How do you get a room of theologians arguing in 7 syllables or your money back? Answer: Dispensationalism.

This is probably going to be the my longest post I'll ever make on my blog. This is a series of journals I kept while reading through two textbooks in for the class "Dispensational Premillennialism" at Calvary Bible College during my sophomore year in the fall of 2011. The class was taught by Joel Williamson. These are m,y thoughts while reading through each book culminating in my final. I'd like to hear your thoughts and your opinions on this. I feel this issue is important as depending on which side of the fence you are on it will determine your eschatological outlook. Without further ado, here goes nothing.

Personal Study #1 Chapters 1-3 - Journal 1

My presupposition leans toward Dispensationalism as the acceptable system. I will however try to avoid taking ‘pot shots’ so to speak against the other systems. I find that the attacks made against Dispensationalism are many times unwarranted. Granted, some proponents of the system do not necessarily represent themselves amiably. Calling the system a heresy is a problem because that would be no different than someone calling a screwdriver a bad tool just because the person using it was inept as a craftsman. People do not make doctrines right or wrong(Ryrie pg 19).

            Dispensationalists do a great service to theology in the fact that they do answer the need for distinctions. As Ryrie states, any person who trusts in the blood of Christ as acceptable rather than a sheep, or observes Sunday rather than Saturday as the day of public fellowship and worship with the body, is a dispensationalist.

            Dispensationalism also brings to the table a sound understanding of historical philosophy. The covenant theology perspective brings to the table an understanding that the final historical priority of God is the entrance into the eternal state. If this is the case, then even the millennial reign of our Lord Jesus will be one filled with despair. Inversely, the dispensational perspective can be skewed to assume that the eternal state bears little significance. The crux of the issue boils down to what the focal point is of historical purpose. Is it the beginning of eternity? Or a manifestation of the glory of Christ as never before witnessed by mankind in the millennial reign of Christ? As a dispensational I lean towards the latter. To quote John MacArthur, “The blessed hope isn’t that judgment is coming. The blessed hope is that Jesus is coming.”

            There is no denying that God’s plans become progressively clearer to mankind as time progresses. It is not a matter of God changing, but more a matter of God revealing more information. This is the same as a parent raising a child. As the child grows older, he/she begins to learn more about what the parents wish for that child to be/do and what he/she must do in life in order to accomplish the tasks laid out for him/her.

            On an initial basis, I can definitely see the plausibility for the Dispensational method. This is, as previously stated, my presupposition. One of the key proofs of Dispensationalism is that Israel is still here. Upon a study of history, one can only deduce that there is no acceptable reason for Israel to still exist except for a supernatural one. God cannot be finished with His people. There are only two groups of people in Scripture that I know of that God ever promised to establish: the church, and Israel.

            The hermeneutic of Dispensationalism, when applied and used correctly, does yield the least damaging to the integrity of Scripture. If I am to err in any manner in Scripture, I would rather err on the side of letting the Bible explain itself rather than my finite mind.

            In conclusion, this Bible study tool is beneficial in the fact it answers very key questions:

            1. What is God’s endgame plan for the Jews and Gentiles?

            2. Through what lens should we read the Bible? That lens being front to back.

            3. What is the consuming act of history? That being the millennium and the reign of Christ on earth.

Journal 2

One of the greatest attacks against dispensationalism is the fact that it is a recent development. Because it does not have the backing of church history it is must therefore be a folly. The main basing of this point is that the system of dispensationalism was composed by mere men and must therefore be wrong since no one could arrive at such a belief upon interpreting the Bible on its own merit. There is a problem with this line of thinking in my opinion. This then means that everything that is not expressly written in the Bible must be condemned since they too would succumb to the label of being man-made. This line of thinking obviously falls to the law of reality since Paul uses a type of the word we now use as dispensationalism, not to mention that people HAVE arrived at this conclusion through reading the Bible. The doctrine of limited atonement is not expressly stated in the Scripture and yet, we have it and have many who hold to it, 5-point Calvinists predominantly who are also Covenant.

            I agree with Ryrie most definitely with his explanation of progressive doctrinal formulation. Even covenant theologians must agree with this since their system developed via this method as well. After all, several councils had to be formed so as to hash out all the details of what books of the Bible were even canonical and which ones were not. With all the heresies of the Arians, Montanists, Marcion, and Gnostics floating around the most foundational doctrines of the Bible even had to be hammered out for all to know. Some may not have even been mentioned by name in the Bible, though the terminology itself was applied to a consistent trend in the Scripture. This is what dispensationalism is. The application of a common trend based on a term used by Paul, and applied through simple tenets. It is this application of sound hermeneutics that lead George Ladd, a nondispensational, to pay tribute to when he said, “It is doubtful that there has been any other circle of men who have done more in their preaching, teaching, and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.”

            I agree with Ryrie’s statement that theology is born out of interpretations. Interpretations are born out of a hermeneutic system. I do however disagree with his statement that systems are the end result of interpretation. I firmly hold to the fact that dispensationalism is still just a tool and not an end all. The Bible is far too complicated to be held to a simple system. The Bible must be interpreted on its own merit as best to the reader’s ability as possible.

            I agree with Ryrie’s logic in that if God fulfills His prophecies literally, then it would make sense that He prophesies literally. This of course would completely nullify the covenant position since they require a theology based on conceptualization. When literal interpretation is gone, all objectivity is lost since something as quaint as manna can be interpreted metaphorically to mean the first communion for instance.

            I still have a long way to go in understanding these issues, but I do know one thing is for sure: I am far too foolish a man to let my mind decide what the God of the universe was really trying to say to us. Dispensationalism is still, as of now, my firm belief.

Journal 3

One of the biggest attacks against dispensationalism is that it teaches multiple ways of salvation. Most of this stems however from poorly worded statements made by theologians. What the key issue is here is whether or not man is saved by works of the law in the Old Testament and then grace in the New Testament. God does not change. His salvation cannot change. Chafer, Scofield, and several dispensational writers have stated the law was expressly designed to show the Israeli people their need for Christ and to give them a sense of dependence on Him.

            This is not satisfactory for most nondispensationalists. They wish to drive at the dispensations of law and grace so harshly declaring that dispensationals teach multiple ways of salvation. The problem with this is that they won’t even listen to the defenses made by the men who wrote what they are attacking.

            With being said, law and grace are in some way linked.  The law, like grace, was not something that the Israelites earned. It was something handed down to them by God Himself. It was an establishment of a theocracy where a reliance on the flesh was severely punished. Because the dispensations build on each other, the law cannot be an backwards step by any stretch of the imagination but rather a step forward. It was the giving of the law that made Israel famous among the nations as seen in Deuteronomy 4 and 33. The law did not nullify God’s covenant with Abraham by any means. What it did was outline the nature of the transgressions until Christ should come.

            The last issue when it comes to the law is salvation. What the dispensational theologian cannot stress enough is that the method of salvation never changes. The object of faith in every age is God, the content is the redeemer. Ryrie uses the example of the Adam and Eve looking at the fur coats that God made for them just outside the garden of Eden. They didn’t know that Jesus was coming many years later, but they did have an understanding that their had to be a redeemer and that He was coming.

            The final issue to address in this summary is the church and its distinctiveness.

When Christ died on the cross, the dividing wall was broken down between the Jews and gentiles. As opposed to the Jews, Christ indwells the members of the body of believers.

            The church has a distinct time of operation. The church is a mystery character so to speak because it is not spoken of in Old Testament times. It is a new creation Ephesians 2:15 made possible in the death of Christ. It did not begin until the day of Pentecost.

            The church is an organism that awaits earnestly the return of Christ. The church being established in the New Testament does not mean that there were no believers who did not have a right standing with God, or that Christ is not the founder of the church. The church is Christ’s, created by Christ. The church and Israel are distinct.

            Lastly, even though the church is distinct from Israel, this does not mean that the church will not enjoy the blessings of the millennial reign of Christ. They will not have the blessings as physical Israel. They may be of the seed of Abraham, but they are not the promised physical seed of Abraham.

            I agreed with a lot that Dr. Ryrie said in these chapters. There appeared to be no glaring issues to address. A good read to be sure.

Journal 4

As stated before, covenant theology is an issue I like to learn about because so many of my acquaintances follow the belief. Having assessed my problems with it in the last journal, I would like to look at the positives to it.

Because a vast majority of covenant theologians are heavily Calvinistic, their understanding on the grace of God, the redemptive work of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith has produced some of the finest works on the topics ever. One thing I have also appreciated from covenant theology is the great attention it gives in the recognition of Christ as the central figure of history. Jesus Christ is after all the accomplishment of God’s purpose for history. It has also made an honest attempt to be faithful to Scripture while properly teaching the biblical philosophy of history.

            I appreciate these points of covenant theology immensely because I have found in my personal experience that the American church has grown very apathetic in its understanding of Christ to the point that Christ is viewed more as a buddy rather than the Lord of our lives that He is. I have noticed that the grace of God has been diminished in the modern church to the point that the “autonomy” of man has become the deciding factor relegating God’s workings to borderline deism. God has often become a God who is “out there” rather than here.

            Christ’s centrality in history is even being undermined now. For many years our dating systems have revolved around the “B.C. and A.D.” abbreviations. Christ has now been removed even from these and we now refer to them as the “B.C.E. or Before Common Era, and C.E. or Common Era.”

            In summary, I have found that though I do have disagreements with covenant theology as a whole(as stated in my previous journal), there are some great things to gain from it and the people who practice when studied carefully. As always I maintain that any system, albeit covenant or dispensationalism, must be used as a tool that works off the Bible rather than the Bible off the system.

Journal 5

As I read this class’s textbooks and talk out the issues within them I gain more and more knowledge on the issues. One of the interesting things I learned while reading the assigned reading is that dispensationals pay a lot of attention to and put a lot of stock in the sovereignty of God. I find this interesting since in the research I’ve done, dispensationalists are either Arminian or 4-point Calvinists. This is something that I’ve thought that covenant theologians might have in common with dispensationals since covenanters are Calvinists, they would also stress the sovereignty of God.

God’s sovereignty, upon finally noticing it, is so brilliantly shown in His progressive revealing of His of style of rule throughout history. God shows His distinctive plan for His people of that time period without ever changing the method of salvation. God declares what His way of administering rule is for the specific dispensation is and shows his sovereignty through His continual decrees.

            It is also interesting how God’s rule can be universal or very specific. For instance, the inward law that mankind is created with which instills in them objective moral truth comes from being in the image of God. The Mosaic Law on the other hand, was given specifically to the Israelites and only to the Israelites. I liken this to the parable of the landowner who entrusted a portion of talents to three of His servants. These servants were given specific responsibilities. The same responsibility did not apply to all the other land owners in the world, but simply to the servants of the landowner who traveled away.

            The next point I wish to address is something that has recently come to my attention is conversations on the class period with several of my friends. That is the misunderstanding of what actually is a literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic. The best example I can think of to stress this point is John 10:9 which says, “I am the door…” Jesus isn’t not saying that He is a literal door. But He is literally saying that He is the doorway. He is literally saying that He is the entrance into heaven. The glorious thing about the Bible is the way that it explains itself. Jesus goes on to say in that same passage that “anyone who enters through Me will be saved.”

            Jesus also says in John 14:6 that He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus was not a pantheist. Everything that has life is not Jesus. But what Jesus was saying is He is the giver of life. “No one comes to the Father but through me.” Jesus seems to use the same language as if He was a doorway to pass through so that one may enter eternal life. This teaching of doorways seemed to be prevalent in His teaching. He also said in Matthew chapter 7 for people to “enter through the narrow gate. The gate is broad and the path is wide that leads to destruction.” There is a massive difference between saying something literally, and literally saying something.

            The Bible always explains itself. I firmly believe that. I am confident that I have no need to impose on its text my assumptions.

Journal 6

I am curious to learn how a covenant theologian would change his/her interpretation of the word “everlasting” from the Abrahamic covenant to John 3:16 which states that we shall have “everlasting life.” One interpretation of everlasting ends in Joshua, the other interpretation of everlasting does not end. I would like to learn how they differentiate.

The Abrahamic covenant guarantees that Israel will own the land until the end of time. When Israel took the land of Canaan in the book of Joshua, it says that everything God promised was given to them by God. I don’t know if we will be covering this in class, but I would like to know how this can be interpreted since from what I understand, the Israelites did not take everything that they were promised. They did not drive out all the inhabitants from the land, they still had enemies around them, and all the borders of the land expressed in Genesis to Abraham were not fully attained from what I understand.

            My question is did God promise a different land(from the perspective of the borders of the land) to Abraham than the promised land of Moses? Or was the passage in Joshua simply stating that God did what He said He would do and now He would fulfill it for the rest of history? The reason I ask is because I have had this argument presented before me several times on topics of dispensationalism vs covenant theology. The inconsistent hermeneutic argument seems like a weak argument since everyone is inconsistent with their hermeneutic. We have problems with covenant people because of how they often interpret the word “all” in the New Testament. I’m sure they have a problem with the way we interpret this passage in Joshua. If I could get your thoughts, sir, that would be most helpful.

            The most interesting aspect of the study of the covenants is that God Himself will bring Israel back to repentance. They will repent in those last days, and will finally be the representatives of God that they were always meant to be. This author cannot imagine how wonderful it will be for God to finally hear His people proclaim in unison, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” in those last days.

Journal 7

Most of this journal will consist of questions that I have been on my mind during this course and through my personal study of the Bible. I preface this by saying that I am not trying to find fault in dispensationalism, because I still find it to be true, but I simply wish to have answers to questions that will be thrown at me.

I am understanding that the Davidic covenant must be fulfilled at a later date. I wonder greatly how a covenant theologian can think that Christ is reigning right now on that Davidic throne because of the following reasons:

            1. If we are commanded to pray in accordance with the Lord’s prayer, and the kingdom has already come, then is this current state of affairs of the earth reflective of how Christ’s will is done “on earth as it is in heaven?”

            2. If this is how Christ’s kingdom is going to be carried out, then why are we who serve Christ progressively losing our freedoms to openly serve Him?

            3. David never reigned in my heart. How can his throne be there now?

            My questions for dispensationalism are as follows:

            1. In Hosea chapter 2:16, Hosea prophecies(assumedly to the Israelites) that they would no longer call God, Master or Ishi as the NASB translates it, but Baali which I believe means husband(sorry if I screwed it up). I believe the context is talking about the restoration of Israel as they worship God once and for all. Would not dispensationalism teach that God has a different relationship with Israel than He does to the church? I know that the church is referred to as the body of believers. I ask this questions just because at face value it strikes me as a covenant proof so to speak. I would appreciate your wisdom, sir.

            2. Is it a fair argument that when Christ says, “I will never leave you, or forsake you,” He is speaking to His peoples? Peoples being Israel and the church. It would not make sense, in my mind at least, for Christ to be only with Christians who are His people and not the Jews who disobeyed Him who are also His people. Is this a valid point?

            If you can answer these in class or jot them down on my paper that would be most helpful.

Journal 8

I will end this journal of the Ryrie book the same that I began it.My presupposition leans towards dispensationalism. This journal shall be an analysis of covenant theology since it hits so close to home as many of my friends are of the covenant disposition.

Because m,y friends are so heavily involved with covenant theology I have come to learn quite a bit about the belief. I have also com,e to see the similarities between dispensationalists and covenant thinking. I have found that the discord lies in the issue of continuity. Covenant theology bases a portion of it veracity on its longstanding history in the church. Though I do not know a vast amount of church history I have heard conflicting reports. The covenant theologians that I have heard base their belief on the teachings of the apostolic fathers and the first century church leaders. My presupposition leads me to accept the teachings of Mr. Williamson and Dr., Ryrie that it was not that long ago and not long before dispensationalism itself was formed. In honest opinion, the church history argum,ent is the weakest of their defenses. Not to diminish the impact of church history plays on our beliefs. 

The covenant theologian relies on covenants that are implied though perhaps not expressly stated though they will disagree. The problem is that these implied covenants are not the way that God's word communicates normally in my clearest understanding. God appears to make sure that His word interprets His word, no more and no less. Implied meaning can lead to endless rabbit trails.

Another tenet is the hermeneutical system of reading the New Testament into the Old. My problem with this line of thinking is that it states by logical conclusion that the Old Testament was completely impossible to understand for no less than 1,000 years. My initial assessment of this statement makes me ask the question, "why didn't God give us the New first?"

The final thing is that obviously due to some slips of the tongue by covenant theologians, as disipesationalists do, they have caused people to think that salvation comes through different means according to the different covenants. I will give covenant theologians the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that based on my personal experience their soteriology is very sound on several respects. 

Journal 9

One of the things that drive dispensational eschatology is the use of a "consistent" hermeneutic. The interesting this is that covenant theologians believe their hermeneutic is just as consistent. When it comes to the study of the end times I believe that the best way to read and interpret the text is to let the text decide what the text says. In my reading of the text this is the only methodology that I have ever come across that truly allows the Bible to say what it actually says. 

When it comes to eschatology the covenant viewpoint comes to some fantastic viewpoints when it comes to the book of Revelation. Revelation 20 is quite clear. The Jews must attain to the third aspect of the Abrahamic covenant at some point. They have received the land through Moses and Joshua which is an eternal possession, they received the seed through the line of David, and they will receive blessing during the millennial reign of Christ. To snatch this final, unfulfilled promise from the Jews and place it on the church is in my opinion quite irresponsible. The Old Testament provides an objective guide to the importance of not just the restoration of Israel, but to the millennial reign of Christ on earth. 

Final Argument:

A dispensations is defined as a specific outworking of God's grace in a specific length of time, or stewardship. God had specific commands for all of them. They consist of the following: Innocence(Genesis 1:3-3:6), Conscience(Genesis 3:7-6:1), Human government(Genesis 6:1-Genesis 11), Patriarchal rule(Genesis 12-Exodus 20), Mosaic law(Exodus 20-Acts 2), Grace(Acts 2-Revelations 19), and Millennium(Revelation 20). Though the age of the church is referred to as the dispensation of grace, this does not mean that God's grace was not present of mandatory throughout. It was the very grace of God that kept Adam and Eve alive immediately after the fall, and it is that saving grace of God that grants us life still today. These dispensations are not God changing the rules on mankind as though this were a poorly constructed game of dodgeball. This is God's progressive revelation to His people as He provides more and more information to His people when the time is right. 

Next is the major tenets of Dispensationalism. Ryrie lists 3 but I have added a 4th.

1. Israel and the church are distinct.

2. A consistent, literal, historical, and grammatical hermeneutic.

3. The purpose of history is the glory of God.

4. The Bible is to be interpreted from Old to New. 

Tenet 1: The church did not begin in Genesis 12 or Genesis 1. Jesus would seem, quite silly if He said He was going to establish the church when in reality it already existed. The church is also not mentioned in the book of Revelation past chapter 5. This is because the church is gone after the rapture. This type of replacement theology only occurs when one interprets the Bible through a faulty double-hermeneutic.

Tenet 2: The Bible is a book that does indeed take some time to study, but it is not under any circumstance a code book, laced with subtleties that only a gifted cyrptographer could deduce. The Bible is meant to be understood, on its own merit. When the Bible interprets the Bible, we can truly submit ourselves to the sovereignty of God. Ironically, I see the 5-point Calvinist covenant theologian exert some of the most freewill in how they interpret the Bible. I very often consider Covenant theologians as Neo-Arminians because they believe that Israel could choose to forfeit a covenant that they could not choose to get in to.

Tenet 3: All of creation must one day proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is the chief purpose of history. Salvation is just one of the ways that this is done. All of history must reflect God's glory ,when all is re,made into God's great image and all of creation can for the rest of eternity say Glory to God in the Highest!

Tenet 4: God did not give us the Bible in reverse order, as some covenant theologians think. I have heard quite a few say that just to understand the Old Testament one must understand the New. I disagree with that vehemently. One cannot know the greatness of God's grace, nor defend even our own existence if one does not know the beginning. If the Bible was to be interpreted in the lens of the New, then the 1,000 years of revelation were for all intents and purposes meaningless. This is easily contradicted by Joshua 1:8. No one reads any book from back to front, unless its the Bible apparently. We think, and rightly so, that someone is crazy if they read any of Tolkien's works from back to front in order to piece together a truer understanding. All languages form a specific pattern for understanding that is sensible, and logical, from front to back.

The bottom line is that dispensationalism shows and proves the need for distinctions in the text. There has to be becuase things are clearly different from passage to passage. Not inconsistent, just different. The empowewring and indwelling of the Holy Spirit are a classic example of this. Dispensationalism, elevates the Bible as the Word of God that should not be tampered with. I do not wish to ever become the arbiter of what is and is not truth.

 That's basically it. To all my readers who are covenant theologians, I apologize if I hurt you. That was not my intent. This is merely my opinion from what I read in Scripture. I do believe that I was quite fair though in most of my statements and handled it all casually. I hope you enjoyed and were forced to think little.

God bless,

Ross

 

Mark your priorities.

This is a paper I wrote for my J-term class during my sophomore year at Calvary Bible College. The class was on the Gospel of Mark. It was taught by Tim Smith. The point of the paper is to prove the purpose and truth of Mark. May you be blessed by it.

MARK YOUR PRIORITIES

Introduction

            The book of Mark is an intriguing book. It gives very little detail in areas where one would think that more would be helpful while in others it gives many details when one might consider it not necessary. Mark seems to write with a sense of urgency. He writes as though he must record the minimum amount of information. One must wonder if he wrote with the goal of getting the message of the life of Christ out and into the church as swiftly as possible. This is not the case though.

As the reader will surely know, the Holy Spirit guided the writing of John Mark and caused him to write exactly what he needed to. The Holy Spirit knew that the purpose of the Gospel of Mark would be one with a direct purpose. A purpose that would tell its readers of a man who dared to claim to be God. A man who could make that claim and not sin in saying so. A man who could make the sick healthy. A man who could make the lame leap, the dumb speak, and the dead to live again. A man who could tame the elements. Something that man cannot to this day do. Who is this man, this carpenter from Nazareth? Ironically, He asked this same question to His followers. May the reader read and be blessed on this feeble attempt to explain this magnificent story of the greatest man to ever live.

The characteristics of Mark

Mark was written by John Marcus, an interpreter to Peter. He wrote everything he remembered that Peter had told him. He was well known in his association with Peter because some nobody would not have been accepted by the church. Mark is a unique book because its contents focus on immediate action. This swiftness was because the Romans, the audience the book was written to, were a people of action. They just wanted the facts. Mark does not even include the virgin birth account as Matthew and Luke do. Romans wanted to see power and authority and this is exactly what Mark gave them. This authority that he stressed was over demons, disease, and death. These miracles in Mark have more detail than the other Gospels. Invariably the people are amazed at the works and words of Christ. This amazement stems from His authority.

Mark is unique in that he, more than the other writers, stresses Jesus’ favorite title for Himself; that being Son of Man. That is not the only title, however, that Mark dwells on. No, Mark writes his Gospel in almost two parts with each culminating in resounding statements by mankind. This shall be looked at later. There are many other characteristics that separate Mark from the other Gospels, but this author must move on.

Authority over demons, death, and disease

Mark wrote down specific events from Christ’s word and work so that it would be an aid to the Roman believers who were suffering persecution just as their Savior did. The book begins immediately with John the Baptist preaching and preparing the way of as prophesied in Isaiah with the ministry of Christ following immediately afterwards. One of the things that Mark stresses are the names of Christ. Jesus means the Lord of salvation. It was His human name. Christ means Messiah and King. Son of God refers to His divine relationship with the Father that is equal in essence and possessing the very nature of God. Son of Man refers to His humility and His returning in judgment as prophesied in Daniel 7. All these names of Christ show His authority. This is what the Romans wanted to see. What gives Jesus His authority and why does He have it? This is what they wanted to know. Mark proves His authority through the writing of miracles proving His control over three things that only God has authority over: demons, death, and disease.

The first of Jesus’ recorded miracles is when He visits Capernaum. This city would be a home-base of sorts for Christ in His ministry. In this city was a demoniac who had come across Jesus’ path as He was leaving the synagogue. The demon tries to gain the upper hand on Christ by calling Him out by name, which was a tactic designed to show the exorcist that the demon was more powerful than the exorcist. This strategy does not work on the Son of God. Jesus then immediately heals the mother-in-law of Peter, cleanses a leper, and healing a multitude of people. In this first chapter alone Christ has cast out a demon, healed the sick, and healed a leper over a disease that almost certainly results in death.

Another key point that Mark tries to stress is Christ’s dominion over the law. Christ has authority over the Sabbathian laws and sin, bringing to a boil a heated series of confrontations with the religious leaders of Israel. Christ heals a paralytic man from sin and then from his disease. Christ always sought after healing the spiritual first and then the physical if the people would simply believe. It would appear that Christ would trump the teachers of the law in this confrontation, but this would not be the last of their meetings. They seemingly follow Christ and His disciples from location to location in an attempt to catch Him or His disciples in false teaching. Christ gets to the point very beautifully when He confronts them in the temple after healing a man with a withered hand. He tells them what the true purpose of the Sabbath was and that it was a supplement to man, not man to it. His teaching was dripping with authority and the scribes and elders simply could not match it. As with all of Jesus’ teaching, it either saved, or condemned those who heard His message. The religious leaders instantly sought to kill their Messiah. God’s children could learn much from the suffering of Christ. When believers do right and are persecuted for it, often by those who claim the name of Christ, do they crumble under the minor pressure? Or do they fight the good fight? Christ was called Satan by the people who should have known Him best. He was rejected by His own family. He lived homelessly and relied on the providence of God to carry Him and His disciples through the day.

What typifies this portion of the book is how Mark stresses the deity of Christ. Christ does this primarily through His servant’s heart. He goes to the people. He wants the people to come to Him. He touches people, embraces them, and heals them. Only the hand that holds the world can perform these wonders.

From here Mark reaches a pivotal point in his Gospel. Jesus now begins to teach in parables whose understanding is given only to those who will follow Him. The religious leaders are not granted mercy and understanding and are rejected by Christ. Just as these parables show who Christ’s enemies are they reveal who His children are.

It seems that a key theme to all of Christ’s parables is that the Gospel is controversial. The parables conceal truth that He reveals to His people. From here, Mark continues to show Christ’s deity through another series of miracles. These include calming the storm, cleansing another demoniac who had many demons inside him, cleansing a woman from perpetual uncleanness, raising a young girl from the dead, commissioning the twelve so that they could do miraculous things themselves, feeding over 5,000 people with meager means twice, walking on water, healing the Syrophoenician’s daughter, a deaf man, and many other things could not be contained in all the books in the world. All the while Jesus is refuting the Pharisees and religious leaders every step of the way who only grow more rage-filled at this carpenter.

This brings the book to a drastic shift. Christ will now explain about His passion week, and tell the disciples all that they need to know as He mentors them through what will be an arduous time of life in the name of Christ.

Discipling the disciples

Mark wrote down what Peter had now understood to be a teaching on how to survive and be joyous through persecutions and certain death. Mark also records in this section the beautiful confession of that Jesus is the Christ by Peter. This is one of the two key confessions made in the Gospel of Christ. Whenever a statement like this is made, there is a shift not only in this book, but also in the lives of the people who make this confession. Christ now wanted to help bolster their faith and teach them all that He could about His death and resurrection. Christ presents them with the drastic commitment that following Christ entails and how it is to the end. A half-hearted attempt at life is simply not good enough when it comes to service to the King of kings. This is why Jesus took the three who were closest to Him to witness His transfiguration. This event was a sign to the disciples that they would later communicate to their brethren that Christ was the King of Israel and their faith should not waver. Christ would not leave them derelict.

Mark takes special interest to record the healing of another demoniac to show that healing comes through the power of faith in prayer.

Christ’s preaching on His death is always connected to discipleship. Jesus would communicate His death to the disciples but they could still not understand. Christ spends this time leading up to His passion week dealing with many different things that would create tension in the church and still do today. Christ spent a great deal of time dealing with the false ideals of the disciples who wanted to the big man on campus when the kingdom came, what real servanthood is like.

            All the sections of Mark lead up to this final one where Christ proves that He is the Son of God through His death and resurrection.

The Son of God

            Mark now shifts focus once again as he records the passion narrative and the atoning work of Christ. The contrasting points of view in the love of Christ and the rejection by the religious leaders are what truly capture this portion of the narrative. Christ continues to teach in parables through the cursing of the fig tree, vineyard workers, the parable of the steward. He also faces various attacks from the religious leaders who are still attempting to prove that He is a sham of a man and is no better than them and their law. Christ continues to sweep away their attacks with brilliant questions and not only asks a question that defeats their questions, but also proves the complete fallacy in their beliefs. Only the God-man could do such a thing. The Pharisees and teachers of the law now shift to full-fledged premeditated murder of Christ. Mark writes carefully and records the word and work of Christ as the days lead up to His ransom for sin.

            Christ shared communion with His disciples during the last supper and gave them orders concerning how they were to remember Him and taught them one last time before His crucifixion. Christ then prays in the garden and with His disciples who cannot even stay awake during His hour of plight. Christ is betrayed, arrested, tried before a farcical court, tried before Pilate, and rejected by the people. He is beaten at an unbelievable level. The people choose a murderous zealot to be released over Him and ask that His blood be on them and their children.

            As Christ hung on the cross and breathed out His last, crying out that His work was completed, a nameless centurion walked by the cross with his face gazing on the corpse of Christ. With full affirmation he claimed as Peter did that this man was the Son of God assuredly.

            It is this that is the purpose of the book. So that people may know that Christ is the Son of God, and that He has died for all mankind. But He is no longer dead. The resurrection is historical proof empirically recorded for the skeptics that corroborate that Jesus truly was the Son of the Most High God because death could not hold Him. After the resurrection, Mark ceases to write as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells him to cease. The word and work of Christ is sent out to all mankind and man can revel in His word and work. Amen.

Conclusion

            Jesus of Nazareth is arguably the most disputed person in the history of man. His word and work have been recorded in several accounts that historically reliable and accurate. The purpose of this work, however, is very simple. The Gospel of Mark is designed to teach us exactly who Christ is as a servant, as deity, as Messiah, healer, teacher, cleanser, Savior, Son of God, and Son of Man. In Him can we live, dwell, and die in sheer joy. Oh, that the scales would fall from the eyes of man that they may declare that Christ is Lord. Oh, that we would do the same in our illumination. Let the believers who testify of His name say, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus.”

            Lord, haste the day when we see burning satellites, and your kingdom descending from heaven. Amen. 

Oh be careful little ears what you hear...Oh be careful, parents, what you teach.

This is a poem I read for my college composition class at Calvary Bible College during my sophomore year. This is  why one must be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. This is why one must be pulled kicking and screaming into the loving arms of Christ. Only when one experiences the love that won't let them go, can one realize that one cannot choose their salvation, nor resist the hand that holds the world. It is this love that hangs on to the wayward child that allows the wayward to love Christ as they were never able to before.

This poem is by Langston Hughes. It is sadly very similar to our American church. Proponents of Paul Washer, as I am, will shake their head ruefully at the sad reality of the heresy that "easy believism" has wreaked in our church. I would say "enjoy," but it quite frankly is tough to swallow.

I was saved from sin when I was going on thirteen. But not really saved. It happened like this. There was a big revival at my Auntie Reed's church. Every night for weeks there had been much preaching, singing, praying, and shouting, and some very hardened sinners had been brought to Christ, and the membership of the church had grown by leaps and bounds. Then just before the revival ended, they held a special meeting for children, "to bring the young lambs to the fold." My aunt spoke of it for days ahead. That night I was escorted to the front row and placed on the mourners' bench with all the other young sinners, who had not yet been brought to Jesus.

My aunt told me that when you were saved you saw a light, and something happened to you inside! And Jesus came into your life! And God was with you from then on! She said you could see and hear and feel Jesus in your soul. I believed her. I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know. So I sat there calmly in the hot, crowded church, waiting for Jesus to come to me.

The preacher preached a wonderful rhythmical sermon, all moans and shouts and lonely cries and dire pictures of hell, and then he sang a song about the ninety and nine safe in the fold, but one little lamb was left out in the cold. Then he said: "Won't you come? Won't you come to Jesus? Young lambs, won't you come?" And he held out his arms to all us young sinners there on the mourners' bench. And the little girls cried. And some of them jumped up and went to Jesus right away. But most of us just sat there.

A great many old people came and knelt around us and prayed, old women with jet-black faces and braided hair, old men with work-gnarled hands. And the church sang a song about the lower lights are burning, some poor sinners to be saved. And the whole building rocked with prayer and song.

Still I kept waiting to see Jesus.

Finally all the young people had gone to the altar and were saved, but one boy and me. He was a rounder's son named Westley. Westley and I were surrounded by sisters and deacons praying. It was very hot in the church, and getting late now. Finally Westley said to me in a whisper: "God da(r)n! I'm tired o' sitting here. Let's get up and be saved." So he got up and was saved.

Then I was left all alone on the mourners' bench. My aunt came and knelt at my knees and cried, while prayers and song swirled all around me in the little church. The whole congregation prayed for me alone, in a mighty wail of moans and voices. And I kept waiting serenely for Jesus, waiting, waiting - but he didn't come. I wanted to see him, but nothing happened to me. Nothing! I wanted something to happen to me, but nothing happened.

I heard the songs and the minister saying: "Why don't you come? My dear child, why don't you come to Jesus? Jesus is waiting for you. He wants you. Why don't you come? Sister Reed, what is this child's name?"

"Langston," my aunt sobbed.

"Langston, why don't you come? Why don't you come and be saved? Oh, Lamb of God! Why don't you come?"

Now it was really getting late. I began to be ashamed of myself, holding everything up so long. I began to wonder what God thought about Westley, who certainly hadn't seen Jesus either, but who was now sitting proudly on the platform, swinging his knickerbockered legs and grinning down at me, surrounded by deacons and old women on their knees praying. God had not struck Westley dead for taking his name in vain or for lying in the temple. So I decided that maybe to save further trouble, I'd better lie, too, and say that Jesus had come, and get up and be saved.

So I got up.

Suddenly the whole room broke into a sea of shouting, as they saw me rise. Waves of rejoicing swept the place. Women leaped in the air. My aunt threw her arms around me. The minister took me by the hand and led me to the platform.

When things quieted down, in a hushed silence, punctuated by a few ecstatic "Amens," all the new young lambs were blessed in the name of God. Then joyous singing filled the room.

That night, for the first time in my life but one for I was a big boy twelve years old - I cried. I cried, in bed alone, and couldn't stop. I buried my head under the quilts, but my aunt heard me. She woke up and told my uncle I was crying because the Holy Ghost had come into my life, and because I had seen Jesus. But I was really crying because I couldn't bear to tell her that I had lied, that I had deceived everybody in the church, that I hadn't seen Jesus, and that now I didn't believe there was a Jesus anymore, since he didn't come to help me.

Philippians 2:12 - "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

My brothers and sisters, you have been called and set apart by God. 

2 Corinthians 9:15 - "Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!"

Fiat justitia et pereat mundus.

Ross

The People of Igdaliah

This is my first full research paper I ever wrote in college. I'd been out of practice for so long I'd forgotten how to write one I guess because this is pretty poor in my opinion. I enjoyed the study thoroughly though. This paper is dealing with Jeremiah 35. I suggest you read the chapter first and then read this paper. The chapter is only 15 verses so you can squeeze it in I'm sure :) This paper was written for Dr. Keith Miller for my freshman class on Old Testament Survey at Calvary Bible College. (I lost the intro page somewhere along the way regrettably. But here's everything after it. The paper is very akin to a novel in some respects because of two reasons: 1. I'm out of practice. 2. I'm a writer at heart.) :P Enjoy!

The intention of the author is for the reader to learn that God is faithful to the faithful and keeps His promises. As a nation falls, the godly obey in small things more and more while the wicked disobey in larger and larger things.[1] Let the journey begin.

The Simple Seed of the Family Tree

On a hot and arid day in Egypt, the sound of a whip snapping across the back of a Hebrew slave was heard by a man out walking. This man was a prince of Egypt. This man’s name was Moses. Though the people thought he was of Egyptian descent, he knew otherwise. He knew that he was a Hebrew himself. He could not tolerate the actions of this taskmaster any longer. In the heat of anger, Moses[2] murdered the taskmaster and buried the body. The next day Moses went out walking again and found two Hebrew men fighting. When he tried to confront them and quell the fracas, the people rebuked him wondering if Moses would kill them too! This terrified Moses, for he knew that now the matter would be known by all. His fears were confirmed when the Pharoah tried to kill him. In terror, Moses fled eastward and lived amongst the Midianites.[3] Here, on the Gulf of Aqaba, Moses met Jethro, the priest of Midian.

The Midianites were a nomadic tribe living in northwestern Arabia. They were descendants of Midian, son of Keturah, wife of Abraham, which, in Gen 25:2, is the first mention of what would become the Rechabite family. The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. Regrettably, this is all the information on these figures that Scripture can provide. What one can glean from this is that the leading of the Holy Spirit upon Moses did not see it as necessary to include their entire family. Moving bact to the topic of Jethro, it is known that he was also called Reuel (which means friend of God) and that he met Moses. For the sake of continuity, the author will refer to the priest of Midian as Jethro, which is the name predominantly used in the text.

Moses was relaxing by a well when he met the seven daughters of Jethro. The daughters of Jethro took Moses, whom they called an Egyptian, due most likely to his dress or complexion, back to their camp.[4] Jethro hired Moses to shepherd his large amounts of livestock. In gratitude Jethro gave Moses his daughter Zipporah as a wife.

From here, Moses would receive his commission to return to Egypt and would later free the Hebrews.

            Jethro continued with the Israelites after they had been released from their captivity. Scripture provides ample proof to this as Jethro traveled to meet with Moses and even offered a sacrifice (Exod 18:6-12). Upon what we can only assume to be Jethro’s passing, a dialogue between Moses and Hobab, the son of Jethro, takes place. Moses invited Hobab to accompany him, not only because he was family, but also because his knowledge of the desert gained from being a nomad would be invaluable.[5] Hobab took his family and, upon entrance into the promised land, pitched his tent in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh. Again, the trail dies on this family after this point until the land of promise has been taken and the judges are now governing the people.

            At this point in time, Deborah and Barak were attempting to free the Israelites from the oppression of Jabin, King of Canaan. Jabin’s commander, Sisera, boasted 900 iron chariots. By God’s grace, the Israelites routed the armies of Sisera, who fled to Kedesh and stayed at the tent of a woman named Jael, whom he assumed to be friendly because of the amicable relationship between her husband and Jabin.[6] Here is where the lineage comes back into the text. The reader learns that Heber the Kenite had separated himself from the other Kenites and from his father Hobab, and married Jael. Jael gave Sisera some warm milk and covered him most likely with a rug to “conceal him.” The warm milk had eased Sisera to sleep while Jael put the final phase of her plan into action. Clearly Jael did not share the same beliefs as her husband as the prophecy of Deborah was fulfilled as Jael drove the tent peg into Sisera’s temple. The way these people all tie together, even at this early stage of the Bible, is truly fascinating. The family tree does not end here though.

            King Jehu had just finished his speech outside the gates of Jezreel. The disgusting rank of the severed heads of the heirs of Ahab choked some of the bystanders. Jehu’s desire to purge the land of all evil influence from Ahab and idolatry was almost finished. He was now on his way to Samaria. He met a very mercurial figure on the way to his destination. This man would be around for a long time helping Jehu cleanse the land.[7] His name was Jehonadab, the son of Rechab. He was a man who was faithful to the Lord and a strict observer of Mosaic Law.[8] Jehonadab was revered as a man of God whose heart, as the text states, was right. Jehonadab is the watershed figure that shapes the belief of this nomadic tribe, as the reader shall soon see.

            The Babylonians had camped outside the walls of Judah. Cannibalism was rampant. Jeremiah wandered the streets watching in horror as the city self-destructed morally. The people had been driven to extreme moral depravity and had even turned to worshipping Astereth. Jeremiah received a command from God to go to the house of the Rechabites and to give them wine to drink. The Rechabites had spiritual royalty on their side. Igdaliah was recognized in Scripture as the man of God, which could identify himself and his descendants as allies of Jeremiah.[9] Jeremiah had taken them into the house of the Lord and had offered them the wine. Something peculiar happened though. They refused the wine because of the commands of their father Jehonadab, or Jonadab as he is referred to by this generation. God commended them for their faithfulness to the commands of their father Jonadab and promised that the son of Rechab would never lack a man to stand before God always. Jeremiah used these people as an object lesson to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. These nomads were faithful to the commands of one ancestor for over 200 years while the Israelites were constantly turning away from God.[10]

This command carries with it incredible implications, for shortly thereafter, the kingdom of Judah was then laid waste. For seventy years the people were in captivity. A few questions, however, are raised. What exactly were the commands laid down by Jehonadab, and why did God command the Rechabites to drink when they were commanded not to, and is this blessing still in effect today? Did God forget the words of one of His own righteous followers? This author shall explain that shortly.

Their Commands

The commands of Jehonadab to his descendants were quite clear. The first of these commands was that they were not to drink wine. The reader must understand that, as stated above, these people were the descendants of Jehonadab who was a devout man of God. The Rechabites were a pure group of people and could be likened to the Nazirites. Since they were a nomadic group of people, they must have come across the practices of the Canaanites quite often. In this particular instance, the Rechabites must have viewed the Canaanites as a race of drunks and wanted to avoid any association with the pagans. Their abstinence was not based on the morals of the modern teetotaler, but on the fact that wine made from grapes, to them, symbolized Canaanite corruption.[11] Never did God or Jeremiah commend the people for their abstinence. The Rechabites were never meant to be an object lesson for abstinence in alcohol. What God commended them for was their faithfulness to the commands of their elder Jehonadab.[12]

The next law they lived by was for them to live in tents all of their days. Now, if the reader has been paying attention, this should raise an eyebrow. If these people were supposed to live in tents, what were they doing living in a house in Jerusalem? The next question this raises is why were they living in Jerusalem in the first place if they were supposed to be nomads? There is a method to the madness though. The Babylonians and Syrians had been on the warpath for quite some time and were ravaging the land forcing several people to take shelter so that life and limb could be spared. Among these groups of people were the Rechabites who had taken up momentary shelter in the walls of Jerusalem.[13] Because of their devout faithfulness to the commands of Jehonadab and the commendations of God, we can therefore assume that this lodging in Jerusalem was only temporary. In a large city like Jerusalem that was in the midst of every form of turmoil that the mind could fathom, living in tents was neither safe nor practical.

The next law was to never sow seeds or to grow a vineyard. The reasoning behind these is quite simple. The people were to live a nomadic lifestyle and the care required to grow vineyards and crops simply did not allow for these things to take place. One can only think that the Rechabites maintained their way of living through the consumption of meat and the purchasing of vegetables and such. Their nomadic lifestyles would also give them an advantage in knowledge of where to find water while traversing the desert.

The last command given to them was to live tents all their days. This is obviously because they were nomads and could not simply carry their homes on the backs of their livestock.

These people were faithful in every way to the commands of Jehonadab and were commended by God for it. This branch of the family that had been grafted into the society had been used by God to humble the people and show them true obedience.[14] As stated above, God never advocated their aesthetic lifestyle. Had God meant this, he would never have commanded people to go into the world and make disciples, but rather to live as vagabonds, having neither house nor land. His blessing was for their obedience.[15]

The Promise of God

The last verse of chapter thirty-five paints the picture quite clearly for the reader and all the inhabitants of the city. In short, it says that Jehonadab shall not lack a man to stand before God always. This is an incredible statement. Though it does present this author and the reader with two questions. Does this mean that the Rechabites would forever walk the earth remaining loyal to God, or was this promise upheld as long as the tribe existed? This author will do what he can to explain.

There are differing opinions amongst many scholars. Even the conclusion that must be arrived at is conjecture at best. On the one side, you have those that think that God, from this point on, incorporated the Rechabites into the service of the Lord. This would include having the people serve as prophets, priests, or kings.[16] The problem with this theory though is that no descendant of Jehonadab, Rechab, or Igdaliah has ever been recorded in Scripture as being king, priest, or prophet, and without an accurate bloodline tracing, readers can never know if this actually happened.

The second line of thought is that, since God had commanded the Levites to serve as His priests, the faithfulness of the Rechabites was transferred over to the Levitical line.[17] As with the previous theory, we cannot be sure of this fact. This theory could be acceptable solely for the fact that the line of priests had been tainted since the days of Eli and his sons. This author is quite sure that God grew angry over the rebellion of the Levites, a tribe that had been set apart solely for the service of God. This author finds it quite alarming at how often the few good kings of the Bible were written about making intercession to God themselves rather than through the priest. The priests, after all, were supposed to allow the people to approach God.

The final line of thought is that God would not spiritually save them all.  He would however spare them by preserving their posterity in which some have a place of service to Him.[18] This line of thinking stems from the fact that the word used for the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, as well as Moses and Samuel, is the same as the word used to reference the Rechabites. Without a clear definition of God’s promise though, readers can only interpret the text literally and assume that this is a literal tribal salvation and not a spiritual salvation.

The Faithfulness of God at Work

Persia, led by the brilliant military general Cyrus, decreed for all captured slaves to return to their original lands and worship their gods. This was right at the end of the seventy allotted years that God had commanded the Jews must serve in captivity.

Nehemiah was allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls of his beloved city. This would require much work. Nehemiah doled out the responsibilities to various sections as piece by piece the wall began to take shape. Just as the project was beginning to move along easily, opposition arrived. Three men stood up and fought against Nehemiah’s efforts. They tried to convince the people to join their efforts and repel Nehemiah from the land. Daily they would hurl abuse at the people trying to convince them that, even if they did manage to rebuild the wall, it would not be strong enough to keep enemies at bay.[19] Nehemiah knew what he was doing was right and would not leave. He quelled the uprisings and work on the walls and gates continued. The gate is where we will draw our interest as a beautiful detail is recorded.

We see in our reading of Nehemiah that he takes careful time to accurately record in mass detail the sections of the wall that were being rebuilt, the order they being rebuilt in, and the people who fixed them. As we scour the names of the people working on the walls, the readers may stop in astonishment as they see a name they recognize. This name belongs to the man whose task it was to repair a small section of the western wall. It was a menial task, but it was important nonetheless. He was quite capable in his work since he is recorded as an official of the district of Beth-haccherem. He built his gate strongly, hung it on its hinges, and slatted the door with wooden beams for strength. This man, whose name only appears once in the whole of Scripture, whose lineage is one of the most obscure of the entire Bible, whose menial job was to repair the refuse gate, a man whose lineage disappears from all written text after this point, still serving God faithfully, was Malchijah the Rechabite.

Conclusion

This author hopes that the reader has learned something on this journey. God rewards faithfulness so mightily in His Scripture, and in life in general. Countless times, the faithlessness of a people is a major source of the kindling of God’s wrath. The Rechabites were faithful to the commands of Jehonadab, the man of God, all their days. Though this lifestyle was not necessarily commended by God, the concepts of obedience because they were told to is so very commendable and a lesson that must be learned by all who claim to be children of God.

God used these nomadic people to express five key flaws in the Israeli spirituality:

1. The Rechabites received and obeyed the commands of a fallible leader. The Israelites served the almighty God.

2.     Jehonadab gave his commands to Rechabites only once; God on the other hand communicated His laws repeatedly and it still did not work.

3.     The restrictions placed on the Rechabites did not have eternal implications to them; God’s laws did.

4.     The Rechabites obeyed the commands of Jehonadab for 300 years; the Israelites constantly disobeyed.

5.     The loyalty of the Rechabites would be rewarded; for their disloyalty God’s people would be punished. This is the reason why Jeremiah had them come into the temple. He wanted all the inhabitants of Jerusalem to see and be humbled by these non-Jews.[20]

The Rechabites obeyed simply because they were told to. This author asks, “Why can the people of this age not simply obey?”

---

[1] Pastor Jon Stephens. East Side Bible Church. Sermon Notes. Iggy and the Rechabites.

[2] Carl F. H. Henry. The Biblical Expositor: The Living Theme of the Great Book (A. J. Holman Company: Philadelphia, 1960), 96.

[3] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty (David C. Cook: Colorado Springs, 1983), 110.

[4] Ibid., 111.

[5] Ibid., 226.

[6] Henry, The Biblical Expositor, 250.

[7] Stephens. Iggy and Rechabites.

[8] Henry. The Biblical Expositor. 558.

[9] Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers. World Biblical Commentary (Word Books, Publisher. Dallas, Texas. 1995), 194.

[10] George Arthur Buttrick, Walter Russell Bowie, Paul Scherer, John Knox, Samuel Terrien, Nolan B. Harmon. The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon Press, Nashville, Tennessee 1956), 1060.

[11] Ibid., 1059.

[12] Ibid., 1061.

[13] Frank E. Gaebelein. Charles L. Feinberg. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Regency Reference Library, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1986), 599.

[14] Stephens. Iggy and the Rechabites.

[15] Buttrick, Bowie, Scherer, Knox, Terrien, Harmon. The Interpreter’s Bible. 1062.

[16] Gaebelein, Feinberg. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. 602.

[17] Ibid., 602.

[18] John MacArthur. The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB-U (Thomas Nelson, La Habra, California, 2006), 1089.

[19] Henry. The Biblical Expositor. 388.

[20] Gaebelein, Feinberg. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 602.