Did the Hebrew day begin in the morning or evening?

Modern Jews start a new day at sunset. It is thought that this calendar convention also existed at the time of Jesus although there may have been more than one calendar at that time with different sects giving preference to one over another.

Genesis 1 describes the completion of each day's creative acts by God with the words: there was evening and there was morning, the nth day. Some commentators have argued that the day began at evening and Genesis is saying that the beginning of the day is at evening, then morning occurred, and the day therefore ended at the next evening. This sounds strained. Evening and morning occur after the creative act. It seems more logical to read the verses as saying that the creative acts occurred during the daylight followed by evening after the creative acts have finished* followed by night followed by the next morning which is the terminus of the day.

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. (Gen 1:20-23)

The day begins at dawn, then God creates the fish and birds, then the evening comes, and then the day completes with a new morning.

I suspect that this was the case at creation and was still in place at the time of the Exodus. That is, the Hebrew day started at dawn and finished the following dawn. A transition to a calendar where the day commences at dusk occurred sometime later: prior to the current era, possibly before the time of Jesus; perhaps around the time of the Exile to Babylon. There is evidence of a different possible calendar change at the time of the Exile: the year start switched from the first month (Nisan) to the seventh month (Tishri).

If the day started at dawn, at least from the time of creation to the exodus, there could be evidence of this in Scripture.

I would argue that the instructions concerning Passover and Unleavened Bread make the most sense if the day commenced at dawn. I will call a day commencing at dawn a dawn-day. That is, at dawn when the sun comes up a new day begins. Likewise dusk-days commence in the evening.

English Bibles often use the term "twilight" whereas the literal text uses the phrase "between the evenings". There is considerable debate about what this phrase means. It may be that the first evening occurs when the sun goes down and the second evening when it gets dark. Or from sundown to midnight. Or from noon until sundown. Perhaps even between noon and midnight. For the passages we will discuss the interpretation does not significantly affect our calculations.

There are three instructions concerning the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. These occur in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. These instructions were all given during the same epoch which means that the time the day began was almost certainly the same for all three episodes. This is unless Exodus uses an Egyptian calendar which changed after the Hebrews left Egypt.

God gave Moses instructions for the Passover,

Yahweh said to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month [Abib, Nisan] will be the beginning of months; it will be for you the first of the months of the year. Speak to all the community of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month, they will each take for themselves a lamb for the family,...

“You will keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and all the assembly of the community of Israel will slaughter it between the evenings... And they will eat the meat on this night;...

“And I will go through the land of Egypt during this night, and I will strike all of the firstborn in the land of Egypt,...

“And this day will become a memorial for you, and you will celebrate it as a religious feast for Yahweh throughout your generations; you will celebrate it as a lasting statute. You will eat unleavened bread for seven days. Surely on the first day you shall remove yeast from your houses, because anyone who eats food with yeast from the first day until the seventh day—that person will be cut off from Israel. It will be for you on the first day a holy assembly and on the seventh day a holy assembly; no work will be done on them; only what is eaten by every person, it alone will be prepared for you.

“And you will keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because on this very day I brought out your divisions from the land of Egypt, and you will keep this day for your generations as a lasting statute. On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, you will eat unleavened bread until the evening of the twenty-first day of the month. For seven days yeast must not be found in your houses, because anyone eating food with yeast will be cut off from the community of Israel—whether an alien or a native of the land. You will eat no food with yeast; in all of your dwellings you will eat unleavened bread.” (Exo 12)

Passover was on the fourteenth day of Nisan. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was for seven days. They were to start eating the unleavened bread on the evening of Nisan 14 and continue until the evening of Nisan 21.

In Leviticus God gives further instructions,

These are Yahweh’s appointed times, holy assemblies, which you shall proclaim at their appointed time. In the first month, on the fourteenth of the month at the evening is Yahweh’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day of this month is Yahweh’s Feast of Unleavened Bread; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day there shall be a holy assembly for you; you shall not do any regular work. And you shall present an offering for Yahweh made by fire for seven days; on the seventh day there shall be a holy assembly; you shall not do any regular work. (Lev 23:4-8)

This reiterates the command in Exodus but clarifies that Passover is on Nisan 14 and the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on Nisan 15. Exodus states that unleavened bread is to be eaten from Nisan 14, that is from Passover proper; yet they are to eat it for 7 days. Leviticus states that the Feast of Unleavened Bread proper starts on Nisan 15.

Again, in Numbers, at the end of 40 years of wandering, God commands,

On the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover for Yahweh. On the fifteenth day of this month is a religious feast, unleavened bread must be eaten for seven days. On the first day there will be a holy assembly you will not do any regular work.... On the seventh day you will have a holy assembly you will not do any regular work. (Num 28:16-18,25)

These passages give similar commands. What is notable is that while all three give 7 days as the duration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Exodus specifies that this is to be from the evening of Nisan 14 to the evening of Nisan 21. There is also to be a holy assembly on the first and seventh days of Unleavened Bread.

Using dawn-days we have Nisan 14 starting in the morning and the passover lamb being killed between the evenings (ʿereb) and eaten that night (layil). Unleavened bread would be eaten that evening with the Passover meal (Exo 12:8,18). The following morning starts the next day: Nisan 15. Nisan 15 is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread when they have a holy assembly with the attendant sacrifices. Nisan 16 is day 2 of the feast, Nisan 21 is day 7. There is a holy assembly that day also. In the evening the feast ends and unleavened bread only needs to be eaten until that evening (Exo 12:18).

Date	Time	Feast day	Comments
Nisan 14	morning
	evening	Passover sacrifice	unleavened bread begins
Nisan 15	morning	Feast Day 1	holy assembly
	evening
Nisan 16	morning	Feast Day 2
	evening
Nisan 17	morning	Feast Day 3
	evening
Nisan 18	morning	Feast Day 4
	evening
Nisan 19	morning	Feast Day 5
	evening
Nisan 20	morning	Feast Day 6
	evening
Nisan 21	morning	Feast Day 7	holy assembly
	evening		unleavened bread ends
Nisan 22	morning

Using dusk-days the entire feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread must last 8 days. Nisan 13 changes to Nisan 14 at dusk. The lamb is slaughtered and eaten that night along with unleavened bread. In the morning it is still Nisan 14 which is still Passover day. The Feast of Unleavened Bread does not start until that evening Nisan 15 (Lev 23:6). The holy assembly occurs that day but not until the following morning because they were not to work and the sacrifice of the first day of Unleavened Bread occurs at the same time as the morning sacrifice (Num 28:23).

Nisan 15 is the first day of the feast and Nisan 21 the seventh day. Nisan 21 starts in the evening but the evening of Nisan 21 is also when the the consumption of unleavened bread ceased. From the evening of Nisan 21 the Israelites were no longer required to eat unleavened bread even though the Feast of Unleavened Bread still had one day to go. The following morning they had the holy assembly on the final day of the feast. If unleavened bread was to be continued to be eaten until the end of Nisan 21, just before Nisan 22 started, then the command to eat for seven full days (Exo 12:19) is actually eight full days. 

Date	Time	Feast day	Comments
Nisan 14	evening	Passover sacrifice	unleavened bread begins
	morning
Nisan 15	evening	Feast Day 1
	morning		holy assembly
Nisan 16	evening	Feast Day 2
	morning
Nisan 17	evening	Feast Day 3
	morning
Nisan 18	evening	Feast Day 4
	morning
Nisan 19	evening	Feast Day 5
	morning
Nisan 20	evening	Feast Day 6
	morning
Nisan 21	evening	Feast Day 7	unleavened bread ends
	morning		holy assembly
Nisan 22	evening

All three passages concerning Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread make sense if the Israelites were using dawn-days. Dusk-days imply that there is a morning after Passover begins prior to the holy assembly, and that the second holy assembly occurs after the time of unleavened bread ceases.

---

*This may not be the case on day 2.

Believing men persuaded

Men in Antioch preached the gospel and many became Christians. This was shortly after Peter preached to Cornelius' household and defended the inclusion of the Gentiles amongst those whom were to have life in Jesus' name.

But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. (Acts 11:20-21)

This is an interesting passage, though variously translated. The KJV and many that follow it join the act of believing with coming to the Lord. The NIV does likewise.

• KJV | And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
• NKJV | And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.
• NRSV | The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord.
• NIV | The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Thus the passage would be saying that a great number Hellenists were persuaded by the men of Cyrene and Cyprus and as a result turned to the Lord.

Though the ASV and several recent translations connect turning the the Lord with antecedent faith.

• ASV | And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord.
• RSV | And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord.
• ESV | And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.
• LEB | And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.
• NET | The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number (ἀριθμὸς) who believed (πιστεύσας) turned to the Lord.

Although the people could have just believed the message and thus turned to the Lord, are they believers? The question is: were they persuaded and therefore believed? or were believing men persuaded?

The NET study note says,

The participle πιστεύσας (pisteusas) is articular and thus cannot be adverbial. It is adjectival, modifying ἀριθμός (arithmos), but has been translated into English as a relative clause (“who believed”). 

I suspect that the study note is saying that the word "believing" is joined to the word "number" so it must be an describing the great number of people. The phrase could be translated "...a great believing-number turned to the Lord."

We have a potentially important distinction in this passage and elsewhere. The Great Commission was to tell the world about Jesus so that men may repent and be baptised; that they may become disciples; that they may have life in his name. This is quite obvious in our current age. Even so, the time of the New Testament was a time of transition. Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah. He is the true Israel. Christianity was in its infancy. So what are we to make of the faithful of that time? Anna and Simeon in the temple, the disciples, the family of Jesus (even they did not believe him (John 7:5)), Cornelius and other God-fearers. These people were part of God's kingdom but had yet to come to trust in Jesus. While it is true that many of the lost repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus for their salvation, there were others who were part of the kingdom but who were ignorant of how Jesus fulfilled the Messianic promises.

Could not these Hellenists* be men who were believers in the One True God, and because they were so, when Christ is preached they believe also in him? Could this not also be the situation with God-fearers among the Greeks?

Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Jesus had said that he had sheep in other folds before his death and resurrection (John 10:16). Jesus had told some Jews that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to him (John 6:45), and told others that if God were their Father they would love him (John 8:42).

There were many people who loved God and on learning about Jesus loved him also, and turning to him, entrusted their lives to him.

---

*If the word is "Hellenists" then this would refer to the godly Greek-speaking Jews in Antioch, or perhaps proselytes. If the word is "Greeks" then this would refer to the Greek God-fearers in Antioch.

Dividing up the clay

In my previous post I wrote this quite deliberate sentence.

Paul is expanding the potter motif which we see in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

In Romans 9 Paul references a large number of Old Testament passages. His use of the potter clearly alludes to a Old Testament motif yet he also expands it. In Isaiah 29:16 God is the potter and the rebellious people the clay. Isaiah 45:9 compares the rebellious person to his creator (or parent). Jeremiah 18:6 describes a nations as clay and God as the potter. In Romans 9:19-21 Paul says,

You will say to me then, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you [singular], O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

The potter again is God but the clay is not necessarily the person answering back to God. He is included, in that Paul's response is that the moulded (clay) cannot answer back to the moulder (potter). Though Paul says more here. The clay gets made into both honourable and dishonourable vessels, so the clay must represent more than one person. This fits in more with a corporate reading of Romans 9-11. But there is even more to this. The clay in the Old Testament examples represents man. It represents the object being discussed: the rebellious people; the rebellious man; a nation. Yet in Romans the clay represents two groups; or rather one group that can be used in two different ways. So either the clay represents all men (Jews and Gentiles) being made into two types of vessels; or (more likely) the clay represents Jews being made into two types of vessels. The man talking back to God complains that God finds fault with the Jews but God can make from one group of Jews both people of mercy and people of wrath.

Which leads to Paul's next comment that it is not just the Jews. The Gentiles can be objects of mercy as well.

And what is God's criterion for being an object of mercy? Faith.

Vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath

The Calvinist interpretation in Romans 9 states that questioner is silenced by God because God can do what he wills, electing some individuals for salvation (vessels for honourable use) and some individuals for damnation (vessels for dishonourable use). The questioner is told by God: who are you to question me and my ways? God saves and God damns for his own good reasons.

Now there is much to ask about this passage: Who is the questioner? Is God talking about individuals or groups? If groups, are the two groups saved Jews and unsaved Jews or Jews and Gentiles? But what I wish to concentrate on here is Paul's response to the questioner. Romans 9:18-24 says,

So then [God] has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Consider the first part of the response,

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Paul is expanding the potter motif which we see in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Old Testament passages Paul is alluding to are Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6. I will consider each of these.

Isaiah 29:16 occurs in an oracle about the seize of Jerusalem.

And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.”

And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
therefore, behold, I will again
    do wonderful things with this people,
    with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
    and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”

Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel,
    whose deeds are in the dark,
    and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?”
You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
    “He did not make me”;
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
    “He has no understanding”? (Isaiah 29:11-16)

God says that people receiving the vision are like a man who has a document but cannot read it because he is not permitted to remove the seal, or a man who cannot read. This is probably a judgment against the people because God is saying that he will give the people a scroll but not give them the means to understand the scroll. This is in many ways similar to the passage in Romans: God hardens those who he wishes to harden. Yet Isaiah tells us why this is the case. It is not arbitrary. It is not hidden from men because they are not God and God does what he will. Rather God does this because the hearts of the people are not towards God. The people talk as if they are committed to God but they deny God in their hearts. They have an attitude of hypocrisy. They are taught to fear God but they do not fear him truly.

In the next stanza we see this kind of man now speaking back to God: a sinful man who does deeds in the dark; who claims that no one knows about his activity. God's rebuke is that such a man has things upside down, or back to front. The potter is not like the clay. God is not like men. Further, the created thing cannot say that his creator did not make him. What kind of men are these people? Men who honour God with their lips and not their hearts. Men who do evil deeds. Men who say that God doesn't see. Men who say that God did not make them. Isaiah's words here concern wicked men.

Isaiah 45:9 occurs within the passage where God announces he will raise up a man named Cyrus to do his will. God will go before Cyrus performing his mighty acts and God will do this for the sake of his people Israel. Within this prophecy God warns those who would oppose God.

“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him,
    a pot among earthen pots!
Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
    or ‘Your work has no handles’?
Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’
    or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” (Isaiah 45:9-10)

God essentially says to those who strive against him: Does the clay oppose the potter? Does the son speak to the father or the mother about what they parent? In this passage the vessel is shifting blame to the creator of the vessel, or the child is shifting blame to the parent. But God says that the person is accountable for his own striving against God. A man cannot blame God for making him that way. He cannot blame his father for begetting a rebellious son. He cannot blame his mother for giving birth to a wicked child. He is responsible for his own actions and cannot wash his hands of his sin by blaming God or parents for making him that way. The whole point here is not that God can make a rebellious person and yet the person is still culpable; rather it is that a culpable person doesn't evade his sin by saying he was born that way. This is not a determinism that says you are still guilty, it is rebuke against a sinner denying guilt by appealing to determinism.

Isaiah 64:8 occurs within in a passage about God's vengeance and mercy. Here the appeal is by men who acknowledge that God is the creator and they are the creature.

But now, O Lord, you are our Father;
    we are the clay, and you are our potter;
    we are all the work of your hand.
Be not so terribly angry, O Lord,
    and remember not iniquity forever.
    Behold, please look, we are all your people. (Isaiah 64:8-9)

They appeal to God by placing themselves in right relationship to him. Their appeal is based on his power and not their own deserving nature. They remind God of his promises (we are all your people).

The three Isaiah passages use the potter motif to emphasise that God is the creator and as such he has authority over men. Yet the first two specifically address evil men. Evil men who deny that God is the potter, or evil men who deny they are culpable for their sinful choices. The third is the right response which acknowledges God's power and appeals to his mercy. Interestingly, common atheist claims are that God doesn't exist and that the world is deterministic therefore men cannot help their actions.

So what does Paul mean in his letter to the Romans? Contra the deterministic interpretation of Calvinists, the allusions to Isaiah imply the exact opposite. Men cannot hide from God. Men make their choices and they are responsible for those choices. Moreover, appeals to determinism are the appeals of wicked men trying to evade judgment. God didn't make them evil for his glory and yet they are responsible anyway, they are evil because they have chosen sin. It is these men God hardens, it is these men God blinds, it is these to whom a powerful delusion is sent.

This is apparent in the Jeremiah passage.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:1-10)

The potter makes what he will. The question is why does the potter make what he does? The potter is making a vessel yet during the process that vessel is marred so the potter changes his plan and makes something else. He starts making one type of vessel but finishes making another type of vessel. God is the potter and he tells us why he makes what he does. If God warns and we repent then God changes what he is making. If God blesses and we sin the God changes what he is making.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:21)

Yes he does. God can make what he wills. But God has told us what he will build and why he builds what he does. God makes honourable vessels but if they sin then God will make them dishonourable. And if God makes dishonourable vessels from a sinful people but they repent, then God will make them into honourable vessels. God does make vessels for destruction but God has told us why he does this and what his criteria are. God makes the faithless into vessels of destruction. God also makes vessels of mercy; that is what God does with the faithful. But be warned, if the faithful become faithless then the potter can just as easily turn the clay into a vessel of wrath.

Divorce and the Bible

Understanding what the Bible teaches about divorce has a history that antedates the New Testament as evidenced by the Pharisees questioning Jesus. Then subsequently within the church until now. There is much tradition is associated with various teachings about divorce, especially within, but not confined to, the Roman Catholic church. Opinions run strong and emotions high; is there much to be added?

Divorce is rightly viewed as something that is sub-optimal and to be avoided; it is likely that a lot of divorce within the church is unbiblical. Because divorce is viewed so negatively some Christians allow divorce for minimal reasons, specifically the situations allowed by Jesus. Others try a systematic approach to the question of divorce hoping to establish principles consistent with the relevant scriptural passages. The later seems preferable; taking the larger context of the various passages into account. Any theology of divorce will undoubtedly see divorce as something to be avoided if possible, but we live in a fallen world and must allow for the sins of men. Murder should never occur but we need a theology that rightly deals with murderers. Likewise, there may be situations where divorce is allowed, where one party is predominantly innocent. In such cases a divorcee may believe himself or herself guilty when in fact they are not. The church should not treat all divorce the same as much as the state does not treat all killing the same.

The Jews were not to add or subtract from God's words (Deu 4:2); likewise we should not be more lenient nor more restrictive than God. Having "higher" ideals than God makes one a legalist, especially when he places these expectations on others.

Any good theology of divorce originates from a right theology of marriage. Jesus pointed us to what God's intent for marriage was prior to the Fall (Mar 10:6). Marriage was instituted by God. God made man and it was not good that he was alone. Everything he created was good but man's aloneness was not good. Adam was permitted to know he was alone before God put him to sleep in order to make a woman to help him; compatible with him but different from him. An equal who had come from him in order that Adam may not be alone. Designed so that they could become one in flesh (Gen 2:24); being two in order that they would not be alone, yet becoming one. A type of the Godhead: the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (Joh 17:21), with the Spirit. And we were given a component of the Spirit in our marriages (Mal 2:15). Why did God create marriage? So that we may raise godly children (Mal 2:15).

This teaches us

1. that marriage was instituted by God; 
2. that marriage was between men and women; 
3. that marriage was to be between one man and one woman; 
4. that it was permanent (at least in this age); and
5. that marriage is intended for the conception and raising of godly children.

Why then would God allow divorce? Jesus said what God has joined together let no man destroy.

Jesus said,

Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Mat 19:8)

Divorce was a concession because of hard hearts. God regulated a situation because men are sinners.

The passages on divorce in the gospels are

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mat 5:31-32)

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luk 16:18)

Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Mat 19:3-12)

Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mar 10:2-12)

The first passage in Matthew comes from the Sermon on the Mount. The passage in Luke is probably parallel though possibly something that Jesus had said several times during his teaching ministry. The second passage in Matthew parallels Mark. The teaching of Jesus in both these situations is similar though both times Matthew mentions an exception for adultery. It could be argued that the parallel passages in Luke and Mark may be distinct, for example Matthew has the added phrase "for any cause" (this is an appeal to the debate over how to interpret Deuteronomy which I will address shortly). Nevertheless, the most reasonable way to understand Matthew's exception of divorce is to realise that Matthew is including explicitly what Mark and Luke see as implicit. There was no disagreement over whether divorce was allowed in the case of adultery by either party. All agreed that when adultery occurred the innocent party was allowed to obtain a divorce. Marriage is a covenant and adultery breaks that covenant. Divorce doesn't break the covenant in the situation of adultery because the covenant has already been broken. Divorce is this situation is merely a legal acknowledgement that there is no longer any covenant. There was no disagreement between the various schools over divorce in the case of adultery therefore the adultery exception did not need to be specified; nevertheless, Matthew mentions it explicitly for completeness.

Matthew gives us an example with Joseph. Joseph and Mary are betrothed which is not the same as marriage but is more than engagement. The couple are not married and coitus is forbidden. Yet there is an agreement that betrothed couples will marry and dissolution requires a divorce. When Mary was found to be pregnant Joseph sort to divorce her quietly.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her [future] husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce (ἀπολῦσαι) her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Mat 1:18-21) 

Joseph (wrongly) thought that Mary had been sexually unfaithful. He seeks to divorce her and is called righteous. This is because Joseph sort to divorce her quietly so that Mary may not be shamed. There is no indication that Joseph's plan to divorce Mary is in anyway wrong given how he had interpreted Mary's pregnancy; that is he is not corrected concerning the wrongness of divorce per se, rather he is made aware of Mary's fidelity thus he has no reason for divorce.

Divorce is allowed in the case of adultery because one party has already broken the marriage. There really should be no dispute about this. Though it is worth mentioning that while divorce is allowed it is not mandatory.

Returning the Pharisees' challenge. The Pharisees were trying to test Jesus here asking,

Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?

Deuteronomy addresses divorce tangentially.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent (’ervat davar) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. (Deu 24:1-4)

The law is about returning to a former husband which is important when we come to Paul's comments. For the purposes of the divorce debate the question is what does "something indecent" mean?

Some emphasised the "something" and some emphasised the "indecent". If we emphasis the "something" then anything indecent is grounds for divorce. If we emphasis "indecent" then only things indecent are grounds. The later seems preferable, the something is still required to be indecent. The term "indecent" here carries the connotation of nakedness or sexuality.

In actually, however, this passage only assumes that the man might happen to divorce his wife if he finds something indecent in her. It does not clearly say that he is allowed to do this. This may be why Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of hardness of heart. The Jews were saying that Moses commands that the man give her a certificate of divorce but this is more than what this passage says. To have a law based on activities that men do perform is not to proscribe such activity. Consider the reasons why both men divorce the woman. The first man finds something indecent in her. The second man hates her. Both divorce her, but nothing in this passage states that either is justified in doing so. Only that the first husband may not take her back.

So Jesus only allows adultery as a reason for divorce here. Note, however, that the Law did not specify divorce for adultery, if specified execution (Lev 20:10). How do we explain this? There seem to be several reasons for the Jews choosing divorce over execution. Firstly, the Mosaic Law usually gave maximum sentences not minimum sentences. Occasionally the law was explicit in stating that a ransom was forbidden (Lev 27:29), that is, the sentence could not be commuted to a lighter sentence. Such a law implies that sentences could be commuted. Thus an adulterer who is divorced by another receives a lighter sentence than one who is executed.

Secondly, proving adultery is difficult. Proof of adultery such that the adulterer be executed needs to reach the high standard of 2 or 3 witnesses. Divorce is a response to probable adultery that lacks adequate evidence for a more severe sentence.

Thirdly, the Jews were not permitted to execute people during the occupation of the Romans. Thus divorce would be the appropriate response to adultery in this situation.

If adultery is the only reason for divorce then why does Paul add another? To understand Paul we need to go back to Jesus' teaching given just prior to when the Pharisees tested him. Jesus is teaching the disciples about humility, sin, forgiveness and the salvation of the lost. In this context Jesus teaches how to win back a sinning brother.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mat 18:15-20)

There are 2 common but different ways to understand what Jesus meant by, "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." One approach says that Jesus sought to reach tax-collectors and sinners and we should focus our efforts on winning this brother back. The other approach says that we should treat them how the Jews in that culture treated tax-collectors and sinners. While the latter approach is probably more accurate, it seems best to read this as it relates to community. The unrepentant sinner is to be considered outside the community. In modern parlance they are excommunicated. They are refusing to even listen to the church so they must be treated as someone outside the church. This is not to say that they are unsaved (though they may be), rather that the church needs to have a form of discipline. The people inside the church need to be subject to the elders and those that refuse to be subject to the eldership must be removed to protect the rest of the sheep. The passage makes clear we are to do everything to reach such a person, yet if they are recalcitrant, sanctions must be enforced. (Of course a church can be sufficiently dysfunctional and a righteous man might get kicked out of a heretical church).

This covenantial relationship is the context into which Jesus was talking when he discussed the issue of divorce. Adultery is the only reason for divorce for 2 people in God's kingdom. To the Pharisees this meant amongst the Jews. For us it means those within the church.

This does not mean that only people within the church have true marriages. Marriage is defined by God and remains a marriage even if one or both spouses are not part of the kingdom of God. What it does mean is that Jesus is addressing a specific situation: the situation where 2 people in a marriage covenant are within God's larger covenant.

So when the Corinthians asked Paul about divorce Paul advises them according to the teaching that Jesus gave.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1Co 7:10-11)

Paraphrasing,

Paul: "To the married I give this command concerning divorce. But this is not my teaching it is Jesus' teaching."

Paul reiterates Jesus' teaching about divorce to those within God's kingdom. When both spouses are within the church they must not divorce.

But what if one spouse is not a believer?

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (1Co 7:12-13)

Paul here is giving a command and he specifies that it is he that gives it, not Jesus. In other words, Jesus did not give any command that addresses the situation where one spouse is a believer and one is an unbeliever. This comment by Paul shows that the situation in the gospels is solely addressing the case where husband and wife are married and both are within God's covenant.

When reiterating Jesus' command for married couples not to divorce Paul mentions that if a wife does separate she is to remain unmarried. Paul does not here mention the exemption for divorce in the case of adultery but we know it is the case from Jesus' teaching which Paul is reiterating. However Paul adds that in the case of two believers, if a woman divorces her husband she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to him.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate (χωρισθῆναι) from her husband; but if she does separate (χωρισθῇ) she should remain unmarried (ἄγαμος) or else be reconciled to her husband; and the husband should not send away (ἀφιέναι) his wife.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not send her away (ἀφιέτω). If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not send him away (ἀφιέτω). For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates (χωρίζεται), let them separate (χωριζέσθω). In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved (δεδούλωται). God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (1Co 7:10-16)

By separate (χωρισθῆναι) Paul means what we mean by divorce. In commanding the woman to remain single Paul is referring back to Deuteronomy. In the passage above it states that if a woman is divorced and remarried, then subsequently divorced again or widowed, then she is not to remarry her first husband. Paul applies this to the case of a believing marriage. The woman must not divorce but if she does (and she is wrong to do so) she should reconcile with her believing husband or remain single. The reason she is to remain single is to allow the possibility of reconciliation; for if she remains single and the situation can be resolved then she can remarry her previous husband. But if she were to remarry someone else then there is no possibility of her returning to her previous husband, either through subsequent divorce or through widowhood.

However in the case of marriage to unbelievers, stay married but if the unbeliever wishes to leave then let them do so. The call to the kingdom is greater than the call to one's spouse (Luk 14:26). This appears to be a similar situation to the case of mixed marriages in Ezra. In that circumstance Ezra told the Jews to divorce their unbelieving wives (Ezra 10:3) whereas Paul allows unbelievers to stay if they so wish. Why do Paul and Ezra give different commands?

It is difficult to be completely certain but there are some differences that may be relevant. The first is that in Ezra we are dealing with the Old Covenant. It was important that unbelieving foreigners were kept out of the Jewish covenant. God was bringing the Messiah and external forces sort to thwart that. While we still should not be yoked to unbelievers in the new covenant, there is not the necessity to dispose of them. The Messiah has come and the kingdom of God is not a nation, rather it is within us, and God is expanding it through the earth. Before Christ the unclean made the clean unclean. In Christ the clean cleanses the unclean. As Paul says, "the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband."

Secondly, the foreign wives mentioned in Ezra were idolators. Idolatry was a capital offence in Israel. An idolatrous wife (or husband) was to be executed (Deu 17). As the Jews were (probably) forbidden from instituting the death penalty when ruled by the Persians, divorce was the only alternative option. Of course in Paul's day the unbelievers were also idolaters but many in the church were not Jews and not under the Mosaic Law.

Another question often raised is what is the status of those who get divorced without valid reason? Jesus says that such divorce is adultery. What is a person in this situation to do? This question has also caused some consternation though I think it less tricky than the above questions. In confronting the Pharisees about the sanctity of marriage Jesus says,

What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

Jesus gives a command here. The fact it is a command suggests it can be obeyed, and disobeyed. We are not to separate what God has joined together but it is feasible to do so. Adam was not to eat of the tree but he did. Divorces can be entered into wrongly but they are divorces. Jesus said,

Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Mat 19:)

What Jesus is saying is that if you do not have a reason to divorce and yet you get a divorce anyway then you are guilty of breaking the commandment against adultery. Jesus is not saying you are therefore not divorced, or that you have to return to your previous spouse. If there is no adultery already then divorce causes adultery. In Matthew 5 Jesus even says that if you divorce your wife (without reason) then you are making her commit adultery.

So the legitimate reasons for divorce are

• Adultery by a spouse;
• Abandonment by an unbeliever.

Further relevant commandments are

• A believer must only marry a believer;
• A believing woman who divorces her believing husband should reconcile or stay unmarried.

Illegitimate divorces cause adultery. They are still divorces. Remarriages are marriages.

This exegesis of Scripture is consistent with many Protestant interpretations of marriage and divorce. There seem to be many more possible scenarios than the 2 mentioned above. There are, but they can be addressed by considering church fellowship. Reformulating the reasons for divorce we get.

Legitimate reasons for divorce when both spouses are believers: that is, are in fellowship

• Adultery by a spouse

Legitimate reasons for divorce when one spouse is a believer: that is, in church fellowship

• Adultery by the unbeliever
• Abandonment by the unbeliever

How might this apply to difficult situations like physical abuse, criminal offending, etc? For the case of the unbeliever it seems that we can have a situation of functional abandonment. That is, even if the spouse claims they wish to remain married; if a wife's behaviour is that of serious abuse or neglect, or a husband is convicted and imprisoned for a criminal offence, then the desire to remain married is belied by the behaviour and a divorce can be obtained. A believing wife need not remain married to a murderer just because he consents to stay married to his wife.

In the case where both spouses are believers the approach is one of Matthew 18. The husband or wife is to seek to resolve the problem directly, then with a few others, then with the church. The spouse who is sinning needs to avail himself of the church's council and advice and repent. If he repents then the couple can work on repairing the marriage. If he refuses to repent then the church needs to discipline him appropriately. Ongoing refusal to repent and address sin should eventually be met by excommunication. At that stage the spouse is to be treated as out of fellowship, that is, as an unbeliever. Such the situation becomes the same as that of an unbeliever above. Serious crimes should be reported and capital offences should result in execution. Churches in countries that fail to execute or which prolong the process should allow divorce. Serious sins may result in immediate excommunication (1Co 5:1) and divorce may be obtained.

None of this should mean that if divorce is a legitimate option it must be pursued. God's grace is evident in many situations where offended parties forgave and rebuilt their marriage. This is a wonderful testimony for God. Mercy triumphs over judgment. But neither should churches condemn or allow a spirit of condemnation in cases where divorce is a legitimate option. Innocent men and women should not be censured.

A brief commentary on Romans 1:16-2:5

There are a few aspects I wish to highlight from the beginning of Paul's letter to the Roman Christians. After saying he desires to see them and preach the gospel in Rome he discusses the importance of the gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Romans 1:16-2:5 reads,

Foreknowing is knowing previously

Leighton Flowers has written an excellent commentary on Romans 8:28-39. It is difficult to summarise without reproducing the whole article. So here is the passage translated in accordance to what Flowers suggests it says. Basically Flowers is advocating that Paul talks about how the creation was subjected in the past, and thus what the creation will be. Likewise Paul talks about God's activities in the past; and that by observing what God has done in the lives of the saints in times past we can know what God will do for us. This passage is not about God's foreknowledge but God's faithfulness.

And we observe that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.  For those whom He knew previously, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that [Jesus] would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,

“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Was Jesus wrong in his prediction concerning the end of the world?

It has been said that this prophecy of Jesus was mistaken,

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24:34)

I do not wish to delve into a complete analysis of the Olivet discourse here, yet there are a few comments that need to be made.

The quote comes up when Jesus is leaving the temple having chastised the scribes and warned against them.

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

Later the disciples responded.

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3)

Note that the disciples are asking 2 and possibly 3 questions here, even though they may have thought they were asking about a single event. Jesus had said that the stones of the temple would thrown down. The disciples asked:

1. when will these things be?
2. what will be the sign of your coming?
3. [what will be the sign] of the end of the age?

Questions 2 and 3 may be the same question though they need not be. In the subsequent discussion called the Olivet Discourse Jesus answers these questions but as there is 2 and possibly 3 questions, his answers address different components.

In his answer he warns them; he says things will be terrible; he says there will be deception; he says his return will be obvious. The initial question was in response to Jesus' comment about the temple stones, thus part of the answer refers to the Fall of Jerusalem, though it need not all be about the events 4 decades hence. If we read the rest of Jesus quote it reads,

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:33-36)

Jesus says,

1. Recognise the time of the end at the time of the end
2. This generation will not pass away until all these things take place
3. No one knows the time

And he says all this together. So understanding his meaning must take this into consideration. What might "This generation will not pass away" mean then? I can think of at least 3 possibilities.

It may refer to the temple question. This generation will not pass away until the temple will not have one stone left upon another.

It may refer to the time of the end. The people living at the time of the end are to recognise that they live at the time of the end because of the signs and they can know that when these signs are all being completed the end will definitely arrive within this generation.

It may be better translated,

This generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place.

In which case the things Jesus is talking about will commence within a generation.

Was Revelation written under Domitian?

Domitian

Nero died in 68 and there were 3 contenders for the throne in quick succession. First Galba, then Otho. After Otho's suicide in April 69 supporters of Vitellius proclaimed him emperor and supporters of Vespasian in the Eastern provinces proclaimed him emperor. The Senate in Rome accepted Vitellius as emperor initially in mid 69 and conferred Vespasian as emperor in December 69. About that time Vespasian was in Egypt securing food for Rome and his son Titus was fighting the Roman-Jewish war. Vespasian's other son Domitian ruled in Rome and was aided by the general Mucianus after the general arrived in Rome. Domitian was 18 at the time and ruled for 6 months until Vespasian arrived in June 70. Domitian had full consular authority. Josephus writes

[Mucianus] then produced Domitian, and recommended him to the multitude, until his father [Vespasian] should come himself; so the people being now freed from their fears, made acclamations of joy for Vespasian, as for their emperor, and kept festival days for his confirmation, and for the destruction of Vitellius. (War of the Jews, book 4, chapter 11.4)

Cassius in his Roman History notes that both Domitian and Mucianus acted like they were emperors. The sarcastic letter from Vespasian to his son Domitian is amusing.

Thus Vespasian, like some others, had been born for the throne. While he was still absent in Egypt, Mucianus administered all the details of government with the help of Domitian. For Mucianus, who claimed that he had bestowed the sovereignty upon Vespasian, plumed himself greatly upon his honours, and especially because he was called brother by him, and had authority to transact any business that he wished without the emperor's express direction, and could issue written orders by merely adding the other's name. And for this purpose he wore a ring, that had been sent him so that he might impress the imperial seal upon documents requiring authorization. In fact, he and Domitian gave governorships and procuratorships to many and appointed prefect after prefect and even consuls. In short, they acted in every way so much like absolute rulers that Vespasian once sent the following message to Domitian: "I thank you, my son, for permitting me to hold office and that you have not yet dethroned me." (Roman History, book 75, chapter 2. Emphasis added.)

There is a tradition that Domitian exiled John to Patmos and that he was freed by Nerva. Domitian was emperor from 81 to 96 and was succeeded by Nerva. This implies that Revelation was authored during Domitian's reign which is a common belief. If, however, he was exiled by Domitian when he was consul for his father Vespasian in the first half of 70, he could have subsequently been released by Nerva who was made consul in 71.

Vespasian took as his colleague in the consulship in 71 A.D. M. Cocceius Nerva. Now Nerva—the future emperor—was the representative of a family distinguished for three generations as jurists, and no doubt his appointment at this particular time was due to Vespasian's desire to have a skilled lawyer at his side for dealing with the mass of sentences of exile and of confiscation which were the legacy of the successive revolutions. Nerva held office during the first nundinum of 71 A.D., and it is permissible to believe that in accordance with tradition one of the sentences quashed by him was that which sent John to Patmos. If by an order of Nerva he were now released, his exile would have lasted almost exactly one year. (Edmundson, Church in Rome in the First Century, lecture 6)

Edmundson links a passage in Revelation to these Caesars. John sees a woman riding a scarlet beast with blasphemous names, 7 heads, and 10 horns. The angel explains this mystery,

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. (Revelation 17)

The 7 hills or mountains are usually identified with Rome. The 7 kings are sometimes identified as Caesars. Others have identified them as kingdoms. The beasts seem to be identified as kingdoms in Daniel. In Revelation beast may represent the Roman Empire. Earlier in Revelation John says that the number of the beast is a number of a man. I think the number likely refers to Nero. So is Nero the beast? Or does the number represent Nero and Nero identifies the beast as Rome? In the passage above a beast is linked to the kings. It is a beast that was, and is not, it is an eighth, but belongs to the 7.

Edmundson argues that these 7 Caesars are fallen so must have died violent and not natural deaths. He says that Domitian is the sixth king (acting for Vespasian).

"The one who is" signifies the man for the moment invested with imperial power, Domitian, the acting Emperor, who banished the writer.

Thus, as per Edmundson, the kings are

1. Claudius
2. Nero
3. Galba
4. Otho
5. Vitellius
6. Domitian
7. Vespasian

But the eighth is unclear—presumably Titus. And why start at Claudius? Caligula was murdered and Tiberius may have been (Tacitus states he was smothered by Caligula).

Julius is sometimes named the first emperor and Suetonius (c. 120) starts his count of the 12 Caesars from Julius, however Julius was involved in a civil war (which he won) and there was further civil war after his death. It was Octavian (Augustus) who won the subsequent wars and the form of government was changed. Although Julius was instrumental in the development of the Roman Empire, it may be preferable label Augustus the first emperor.

#	#	#	Name	Start	End	Reign	Born	Died	Age	Death
1			Julius	49 BC	44 BC	5	100 BC	44 BC	53	Murder
2	1	1	Augustus	27 BC	14 AD	40	63 BC	14 AD	75	Natural
3	2	2	Tiberius	14	37	22	42 BC	37 AD	77	Uncertain
4	3	3	Caligula	37	41	4	12 AD	41 AD	28	Murder
5	4	4	Claudius	41	54	13	10 BC	54 AD	63	Murder
6	5	5	Nero	54	68	13	37 AD	68 AD	30	Suicide
7	6		Galba	68	69	7 m	3 BC	69 AD	70	Murder
8	7		Otho	69	69	3 m	32 AD	69 AD	36	Suicide
9	8		Vitellius	69	69	8 m	15 AD	69 AD	54	Murder
10	9	6	Vespasian	69	79	10	9 AD	79 AD	69	Natural
11	10	7	Titus	79	81	2	39 AD	81 AD	41	Natural
12	11	8	Domitian	81	96	15	51 AD	96 AD	44	Murder
13	12		Nerva	96	98	2	30 AD	98 AD	67	Natural

After the suicide of Nero there were several contenders for the throne, each murdering his predecessor. It was a period of civil war with Galba killing supporters of Nero and in turn being killed by Otho, a friend of Nero. Otho went to war against Vitellius and those who supported Vitellius for Emperor, taking his own life when defeat was inevitable. And as noted above, the Eastern provinces threw their support behind Vespasian for Emperor mid 69 even though he wasn't recognised as such by the Senate until December. The 18 months civil war with factional support of differing claims to Emperor make it difficult to accept Edmundson's ascription of Galba, Otho, or Vitellius as emperors of the Roman Empire. Likewise, it is also difficult to accept his comment calling Domitian Emperor because he was ruling in his father's absence.

Thus we have as Roman Emperors

1. Augustus
2. Tiberius
3. Caligula
4. Claudius
5. Nero
6. Vespasian
7. Titus
8. Domitian

If this corresponds to John's 7 kings then

• five of whom have fallen: Augustus to Nero
• one is: Vespasian
• the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while: Titus

Note that Titus only ruled for 2 years.

And the beast?

The beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven. (Rev 17)

Domitian was in the sense he had been acting emperor. He is not at the time of Vespasian. He is an eighth in that he became the eighth emperor. And he belongs to the seven in that he ruled during the time of the seven: specifically during the beginning of the sixth reign. (One of the seven may also allude to him being related to Vespasian.)

This interpretation of Revelation 17 of being written early in Vespasian's reign but while Domitian was a proxy emperor makes sense of much of the internal and external data around the dating of Revelation. Internally Revelation was written in the late 60s, and externally it was written under Domitian; though when he was acting emperor for his father in 70 rather than during his emperorship from 81–96. If correct this would suggest Revelation was written in early 70 but prior to the final razing of Jerusalem.

When was Revelation written? Internal evidence

Revelation was written by John (Revelation 1:1). We know the fourth Gospel and letters were written by John the apostle. There are similarities between the Gospel and Revelation which would indicate shared authorship. Differences in language would be explained by topical differences as well as John probably writing Revelation directly though possibly using an amanuensis for his gospel. A different John also seems unlikely as the author does not qualify himself further. Thus the book of Revelation would need to be written prior to John's death and therefore probably before the end of the first century.

References to the temple are not definitive. The temple is mentioned 10 times in the book of Revelation. Most of these are to God's temple in heaven. The reference in chapter 11 (twice) appears to be the earthly temple but the context could allow for a future temple in Jerusalem. If the temple was still standing this would mean the date of writing was prior to 70.

Revelation 13 gives the number of the beast as 666. This almost certainly refers to Nero for reasons I give here. Now Revelation 13 could be also referencing the state (via Nero), and perhaps it has a meaning at the time of Jesus' return as yet to be determined. Nevertheless, it is likely that it refers to at least Nero. Nero was emperor from c. 54–68 AD which narrows the date of Revelation to this period. John was exiled to Patmos. This would seem likely to be latter in Nero's reign rather than earlier.

Later in Revelation we read about 7 kings,

I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. (Revelation 17:7-12)

The 7 mountains are Rome The 7 kings could be Roman kings or perhaps the kings could represent kingdoms. The 6th king or kingdom being current at the time of writing Revelation, or at the time the vision refers to.

For the 7 kingdoms theory the following kingdoms are often suggested.

1. Egypt
2. Nineveh
3. Babylon
4. Medo-Persia
5. Greece
6. Rome
7. ?

The 7 kings theory is more difficult; where do we start and who do we include?

• Julius 
• Augustus
• Tiberius
• Caligula
• Claudius
• Nero
• (Galba, Otho, Vitellius)
• Vespasian
• Titus
• Domitian

If we go with the kingdom interpretation it does not help us with the dating as we already know that Revelation was written during the Roman Empire.

If we go with the king interpretation do we start the emperor count with Julius or Augustus? Do we include the short reigning emperors even though they fought and murdered each other during what was a civil war? Starting with Julius the sixth king is Nero (54–68). Starting with Augustus the sixth king is Galba (68–69) if we include the civil war emperors, and Vespasian (69–79) if we do not. It could also mean Vespasian during the time between when Nero took his life and when Vespasian was made emperor, i.e. between June 68 and 69.

There are further internal clues. The letter to the church of Pergamum warns against the teaching of Balaam (Rev 2:14). Peter also warned against this teaching (2Pe 2:15). This may reflect a common heresy at the time, and 2 Peter was written prior to Peter's death c. 68. Others see Jesus' rebuke to the Laodiceans concerning their boasting: "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" (Rev 3:17) as alluding to the city's boast that they rebuilt the city after the earthquake of 60 without help from Rome.

Laodicea, was that same year overthrown by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered itself by its own resources. (Tacitus, Annals, Book 14)

 Most of these dates suggest Revelation was written some time in the late 60s.

Love of money

Paul's first letter to Timothy gives us an example of Scripture which some people under-read and some over-read; though both represent a misreading of the text due, in part, to not paying enough attention. Paul writes,

For the love of money is a root of all evils. (1 Timothy 6)

It is not uncommon to hear that money is the root of all evil. While having money is associated with temptations that are less common for the poor, the misquote places the source of the evil in the an amoral object, or rather the possessor of the object. It implies that having money is reflective of an evil heart.

When read right, that the love of money is a source of evils, we avoid this error. By seeing that covetousness is the problem we see that the desire to obtain money causes a great many evils, and it can be a temptation to all men, not just the wealthy.

Somewhat less common is the idea that every specific evil in the world has as its root, the love of money. Some modern translations translate this the passage as,

the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

While a true statement and in line with what I am arguing, it is not warranted in a literal translation.

We can see that not every evil has its source in the love of money. Consider the sin of Adam and Eve. This passage should be read proverbially. The context concerns false teachers, the necessity of contentment, and those who long to be rich.

Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all evils.

Paul's phrase does not require one to think that every evil ever seen is motivated by money, it merely is a proverbial type statement directed at people who want to be rich: showing them that this desire will lead them into many evils.

Paying close attention to both what exactly the passage does say (love of money) and the genre and context (people longing to be rich) helps the reader understand what Paul is saying here. Covetousness, especially coveting money, will lead men into all manner of wickedness.

Accusing the righteous

Job is an fundamental book if one is going to discuss suffering. It is important both for understanding the issue of suffering in our world, but also to encourage those who are suffering. I have found Job difficult to understand and I do not think think is unique to myself. The early chapters being narrative seem relatively straight forward, though there is a wealth of information encased there. But the poetical exchanges between Job and his friends seem more complicated theologically.

I have read Job several times and have recently come to a conclusion that helped me make sense of the dialogues.

Job makes several claims, many of which seem true, though he still complains to God. God confronts and rebukes Job, yet later tells Job's friends that Job has spoken right of him and they have not.

The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.(Job 42:7)

Yet some what the friends stated seems true. Paul even quotes Eliphaz positively,

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” (1 Corinthians 3:19)

compare

He frustrates the devices of the crafty,
so that their hands achieve no success.
He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end. (Job 5:12-13)

So at least some of what Eliphaz said was correct.

The conclusion I have come to is that Job what a type of Christ. Much as Joseph and Elisha are types of Christ in various ways so Job is also, in the sense that he is a righteous man suffering unrighteously. The fault of his friends is not always in what they state if one considers it from a proverbial perspective, rather in their misapplication to a righteous man. The introduction to Job serves as a framework with which we can interpret the dialogues.

In the first 2 chapters of Job we are given an insight into a divine dialogue that Job what ignorant of. Satan brings an accusation against Job. Tellingly he is given the name Satan which means "accuser" or "adversary." Job's friends make statements that may be correct in some situations but are not in this situation, or they apply proverbs that are generally true but not specifically true. Because Job is a righteous man his friends are accusing him wrongly and are judged by God for this. If we consider Job a type of Christ then consider how Job's friends would sound if they made the same accusations against Jesus. It is not that what they are saying is always incorrect, but they are certainly incorrect in applying these ideas to Jesus.

I suggest reading thru Job and reading the comments by Job's friends as being directed to Jesus and considering how that affects your perception of them and your reading of Job.

Now Job is a type of Christ and not the antitype, who is Jesus. Job is a sinner as are all men. He is righteous in God's eyes as he is a man of faith and he does what is right, nevertheless, he is a son of Adam who sins and is in need of a redeemer; something he willingly confesses,

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God, (Job 19:25-26)

Because of this God rebukes Job for what he does not understand. God corrects Job where he sins, but Job's friends accuse him of sin when he is acting in righteousness.

Refusal to receive the greater blessing

When God commands the Israelites concerning warfare he gives them several reasons they are permitted to stay home.

Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.’ (Deu 20:5-7)

They are also not to fight if they are afraid, though that is so they do not dampen the courage of the other men.

The list of exclusions are

• New house
• New vineyard
• New wife

These are pleasures that God has given him and he is allowed to enjoy them over going to war else he might die in warfare and never have the opportunity of experiencing these gives from God's hand. When the country is called to war, men who have newly gained a significant blessing are exempt.

Contrast this with Jesus' parable of the Wedding Feast. Jesus said,

“A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’” (Luk 14:16-24)

This is not a command to go to war where a man may lose his life and never enjoy the good things that God has given him: land, oxen or a wife. Rather an invite to join another in his celebration of the good things God has given him.

A man may avoid risking his life in war so he can enjoy his blessings lest he lose his life before he does. A man invited to a banquet is not in danger of losing his life. His refusal to attend in order to enjoy his personal blessings prevents the banquet holder from celebrating. He is choosing a lesser blessing (land, oxen, wife) over the greater blessing: the feast in the kingdom of God. He is using an excuse that is valid in certain situations but not the circumstance he applying it to. It is interesting to note that the result of their refusal to receive the greater blessing (the banquet) means that they can never obtain it. Be wary lest your enjoyment of God's blessings are thorns (Mat 13:7) which distract you from the kingdom (Deu 11:18).

Submitting to one another

SLW raised some issues concerning complimentarianism and egalitarianism in Genesis on a previous post. Here I wish to discuss a couple of ways that Ephesians 5:21 may be understood. It says,

...submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Two questions arise: whether this should be attached to the preceding or following verses; and who the submission applies to. The second question is the more disputable one, though the former may have implications as how to best answer the latter.

In Ephesians Paul is instructing the believers in Christian behaviour—the Christian walk. Christians have new life in Christ therefore they are no longer to behave like the other Gentiles (Eph 4:17) and stop acting how they did prior to trusting Christ; put off their old self, put on their new self, change they way they think (Eph 4:22-24).

Interspersed in the following verses are several behaviours that need addressing: falsehood, unrighteous anger, theft, laziness, corrupt speech, bitterness, slander, covetness, sexual immorality. Concluding these Paul states,

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, (Ephesians 5:15-18).

There is debate as to whether one does these things in order to be filled, or whether one does these things because he is filled. Nevertheless, what does being filled with the Spirit look like? Paul lists the following:

1. addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
2. singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
3. giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
4. submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:19-21)

The structure suggests that submitting to one another is connected to the list of being filled with the Spirit.

Following this Paul talks to husbands and wives. He tells wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33)

The egalitarian interpretation suggests that the passage about submitting (Eph 5:21) applies to everyone in the church; all people within the church are to submit to each other. Thus it (Eph 5:21) is a summary of things to follow, with the subsequent discussion giving specific advice to husbands and wives based on areas they tend to struggle with. Wives are to actually submit to their husbands; that is the command to submit to each other (Eph 5:21) applies in marriage even as women tend to struggle to do so. Men are to love their wives (Eph 5:25, 28, 33) as well as submit (Eph 5:21). But the tendency for the man is not to love the woman in the same way that he loves himself (Eph 5:28). The woman is not specifically told to love as she generally does not find that difficult. The man is not specifically told to submit as he does this more easily.

The complementarian interpretation would see the passage about submitting (Eph 5:21) as be a prelude to the subsequent examples. Verse 21 concludes the previous passage and Paul then gives some specific examples of submission. These are marriage, fatherhood and slavery. In these 3 situations the specific person in the submissive role is reminded that it is still appropriate to submit, even though they (wife, child, bondslave) have equal standing as believers in Christ.

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21) therefore means that those who are in submissive roles are to submit.

1. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22)
2. Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (Eph 6:1)
3. Bondslaves, obey your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, (Eph 6:5)

After each of these Paul adds a command to the people who are being submitted to ensure that they act godly in their actions and not abuse their position.

Some of the debate is over what is meant by "to one another" or "one to another" (Greek allelon) in verse 21. I do not think this can easily be resolved; it almost certainly cannot be if verse 21 is interpreted in isolation. The term "one to another" can mean both "all to all" and "some to all". "All to all" is meant in certain contexts, eg.

Greet one another with a holy kiss. (2Co 13:12)

See also Luk 24:14; Joh 13:34; 15:17; Other contexts can only mean "some to others", eg.

Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, (Rev 6:4)

See also Joh 4:33; Act 26:31. Many other phrases could possibly be read as "all to all" though it would seem more likely that "some to others" is what occurs in any one specific situation, even if these roles are somewhat fluid and change in other specific situations, such as,

Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. (1Pe 4:9).

See also Gal 6:2; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13; 1Th 5:11.

So the egalitarian interpretation reads this as a summary of what is to follow, and claim all are to submit to each other; the complementarian interpretation reads this as a prelude (and possibly as a conclusion of the preceding verses) and some categories of people are to submit to other categories of people.