiation was declared the faith of the church in 1059, although the term itself was not used officially until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

The medieval church continued and refined the teaching of transubstantiation, adding such subtleties as (1) concomitance, i.e., that both the body and blood of Christ are in each element; hence, when the cup is withheld from the laity the whole Christ, body and blood, is received in the bread alone; (2) consecration, i.e., the teaching that the high moment in the Eucharist is not communion with Christ but the change of the elements by their consecration into the very body and blood of Christ, an act performed by the priest alone; (3) that, inasmuch as there is the real presence of Christ in the Supper, body, blood, soul, and divinity, a sacrifice is offered to God; (4) that the sacrifice offered is propitiatory; (5) that the consecrated elements, or host, may be reserved for later use; (6) that the elements thus reserved should be venerated as the living Christ. The Council of Trent (1545 - 63) confirmed these teachings in its thirteenth and twenty second sessions, adding that the veneration given the consecrated elements is adoration (latria), the same worship that is given God.

Luther and ConsubstantiationThe Reformers agreed in their condemnation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. They held it to be a serious error that is contrary to Scripture; repugnant to reason; contrary to the testimony of our senses of sight, smell, taste, and touch; destructive of the true meaning of a sacrament; and conducive to gross superstition and idolatry. Luther's first salvo against what he considered to be a perversion of the Lord's Supper was The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

In it he charges the church with a threefold bondage in its doctrine and practice concerning the Supper, withholding the cup from the people, transubstantiation, and the teaching that the Supper is a sacrifice offered to God. Luther tells about his earlier instruction in the theology of the sacrament and of some of his doubts:

"When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this, namely the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian church, I grew bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, I at last found rest for my conscience in the above view, namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ's real flesh and real blood are present in no other way and to no less a degree than the others assert them to be under their accidents.

I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by pope or by council, remain only opinions, and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise (Gal. 1:8). For what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air without support of Scripture or reason that it seems to me he knows neither his philosophy nor his logic. For Aristotle speaks of subject and accidents so very differently from St. Thomas that it seems to me this great man is to be pitied not only for attempting to draw his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but also for attempting to base them upon a man whom he did not understand, thus building an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation." (Works, XXXVI, 29)

Luther was feeling his way into a new understanding of the sacrament at this time, but he believed it legitimate to hold that there are real bread and real wine on the altar. He rejected the Thomistic position of a change in the substance of the elements while the accidents remain, inasmuch as Aristotle, from whom the terms "substance" and "accidents" were borrowed, allowed no such separation. The "third captivity," the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, Luther declared to be "by far the most wicked of all" for in it a priest claims to offer to God the very body and blood of Christ as a repetition of the atoning sacrifice of the cross, only in an unbloody manner, whereas the true sacrament of the altar is a "promise of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God." Since it is a promise, access to God is not gained by works or merits by which we try to please him but by faith alone. "For where there is the Word of the promising God, there must necessarily be the faith of the accepting man."

"Who in the world is so foolish as to regard a promise received by him, or a testament given to him, as a good work, which he renders to the testator by his acceptance of it? What heir will imagine that he is doing his departed father a kindness by accepting the terms of the will and the inheritance it bequeaths to him? What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the testament of God come as those who would perform a good work for him! This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of so great a sacrament, are they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits received, we come arrogantly to give that which we ought to take. With unheard of perversity we mock the mercy of the giver by giving as a work the thing we receive as a gift, so that the testator, instead of being a dispenser of his own goods, becomes the recipient of ours. Woe to such sacrilege!" (Works, XXXVI, 47 - 48)
In his determination to break the bondage of superstition in which the church was held, Luther wrote four more tracts against the medieval perversion of the Lord's Supper. However, he also fought doctrinal developments on the other side. Some who with him rejected Roman Catholic error were denying any real presence of Christ in the Supper; against them, beginning in 1524, Luther directed an attack. In these five writings he showed that, while he rejected transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, he still believed that Christ is bodily present in the Lord's Supper and that his body is received by all who partake of the elements.
"On this we take our stand, and we also believe and teach that in the Supper we eat and take to ourselves Christ's body truly and physically." While he acknowledge the mystery, he was certain of the fact of Christ's real corporeal presence inasmuch as he had said when he instituted the Supper, "This is my body." If Scripture cannot be taken literally here, it cannot be believed anywhere, Luther held, and we are on the way to "the virtual denial of Christ, God, and everything." (Works, XXXVII, 29, 53)

ZwingliLuther's main opponent among the evangelicals was Ulrich Zwingli, whose reforming activity in Switzerland was as old as Luther's in Germany. While equally opposed to Rome, Zwingli had been deeply influenced by humanism with its aversion to the medieval mentality and its adulation of reason. Luther felt an attachment to the whole tradition of the church, was conservative by nature, and had a deep mystical strain and suspicion of the free use of reason.
"As the one was by disposition and discipline a schoolman who loved the Saints and the Sacraments of the Church, the other was a humanist who appreciated the thinkers of antiquity and the reason in whose name they spoke. Luther never escaped from the feelings of the monk and associations of the cloister; but Zwingli studied his New Testament with a fine sense of the sanity of its thought, the combined purity and practicability of its ideals, and the majesty of its spirit; and his ambition was to realize a religion after its model, free from the traditions and superstitions of men. It was this that made him so tolerant of Luther, and Luther so intolerant of him. The differences of character were insuperable." (H M Fairbairn, The Cambridge Modern History, II)

The chief differences between Luther and Zwingli theologically were Luther's inability to think of Christ's presence in the Supper in any other than a physical way and a heavy dualism that runs through much of Zwingli's thought. The latter is seen in Zwingli's doctrine of the Word of God as both inward and outward, the church as both visible and invisible, and his conception of the means of grace as having both an external form and an inward grace given by the Holy Spirit. No physical element can affect the soul, but only God in his sovereign grace. Thus there must be no identification of the sign with that which it signifies, but through the use of the sign one rises above the world of sense to the spiritual reality signified. By contrast, Luther held that God comes to us precisely in physical realities discerned by sense.

Zwingli interpreted the words of Jesus, "This is my body," in harmony with John 6, where Jesus spoke of eating and drinking his body and blood, especially vs. 63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail." Therefore, he reasoned, not only is transubstantiation, that somehow Christ is corporeally in, under, and with the elements. The doctrine of physical eating is absurd and repugnant to common sense. Moreover, God does not ask us to believe that which is contrary to sense experience. The word "is" in the words of institution means "signifies," or "represents," and must be interpreted figuratively, as is done in other "I am" passages in the Bible. Christ's ascension means that he took his body from earth to heaven.
Zwingli's shortcoming was his lack of appreciation for the real presence of Christ in the Supper in his Holy Spirit and a real feeding of the faithful on Him. What he needed for an adequate doctrine was Luther's belief in the reality of communion with Christ and a reception of Him in the Supper.

This was to be found in Calvin.
CalvinCalvin's view of the Lord's Supper appears to be a mediate position between the views of Luther and Zwingli, but it is in fact an independent position. Rejecting both Zwingli's "memorialism" and Luther's "monstrous notion of ubiquity" (Inst. 4.17.30), he held that there is a real reception of the body and blood of Christ in the supper, only in a spiritual manner. The sacrament is a real means of grace, a channel by which Christ communicates himself to us. With Zwingli, Calvin held that after the ascension Christ retained a real body which is located in heaven. Nothing should be taken from Christ's "heavenly glory, as happens when he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or bound to any earthly creatures. . . Nothing inappropriate to human nature (should) be ascribed to his body, as happens when it is said either to be infinite or to be put in a number of places at once" (Inst. 4.12.19).
With Luther, Calvin believed that the elements in the Supper are signs which exhibit the fact that Christ is truly present, and he repudiated Zwingli's belief that the elements are signs which represent what is absent. Inasmuch as the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Supper was the key issue in the eucharistic debate, it is obvious that Luther and Calvin agreed more than did Calvin and Zwingli. The latter's conception of Christ's presence was "by the contemplation of faith" but not "in essence and reality." For Luther and Calvin communion with a present Christ who actually feeds believers with his body and blood is what makes the sacrament. The question between them was the manner in which Christ's body exists and is given to believers.

In his response to this question Calvin rejected the Eutychian doctrine of the absorption of Christ's humanity by his divinity, an idea he found in some of his Lutheran opponents, and any weakening of the idea of a local presence of the flesh of Christ in heaven. While Christ is bodily in heaven, distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit, who vivifies believers with Christ's flesh. Thus the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood. "We must hold in regard to the mode, that it is not necessary that the essence of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place.

Meanwhile, we deny not that this mode is incomprehensible to the human mind; because neither can flesh naturally be the life of the soul, nor exert its power upon us from heaven, nor without reason is the communion which makes us flesh of the flesh of Christ, and bone of his bones, called by Paul, 'A great mystery' (Eph. 5:30). Therefore, in the sacred Supper, we acknowledge a miracle which surpasses both the limits of nature and the measure of our sense, while the life of Christ is common to us, and his flesh is given us for food. But we must have done with all inventions inconsistent with the explanation lately given, such as the ubiquity of the body, the secret inclosing under the symbol of bread, and the substantial presence on earth." (Tracts, II, 577)

Calvin held that the essence of Christ's body was its power. In itself it is of little value since it "had its origin from earth, and underwent death" (Inst. 4.17.24), but the Holy Spirit, who gave Christ a body, communicates its power to us so that we receive the whole Christ in Communion. The difference from Luther here is not great, for he held that the "right hand of God" to which Christ ascended meant God's power, and that power is everywhere. The real difference between Luther and Calvin lay in the present existence of Christ's body. Calvin held that it is in a place, heaven, while Luther said that it has the same omnipresence as Christ's divine nature. Both agreed that there is deep mystery here which can be accepted though not understood. "If anyone should ask me how this (partaking of the whole Christ) takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. . . I rather experience than understand it." (Inst. 4.17.32)
SummaryWhile each of the positions declineated above sought to do justice to the Holy Supper which the Lord has given his church, and while each has in it elements of truth, Calvin's position has received widest acceptance within the universal church. Moreover, it is the position closest to the thinking of contemporary theologians within both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions. It is a position which sees the Lord's Supper as a rite instituted by Jesus Christ in which bread is broken and the fruit of the vine is poured out in thankful remembrance of Christ's atoning sacrifice, having become, through their reception and the sacramental blessing given by the Holy Spirit, the communion (that is, a partaking) of the body and blood of Christ and an anticipation of full future salvation.

M E Osterhaven(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography"The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent," in Creeds of Christendom, II, ed. P Schaff; J Pelikan and H T Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works; J Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J T McNeill, and Tracts Relating to the Reformation; G W Bromiley, ed., Zwingli and Bullinger; K McDonnell, John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist; D Bridge and D Phypers, Communion: The Meal That Unites?

We Received the Following CommentSubj: Calvinistic Bias on the Lord's Supper
Dear Friends:
Bias is very difficult to avoid and I am sure that you have done your best. Therefore, I expect you to receive this criticism as something beneficial for your service in educating people on the Christian faith.

On the topic of the Lord's Supper, you use the word, "Consubstantiation" to identify the Lutheran teaching. Lutherans don't use this word to describe their own teaching. It is rather the Reformed who use it to describe the Lutheran position. It is a misleading word. The Lutheran doctrine cares little about whether or not the bread remains bread. We simply won't impose a Thomistic (or any other) philosophy on a biblical doctrine. I know that it is quite common for the Reformed to use this word to describe the Lutheran teaching, but this does not make it acceptable. Luther, the Lutheran Confessions, and Lutheran Orthodoxy are far more critical of the view that the Supper is not Christ's true body and blood than they are of the view that the bread and wine have changed.

Furthermore, the assertion that Lutherans today are closer to Calvin's view of the real presence than to Luther's view is simply false witness. You really ought to correct this. I am a confessional Lutheran who subscribes without any reservation to the Lutheran Confessions. Ask your contributors to read our Confessions and then to write articles on our doctrine. It is unfair to appoint a writing task to one who is ignorant of his topic. If you would like further information, you may write to me, or to any of the seminary faculties of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Any one of these seminaries would be happy to correct for the benefit of your readers the various articles that are written concering the doctrine of Lutheranism.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my criticisms!
Sincerely,

(Rev.) Rolf D. Preus, pastorRiver Heights Lutheran Church (Evangelical Lutheran Synod

With kind permision: Believe

Anabaptists, Rebaptizers

2008-07-13T11:49:00.000-07:00

General Information

Anabaptists, or rebaptizers, were members of a variety of 16th - century religious groups that rejected infant baptism. Since they believed that only after an adult had come to faith in Christ should he or she be baptized, they taught that converts who had been baptized in infancy must be rebaptized.

Anabaptists held the church to be the congregation of true saints who should separate themselves from the sinful world. Their theology was highly eschatological, and they claimed direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Anabaptists refused to take oaths, opposed capital punishment, and rejected military service. Their beliefs made them appear subversive and provoked persecution. Many of the Reformers disclaimed them, regarding them as fundamentally opposed to the ideas of the reformation.

In Zurich, Conrad Grebel performed the first adult baptism on Jan. 21, 1525, when he rebaptized Georg Blaurock in the house of Felix Manz. Anabaptism spread to southwest Germany, Austria, Moravia, along the Danube, and down the Rhine to the Netherlands. Numbering less than 1 percent of the population, the Anabaptists were for the most part of humble social origin. Among their leaders were Balthasar Hubmaier, Hans Denck, Jacob Hutter, and Hans Hut. In 1534, militant Anabaptists, inspired by radical Melchior Hofmann, seized control of the city of Munster. Led by Bernt Knipperdollinck, Jan Mathijs, and Jan Beuckelson, better known as John of Leiden (c. 1509 - 36), they drove out all Protestants and Roman Catholics. John set up a theocracy, became king, and established polygamy and communal property. After a 16 month siege, the bishop of Munster recaptured the city and executed the rebels. Menno Simons, a Dutchman, restored the reputation of the Anabaptists through his moderate and inspired leadership. His followers have survived and are known as Mennonites. The Hutterian Brethren are descendants of the group led by Hutter.

Lewis W Spitz
BibliographyC P Clasen, Anabaptism: A Social History, 1525 - 1618 (1972); W Estep, The Anabaptist Story (1975); G F Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision (1957); F H Littell, Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (1964); G H Williams, The Radical Reformation (1962); G H Williams and A Mergal, eds., Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers (1957).

With kind permision: Believe

Amyraldianism

2008-07-13T10:08:00.000-07:00

Advanced Information

Amyraldianism is the system of Reformed theology propounded by the French theologian Moise Amyraut and associates at the Saumur Academy in the seventeenth century. Its distinctive teachings vis-a-vis other systems (e.g., orthodox Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism) focused on the doctrines of grace, predestination, and the intent of the atonement.

Fundamentally Amyraut took issue with contemporary Calvinists who shaped their system of theology around the decree of predestination. The entire body of divinity in much of seventeenth century Reformed theology was subsumed under the doctrines of sovereign election and reprobation. Amyraut insisted that the chief doctrine of Christian theology is not predestination but the faith which justifies. Commitment to justification by faith as the overarching theme denoted a theology as truly reformational. Moreover, Amyraut rightly argued that Calvin discussed predestination not under the doctrine of God but following the mediation of salvation blessings by the Holy Spirit. For Amyraut predestination is an inscrutable mystery, which offers an explanation of the fact that some accept Christ whereas others reject him.

Amyraut also developed a system of covenant theology alternative to the twofold covenant of works, covenant of grace schema propounded by much of Reformed orthodoxy. The Saumur school postulated a threefold covenant, viewed as three successive steps in God's saving program unfolded in history. First, the covenant of nature established between God and Adam involved obedience to the divine law disclosed in the natural order. Second, the covenant of law between God and Israel focused on adherence to the written law of Moses. And finally the covenant of grace established between God and all mankind requires faith in the finished work of Christ. In Amyraldianism the covenant of grace was further divided into two parts: a conditional covenant of particular grace. For actualization the former required fulfillment of the condition of faith. The latter, grounded in God's good pleasure, does not call for the condition of faith; rather it creates faith in the elect. Amyraut's covenant theology, particularly his division of the covenant of grace into a universal conditional covenant and particularly undiconditional covenant, provided the basis for the unique feature of Amyraldianism, namely, the doctrine of hypothetical universal predestination. According to Amyraut there exists a twofold will of God in predestination, a universal and conditional will, and a particular and unconditional will. Concerning the first, Amyraut taught that God wills the salvation of all people on the condition that they believe. This universal, conditional will of God is revealed dimly in nature but clearly in the gospel of Christ. Implicit in this first will is the claim that if a person does not believe, God has not, in fact, willed his or her salvation. Without the accomplishment of the condition (i.e., faith) the salvation procured by Christ is of no avail. Amyraut based his doctrine of hypothetical universal predestination on such biblical texts as Ezek. 18:23; John 3:16; and 2 Pet. 3:9.

Amyraut contended that although man possesses the natural faculties (i.e., intellect and will) by which to respond to God's universal offer of grace, he in fact suffers from moral inability due to the corrupting effects of sin upon the mind. Thus unless renewed by the Holy Spirit the sinner is unable to come to faith. Precisely at this point God's particular, unconditional will, which is hidden in the councils of the Godhead, comes to bear. Since no sinner is capable of coming to Christ on his own, God in grace wills to create faith and to save some while in justice he wills to reprobate others. Amyraut underscored the fact that God's particular, unconditional will to save is hidden and inscrutable. Finite man cannot know it. Hence the creature must not engage in vain speculation about God's secret purposes of election and reprobation. In practice the Christian preacher must not ask the question whether a given individual is elect or reprobate.
Rather he must preach Christ as the Savior of the world and call for faith in his sufficient work. Only the universal, conditional will of God is the legitimate object of religious contemplation. Amyraldianism thus involves a purely ideal universalism together with a real particularism.
The issue of the intent or extent of Christ's atonement is implicit in the foregoing discussion. Amyraldianism postulated a universalist design in the atonement and a particular application of its benefits. The salvation wrought by Christ was destined for all persons equally. Christ legitimately died for all. Nevertheless only the elect actually come into the enjoyment of salvation blessings. Amyraldianism thus upheld the formula: "Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but only for the elect efficiently."

Amyraut believed that his teachings on the twofold will of God and twofold intent of the atonement were derived from Calvin himself. He viewed his theology as a corrective to much of seventeenth century Calvinism, which denied the universal, conditional will of God in its preoccupation with the unconditional decree. And he disputed with Arminianism, which failed to see that a person's salvation was effectively grounded in the absolute purpose of God conceived on the basis of his own sovereign pleasure. And finally Amyraldianism provided a rapprochement with Lutheranism and its interest in justification by faith and the universality of Christ's atoning work. Some later Reformed theologians such as Charles Hodge, W G T Shedd, and B B Warfield insisted that Amyraldianism was an inconsistent synthesis of Arminianism and Calvinism. Others, however, such as H Heppe, R Baxter, S Hopkins, A H Strong, and L S Chafer maintained that it represents a return to the true spirit of Holy Scripture.
B A Demarest(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyB G Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy; R B Kuyper, For Whom Did Christ Die?; B B Warfield, The Plan of Salvation; Encylopedia of Christianity, I.

Amyraldianism
Additional Information (We received the following two texts from Dr. Alan C. Clifford, an author who has published works on Amyraldianism. These two texts are letters in response to inquiries on Amyraldianism, which we feel are enlightening.)

ANGLICANISM, AMYRAUT AND AUTHENTIC CALVINISM
The Editor, English Churchman6 June 2000
Sir, - In an otherwise valuable sermon (parts of which I thank him for), the Revd Edward J. Malcolm has supplied some highly flawed information ('The Death of Christ', The Journal, May 2000, pp. 23-8). I refer to his dubious assessment of Amyraldianism. Concerned to reaffirm John Calvin's authentic teaching in the face of ultra-orthodox 'high' Calvinism', the French Reformed theologian, Moïse Amyraut (1596-1664) also distanced himself from semi-Pelagian Arminianism. His concern was to avoid unbiblical extremism. Had his teaching been as compatible with Rome's as is suggested, the Edict of Nantes (1598) might possibly have stood. It was revoked by Louis XIV (in 1685) precisely because of the continuing incompatibilities between the Reformed churches and Rome! The internal Reformed debates over the extent of the atonement had nothing to do with it (for further information, see my book Calvinus:

Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification). As for the Huguenot refugees who settled in this country [England], those who agreed with Amyraut simply reinforced the original sixteenth-century 'Anglican Calvinism' of the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles (see Arts. 2, 15 and 31). Notwithstanding clear teaching on predestination (see Art. 17), the doctrine of limited atonement is as alien to Reformation Anglicanism as it is to the teaching of Amyraut and Calvin. In the seventeenth century, scholastic influences in Reformed theology affected this country as well as France. Thus the 'over-orthodox' distorted Calvinism of Dr John Owen and many (but not all) of the Westminster divines was rejected by Richard Baxter and others. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the balanced biblicism of Calvin, the other Reformers, Amyraut and Baxter was maintained by the Nonconformists Matthew Henry, Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge, and the Anglicans John Newton, Charles Simeon and Bishop Ryle. While I regret Ryle's espousal of episcopacy, his authentic Calvinism is unquestionably on target! According to this view of the New Testament, while ultimately only the elect effectually partake of salvation, the universally designed and sufficient atonement of Christ makes the gospel available to the whole world. This is true Christianity and true Calvinism!

A C Clifford

ANGLICANISM, AMYRAUT AND THE ATONEMENT
The Editor, English Churchman3 July 2000
Sir, - Dr George Ella asks me, "Which Anglican reformer did not believe in limited atonement?" Apart from John Bradford who clearly did, several may be listed. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer stated that Christ 'by His own oblation...satisfied His Father for all men's sins and reconciled mankind unto His grace and favour...' Bishop John Hooper affirmed that Christ died 'for the love of us poor and miserable sinners, whose place he occupied upon the cross, as a pledge, or one that represented the person of all the sinners that ever were, be now, or shall be unto the world's end.' Bishop Nicholas Ridley declared that the sacrifice of Christ 'was, is, and shall be forever the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.' Bishop Hugh Latimer preached that 'Christ shed as much blood for Judas, as he did for Peter: Peter believed it, and therefore he was saved; Judas would not believe, and therefore he was condemned.' Even Bradford admitted that 'Christ's death is sufficient for all, but effectual for the elect only.' The Elizabethan Anglicans were no different in their understanding. Bishop John Jewel wrote that, on the cross, Christ declared "It is finished" to signify 'that the price and ransom was now full paid for the sin of all mankind.' Elsewhere, he made clear that 'The death of Christ is available for the redemption of all the world...' Richard Hooker stated an identical view when he said that Christ's 'precious and propitiatory sacrifice' was 'offered for the sins of all the world...' (Parker Society details witheld to save space).

As for Amyraut's supposed semi-Pelagian denial of the Canons of Dordt, Dr Ella is simply misinformed. The French Reformed professor specifically affirmed the teaching of Dordt at the National Synod of Alençon (1637), his orthodoxy being confirmed in his 'Defensio doctrinae J. Calvini' (1641). As for the canons themselves, they are more moderate than many realise. Indeed, the word 'limited' nowhere appears, thus making the mnemonic TULIP rather doubtful! They state that 'death of the Son of God is...abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world...many perish in unbelief [not] because of any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ...but through their own fault...the saving efficacy of the most precious death of [God's] Son...extend[s] to all the elect' (Second Canon, Arts. 3, 6, 8).

The Revd Edward Malcolm virtually concedes that Articles XV and XXXI are universalist when he admits that the compilers 'are merely quoting Scripture'. He then charges with having a 'preconception' those who take them in their natural sense! If he thinks this is an Arminian view, the Anglican Clement Barksdale objected in 1653 that 'You are mistaken when you think the doctrine of Universal Redemption Arminianism. It was the doctrine of the Church of England before Arminius was born. We learn it out of the old Church Catechism: 'I believe in Jesus Christ, who hath redeemed me and all mankind.' And the Church hath learned it out of the plain scripture, where Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.' Richard Baxter surely hit the nail on the head when he wrote, 'When God saith so expressly that Christ died for all [2 Cor. 5:14-15], and tasted death for every man [Heb. 2:9], and is the ransom for all [1 Tim. 2:6], and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world [1 Jn. 2:2], it beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for all, than flatly to deny it.' As for Mr Malcolm's citation of Calvin's seeming support for limited atonement, his partial quotation of this isolated statement ignores the fact that the reformer is discussing the implications of the Lutheran theory of consubstantiation rather than the extent of the atonement. Numerous other statements are consistently universalist (see my 'Calvinus').

Before the Revd Peter Howe gets too excited by Carl Trueman's 'The Claims of Truth', he should know that the author - apart from resorting to the kind of triviality mentioned - misunderstands and misrepresents my case against Dr John Owen's scholastic high Calvinism (as my forthcoming reply will make clear). Dr Trueman actually admits that Owen did not rely on the sola scriptura principle in his theological polemics, a point which rightly disturbed Ewan Wilson (see his EC review, June 4, 1999). Since he disclaims any attempt to decide whether Owen is right or wrong, the title of Dr Trueman's book is a misnomer. It should be 'The Claims of Scholasticism.' Owen's Aristotelian rationalism also ruins the exegesis of John 3:16. He tampers with the text in a manner Calvin would anathematise. As for C. H. Spurgeon's sermon 'Particular Redemption', the same doubtful exegesis emerges. On the other hand, Bishop Ryle - rightly described by Spurgeon as 'the best man in the Church of England' - handled Scripture with greater integrity. Having little sympathy for Arminianism, Ryle was equally aware of the threat posed by high Calvinism. Commenting on John 1:29, he wrote that 'Christ's death is profitable to none but to the elect who believe on His name...But...I dare not say that no atonement has been made, in any sense, except for the elect...When I read that the wicked who are lost, "deny the Lord that bought them," (2 Pet. 2:1) and that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," (2 Cor. 5:19), I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man.' Commenting on John 3:16 and appealing to Bishop Davenant, Calvin and others, he concludes: 'Those who confine God's love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God's character and attributes....I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system' (Expository Thoughts on John's Gospel, Vol. 1). In short, all that Christ is and did was for all mankind conditionally though for the elect effectually. Mr Howe will be pleased to know that this truly biblical Calvinism motivates Norwich Reformed Church to reach out to the people of the city every Saturday through its all-weather, all-season, city-centre evangelistic bookstall.

A C Clifford
BibliographyA C Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790 - An Evaluation (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1990); A C Clifford, Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification (Charenton Reformed Publishing, 1996); A C Clifford, Sons of Calvin: Three Huguenot Pastors (Charenton Reformed Publishing, 1999).

With kind permision: Believe

Amorites

2008-07-13T09:34:00.000-07:00

General Information
Frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, the Amorites were a Semitic people who flourished 2000-1600 BC. Their rule extended from ancient Canaan as far as Egypt.

Amorites
General Information Amorites were an ancient tribe of Canaanites who inhabited the country northeast of the Jordan River as far as Mount Hermon. In the 13th century BC, the Amorites defeated the Moabites, crossed the Jordan, conquered the Hittites, and overran Canaan to the sea. Their power was broken (see Joshua 9-10) by the Hebrews, under their leader Joshua, at Gibeon. The Amorite ancestry of the Hebrews is mentioned in Ezekiel 16:3.
The Amorites have been identified with the Amurru, a people who invaded Babylonia in the 21st century BC and two centuries later founded the first dynasty of Babylon.

Am'orites
Advanced Information Amorites, highlanders, or hillmen, was the name given to the descendants of one of the sons of Canaan (Gen. 14:7), called Amurra or Amurri in the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions. On the early Babylonian monuments all Syria, including Palestine, is known as "the land of the Amorites." The southern slopes of the mountains of Judea are called the "mount of the Amorites" (Deut. 1:7, 19, 20). They seem to have originally occupied the land stretching from the heights west of the Dead Sea (Gen. 14:7) to Hebron (13. Comp. 13:8; Deut. 3:8; 4:46-48), embracing "all Gilead and all Bashan" (Deut. 3:10), with the Jordan valley on the east of the river (4:49), the land of the "two kings of the Amorites," Sihon and Og (Deut. 31:4; Josh. 2:10; 9:10).

The five kings of the Amorites were defeated with great slaughter by Joshua (10:10). They were again defeated at the waters of Merom by Joshua, who smote them till there were none remaining (Josh. 11:8). It is mentioned as a surprising circumstance that in the days of Samuel there was peace between them and the Israelites (1 Sam. 7:14). The discrepancy supposed to exist between Deut. 1:44 and Num. 14:45 is explained by the circumstance that the terms "Amorites" and "Amalekites" are used synonymously for the "Canaanites." In the same way we explain the fact that the "Hivites" of Gen. 34:2 are the "Amorites" of 48:22. Comp. Josh. 10:6; 11:19 with 2 Sam. 21:2; also Num. 14:45 with Deut. 1:44. The Amorites were warlike mountaineers. They are represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, aquiline noses, and pointed beards. They are supposed to have been men of great stature; their king, Og, is described by Moses as the last "of the remnant of the giants" (Deut. 3:11). Both Sihon and Og were independent kings. Only one word of the Amorite language survives, "Shenir," the name they gave to Mount Hermon (Deut. 3:9).

Easton Illustrated Dictionary.

With kind permision: Believe

Amish

2008-07-11T08:02:00.000-07:00

General Information
The Amish church, a branch of the Mennonites, is a Protestant religious group descended from the 16th-century Anabaptists. The Amish take their name from Jacob Ammann, a Swiss Mennonite bishop who in 1693 broke away from the main body of Mennonites, feeling that they had strayed from the strict austerity of their forebears. Ammann's followers began emigrating to Pennsylvania from Switzerland and Germany about 1710, and by 1787 had established 70 congregations there. The Amish later spread to Ohio, Indiana, and Ontario in Canada. Today they still exist in all these areas (and others), numbering about 40,000.

The Old Order Amish, who form the majority, reject infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, and military service, and live apart from the rest of society in agricultural communities. They worship in private houses, and each congregation is served by a bishop, two ministers, and a deacon (all male). Avoiding modern technology and worldly amusements, they practice simple farming and handicrafts--Amish quilts are notable examples of American Folk Art--and speak a German-English dialect (Pennsylvania Dutch). The horse and buggy is their normal mode of transportation. The Conservative Amish, a smaller sect, differ from the Old Order Amish mainly in their adoption of English and Sunday schools. The Amish are known for their practice of meidung (shunning of those who have violated church law) and for their use of hooks and eyes instead of buttons. Recognizable by their sober yet picturesque appearance--the men with full beards and broad-brimmed hats, the women in bonnets and long skirts--the Amish occupy a distinctive place among traditional religious groups in the United States and Canada.
AmishGeneral Information

The Amish are a North American Protestant group of Mennonite origin. The Amish have maintained a distinctive and conservative agricultural way of life despite the influences of modern industrial society.

The name Amish is derived from Jakob Amman, a Swiss Mennonite bishop. He insisted that discipline within the church be maintained by excommunication. This entailed the avoidance, or shunning, by the faithful of those excommunicated. Conventional social relationships with the excommunicated, such as eating at the same table, buying and selling, and, in the case of a married person, marital relations, were forbidden. The Amish, subject to persecution in Europe, migrated in the 18th century to Pennsylvania, where their descendants are called Pennsylvania Dutch (the German deutsch, "German," was misunderstood as "Dutch"). They then spread into Ohio, other midwestern states, and Canada. A rural people, their skill in farming is exemplary.
The most conservative are known as Old Order Amish. They dress in a severely plain style, using hooks and eyes instead of buttons to fasten their clothes. They ride in horse-drawn buggies instead of automobiles, and the adult males wear beards. Religious services are held in homes; foot washing is practiced in connection with the Communion service; discipline is enforced by shunning; and marriage with outsiders is condemned. Other Amish groups, such as the Conservative Mennonite Conference and the Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches, are milder in discipline and less set apart from the world. All share the practice of believer's, or adult, baptism and often refuse to take part in civil affairs - to vote, serve in the military, and so forth. The Old Order Amish numbered about 80,800 in the early 1990s; the Beachy Amish about 7000.

The Amish have sometimes come into conflict with the larger society. In particular, they have resisted compulsory education requirements as a threat to their separate way of life. In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the state sought to require the children of an Amish family to attend school until the age of 16. The parents were willing to allow them to attend through the eighth grade but argued that high school education would make them unfit to carry on the Amish tradition. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed that their right to the free exercise of their religion is protected and that the state's concern for compulsory public education must yield to that consideration

With kind permision: Believe

Amen

2008-07-11T01:36:00.000-07:00

General Information {Aay - men'}
This Hebrew word means firm, and hence also faithful (Rev. 3:14). In Isa. 65:16, the Authorized Version has "the God of truth," which in Hebrew is "the God of Amen." It is frequently used by our Saviour to give emphasis to his words, where it is translated "verily." Sometimes, only, however, in John's Gospel, it is repeated, "Verily, verily." It is used as an epithet of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 3:14). It is found singly and sometimes doubly at the end of prayers (Ps. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52), to confirm the words and invoke the fulfilment of them. It is used in token of being bound by an oath (Num. 5:22; Deut. 27:15-26; Neh. 5:13; 8:6; 1 Chr. 16:36). In the primitive churches it was common for the general audience to say "Amen" at the close of the prayer (1 Cor. 14:16). The promises of God are Amen; i.e., they are all true and sure (2 Cor. 1:20).

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Amen
Advanced Information This Hebrew word originally was an adjective meaning "reliable, sure, true." or an adjectival verb, "it is reliable or true." The related verb 'aman meant "to support, sustain"; in the niphal stem: "prove oneself steady, reliable, loyal"; in the hiphil stem: "to regard someone as reliable, trustworthy, or truthful," and hence, "to believe." 'Amen by itself was used as a formula ("Surely!" "In very truth!") at the end of (a) a doxology, such as: "Blessed be Jehovah forever" (where the Amen signifies: "Yes indeed!" or, "May it be so in very truth!"); cf. Pss. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48; also 1 Chr. 16:36 and Neh. 8:6, where the audience assents to and adopts their leader's praise of God; (b) a decree or expression of royal purpose, where the obedient listener indicates his hearty assent and cooperation (1 Kings 1:36; Jer. 11:5). The one who prays or asseverates or joins in the prayer or asseveration of another, by the use of "Amen," puts himself into the statement with all earnestness of faith and intensity of desire. The usage is the same in the NT. Isa. 65:16 speaks of Jehovah as the God of Amen, meaning that he speaks the truth and carries out his word. The same is implied by the Lord Christ when he calls himself "The Amen" in Rev. 3:14.

It is significant that Jesus introduces matters of importance with a solemn amen, lego hymin (Truly, I say unto you), thus affirming the truthfulness of what he is about to say. This is peculiar to Jesus in the NT and probably reflects his divine self-consciousness. He does not need to wait until after he has spoken to ratify what is said; all that he says has the mark of certain truth.

G L Archer, Jr.
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyH. Bietenhard, NIDNTT,I, 97ff.; H. Schlier, TDNT,I, 335ff.; H. W. Hogg, "Amen," JQR 9:1ff.; G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus.

Amen
Advanced Information Amen is transliterated from Hebrew into both Greek and English. "Its meanings may be seen in such passages as Deut. 7:9, 'the faithful (the Amen) God,' Isa. 49:7, 'Jehovah that is faithful.' 65:16, 'the God of truth,' marg., 'the God of Amen.' And if God is faithful His testimonies and precepts are "sure (amen)," Ps. 19:7; 111:7, as are also His warnings, Hos. 5:9, and promises, Isa. 33:16; 55:3. 'Amen' is used of men also, e.g., Prov. 25:13. "There are cases where the people used it to express their assent to a law and their willingness to submit to the penalty attached to the breach of it, Deut. 27:15, cf. Neh. 5:13. It is also used to express acquiescence in another's prayer, 1 Kings 1:36, where it is defined as "(let) God say so too," or in another's thanksgiving, 1 Chron. 16:36, whether by an individual, Jer. 11:5, or by the congregation, Ps. 106:48. "Thus 'Amen' said by God 'it is and shall be so,' and by men, 'so let it be.'" "Once in the NT 'Amen' is a title of Christ, Rev. 3:14, because through Him the purposes of God are established, 2 Cor. 1:20 "

The early Christian churches followed the example of Israel in associating themselves audibly with the prayers and thanksgivings offered on their behalf, 1 Cor. 14:16, where the article 'the' points to a common practice. Moreover this custom conforms to the pattern of things in the Heavens, see Rev. 5:14, etc. "The individual also said 'Amen' to express his 'let it be so' in response to the Divine 'thus it shall be,' Rev. 22:20. Frequently the speaker adds 'Amen' to his own prayers and doxologies, as is the case at Eph. 3:21, e.g. "The Lord Jesus often used 'Amen,' translated 'verily,' to introduce new revelations of the mind of God. In John's Gospel it is always repeated, 'Amen, Amen,' but not elsewhere. Luke does not use it at all, but where Matthew, 16:28, and Mark, 9:1, have 'Amen,' Luke has 'of a truth'; thus by varying the translation of what the Lord said, Luke throws light on His meaning."

(From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 26, 27.)

With kind permision: Believe

Amana Church Society {uh - man' - uh}

2008-07-10T13:18:00.001-07:00

General Information
The Amana Society is a religious group in east central Iowa, that is conservative in theology, pacifistic, and has a strong communal tradition. Its origins are to be found in German pietism of the early 1700s. Some 800 members of the group migrated to the United States in 1842, settling first in Ebenezer, NY, but moving later to Iowa. Initially the members held all property in common, but in 1932 they discarded many communal practices and formed a business corporation to take over the group's farmland and other productive properties. The Amana Society continues as a religious organization, with about 900 members; the business corporation engages in farming and manufactures kitchen appliances.
Conrad Wright BibliographyJ Liffring - Zug, The Amana Colonies (1988).

The Amana Church Society
General Information The Amana Church Society is a religious community in the United States. It began as an outgrowth of the religious reform movement Pietism begun in Germany in 1714 by Eberhard Ludwig Gruber and Johann Friedrich Rock, who withdrew from the German Lutheran Church in protest against its formalism. When the Pietists were persecuted as a religious minority, leading member Christian Metz and a number of others in search of religious freedom emigrated to the United States and purchased land there in 1842. More than 800 more Pietists followed, establishing six villages near Ebenezer, New York, and two in Canada. They set up communities specializing in agriculture and the weaving of cloth, and among the early internal rules of the group were bans forbidding members to send their children to public school, bear arms, or serve in war. No rite of baptism was observed.

In 1854, the growing population of the city of Buffalo, New York, threatened the privacy of the Pietist's Ebenezer settlement, and the colony migrated to Iowa in 1855. There they settled in seven villages and in 1859 incorporated with the name the Amana Church Society (the term Amana, from Song of Solomon, means "remain true"). The society reorganized in 1932, when private enterprise was adopted and religious and civil governments were separated. Population growth in Iowa brought about freer communication and marriage with people outside the society, and the Amana community became more assimilated. The Amana Church Society remains a dominant force in several villages in Iowa, the oldest of which bears the name Amana.

Amana
General Information

Amana is an unincorporated village in Iowa County, east central Iowa, near the Iowa River. It is an agricultural trade center with manufacturing industries producing household appliances, furniture, woolen goods, wine, and processed food (especially meat). Amana is the oldest of seven adjacent villages established in 1855 by a communal band practicing Pietism led by Christian Metz. In search of religious freedom, they had emigrated in 1843 from Germany and settled in Ebenezer, New York (near Buffalo).
The communities, which flourished during the late 19th century, suffered during the depression of the 1930s and were reorganized in 1932, when private enterprise was adopted and religious and civil government were separated. The Amana Church Society remains a dominating force in the community. Among the many tourist attractions in the Amana villages are the Museum of Amana History, the Amana Heim Museum, and the Amana Society Barn Museum. Population 475 (1990).
Ama'na or Am'ana

General Information Amana, perennial. (1.) The Hebrew margin of 2 Kings 5:12 gives this as another reading of Abana (q.v.), a stream near Damascus. (2.) A mountain (Cant. 4:8), probably the southern summit of Anti-Libanus, at the base of which are the sources of the Abana.
Easton Illustrated Dictionary.

With kind permision: Believe

Alexandrian Theology

2008-07-10T12:57:00.000-07:00

Clement of Alexandria
General Information Clement of Alexandria, whose full name was Titus Flavius Clemens (150?-215?), was a Greek theologian and an early Father of the Church. He was probably born in Athens, Greece, and was educated at the catechetical school in Alexandria, where he studied under the Christian philosopher Pantaenus. Some time after Clement's conversion from paganism, he was ordained a presbyter. In about 190 he succeeded Pantaenus as head of the catechetical school, which became famous under his leadership. Origen, who later achieved distinction as a writer, teacher, and theologian, may have been one of Clement's pupils. During the persecution of the Christians in the reign of Septimius Severus, emperor of Rome, Clement moved from Alexandria to Caesarea (Mazaca) in Cappadocia. Little is known of his subsequent activities. At times, he was considered a saint; his name appeared in early Christian martyrologies.

Many scholars regard Clement as the founder of the Alexandrian school of theology, which emphasized the divine nature of Christ. It was Alexandrian theologians such as Saint Cyril and Saint Athanasius who took the lead in opposing Adoptionism and Nestorianism, both of which emphasized Christ's humanity at the expense of his divinity. According to Clement's system of logic, the thought and will of God exhorts, educates, and perfects the true Christian. This process is described in A Hortatory Address to the Greeks, The Tutor, and Miscellanies, Clement's major works. The first work is addressed to the educated public with an interest in Christianity; it is modeled on the Hortatory Address of Aristotle, a lost work in which Aristotle addressed the general reader with an interest in philosophy. The Tutor is designed to broaden and deepen the foundation of Christian faith imparted in baptismal instruction. Miscellanies is a discussion of various points of doctrinal theology, designed to guide the mature Christian to perfect knowledge. Clement was also the author of a number of tracts and treatises, including Slander, Fasting, Patience, and Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved?

Clement of Alexandria

Advanced Information (ca. 150-ca. 215)
Titus Flavius Clemens, Greek theologian and writer, was the first significant representative of the Alexandrian theological tradition. Born of pagan parents in Athens, Clement went to Alexandria, where he succeeded his teacher Pantaenus as head of the Catechetical School. In 202 persecution forced him to leave Alexandria, apparently never to return.
Of Clement's writings four are preserved complete: Protreptikos (an exhortation addressed to the Greeks urging their conversion); Paedagogos (a portrayal of Christ as tutor instructing the faithful in their conduct); Stromata (miscellaneous thoughts primarily concerning the relation of faith to philosophy); "Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved?" (an exposition of Mark 10:17-31, arguing that wealth, if rightfully used, is not un-Christian). Of other writings only fragments remain, especially of the Hypotyposes, a commentary on the Scriptures.

Clement is important for his positive approach to philosophy which laid the foundations for Christian humanism and for the idea of philosophy as "handmaid" to theology. The idea of the Logos dominates his thinking. The divine Logos, creator of all things, guides all good men and causes all right thought. Greek philosophy was, therefore, a partial revelation and prepared the Greeks for Christ just as the law prepared the Hebrews. Christ is the Logos incarnate through whom man attains to perfection and true gnosis. Against the Gnostics who disparaged faith, Clement considers faith the necessary first principle and foundation for knowledge, which itself is the perfection of faith. Man becomes a "true Gnostic" by love and contemplation. Through self-control and love man rids himself of passions, reaching finally the state of impassibility wherein he attains to the likeness of God. With this idea Clement profoundly influenced Greek Christian spirituality.

W C Weinrich(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyE. F. Osborn, The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria; S. R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism; R. B. Tollington, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Liberalism, 2 vols.; E. Molland, The Conception of the Gospel in the Alexandrian Theology; J. Quasten, Patrology, II: The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus; W. H. Wagner, "The Paideia Motif in the Theology of Clement of Alexandria" (Diss., Drew University, 1968); W. E. G. Floyd, Clement of Alexandria's Treatment of the Problem of Evil; D. J. M. Bradley, "The Transfiguration of the Stoic Ethic in Clement of Alexandria," Aug 14:41-66; J. Ferguson, "The Achievement of Clement of Alexandria," RelS 12:59-80.

Alexandrian Theology
Advanced Information It is probable that Christianity came to Alexandria in apostolic times, though the tradition that it was first brought by John Mark cannot be verified. The indications are that Christianity was well established in middle Egypt by A.D. 150 and that Alexandria was its port of entry and supporting base.

Clement of Alexandria became head of the Catechetical School about 190. A philosopher throughout his life, Clement saw Greek philosophy as a preparation for Christ, even as a witness to divine truth. Plato was a cherished guide. Sin is grounded in man's free will. Enlightement by the Logos brings man to knowledge. Knowledge results in right decisions. These draw a man toward God until he is assimilated to God (Stromata iv. 23). The Christian lives by love, free from passion. His life is a constant prayer. Clement set forth its pattern in minute detail in the Paedagogos. He took an optimistic view of the future of all men, but knowledge would be rewarded in the world to come. An allegorical exegesis of Scripture supported these views.
Around 202 Clement was succeeded in the Catechetical School by the much abler Origen. A biblical student and exegete of great ability, Origen produced the Hexapla text of the OT. He wrote commentaries, scholia, or homilies on all the biblical books; but they were based on three senses of Scripture, the literal, moral, and allegorical. The Bible was inspired, useful, true in every letter, but the literal interpretation was not necessarily the correct one. Indebted, like Clement, to the Greeks, Origen was not as admiringly dependent upon them.

His conception was of a great spiritual universe, presided over by a beneficent, wise, and personal being. Alexandrian Christology makes its beginnings with Origen. Through an eternal generation of the Son, the Logos, God communicates himself from all eternity. There is a moral, volitional unity between the Father and the Son, but an essential unity is questionable. The world of sense provides the theater of redemption for fallen creatures who range from angels through men to demons. By the incarnation the Logos is the mediator of redemption. He took to himself a human soul in a union that was a henosis.

It was, therefore, proper to say that the Son of God was born an infant, that he died (De princ. II. vi. 2-3). By teaching, by example, by offering himself a propitiatory victim to God, by paying the devil a ransom, Christ saves men. Men gradually free themselves from the earthy by meditation, by abstinence, by the vision of God. A purging fire may be needed in the process. Although this world is neither the first nor the last of a series, there will ultimately come the restoration of all things. Flesh, matter, will disappear, spirit only will remain, and God will be all in all. How long human freedom will retain the power of producing another catastrophe is not clear, but ultimately all will be confirmed in goodness by the power of God's love.
After Origen's departure from Alexandria his disciples diverged. One group tended to deny the eternal generation of the Logos. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (247-65), sympathized with this party and declared the Logos to be a creation of the Father, but the future in Alexandria belonged to the opposite wing, which emphasized the divine attributes of the Logos. The Sabellian party was strong in Cyrenaica and Libya, and this influence affected Alexandria. When the presbyter Arius began, perhaps about 317, to proclaim that the Logos was a creation in time, differing from the Father in being, he attracted disciples, but Bishop Alexander opposed Arius. As Emperor Constantine found it impossible to restore harmony by exhortation and influence, he called for a general meeting of bishops. The resulting Council of Nicaea in 325 was attended by an Alexandrian delegation which included the deacon Athanasius. For the remaining years of his life Athanasius was to champion the Nicene conclusion that the Son was homoousios with the Father. The adoption of this term in spite of its checkered Gnostic and Sabellian background was a work of providential genius.

In 328 Athanasius succeeded Alexander as the Alexandrian bishop. In spite of some dictatorial tendencies he possessed a superb combination of the talents of a successful administrator with great depths of theological insight. From this time on, Alexandria emphasized vigorously the identity in being of the Father and the Son. Athanasius presented, in his On the Incarnation of the Logos, the indispensability of the union of true God with true man for the Christian doctrine of salvation through the life and death of Christ. Wholly God and wholly man the Saviour must be. Through many false charges and five periods of exile Athanasius maintained his insistence upon one God, Father and Son of the same substance, the church the institute of salvation, not subject to the interference of the civil state. Athanasius also set forth the view that the Spirit is homoousios likewise with the Father and the Son, thus preparing the way for the formula miaousia, treis hypostaseis.

That Christ need not be wholly divine and wholly human was a view which Apollinaris of Laodicea did not succeed in fastening upon Alexandria in spite of his efforts in that direction. His view that the pneuma of the Logos replaced the human spirit was rejected. His emphasis upon the unity of the personality of Christ, however, became increasingly an Alexandrian emphasis and was strongly stressed by Cyril, who became bishop in 412. The Logos took a full human nature upon himself, but the result was henosis physike, and Cyril loved the formula miaphysis, one even though originally ek duo. The incarnation was to the end of salvation. God became man that we might become God.

Cyril supported this by allegorical exposition of the Scripture of both testaments, especially the Pentateuch. The phenomenal allegory of the facts is designed to yield the noumenal meaning. His most famous writing is his series of twelve anathemas against Nestorius, attacking what appeared to him to be denials of the unity and full deity of Christ and of the crucifixion and resurrection of the Word. In 433 Cyril accepted, with the Antioch leaders, a profession of faith which declared that a unity of the two natures of Christ had come into existence (henosis gegone) and used the term for which Cyril had so vigorously contended against Nestorius, Theotokos, as a description of the Virgin Mary.

Dioscurus continued the Cyrillian emphasis on unity in the person of Christ but pushed it to an extreme. At the Council of Chalcedon (451) the Alexandrian radicals suffered defeat with the adoption in the Chalcedonian Definition of the phrase en dyo physesin. The final Alexandrian tendencies produced schism after Chalcedon. The great bulk of Egyptian Christendom rejected Chalcedon and became monophysite. Monothelitism proved to be only a temporary enthusiasm in Alexandria. The arrival of Islamic rule ended it.

The Alexandrian school with its Platonic emphasis was the popular school of its time. In its more moderate form it set the Christological pattern for many centuries. The love of allegorical interpretation was characteristic. The intervention of the divine in the temporal was stressed, and the union of the natures of Christ with over-riding emphasis on the divine component was dangerously accented.

P Woolley(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyE. R. Hardy, Jr., Christian Egypt; E. Molland, The Conception of the Gospel in the Alexandrian Theology; E. F. Osborn, The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria; R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria; J. Danielou, Origen; A. Robertson, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, NPNF 2nd series, IV; J.E.L. Oulton and H. Chadwick, eds., Alexandrian Christianity; E. R. Hardy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers, LCC, III; R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies; C. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria; R. B. Tollinton, Alexandrian Teaching on the Universe.

With kind permision: Believe

Agape

2008-07-10T10:10:00.000-07:00

General Information
Agape is a Greek word translated in the New Testament of the Bible as "love" or "charity." Agape is ranked by Christian moral theologians with faith and hope as a basic virtue, and Saint Paul called it the greatest of the virtues.

The name agape was given, also, to an early Christian love feast, an evening communal meal held in connection with the Lord's Supper. Its origin is found in the chaburah, a fellowship meal of late Judaism. If, as is probable, the chaburah was observed by Jesus and his disciples, its adoption by the young Christian church was entirely natural. At the agape, food brought by the people was solemnly blessed in advance of the repast. The Eucharist (consecration of bread and wine) either preceded or followed the agape. About the beginning of the 2nd century the Eucharist was detached from the communal meal and transferred to the early morning. The agape lingered in some Christian communities until the 3rd century

Love / Agape
Asked which is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40; cf. Mark 12:2-31; Luke 10:26-27). According to Mark 12:31 Jesus stated that there is no other command greater than these two commands. Hence, love is of preeminent importance in the Bible.

Biblical Terms
OT
There are many Hebrew words to express the concept of love. By far the most prominent one (used over two hundred times) is the verb aheb, denoting both divine and human love as well as love toward inanimate objects such as food (Gen. 27:4), wisdom (Prov. 4:6), sleep (Prov. 20:13), agriculture (II Chr. 26:10), and the good (Amos 5:15). The noun ahaba (used about thirty times) is used primarily of human love, as seen in its frequent use in Song of Solomon, although it is also used of divine love (Isa. 63:9; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; Zeph. 3:17). Another frequently used word (over forty times), the noun dod, has the sexual sense of a man being addressed as "lover" or "beloved"; it is frequently used in the Song of Solomon (e.g., 1:13, 14, 16; 2:3). Finally, there is the often used noun, hesed, which is translated most of the time as "mercy" in the AV, "steadfast love" in the RSV, "lovingkindness" in the NASB, and "love" in the NIV, all of which have the idea of loyal covenantal love.

NT
There are several words for love in the Greek language, but only two are used with any frequency in the NT. Although not prominent in prebiblical Greek, the verb agapao/noun agape is the most common NT word for love. This verb/noun combination is the most frequently used in the LXX in translating aheb/ahabah. Basically it is a self-giving love that is not merited. The second most frequently used word for love in the NT is the verb phileo. It is the most common word for love in prebiblical Greek, but it is not often used in the LXX. Although this word overlaps with agapao/agape, it is a love with affection in connection with friendship. Its derivatives such as philos, friend (used twenty-nine times), and philia, friendship (used only in James 4:4), support this connotation. It is a love that is warm and merited. Two common Greek words for love are never used in the NT: storge, having the idea of family love or affection, as borne out by the negative adjective astorgos used only in Rom. 1:31 and II Tim. 3:3; and eros, expressing a possessive love and used mainly of physical love. In contrast to agape, "eros has two principal characteristics: it is a love of the worthy and it is a love that desires to possess. Agape is in contrast at both points: it is not a love of the worthy, and it is not a love that desires to possess. On the contrary, it is a love given quite irrespective of merit, and it is a love that seeks to give" (Leon Morris, Testaments of Love, p. 128). Although eros does not always have a bad connotation, certainly agapao/agape is far more lofty in that it seeks the highest good in the one loved, even though that one may be undeserving, and hence its prominence in the Bible can be understood. Love of God

The Attribute of Love
God in his very essence is described as being not only holy (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; I Pet. 1:16), spirit (John 4:24), light (I John 1:5), and a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29); God is also love (I John 4:8, 16). God does not need to attain nor attempt to maintain love; it is the very substance and nature of God. Bultmann rightly states: "The sentence cannot be reversed to read, 'Love is God.' In that case, 'love' would be presupposed as a universal human possibility, from which a knowledge of the nature of God could be derived" (The Johannine Epistles, p. 66). It is from this very essence of God's being that the activity of love springs. The Activity of Love
This comes from God's nature of love. "To say, 'God is love' implies that all His activity is loving activity. If He creates, He creates in love; if He rules, He rules in love; if He judges, He judges in love" (C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, p. 110). (1) Love within the Godhead. For man to understand love, he must perceive its activity within the Godhead. Many verses speak of the Father's love for the Son; however, only John 14:31 explicitly states that Jesus loved the Father. Certainly other passages imply Jesus' love for the Father. Love is demonstrated by the keeping of commandments (John 14:31; cf. vss. 15, 21, 23). Christ alone has seen the Father (John 3:11, 32; 6:46) and known him (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15). They are united to one another (John 10:30, 38; 14:10-11, 20; 17:21-23). Although there are no verses that speak explicitly of the Holy Spirit's love for the other two persons of the Trinity, it is implied in John 16:13-15, where Jesus says that the Spirit will not speak from himself, as Jesus did not speak from himself (John 12:49; 14:10), but will speak and disclose what he hears from Christ and the Father. There is, therefore, a demonstration of love within the Godhead.

(2) Love toward man. In the OT the expression of God's love for man is indicated in four ways. First, the simple statement of God's love for man is given in a few places (e.g., Deut. 10:18; 33:3; I Kings 10:9; Isa. 43:4; 63:9; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 14:4; Zeph. 3:17). Second, there is God's electing love for the nation of Israel (e.g., Deut. 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Hos. 3:1; 11:1, 4; Mal. 1:2). Third, there is the covenant love, which is a loyal or steadfast love (hesed; e.g., Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9, 12; I Kings 8:23; II Chr. 6:14; Neh. 1:5; 9:32; Ps. 89:28; Dan. 9:4). This love is readily seen in Ps. 106:45: "And he remembered his covenant for their sake, and relented according to the greatness of his loving kindness." God's covenant with Israel gives assurance of his love toward them (Isa. 54:10). Finally, there are a few references that speak specifically of God's love toward individuals (e.g., Solomon in II Sam. 12:24 and Neh. 13:26; Ezra in Ezra 7:28; Cyrus [?] in Isa. 48:14). Although the OT references to God's love toward man are not many, there are a sufficient number from various portions of the OT to adequately confirm it.

The NT is replete with references of God's love for man. A central passage demonstrating this is I John 4:10: "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The demonstration of God's love for man is seen in each of the persons of the Trinity. Those who keep Christ's commandments evidence their love for him and they are loved by the Father (John 14:21, 23; 16:27). As the Father loves Christ, so also he loves the believer (John 17:23). The love of the Father for the believer is assured (Eph. 6:23; II Thess. 2:16; I John 3:1). When God is mentioned, it almost invariably refers to the Father. This is emphasized when some gift or blessing given to the believer is also mentioned, because the gift is usually his Son (e.g., John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; I John 4:9-10, 16) or the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). There are many references to Christ's love for man. While on earth Christ loved Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (John 11:3, 5, 36). There is his love for John the apostle (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) and for the disciples as a group (John 13:34; 14:21; 15:9, 12). Christ's death is the evidence of his love for the believer (II Cor. 5:14; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2; I Tim. 1:14-15; I John 3:16). In his ascension there is an assurance of his love for believers individually (Rom. 8:35, 37; Eph. 6:23) as well as the church as a body (Eph. 5:25). Finally, the Holy Spirit's love for the believer is mentioned in Rom. 15:30.

In conclusion, the love of God toward man is seen throughout the Bible. It is a love that is unselfish and unmerited. The epitome of this is seen in God's love for sinners who were his enemies and deserved nothing except his wrath, but instead he sent Christ to die for them in order that they might become the sons of God (Rom. 5:6-11; II Cor. 5:14-21). It is God's love that serves as a basis for man's love.

Love of Men
With the entrance of sin man has become a hater and enemy of God (Rom. 1:30; 5:10; John 15:18, 24-25). But because God initiated his love by sending his Son, believers are exhorted, on the basis of God's own love, to love one another (I John 4:10-11, 19). The source of this love is God (I John 4:7-9) and not man. This is substantiated in Gal. 5:22, where it is seen as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. The words immediately following love, "joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control", further describe the character of love rather than other fruit of the Spirit, for the "fruit" and the verb are singular and the context is about love (cf. VSS. 5, 13, 14). This is further confirmed when one analyzes the love chapter (I Cor. 13) and notices that the words used to describe love are the same or similar words as used in Gal. 5:22-23 (many times the noun form in Gal. 5 is the verb form in I Cor. 13). In these passages love is described as being unselfish and sacrificial with no condition of expecting the same in return. It is love that is given and not deserved. God's love is so, and man having experienced God's love is to exhibit this in two directions, namely, toward God and toward man. This is what is commanded in the Bible (Matt. 22: 37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:26-27).

Love Toward God
In the OT God commands man to love God with his whole being (Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 30:6, 16; Josh. 22:5; 23:11; Ps. 31:23), and there are a few explicit references indicating man's love for God (I Kings 3:3; Pss. 5:11; 18:1; 91:14; 116:1; Isa. 56:6). In the NT outside of Jesus' quoting the OT command to love God (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30, 33; Luke 10:27) there are no explicit commands for man to love God (possibly I Cor. 16:22; II Thess. 3:5). Only a few passages are concerned with man's response of love toward God (John 21:15-17; I Pet. 1:8; I John 5:2; cf. I John 4:20-21). The references to man's love toward God are comparatively few possibly because it would seem normal for man to love God, who has done so much for him, and because man has experienced God's love. However, the command to love God is important because it shows that God is approachable and desires the dynamic relationship involved in love.

Love Toward Man
The two greatest commandments indicate that man is to love his fellow man as well as God. Although there are not many verses that speak of man's love for God, the Scriptures abound with statements of man's love toward his fellows. This is seen in four ways. (1) Love for neighbor. The command to love one's neighbor is stated often, first in Lev. 19:18, which is then quoted several times in the NT (Matt. 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8). Paul states that love for the neighbor is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10). In giving the command to love one's neighbor, Jesus made it clear in the parable of the good Samaritan that one's neighbors are more than those who are acquaintances or of the same nationality (Luke 10:27-37). This is in keeping with the OT for Moses enjoined the Israelites to love the stranger or alien (Deut. 10:19). Man is to be concerned with other men as God is concerned with man. The command is to love the neighbor to the degree that one loves himself. Since man is basically selfish and is concerned about himself, he should have that same degree of concern for his neighbor.

(2) Love for one's fellow believer. In Gal. 6:10 Paul exhorts the believers to do good to all men and especially to those who are of the household of faith. The believer should love his neighbor, whoever that might be, but he must have a real and deep concern and love for those who are fellow believers. In the OT this is seen in Lev. 19:17-18, where the neighbor is the fellow countryman of the covenanted nation Israel or one who was of the same faith. In the NT, there is to be a definite love between believers. Jesus gave a new commandment: that the believers were to love one another as he had loved them (John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; cf. I John 3:23; 5:2; II John 5). The command to love one another was not new, but to love one another as Christ had loved them was a new command. This is further elaborated in I John. One who loves his brother abides in light (2:10) and God abides in him (4:12). In fact, one who does not love his brother cannot love God (4:20). The source of love is God (4:7), and because of God's love one should love his brother (3:11; 4:11).

Outside the Johannine literature there is the same command to love the brother in the faith (Eph. 5:2; I Thess. 4:9; 5:13; I Tim. 4:12; Heb. 10:24; 13:1; I Pet. 2:17). This was to be done fervently (Rom. 12:10; I Pet. 1:22; 4:8) and with forbearance (Eph. 4:2), serving one another (Gal. 5:13). Paul loved the believers (I Cor. 16:24; II Cor. 2:4; 11:11; 12:15) and was happy when he heard of the saints' love for one another (Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4; II Thess. 1:3; Philem. 5; cf. Heb. 6:10). Hence one sees that love for the brother was a dominant theme in the early church. It was evidence to the world that they were truly the disciples of Christ (John 13:35).
(3) Love for family. The Scriptures have a few commands and ample illustrations of love within the family. Husbands are commanded to love their wives (Col. 3:19) as Christ loves the church (Eph. 5:25-33; cf. Eccles. 9:9; Hos. 3:1). The love of the husband for the wife is seen in several accounts (Gen. 24:67; 29:18, 20, 30; II Chr. 11:21; Song of S. 4:10; 7:6). Only one time are wives commanded to love their husbands (Titus 2:4) and in only Song of S. is it mentioned (1:7; 3:1-4; 7:12). Certainly the wife's submission to the husband is evidence of her love for him (Eph. 5:22-24; I Pet. 3:1-6). Also, only once is there a command for parents to love their children, specifically for young wives to love their children (Titus 2:4), but there are several illustrations of such love in the OT (Gen. 22:2; 25:28; 37:3; 44:20; Exod. 21:5). Interestingly, there is no command or example of children loving their parents. However, there is the oft-repeated command for children to honor and obey their parents, which would be evidence of their love for their parents (e.g., Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Prov. 1:8; Matt. 19:19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20). In conclusion, although not much is spoken about love within the natural family, it can be assumed that this love would be expected; anyone who does not take care of his family is considered a denier of the faith and worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8).
(4) Love for enemies. Jesus commanded his followers to love their enemies (Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-35). This love is demonstrated by blessing those who curse them, praying for those who mistreat them, and giving generously to them. This shows that love is more than friendship based on mutual admiration; it is an act of charity toward one who is hostile and has shown no lovableness. Jesus reminded the disciples that it is natural to love those who love them, but to love their enemies is a real act of charity; it is to be a mark of his disciples as opposed to those who are sinners or Gentiles. An example of this love is seen in God's love and kindness toward evil men by sending them sun and rain as he does for those who love him. The NT epistles reiterate that rather than seeking revenge, believers are to love those who hate and persecute them (Rom. 12:14, 17-21; I Thess. 5:15; I Pet. 3:9).

Conclusion
God in his very essence is love, hence love is expressed toward the underserving. John 3:16 states this unforgettably: though man has repudiated him God loves the world, and the extent of his love was the sacrifice of his own Son, Jesus Christ, who was willing to lay down his life. On the basis of God's love the believer is enjoined to love God, who is deserving, and to love his fellow man and even his enemy, who are underserving. God's love is not only basic but it continually extends to the underserving and unloving, as seen in his continuing love for the wayward believer in both the OT and NT. Thus there is a deep loyalty in God's love toward the undeserving, and this is the basis of God's command for man's love. Therefore, God's love is seeking the highest good in the one loved, and man is enjoined to seek the highest good or the will of God in the one loved. H W Hoehner(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyC. Brown, W. Gunther, and H.-G. Link, NIDNTT, II, 538-51; M. C. D'Arcy, The Mind and Heart of Love; V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the NT; V. R. Good, IDB, III, 164-68; W. Harrelson, "The Idea of Agape in the NT," JR 31:169-82; G. Johnston, IDB, III, 168-78; W. Klassen, IDB Supplement, 557-58; H. Montefiore, "Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself," NovT 5:157-70; L. Morris, Testaments of Love; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros; G. Outka, Agape: An Ethical Analysis; F. H. Palmer, NBC, 752-54; J. Piper, Love Your Enemies; G. Quell and E. Stauffer, TDNT, I, 21-55; O. J. F. Seitz, "Love Your Enemies," NTS 16: 39-54; M. H. Shepherd, Jr., IDB, I, 53-54; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the OT; C. Spicq, Agape in the NT, 3 vols.; G. Stahlin, TDNT, IX, 113-71; B. B. Warfield, "The Terminology of Love in the NT," PTR 16:1-45, 153-203; D. D. Williams, The Spirit and the Forms of Love.

Love Feast
Advanced Information In the NT
The brotherly love between Christians which was enjoined by Jesus (John 13:34; Gr. agape) found its expression in three practical ways. It was commonly exercised in almsgiving; hence on twenty-six occasions agape is translated in the AV "charity." In church gatherings and in Christian greetings it was displayed played by the kiss (I Pet. 5:14; see also Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26). And gradually the term came to be applied to a common meal shared by believers. Although these meals are called agapai only in Jude 12 and possibly II Pet. 2:13, where there is a variant reading of agapais for apatais ("deceivings"), there is a considerable amount of other evidence for their existence in the early church. In Acts 2:42-47 there is an account of the early form of "communism" practiced by the believers, which includes breaking bread from house to house and eating their meat (Gr. trophe) with gladness and singleness of heart. The first phrase may refer to the administration of the Lord's Supper, but the second obviously indicates a full meal. Similar "communistic" behavior is mentioned in Acts 4:32. By the time of Acts 6:1ff. the increase of disciples in the Jerusalem church led to the appointment of the seven to serve tables, which presumably refers to the responsibility for arranging the common meals. R. L. Cole (Love-Feasts, A History of the Christian Agape) suggests that this number was selected in order that each one might be responsible for a different day of the week. This arrangement arose from the complaint of the hellenists that their windows were being neglected, and so would indicate that already these common meals were being held for charitable purposes, as was indeed the custom later.

When Paul was at Troas (Acts 20:6-12) there took place on the first day of the week both a "breaking of bread" and a full meal (which idea is contained in the verb geusamenos, used here for eating, cf. Acts 10:10). Both here and in 2:42 it is difficult to determine whether the phrase "breaking of bread" denotes a common meal or is a more restricted reference to the Lord's Supper: whenever these words occur together in the Gospels they describe the action of Jesus (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35). Certainly by the time of Paul's writing to the Corinthians (ca. A.D. 55) it is evident that that church observed the practice of meeting together for a common meal before partaking of the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11:17-34). This custom, however, does not appear to have been observed always in the spirit of agape, for the apostle complains that some make it an excuse for gluttony, while others go without: in vs. 21 to idion deipnon may refer to the fact that they refused to pool their food, or that from such a pool each took as much as possible for himself. At all events the situation described here is possible only in the context of a meal more substantial than, and preceding, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

Various theories have been put forward suggesting that the agape was a development from pagan guilds or Jewish common meals, or that it was necessitated by the common desire to avoid meats offered to idols. From the fact that most early Christian paintings found in the catacombs depicting the agape show seven persons partaking, Cole argues that the custom developed from the incident on the shore of Tiberias, where Jesus shared the breakfast meal with seven of his disciples (John 21), and that the conversation with Peter on that occasion supplied the title of agape for this meal. It is equally possible that the meal may have arisen from a desire to perpetuate the table fellowship which the apostles had enjoyed during their Lord's earthly life, and that later, as the church grew and communal living became impossible, the common meal was continued before the Lord's Supper in an effort to place the receiving of that sacrament in its historical context. The fact that the Johannine account points to the giving of the new commandment of mutual agape at that meal (John 13:34) would be sufficient reason for the application of that name to the rite.

In Church History
Ignatius (Smyr. 8:2) refers to the agape, as does the Didache (x.1 and xi.9), the latter suggesting that it still preceded the Eucharist. By the time of Tertullian (Apology xxxix; De Jejuniis xvii; De Corona Militis iii) the Eucharist was celebrated early and the agape later at a separate service, and this may be the practice referred to by Pliny in his letter to Trajan (Epistles x.96), though his information is not altogether clear. Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogos ii. 1 and Stromata iii.2) gives evidence also of the separation of the two observances. Chrysostom (Homily xxvii on I Cor. 11:17) agrees with the order mentioned by Tertullian, but while he calls the agape "a custom most beautiful and beneficial; for it was a supporter of love, a solace of poverty, and a discipline of humility," he does add that by his day it had become corrupt. In times of persecution the custom grew up of celebrating agapai in prison with condemned martyrs on the eve of their execution (see the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas xvii.1, and Lucian De Morte Peregrini xii), whence developed the practice of holding commemorative agapai on the anniversaries of their deaths, and these gave rise to the feasts and vigils which are observed today. Agapai also took place on the occasion of weddings (Gregory of Nazianzus Epistles i.14) and funerals (Apostolic Constitutions viii.42). During the fourth century the agape became increasingly the object of disfavor, apparently because of disorders at the celebration and also because problems were raised by the expanding membership of the church, and an increasing emphasis was being placed on the Eucharist. Augustine mentions its disuse (Ep. ad Aurelium xxii.4; see also Confessions vi.2), and Canons 27 and 28 of the Council of Laodicea (363) restricted the abuses. The Third Council of Carthage (393) and the Second Council of Orleans (541) reiterated this legislation, which prohibited feasting in churches, and the Trullan Council of 692 decreed that honey and milk were not to be offered on the altar (Canon 57), and that those who held love feasts in churches should be excommunicated (Canon 74).
There is evidence that bread and wine (Didache), vegetables and salt (Acts of Paul and Thecla xxv), fish (catacomb paintings), meat, poultry, cheese, milk, and honey (Augustine, contra Faustum xx.20), and pultes, "a pottage" (Augustine), were consumed on different occasions at the agape.

In Modern Times
In the Eastern Church the rite has persisted, and is still observed in sections of the Orthodox Church, where it precedes the Eucharist, and in the Church of St. Thomas in India. From the Eastern Church it was continued through the Church of Bohemia to John Hus and the Unitas Fratrum, whence it was adopted by the Moravians. From them John Wesley introduced the practice within Methodism (see references in his Journal), and it is occasionally observed today in Methodist churches. In the Anglican Prayer Book of 1662 the only survival is probably the collection of alms for the poor during the Communion service, but the practice of the sovereign's distribution of Maundy money is a relic of the agape, and in this connection it is interesting that the epistle appointed for Maundy Thursday is I Cor. 11:17-34. A modern attempt to revive the custom can be seen in the increasing practice of holding a "parish breakfast" following the early Communion service, and experiments at using the agape as an opportunity for interdenominational fellowship are described by Frank Baker in Methodism and the Love-Feast. D H Wheaton(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

See also LORD'S SUPPER.
BibliographyD. Leclerq in Dictionnaire d'archelogie Chretienne; J. F. Keating, The Agape and the Eucharist in the Early Church; P. Battifol, Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive; J. C. Lambert, Sacraments in the NT.

Lovingkindness
General Information The translation of the Hebrew word hesed in the AV and ASV. The AV also followed the equivalent given in the Latin translation (misericordia), which is preceded by the usage of the LXX ("mercy"). Modern versions render hesed by "steadfast love," "unfailing love," "lovingkindness," and "love" (cf. RSV, NIV). The word hesed is found approximately 250 times in the Hebrew OT, and of these there are 125 instances in the Psalms.
The nature of the God of Israel is love. Even when Israel has sinned, they are assured that Yahweh is full of lovingkindness (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Joel 2:13; Ps. 86:5, 15), on which basis he can and does forgive the sin of his repentant people. The assurance of lovingkindness is given in the legal framework of the covenant. God's love is a distinctive love. Yahweh has promised to be loyal to Abraham and his descendants (Deut. 7:12). The relation between lovingkindness as an expression of commitment (loyalty) and truth ('emet) expressing faithfullness is so close that the words occur next to each other some sixteen times: hesed we'emet (Pss. 25:10; 89:14; cf. vs. 25 with 'emuna, "faithfulness"). The God of the covenant shows his convenantal faithfulness by his loving commitment to his people, regardless of their responsiveness or righteousness (Deut. 7: 7-8). As such, lovingkindness can be a synonym for covenant (Deut. 7:9, 12). The blessings are generally described as the divine benefits (Deut. 7:13-16). Hence, lovingkindness is not a mere relational term; it is active. The God who loves showers his benefits on his covenant people. He is active ('asa) in his love (Ps. 18:50; Deut. 5:10). His lovingkindness also finds expression in righteousness. Righteousness as a correlative to lovingkindness guarantees the ultimate triumph and reward of God's people, and also contains a warning that Yahweh does not tolerate sin, even though he may forbear for a long time. The quality of lovingkindness is also assured by its durability. It is from generation to generation (Exod. 34:7). Twenty-six times we are told that "his lovingkindness is forever" (cf. Pss. 106:1; 107:1; 118: 1-4; 136). He remembers his love, even when he for a period has withdrawn it in order to discipline (Ps. 98:3).

On the other hand, the God who is love also expects his people to be sanctified by demonstrating lovingkindness to their covenant God and to their fellow men. The call for a commitment of love to God finds expression in Deut. 6:5, and was repeated by our Lord (Matt. 22:37). Man's response to God's lovingkindness is love. On a horizontal plane the believer is called upon to show both lovingkindness (as David did, II Sam. 9:1, 3, 7) and love (Lev. 19:18, cf. Matt. 22:39). In man's response to lovingkindness and all that it entails, he shows that he belongs to the Heavenly Father (Matt. 5:44-48).

W A Van Gemeren(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyN. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the OT; L. J. Kuyper, "Grace and Truth," RR 16:1-16; N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible; K. D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible.

Lovingkindness
Advanced Information Lovingkindness is the translation of the Hebrew word hesed in the AV and ASV. The AV also followed the equivalent given in the Latin translation (misericordia), which is preceded by the usage of the LXX ("mercy"). Modern versions render hesed by "steadfast love," "unfailing love," "lovingkindness," and "love" (cf. RSV, NIV). The word hesed is found approximately 250 times in the Hebrew OT, and of these there are 125 instances in the Psalms.

The nature of the God of Israel is love. Even when Israel has sinned, they are assured that Yahweh is full of lovingkindness (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Joel 2:13; Ps. 86:5, 15), on which basis he can and does forgive the sin of his repentant people. The assurance of lovingkindness is given in the legal framework of the covenant. God's love is a distinctive love. Yahweh has promised to be loyal to Abraham and his descendants (Deut. 7:12). The relation between lovingkindness as an expression of commitment (loyalty) and truth ('emet) expressing faithfullness is so close that the words occur next to each other some sixteen times: hesed we'emet (Pss. 25:10; 89:14; cf. vs. 25 with 'emuna, "faithfulness"). The God of the covenant shows his convenantal faithfulness by his loving commitment to his people, regardless of their responsiveness or righteousness (Deut. 7: 7-8). As such, lovingkindness can be a synonym for covenant (Deut. 7:9, 12). The blessings are generally described as the divine benefits (Deut. 7:13-16). Hence, lovingkindness is not a mere relational term; it is active. The God who loves showers his benefits on his covenant people. He is active ('asa) in his love (Ps. 18:50; Deut. 5:10). His lovingkindness also finds expression in righteousness. Righteousness as a correlative to lovingkindness guarantees the ultimate triumph and reward of God's people, and also contains a warning that Yahweh does not tolerate sin, even though he may forbear for a long time. The quality of lovingkindness is also assured by its durability. It is from generation to generation (Exod. 34:7). Twenty-six times we are told that "his lovingkindness is forever" (cf. Pss. 106:1; 107:1; 118: 1-4; 136). He remembers his love, even when he for a period has withdrawn it in order to discipline (Ps. 98:3).

On the other hand, the God who is love also expects his people to be sanctified by demonstrating lovingkindness to their covenant God and to their fellow men. The call for a commitment of love to God finds expression in Deut. 6:5, and was repeated by our Lord (Matt. 22:37). Man's response to God's lovingkindness is love. On a horizontal plane the believer is called upon to show both lovingkindness (as David did, II Sam. 9:1, 3, 7) and love (Lev. 19:18, cf. Matt. 22:39). In man's response to lovingkindness and all that it entails, he shows that he belongs to the Heavenly Father (Matt. 5:44-48).

W A Van Gemeren(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyN. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the OT; L. J. Kuyper, "Grace and Truth," RR 16:1-16; N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible; K. D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible.

With kind permision: Believe

Adventism

2008-07-10T09:31:00.000-07:00

General Information
Adventists are members of various Christian groups who believe that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent. Their millennial hopes (Millenarianism) were aroused by the preaching of William Miller (1782 - 1849). On the basis of a detailed examination of the Bible, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation, Miller predicted that Mar. 21, 1844, and later that Oct. 22, 1844, would be the day when Christ would return in glory and the Earth would be cleansed by fire, ushering in the millennium - a 1,000 year reign of righteousness and peace before the Last Judgment. When the time passed without event, many believers drifted away.

The faithful remnant of Millerites coalesced into several religious bodies, the most important of which are the Seventh day Adventists and the Advent Christian Church. Leaders of the former group had been influenced by Sabbatarian Baptists; thus, in that denomination, Saturday rather than Sunday is kept as the Sabbath. Seventh day Adventists are noted for their millennialism and Sabbatarianism.

BibliographyP G Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh day Adventists: Message and Mission (1977); E S Gaustad, ed., The Rise of Adventism (1975); A A Hoekema, Seventh-day Adventism (1974); G Land, ed., Adventism in America (1986); R L Numbers and J M Butler, eds., The Disappointed (1987); E Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800 - 1930 (1970). Adventism

Advanced Information
Adventism is the belief that Christ's personal second coming is imminent and will inaugurate his millennial kingdom and the end of the age. Chiliasm, apocalypticism, and millennialism are cognate theological terms. Adventism in this general sense has been espoused by many diverse groups throughout Christian history (e.g., Montanists, Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy Men, Plymouth Brethren and other premillennialists, and Jehovah's Witnesses).
Adventism is most commonly used, however, to denote the movement which sprang up in the 1830s from the teachings of William Miller, a Baptist minister in New York. Miller confidently prophesied the imminent return of Christ and set 1843 - 44 as the time for the event. The Millerite movement spread rapidly among the churches of the Northeast.

When the expected return did not occur as Miller originally had predicted, a reinterpretation of the Scripture set Oct. 22, 1844, as the correct date. The faithful met in their local gathering places on the appointed day worshipping and waiting. The "Great Disappointment" which followed the failure of the prophecy led many Millerites to forsake the movement and slip back into the churches from which they had never formally dissociated themselves. Miller himself acknowledged his error and dissociated himself from the movement and all further attempts to redeem it.
A series of new signs, visions, and prophecies, however, fed the lagging spirits of those who refused to give up their adventist hopes. As early as the day following the Great Disappointment, Hiram Edson, an adventist leader, had a vision which confirmed the prophetic significance of the Oct. 22, 1844, date, but indicated that it marked a heavenly rather than an earthly event. On that day Christ had moved into the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary to begin a new phase of his ministry of redemption. That ministry was ultimately defined in the adventist doctrine of investigative judgment; Christ entered the sanctuary to review the deeds of professing Christians to determine whose names should be included in the Book of Life. Other revelations subsequent to the Great Disappointment came to Ellen G Harmon, a young disciple of Miller in Portland, Maine.

She was quickly accepted as a prophetess and her teachings were accepted as authoritative. The revived movement also adopted sabbatarianism and the belief that the acceptance of the seventh day sabbath was the mark of the true church. Seventh day observance and Christ's ministry of investigative judgment, confirmed by the prophetic revelation of Mrs. Ellen (Harmon) White, completed the foundations of contemporary adventism. Most adventist groups also adhere to belief in soul sleep and annihilation of the wicked. Their strong emphasis on OT teaching also led to a strong traditional concern for diet and health.

Two major adventist bodies represent the movement today, the Advent Christian Church and the numerically predominant Seventh-day Adventists. They vary somewhat in their adherence to the adventist doctrines outlined above. The Seventh-day Adventists traditionally have been identified as a cult among Christian churches. Such classification results from the contention by Christian theologians that the authority which the church grants to Mrs. White's prophecies compromises the finality of scriptural revelation. They further charge that the doctrine of investigative judgment compromises the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone and leads to an assurance of salvation based on perfect obedience rather than faith.

In recent years, however, Seventh day Adventist theologians have tended to regard Mrs. White's prophecies as subject to judgment by the canonical Scriptures and have put forth a more evangelical understanding of justification by faith. As a result some evangelical leaders, although by no means all, have begun to include the Seventh-day Adventists within the pale of orthodoxy. This division of opinion as to the theological stance of the movement is echoed within the group itself by the intense theological debate of these issues in recent years.

The Seventh day Adventist Church has experienced rapid growth in the post World War II period. This church, however, still tends to keep to itself among Christian denominations. It has consistently kept the education of its children under its own auspices. The Adventists have been especially well known for their health care ministries. Their traditional dietary concerns, including their proscription of coffee and tea and their advocacy of vegetarianism, predated by many decades other contemporary movements in these areas.

The centrality of the events surrounding the return of Christ in the premillennialism which became so critical in the development of the fundamentalist movement and the contemporary emphasis upon the imminent second coming of Christ in evangelical churches in general show the continuing significance of general adventism in the Christian tradition.

M E Dieter

(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyP G Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh day Adventist Message and Mission; L E Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers; W Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults; F D Nichol, The Midnight Cry; G Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism; Seventh Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine; A A Hoekema, The Four Major Cults.

With kind permision: Believe

Advent

2008-07-08T08:16:00.000-07:00

General Information
A Christian liturgical season, Advent is the period of preparation for both Christmas and the Second Coming of Christ. It extends over the four Sundays preceding Christmas. Festivities are discouraged, and the solemn character of the period is demonstrated by the use of purple vestments. Fasting was formerly prescribed. The first Sunday of Advent marks the beginning of the church year.

Advent
Advanced Information Advent (adventus, coming, arrival) is the season of the ecclesiastical year when the church prepares to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ (Christmas) and engages in self-examination in expectation of his second coming in glory to judge the living and the dead. The collects and Scripture readings embrace these two themes. It begins in the West on the Sunday nearest to St. Andrew's Day (Nov. 30) and always includes four Sundays. However, in the East the period is longer, beginning earlier in November. During the Middle Ages and earlier the period was marked by discipline and fasting (based on "watch and pray"), but in modern times this emphasis has not been prominent.

P Toon
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyA. A. Arthur, The Evolution of the Christian Year.

With kind permision: Believe

Adoptionism

2008-07-08T08:14:00.000-07:00

General Information
Adoptionism, or adoptianism, was a theological doctrine propounded in the 8th century by a Spanish bishop, Elipandus of Toledo. Concerned to distinguish between the divine and human natures of Christ, Elipandus held that in his divinity Christ was the son of God by nature, but in his humanity by adoption only. The doctrine was opposed by the English scholar Alcuin and condemned as heresy by the Council of Frankfurt (794). Similar views were held by Paul of Samosata and the followers of Monarchianism.
BibliographyH Belloc, Great Heresies (1938).

Adoptionism
Advanced Information Put most simply, adoptionism is the theory that Jesus was in nature a man who became God by adoption.

The earliest extant work which expresses this position is the Shepherd of Hermas, thought to be written by the brother of the bishop of Rome about A D 150. It taught that the Redeemer was a virtuous man chosen by God, and with him the Spirit of God was united. He did the work to which God had called him; in fact, he did more than was commanded. Therefore he was by divine decree adopted as a son and exalted to great power and lordship. Adherents of this Christology who were declared heretics in the third century asserted it had at one time been the dominant view in Rome and that it had been handed down by the apostles.
This view was perpetuated in the second and third century church by the dynamistic monarchians, who taught that Christ was a mere man on whom the power of God came and who was then adopted or constituted the Son of God. A leader in that general movement was Theodotus, who came to Rome from Byzantium about 190. He taught that Jesus was a man who was born of a virgin through the operation of the Holy Spirit. After the piety of his life had been tested, the Holy Spirit descended on him at the baptism. By this means he became Christ and received the power for his special ministry. But he was still not fully God; that was achieved through resurrection. Theodotus was excommunicated by the Roman Church, and the effort of his followers to found a separate church early in the third century had little success.
Adoptionism was an attempt to explain the divine and human natures in Christ and their relation to each other. And as the great Christological debates raged during the fourth and fifth centuries, there were always a few who could be accused of taking this position. It did not flare again extensively, however, until the latter part of the eighth century, when it produced a commotion in the Spanish and Frankish churches.

Elipandus, bishop of Toledo from c. 780, in his writings on the Trinity expressed the view that Christ was an adopted son; Felix, bishop of Urgel in the Pyrenees, taught a similar position soon thereafter. Numerous local churchmen opposed them; and their teachings were condemned by three synods under Charlemagne, who assumed the position of ruler of the church in his realm and who was concerned with its unity. Pope Adrian I also became involved, and the recantation of both men was obtained. They had a numerous following, however, and extensive efforts were required to bring these people back into the fold. The effects of the controversy lasted for decades in Toledo. Possibly remnants of the old Arian heresy contributed to the popularity of adoptionism at this time.
A sound refutation of adoptionism was never made, and leanings in that direction appeared in some scholastic writings during the late Middle Ages.

H F Vos
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyA Harnack, History of Dogma; A Hauck, S H E R K, I

With kind permision: Believe

Adoption (Religious)

2008-07-08T08:10:00.000-07:00

Advanced Information
Adoption is the giving to any one the name and place and privileges of a son who is not a son by birth. (1.) Natural. Thus Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses (Ex. 2:10), and Mordecai Esther (Esther 2:7). (2.) National. God adopted Israel (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 7:6; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). (3.) Spiritual. An act of God's grace by which he brings men into the number of his redeemed family, and makes them partakers of all the blessings he has provided for them. Adoption represents the new relations into which the believer is introduced by justification, and the privileges connected therewith, viz., an interest in God's peculiar love (John 17:23; Rom. 5:5-8), a spiritual nature (2 Pet. 1:4; John 1:13), the possession of a spirit becoming children of God (1 Pet. 1:14; 2 John 4; Rom. 8:15-21; Gal. 5:1; Heb. 2:15), present protection, consolation, supplies (Luke 12:27-32; John 14:18; 1 Cor. 3:21-23; 2 Cor. 1:4), fatherly chastisements (Heb. 12:5-11), and a future glorious inheritance (Rom. 8:17,23; James 2:5; Phil. 3:21).

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Adoption (Religious)
Advanced Information A relatively infrequent term in the Scriptures, "adoption" is of theological importance, for it relates to how Israel and the Christian may be "sons" and "heirs" of God although they are not uniquely or by nature so, as in the case of Christ.

In the OT
The term "adoption" does not appear in the OT. There are no provisions for adoption in Israelite law, and the examples which do occur come from outside the Israelite culture (Eliezer, Gen. 15:1-4; Moses, Exod. 2:10; Genubath, 1 Kings 11:20; Esther, Esth. 2:7, 15). For the Israelites polygamy and levirate marriage were the more common solutions to infertility. Yet adoption was not unknown in their literature (cf. Prov. 17:2; 19:10; 29:21, which may all refer to adoption of slaves), and it may have been the means by which children fathered by a master on a slave mother inherited property (Gen. 16:1-4; 21:1-10; 30:1-13). Outside of Israel adoption was common enough to be regulated in the law codes of Babylon (e.g., Hammurabi's Code, sect. 185-86), Nuzi, and Ugarit. Not infrequently these refer to the adoption of a slave as an heir. For Israel as a whole there was a consciousness of having been chosen by God as his "son" (Hos. 11:1; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 3:19). Since Israel had no myth of descent from the gods as the surrounding cultures did, adoption was the obvious category into which this act, as well as the deliverance from slavery in Egypt, would fit, as Paul indicates in Rom. 9:4. Likewise the kings succeeding David were God's "son" (II Sam. 7:14; I Chr. 28:6; Ps. 89:19). Ps. 2:7, e.g., uses "You are my son," which is probably the adoption formula used in the enthronement ceremony of each successive Davidic ruler. Together these ideas laid the basis for later NT usage of adoption imagery.

In the NT
In the NT the term "adoption" (huiothesia) is strictly a Pauline idea, occurring only in Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; and Eph. 1:5. While John and Peter prefer the picture of regeneration to portray the Christian sonship, Paul has characteristically chosen a legal image (as in justification), perhaps due to his contact with the Roman world. In Greek and Roman society adoption was, at least among the upper classes, a relatively common practice. Unlike the oriental cultures in which slaves were sometimes adopted, these people normally limited adoption to free citizens. But, at least in Roman law, the citizen so adopted became a virtual slave, for he came under the paternal authority of his adoptive father. Adoption conferred rights, but it came with a list of duties as well.

Paul combines several of these pictures in his thought. While Gal. 4 begins with a picture of the law enslaving the heirs until a given date (e.g., majority or the death of the father), there is a shift in vs. 4 to the adoption image in which one who was truly a slave (not a minor as in vss. 1-3) becomes a son and thus an heir through redemption. The former slave, empowered by the Spirit, now uses the address of a son, "Abba! Father!"
The reason for adoption is given in Eph. 1:5: God's love. It was not due to his nature or merit that the Christian was adopted (and thus receives the Spirit and the inheritance, Eph. 1:14-15), but to God's will acting through Christ. Adoption is a free grant to undeserving people solely from God's grace.

As in Galatians and Ephesians, adoption is connected to the Spirit in Romans as well. It is those who are "led by the Spirit" who are sons, who have received the "spirit of sonship," not that of slavery (Rom. 8:14-15). Again the Spirit produces the cry "Abba!" and indicates by his presence the reality of the coming inheritance.

Adoption, however, is not entirely a past event. The legal declaration may have been made, and the Spirit may have been given as a down payment, but the consummation of the adoption awaits the future, for the adoption of sons includes "the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8:23). Thus adoption is something hoped for as well as something already possessed.
Adoption, then, is deliverance from the past (similar to regeneration and justification), a status and way of life in the present (walking by the Spirit, sanctification), and a hope for the future (salvation, resurrection). It describes the process of becoming a son of God (cf. John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2) and receiving an inheritance from God (cf. Col. 3:24).

P. H. Davids(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyJ. I. Cook, "The Concept of Adoption in the Theology of Paul," in Saved by Hope, ed. J. I. Cook; F. Lyall, "Roman Law in the Writings of Paul, Adoption," JBL 88:458-66; L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics; W. v. Martitz and E. Schweizer, TDNT, VIII, 397-99; W. H. Rossell, "New Testament Adoption, Graeco-Roman or Semitic?" JBL 71:233-34; D. J. Theron, "Adoption' in the Pauline Corpus," EvQ 28:6-14; J. van Seters, "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel," JBL 87:401-8.

With kind permision: Believe

Adiaphora, Adiaphorists

2008-07-08T08:00:00.000-07:00

Advanced Information
Adiaphora (Gk. "indifferent things"; German Mitteldinge, "middle matters") refers to matters not regarded as essential to faith which might therefore be allowed in the church. In particular the Lutheran confessions of the sixteenth century speak of adiaphora as "church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God."
Historically the Adiaphorists were those Protestants who, with Philip Melanchthon, held certain Roman Catholic practices (e.g., confirmation by bishops, fasting rules, etc.) to be tolerable for the sake of church unity. This issue became the focal point for a bitter controversy prompted by the Augsburg Interim forced on the Lutherans in 1548 by Emperor Charles V and accepted by Melanchthon and others in the Leipzing Interim. The Gnesio - Lutherans, led by Nicholas von Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius, objected to the presuppositions and judgments concerning adiaphora that led the Saxon theologians (the "Philippists") to forge the Leipzig Interim. The "Gnesios" set down the basic principle that in a case where confession of faith is demanded, where ceremonies or adiaphora are commanded as necessary, where offense may be given, adiaphora do not remain adiaphora but become matters of moral precept.

Those who supported the Interims argued that it was better to compromise appearances in terms of rites and customs than to risk the abolition of Lutheranism in Saxony. Although the controversy over the Interims became unnecessary after the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555, the dispute continued, and nearly two hundred tracts appeared discussing one stance or the other.

In 1577 the Formula of Concord brought an end to the question for Lutherans by setting forth three fundamental points concerning the nature of genuine adiaphora. First, genuine adiaphora is defined as ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word and not as such, or in and of themselves, divine worship or any part of it (Matt. 15:9). This evangelical principle is integral to the very cornerstone of Reformation theology; it cuts off at the source all false claims of human tradition and authority in the church. The second major point about genuine adiaphora is that the church does have the perfect right and authority to alter them so long as this is done without offense, in an orderly manner, so as to rebound to the church's edification (Rom. 14; Acts 16, 21).

The third assertion goes to the heart of the entire matter: at a time of confession, when the enemies of God's Word seek to suppress the pure proclamation of the gospel, one must confess fully, in word and deed, and not yield, even in adiaphora. Here it is not a question of accommodating oneself to the weak, but of resisting idolatry, false doctrine, and spiritual tyranny (Col. 2; Gal. 2, 5). In sum, the Formula of Concord's position included adiaphora within the domain of Christian liberty, which may be defined as consisting of the freedom of believers from the curse (Gal. 3:13) and coercion (Rom. 6:14) of the law and from human ordinances. This liberty is the direct result of justification (1 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 10:4).
Outside the Lutheran tradition more rigid forms of Protestantism developed, such as the English Puritans, who tended to hold that everything not explicitly allowed in the Bible was forbidden. Others, such as the Anglican communion, were less stringent and regarded many traditional practices, though without scriptural warrant, as adiaphora. Adiaphoristic debates continued to develop periodically. In 1681 a controversy arose between Lutherans regarding participation in amusements.

J F Johnson
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyR Preus and W Rosin, eds., A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord.

With kind permision: Believe

Adam

2008-07-08T07:54:00.000-07:00

General Information
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man. His name, which means "man" in Hebrew, is probably derived from the Hebrew word for "earth." The first three chapters of Genesis relate that God created Adam from dust, breathed life into him, and placed him in the Garden of Eden, where he lived with his wife, Eve, until they ate the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The biblical account is similar to Egyptian and Mesopotamian accounts, in which the first man was made from clay, infused with life by a divine being, and placed in a paradise of delight.

Adam
Advanced Information Adam, red, a Babylonian word, the generic name for man, having the same meaning in the Hebrew and the Assyrian languages. It was the name given to the first man, whose creation, fall, and subsequent history and that of his descendants are detailed in the first book of Moses (Gen. 1:27-ch. 5). "God created man [Heb., Adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Adam was absolutely the first man whom God created. He was formed out of the dust of the earth (and hence his name), and God breathed into this nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures (Gen. 1:26; 2:7).

He was placed after his creation in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it, and to enjoy its fruits under this one prohibition: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The first recorded act of Adam was his giving names to the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, which God brought to him for this end. Thereafter the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while in an unconscious state took one of his ribs, and closed up his flesh again; and of this rib he made a woman, whom he presented to him when he awoke. Adam received her as his wife, and said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." He called her Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Being induced by the tempter in the form of a serpent to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve persuaded Adam, and he also did eat. Thus man fell, and brought upon himself and his posterity all the sad consequences of his transgression. The narrative of the Fall comprehends in it the great promise of a Deliverer (Gen. 3:15), the "first gospel" message to man. They were expelled from Eden, and at the east of the garden God placed a flame, which turned every way, to prevent access to the tree of life (Gen. 3). How long they were in Paradise is matter of mere conjecture.
Shortly after their expulsion Eve brought forth her first-born, and called him Cain. Although we have the names of only three of Adam's sons, viz., Cain, Abel, and Seth yet it is obvious that he had several sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). He died aged 930 years. Adams and Eve were the progenitors of the whole human race. Evidences of varied kinds are abundant in proving the unity of the human race. The investigations of science, altogether independent of historical evidence, lead to the conclusion that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26. Comp. Rom. 5:12-12; 1 Cor. 15:22-49).

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Adam
Advanced Information The Hebrew word transliterated "Adam" is found about 560 times in the OT. In the overwhelming majority of cases it means "man" or "mankind." This is true of some of the references at the beginning of Genesis (in the creation and Eden stories), and many scholars hold that up to Gen. 4:25 all occurrences of "Adam" should be understood to refer to "man" or "the man." But there is no doubt that the writer on occasion used the word as the proper name of the first man, and it is with this use that we are concerned. It is found outside Genesis in 1 Chr. 1:1 and possibly in other passages such as Deut. 32:8 (where "the sons of men" may be understood as "the sons of Adam"), and in some important NT passages.

Adam in OT Teaching
We are told that God created man "in his own image" and that he created them "male and female" (Gen. 1:27), statements made about no other creature. Man was commanded to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). He was not to be idle but was given the task of tending the Garden of Eden. He was forbidden to eat "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:15-17). The man was given the privilege of naming all the animals (Gen. 2:20), but no suitable help for him was found among them, so God made woman from a rib taken from the man's body (Gen. 2:21-23). The serpent beguiled the woman into breaking God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and she then persuaded her husband to do likewise. They were punished by being expelled from the garden, and in addition the woman was to have pain in childbirth and be subject to her husband, while Adam would find the ground cursed so that it would bring forth thorns and thistles and he would have to toil hard all his days (Gen. 3). But curse is not all; there is the promise of a Deliverer who will crush the serpent (Gen. 3:15). We are told of the birth of two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel; of Cain's murder of Abel (Gen. 4:1-16); and of the birth of Seth (Gen. 4:25). The meaning of these passages is disputed. Some OT scholars regard them as primitive myth, giving early man the answers to such questions as "Why do snakes lack legs?" or "Why do men die?" Others see them as mythological, but as expressing truths of permanent validity concerned with man's origin and constitution or, as others hold, with "a fall upward." This latter view sees man as originally no more than one of the animals. At this stage he could no more sin than any other animal could. It was accordingly a significant step forward when man became aware of something he was doing as wrong. But it is highly doubtful whether the writer had in mind any such ideas. Clearly he thought of Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race, and he is telling us of God's purpose that those into whom he had breathed "the breath of life" should live in fellowship with him. But Adam and Eve fell from their original blissful state as a result of their first sin. And that sin has continuing consequences for the whole human race. In later times the magnitude of the fall has sometimes been emphasized by affirming that Adam was originally endowed with wonderful supernatural gifts, lost when he sinned (in Sir. 49:16 Adam is honored "above every living being in the creation"; cf. the medieval stress on Adam's supernatural graces). But this is speculation.

The creation narratives tell us at least that man is related to the rest of creation (he is made "of dust from the ground," Gen. 2:7; for the beast and the birds cf. vs. 19), and that he is related also to God (he is "in the image of God," Gen. 1:27; cf. 2:7). He has "dominion" over the lower creation (Gen. 1:26, 28), and this is symbolized by his naming of the other creatures. The fall passage speaks of the seriousness of his sin and of its permanent effects. This is not a topic to which there is frequent reference in the OT, but it underlies everything. It is a fundamental presupposition that man is a sinner, and this marks off the literature of the Hebrews from other literatures of antiquity. The solidarity of Adam with his descendants is in the background throughout the OT writings, as is the thought that there is a connection between sin and death. Whatever problems this poses for modern expositors, there can be no doubt about the fact that the OT takes a serious view of sins or that sin is seen as part of man's nature.

Adam in Intertestamental and NT Thought
During the intertestamental period there are some striking expressions of solidarity with Adam, such as Ezra's impassioned exclamation: "O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants" (II Esd. 7:48 [118]; cf. 3.21; 4:30; Wis. 2:23-24; the blame is assigned to Eve in Sir. 25:24). Adam was seen not as a lone sinner, but as one who influenced all mankind. In the NT Adam is mentioned in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:38) and in a similar reference in Jude, where Enoch is "the seventh from Adam" (Jude 14). Little need be said about these passages. They simply mention the name of Adam to locate him in his genealogical place. There is perhaps an implied reference to Adam but without mention of his name (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8). Then there are three important passages with theological import (1 Tim. 2:13-14; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45).
In 1 Tim. 2:13-14 the subordinate place of woman is argued from two facts: (1) Adam was created first, and (2) Eve was deceived though Adam was not. This passage presumes that the Genesis stories tell us something of permanent significance about all men and women.
Romans 5 stresses the connection of mankind at large with Adam. It was through that one man that sin came into the world, and the consequence of his sin was death. This happened long before the law was given, so death cannot be put down to law-breaking. And even though people did not sin in the same way as Adam, they were caught in the consequences of sin: "death reigned from Adam to Moses" (Rom. 5:12-14). This brings Paul to the thought that Adam was a "type" of Christ, and he goes on to a sustained comparison of what Adam did with what Christ did. There are resemblances, mainly in that both acted representatively so that what each did has incalculable consequences for those he heads. But the differences are more significant. Adam's sin brought death and condemnation to all; it made people sinners. When law came in, that only increased the trespass. It showed up sin for what it was. The end result is disaster. By contrast Christ brought life and acquittal; such words as "free gift," "grace," and "justification" emphasize the significance of Christ's death. The end result is blessing. Paul concludes by contrasting the reign of sin in death with the reign of grace "through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

In Paul's magnificent treatment of the resurrection we read: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22). The thought is not unlike that in Rom. 5. Adam was the head of the race and brought death to everyone in it; Christ is the head of the new humanity and brought life to all within it. Some have argued that the two uses of "all" must refer to the same totality, the entire human race. There is no question but that this is the meaning in respect to Adam. The argument runs that similarly Christ raises all from the grave, though some are raised only for condemnation. However, "made alive" seems to mean more than "raised to face judgment." It is probably best to understand "made alive" to refer to life eternal, so that "all" will mean "all who are in Christ." All these will be made alive, just as all who are in Adam die.
A little later Paul writes, "the first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (I Cor. 15:45). Adam became "a living being" when God breathed life into him (Gen. 2:7). Physical life was all the life Adam had and all he could bequeath to his posterity. But "the last Adam" gave life in the fullest sense, eternal life. Again there is the thought that Christ cancels out the evil Adam did. But the emphasis is not negative. It is on the life Christ gives.
The scriptural use of Adam, then, stresses the solidarity of the human race, a solidarity in sin. It reminds us that the human race had a beginning and that all its history from the very first is marked by sin. But "the last Adam" has altered all that. He has replaced sin with righteousness and death with life.

L Morris
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyC. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last; K. Barth, Christ and Adam; B.S. Childs, IDB, I, 42-44; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism; J. Jeremias, TDNT, I, 141-43; A. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the NT; H. Seebass, NIDNTT, 1, 84-88; A. J. M. Weddeburn, IBD, I, 14-16.
Adam
Advanced Information Ad'am, a type.
The apostle Paul speaks of Adam as "the figure of him who was to come." On this account our Lord is sometimes called the second Adam. This typical relation is described in Rom. 5:14-19.
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

The Last Adam
Advanced Information In I Cor. 15:45 Paul refers to Jesus Christ as "the last Adam" (ho eschatos Adam) in contrast to "the first man Adam" (ho protos anthropos Adam). In this antithetic paralelism there is a continuity of humanity, but the second person who represents the new humanity so far excels the first that he is described as the one who became an active "life-giving spirit" (pneuma zoopoioun), where the original Adam (Gen. 2:7) became only "a natural living being" (psychen zosan). The contrast is heightened by Paul's pointed antithetic style, setting Adam as over against Christ in I Cor. 15:46-49:
First Adam 46: "natural" (psychikon) 47: "the first man" (ho protos anthropos) "from the earth, of dust" (ek ges, choikos) 48: "as was the man of dust, so are those who are of dust" (hoios ho choikos, toioutoi kai hoi choikoi) 49: "as we have borne the image of the man of dust" (kathos ephoresamen ten eikona tou choikou)
Second Adam 46: "spiritual" (pneumatikon) 47: "the second man" (ho deuteros anthropos) "from heaven" (ex ouranou) 48: "as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven" (hoios ho epouranios, toioutoi kai hoi epouranioi) 49: "we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (phoresomen kai ten eikona tou epouraniou)
The same contrast was also made earlier in I Cor. 15:21-22 and linked with death and resurrection:

First Adam 21: "since by a man came death" (epeide gar di' antropou thanatos) 22: "For as in Adam all die" (hosper gar en to Adam pantes apothneskousin)
Second Adam 21: "so also by a man has come the resurrection of the dead" (kai di' anthropou anastasis nekron) 22: "so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (houtos kai en to Christo pantes zoopoiethesontai)

The contrast is expressed again in Rom. 5:14-19, where Paul describes the first Adam as follows: disobedience, trespass, judgement, condemnation, death, many = all. But Jesus Christ as the second Adam is described in the following antithetic terms: obedience, grace, free gift, justification, acquittal, righteousness, life, many/all. The powerful effect of Christ as the second Adam is summed up in one of Paul's favorite expressions, "how much more" (pollo mallon, 5:15, 17, and 8, 10), which makes explicit the Christological implications of the "how much more" in Jesus' own proclamation (Matt. 6:30; 7:11). These ideas may also be found in John 5:21-29; Rom. 1:3-5; 6:5-11; II Cor. 5:1-4, 17; Phil. 2:5-11.

R G GruenlerElwell Evangelical Dictionary

BibliographyC. K. Barrett, From Adam to Last; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT; R. Scroggs, The Last Adam; W. D. Davis, Paul and Rabbinic Judais.

With kind permision: Believe

Abraham, Abram, Ibrahim

2008-07-03T07:23:00.000-07:00

General Information
Abraham, originally called Abram, was Israel's first great patriarch. He probably lived in the late 3d or early 2d millennium BC, but the earliest source for information on his life is Genesis 11-25, written about 10 centuries later. He was born at Ur in Chaldea, where he married his half-sister Sarah. Under divine inspiration, he went to Haran in Mesopotamia. Later God commanded him to leave his home for a new land; in return God offered Abraham fame, land, and descendants, promising that he would become a blessing to all nations. Abraham obeyed and migrated to Canaan, where he lived as a nomadic chieftain. He soon became wealthy, but he still had no son. Because Sarah was advanced in years, she substituted her Egyptian slave Hagar, who bore Ishmael, Abraham's first son. Later, in accord with a divine promise, Sarah gave birth to Isaac.
Abraham's faith was put to a severe test when God commanded that he sacrifice Isaac, his only son by Sarah. Abraham did not waver and he prepared for the sacrifice, but God spared the boy at the last moment, substituting a ram. The Bible portrays Abraham as a man struggling to trust God's promises. By his faith Abraham became the father of the Israelite people and is still honored in three different religions. Jewish tradition stresses Monotheism. Christians see him as a model for the man of faith and recognize him as their spiritual ancestor. Muslims accept him as an ancestor of the Arabs through Ishmael. Numerous works of art are based on the story of the sacrifice of Isaac.(Editor's Note: Muslims believe that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Ishmael instead of Isaac. Where the Hebrew and Christian Bibles present later genealogies as based on Isaac, the Islam Koran indicates that Arabs descended through Ishmael. There is no agreement on this matter, but in all cases, it is agreed that Abraham, and therefore his ancestor Shem was an ancestor, which means that both Jews and (Sunnite) Arabs are Semites (descended from Shem).)
J. J. M. Roberts
BibliographyBright, John, A History of Israel (1972); Neusner, Jacob, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 3 vols. (1985); van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition (1975).
A'braham
Advanced Information
Abraham, father of a multitude, son of Terah, was named (Gen. 11:27) before his older brothers Nahor and Haran, because he was the heir of the promises. Till the age of seventy, Abram sojourned among his kindred in his native country of Chaldea. He then, with his father and his family and household, quitted the city of Ur, in which he had hitherto dwelt, and went some 300 miles north to Haran, where he abode fifteen years. The cause of his migration was a call from God (Acts 7:2-4). There is no mention of this first call in the Old Testament; it is implied, however, in Gen. 12. While they tarried at Haran, Terah died at the age of 205 years.
Abram now received a second and more definite call, accompanied by a promise from God (Gen. 12:1, 2); whereupon he took his departure, taking his nephew Lot with him, "not knowing whither he went" (Heb. 11:8). He trusted implicitly to the guidance of Him who had called him. Abram now, with a large household of probably a thousand souls, entered on a migratory life, and dwelt in tents. Passing along the valley of the Jabbok, in the land of Canaan, he formed his first encampment at Sichem (Gen. 12:6), in the vale or oak-grove of Moreh, between Ebal on the north and Gerizim on the south. Here he received the great promise, "I will make of thee a great nation," etc. (Gen. 12:2, 3, 7). This promise comprehended not only temporal but also spiritual blessings. It implied that he was the chosen ancestor of the great Deliverer whose coming had been long ago predicted (Gen. 3:15). Soon after this, for some reason not mentioned, he removed his tent to the mountain district between Bethel, then called Luz, and Ai, towns about two miles apart, where he built an altar to "Jehovah." He again moved into the southern tract of Palestine, called by the Hebrews the Negeb; and was at length, on account of a famine, compelled to go down into Egypt.
This took place in the time of the Hyksos, a Semitic race which now held the Egyptians in bondage. Here occurred that case of deception on the part of Abram which exposed him to the rebuke of Pharaoh (Gen. 12:18). Sarai was restored to him; and Pharaoh loaded him with presents, recommending him to withdraw from the country. He returned to Canaan richer than when he left it, "in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Gen. 12:8; 13:2. Comp. Ps. 105:13, 14). The whole party then moved northward, and returned to their previous station near Bethel. Here disputes arose between Lot's shepherds and those of Abram about water and pasturage. Abram generously gave Lot his choice of the pasture-ground. (Comp. 1 Cor. 6:7.) He chose the well-watered plain in which Sodom was situated, and removed thither; and thus the uncle and nephew were separated. Immediately after this Abram was cheered by a repetition of the promises already made to him, and then removed to the plain or "oakgrove" of Mamre, which is in Hebron. He finally settled here, pitching his tent under a famous oak or terebinth tree, called "the oak of Mamre" (Gen. 13:18).
This was his third resting-place in the land. Some fourteen years before this, while Abram was still in Chaldea, Palestine had been invaded by Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, who brought under tribute to him the five cities in the plain to which Lot had removed. This tribute was felt by the inhabitants of these cities to be a heavy burden, and after twelve years they revolted. This brought upon them the vengeance of Chedorlaomer, who had in league with him four other kings. He ravaged the whole country, plundering the towns, and carrying the inhabitants away as slaves. Among those thus treated was Lot. Hearing of the disaster that had fallen on his nephew, Abram immediately gathered from his own household a band of 318 armed men, and being joined by the Amoritish chiefs Mamre, Aner, and Eshcol, he pursued after Chedorlaomer, and overtook him near the springs of the Jordan. They attacked and routed his army, and pursued it over the range of Anti-Libanus as far as to Hobah, near Damascus, and then returned, bringing back all the spoils that had been carried away.
Returning by way of Salem, i.e., Jerusalem, the king of that place, Melchizedek, came forth to meet them with refreshments. To him Abram presented a tenth of the spoils, in recognition of his character as a priest of the most high God (Gen. 14:18-20). In a recently-discovered tablet, dated in the reign of the grandfather of Amraphel (Gen. 14:1), one of the witnesses is called "the Amorite, the son of Abiramu," or Abram. Having returned to his home at Mamre, the promises already made to him by God were repeated and enlarged (Gen. 13:14). "The word of the Lord" (an expression occurring here for the first time) "came to him" (15:1). He now understood better the future that lay before the nation that was to spring from him. Sarai, now seventy-five years old, in her impatience, persuaded Abram to take Hagar, her Egyptian maid, as a concubine, intending that whatever child might be born should be reckoned as her own. Ishmael was accordingly thus brought up, and was regarded as the heir of these promises (Gen. 16).
When Ishmael was thirteen years old, God again revealed yet more explicitly and fully his gracious purpose; and in token of the sure fulfilment of that purpose the patriarch's name was now changed from Abram to Abraham (Gen. 17:4, 5), and the rite of circumcision was instituted as a sign of the covenant. It was then announced that the heir to these covenant promises would be the son of Sarai, though she was now ninety years old; and it was directed that his name should be Isaac. At the same time, in commemoration of the promises, Sarai's name was changed to Sarah. On that memorable day of God's thus revealing his design, Abraham and his son Ishmael and all the males of his house were circumcised (Gen. 17).
Three months after this, as Abraham sat in his tent door, he saw three men approaching. They accepted his proffered hospitality, and, seated under an oak-tree, partook of the fare which Abraham and Sarah provided. One of the three visitants was none other than the Lord, and the other two were angels in the guise of men. The Lord renewed on this occasion his promise of a son by Sarah, who was rebuked for her unbelief. Abraham accompanied the three as they proceeded on their journey. The two angels went on toward Sodom; while the Lord tarried behind and talked with Abraham, making known to him the destruction that was about to fall on that guilty city. The patriarch interceded earnestly in behalf of the doomed city. But as not even ten righteous persons were found in it, for whose sake the city would have been spared, the threatened destruction fell upon it; and early next morning Abraham saw the smoke of the fire that consumed it as the "smoke of a furnace" (Gen. 19: 1-28).
After fifteen years' residence at Mamre, Abraham moved southward, and pitched his tent among the Philistines, near to Gerar. Here occurred that sad instance of prevarication on his part in his relation to Abimelech the King (Gen. 20). Soon after this event, the patriarch left the vicinity of Gerar, and moved down the fertile valley about 25 miles to Beer-sheba. It was probably here that Isaac was born, Abraham being now an hundred years old. A feeling of jealousy now arose between Sarah and Hagar, whose son, Ishmael, was no longer to be regarded as Abraham's heir. Sarah insisted that both Hagar and her son should be sent away. This was done, although it was a hard trial to Abraham (Gen. 21:12). At this point there is a blank in the patriarch's history of perhaps twenty-five years. These years of peace and happiness were spent at Beer-sheba.
The next time we see him his faith is put to a severe test by the command that suddenly came to him to go and offer up Isaac, the heir of all the promises, as a sacrifice on one of the mountains of Moriah. His faith stood the test (Heb. 11:17-19). He proceeded in a spirit of unhesitating obedience to carry out the command; and when about to slay his son, whom he had laid on the altar, his uplifted hand was arrested by the angel of Jehovah, and a ram, which was entangled in a thicket near at hand, was seized and offered in his stead. From this circumstance that place was called Jehovah-jireh, i.e., "The Lord will provide." The promises made to Abraham were again confirmed (and this was the last recorded word of God to the patriarch); and he descended the mount with his son, and returned to his home at Beer-sheba (Gen. 22:19), where he resided for some years, and then moved northward to Hebron. Some years after this Sarah died at Hebron, being 127 years old.
Abraham acquired now the needful possession of a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, by purchase from the owner of it, Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23); and there he buried Sarah. His next care was to provide a wife for Isaac, and for this purpose he sent his steward, Eliezer, to Haran (or Charran, Acts 7:2), where his brother Nahor and his family resided (Gen. 11:31). The result was that Rebekah, the daughter of Nahor's son Bethuel, became the wife of Isaac (Gen. 24). Abraham then himself took to wife Keturah, who became the mother of six sons, whose descendants were afterwards known as the "children of the east" (Judg. 6:3), and later as "Saracens." At length all his wanderings came to an end. At the age of 175 years, 100 years after he had first entered the land of Canaan, he died, and was buried in the old family burying-place at Machpelah (Gen. 25:7-10). The history of Abraham made a wide and deep impression on the ancient world, and references to it are interwoven in the religious traditions of almost all Eastern nations. He is called "the friend of God" (James 2:23), "faithful Abraham" (Gal. 3:9), "the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16).
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
Abraham
Advanced Information
Abraham stands in the unique position of being the father of a nation and the father of all believers. God told Abraham to leave his homeland and go to the land of Canaan. There God entered into a covenant with him (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:12-21). Abraham was the progenitor of the Hebrew nation and of several Arabic peoples. All Jews regard themselves as his descendants, a special people chosen by God (Isa. 51:1-2).
But beyond the physical posterity lies the spiritual dimension, for "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This is perhaps the first great missionary text in the Bible. Paul referred to it as the same gospel which he preached (Gal. 3:8). The blessing came through Christ, "the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt. 1:1). All who believe in Christ are the children of Abraham, even the Gentiles (Gal. 3:7-14). They too are "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). In fact, faith in Christ is more important than physical descent when it comes to determining who the children of Abraham really are (Matt. 3:9; John 8:33). God's promises to Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs find their unique fulfillment in Christ (Acts 3: 25-26), though in a limited sense any godly king who sat on David's throne fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Ps. 72:17). The covenant was unconditional and eternal, but kings and other individuals who disobeyed God would find themselves cut off from the covenant (Gen. 17:13-14; 18:18-19).
The NT mentions Abraham more than any other OT figure except Moses, and it stresses his significance as a man of faith. When called to leave Mesopotamia, Abraham "obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going" (Heb. 11:8). Even after reaching Canaan, Abraham still remained a stranger and did not live to see the fulfillment of the promises (Heb. 11:9-10). He did believe that God would give him a son and that his offspring would someday become as numerous as the stars. On the basis of this faith God "credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:4-6). Paul cites this passage as his first illustration of justification by faith in Rom. 4:1-3. In the same chapter Paul notes that Abraham dared to believe that Sarah would give birth to the promised child, even though she was past the age of childbearing and he was a hundred years old (Rom. 4:18-19). Abraham's unwavering faith in the promises of God remains a challenge to all people to "believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Rom. 4:20-24).
The greatest test of Abraham's faith came when God instructed him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt. Moriah. In spite of the fact that God's previous promises were intertwined with the life of Isaac, Abraham obeyed and was ready to plunge the knife into his dear son. According to Heb. 11:17-19, Abraham reasoned that God would bring Isaac back to life, so deep was his confidence in God's promises. This experience of nearly sacrificing his only son placed Abraham in the position of God the Father, who sent his one and only Son to Mt. Calvary, not far from Mt. Moriah (II Chr. 3:1). The Greek word that describes Christ as the "only begotten" or "one and only son," monogenes, is applied to Isaac in Heb. 11:17. A ram was substituted on the altar for Isaac (Gen. 22:13), but God "did not spare his own son" (Rom. 8:32). The pain and agony felt by Abraham at the prospect of sacrificing Isaac in some small way helps us understand the suffering of the Father when he offered up his Son for us all.
Abraham's fellowship with God is also illustrated through his prayer life. In Gen. 20:7 Abraham is called a prophet who will pray for the healing of a Philistine king and his family. Earlier, in Gen. 18:22-33, Abraham stood before the Lord and interceded in behalf of the city of Sodom. His boldness in prayer encourages the believer to lay petitions before the throne of grace. Because of his close walk with the Lord, Abraham is sometimes called the friend of God (II Chr. 20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23). Both the Hebrew and the Greek words for "friend" include the idea of "the one who loves God." Abraham loved God more than anything else in the world (Gen. 22:2). His obedience to the Lord is emphasized also in Gen. 26:5. Before the law was written, Abraham kept God's requirements, commands, and laws.
Abraham was rightly called a prophet because he received divine revelation (Gen. 12:1-3). God spoke to him in a vision (Gen. 15:1) and appeared to him in a theophany (Gen. 18:1).
H M Wolf
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyJ. Walvoord, "Premillennialism and the Abrahamic Covenant," BS 109:37-46, 293-303; G. von Rad, OT Theology, I, 170-75; J. B. Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament; J. Jeremias, TDNT, I, 8-9; R. Longenecker, "The 'Faith of Abraham,'" JETS 20:203-12; W. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an OT Theology; R. E. Clements, TDOT,I, 52-58.
Abrahamic CovenantAdvanced Information
From: Home Bible Study Commentary by James M. Gray
GENESIS CHAPTERS 14, 15
The Confederated KingsGen. 14: 1-12 How does the Revised Version translate "nations" in verse 1? In what valley was the battle joined (3)? How is that valley now identified? Against what six peoples did Chedorlaomer and his confederates campaign in the fourteenth year (5-7)? You will find these peoples located on the east and south of the Dead Sea. Who were victors in this case (10)? How did they reward themselves (11)? What gives us a special interest in this story (12)? Objectors have denied the historicity of it, but the monuments of Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt, with their inscriptions and paintings, confirm it. The names of some of these kings are given, and it would appear that Chedorlaomer was the general name of a line of Elamite kings corresponding to the several pharaohs and Caesars of later times.
Abram's Exploit of ArmsGen. 14: 13-24 By what name was Abram distinguished among these heathen peoples (13)? What hint have we of his princely power (14)? What was the manner of his attack (15)? The motive for it (16)? We are not surprised at Abram's meeting with the king of Sodom on his return, but what other king is named (18)? What office did he hold beside that of king? Was he a heathen like the others (19)? Who gave the tithes, Abram or he? (Compare Heb. 7:6.) Melchizedek seems to have been a king of Salem, later called Jerusalem, who like Job had not only retained the knowledge of the true God but also like him was in his own person a prince and a priest. (Compare Job 1:5-8; 29; 25.) Recent discoveries of correspondence of the Egyptian kings written at about the time of the Exodus refute the theory once held that Melchizedek was an imaginary character and that this incident never occurred.
This correspondence includes letters of the king of Jerusalem, Ebed-Tob by name, which means "the servant of the Good One," who speaks of himself in the very phrases used by his predecessor Melchizedek (Heb. 7). The probability is that Melchizedek, like Chedorlaomer, was the common name of a race or dynasty of priest-kings ruling over that city. He is employed as a type of Christ in the 110th Psalm and in Hebrews 7. How does the king of Sodom probably the successor to him who had been slain (10), express his gratitude to Abram (21)? What is Abram's response (22-24)? How does this response show that Melchizedek worshipped the same God? What elements of character does it show in Abram?
The Second Test and Reward of FaithGen. 15: 1-6 "After these things" Abram might have feared that the defeated warriors would return in force and overwhelm him, nor is it improbable that misgivings arose as to relinquishing the spoil he was entitled to as the conqueror. But God could deliver him from fear in the one case and make up to him the loss in the other. How does He express both ideas in verse 1? But what burdens Abram heavier than either of these things (2)? God promised him a seed to inherit Canaan, which should be multiplied as the dust of the earth, yet he was going hence childless. He who should be possessor of his house under these circumstances would be Dammesek Eliezer (R. V.). Just how to explain this is difficult, but Eliezer was his steward, and oriental custom may have entailed the possessions of his master on such an one where no natural heir existed. We cannot explain this but would call attention to the reply of Jehovah, that it is not an adopted son he shall have but a supernatural one (4).
And now what does Jehovah do to Abram (5)? And what does He ask Abram to do? And what does He then promise him? Was Abram's faith able to measure up to this stupendous declaration (6)? And in what did this faith of Abram result to him (v. 6, last clause)? These words, "COUNTED IT TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS," reveal a fact more important to Abram personally than the promise of a seed, except that the seed, considered as the forerunner and type of Christ, was the only ground at length on which Abram might be counted righteous. To understand these words is vital to an understanding of our own redemption, and an apprehension of the Gospel. Abram was a sinner, born into a state of wrongness, but God now puts him by an act of grace into a state of rightness, not because of Abram's righteous character but on the ground of his belief in God's word. Nor does this righteous state into which he is brought make it true that thereafter he is without a flaw in his character, for he is guilty of much.
But he has a right standing before God and because of it God can deal with him in time and eternity as He cannot deal with other men who do not have this standing. The significance of this to us is seen in Romans 4:23-25, which you are urged to read prayerfully. The question is sometimes asked whether Abram, and for that matter, any Old Testament saint, was justified or made righteous just as we are in these days. The answer is yes, and no. They were made righteous just as we are in that Christ took away their guilt on the cross and wrought out a righteousness for them, but they were not made righteous just as we are in that they knew Christ as we do. Christ indeed said that Abram rejoiced to see His day, and he saw it and was glad (John 8:56), but this does not mean that he saw and understood what we now do of the Person and finished work of Christ. The fact is this: God set a certain promise before Abram. He believed God's testimony concerning it and was counted righteous in consequence.
God sets a certain promise before us, and if we believe God's testimony concerning it we are counted righteous in consequence. The promise to Abram was that of a natural seed; the promise to us is that of salvation through Jesus Christ, the anti-type of that seed. We have but to believe His testimony concerning Jesus Christ, as Abram believed it concerning the seed, to obtain the same standing before God forever. It is not our character that gives it to us, nor does our change of standing immediately produce a change of character, but this does not affect the standing, which is the important thing because the character grows out of it. The reward of the first test of faith brought Abram a country (Gen. 12), but that of the second brought him a better country, that is, a heavenly (Heb. 11: 8-16).
The Covenant of GodGen. 15: 7-12, 17-21 In what words does God now identify Himself and renew the promise of the land (7)? Is Abram altogether satisfied about the land (8)? What does God tell him to do (9)? What now happens to Abram (12)? What next takes place with reference to the sacrifice (17)? And in connection with this what does God do with Abram? How does He define the boundaries of His gift? We ought to say that "the river of Egypt," can hardly mean the Nile, although some so regard it. Others think it is that wady or brook of Egypt lying at the southern limit of the land of Israel, referred to in Num. 34:5; Josh. 15:4, and Isaiah 27:12. The strange incident recorded here is of symbolic importance. Men entered into covenant with one another in this way, that is, they would slay an animal, divide it into parts, walk up and down between them and thus solemnly seal the bond they had made.
Afterward part of the victim would be offered in sacrifice to their gods, while the remainder would be eaten by the parties to the covenant। It was the highest form of an oath. God thus condescended to assure Abram, since the smoking furnace and burning lamp, passing between the pieces and doubtless consuming them, typified His presence and acceptance of the bond. Among men it takes two to make a covenant, but not so here. God is alone in this case, and asks of Abram nothing in return but the repose of confidence in His faithfulness. It is thus that God covenants with us in Christ. He gives, and we take. He promises, and we believe. But dwelling on what Abram saw we passed over what he heard, and this is an essential part of God's covenant with him (13-16).

What did He say would be true of Abram's seed for a while? It is a matter of dispute how these four hundred years are computed, but Anstey's Romance of Chronology says that Abraham's seed here means Isaac and his descendants from the time of the weaning of the former when he became his father's heir, to the date of the Exodus, which was precisely 400 years. What two-fold promise is given Abram personally (15)? What particular reason does God give for the delay in possessing Canaan (16)? "The Amorite" here is the name used doubtless for all the inhabitants of Canaan, of which they were a chief nation and a very wicked one. The long-suffering of God will wait while they go on filling up the measure of their iniquity, but at last the sword of divine justice must fall. The same thing happens with sinners in general, and as another says, it ought to embitter the cup of their pleasures.
Questions 1। What corroborative evidence of the historicity of Chapter 14 can you name? 2। Recall in detail what has been taught or suggested about Melchizedek. 3. How would you explain Genesis 15:6? 4. Can you repeat from memory Romans 4:23-25? 5. In a word, what is the significance of the transaction in 15:7-21?

With kind permision: Believe