WAS KING CYRUS THE MESSIAH? (ISAIAH 44:28-45:8)

In these verses, God states that Cyrus is his masiah (“anointed”) commissioned to conquer Babylon on Israel's behalf and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. This particular Persian king was Cyrus II, the founder of the Persian Empire who lived from about 558-530 B.C., approximately 150 years after Isaiah's writing. “This is the only biblical passage in which 'messiah', anointed ruler, refers to a non-Israelite.” (Blenkinsopp) This is because: “He, like them [the Davidic kings] is one of God's chosen instruments in the pursuit of God's universal aim of the salvation of all people through the people he has made his own.” (Rengstorf) So we can safely say that King Cyrus was indeed a messiah, but not the Messiah.

Because such a precise prediction is practically unique in the OT, Bruce states that the Cyrus example “has sometimes cause difficulties for Old Testament students.” However, from it he deduces five useful principles:

    “Cyrus is a man of God's choice (Is 41:25),

    appointed to accomplish a redemptive purpose towards God's people (45:11-13),

    and a judgment on his foes (47).

    He is given dominion over the nations (45:1-3)

    and in all his activities the real agent is Yahweh Himself (45:1-7)...

it is quite clear that these five points are preeminently true of the Lord Jesus Christ...”

Rengstorf also states, “In the Old Testament two office bearers are expressly described as masiah, i.e. as anointed (with oil): the high priest as the one responsible for the official cult and the king. The reason for this pairing lies in the fact that in both cases the anointing, corresponding to its character as a legal act, is as essential for the conferring of the authority connected with the office as it is for the resulting responsibility before God as the God of Israel. However, only the figure of the king has to be reckoned as messianic in the sense of specific messianic expectation.” Rengstorf's explanation really needs to be emended in two ways, as explained next.

1. There are three categories of Anointed Ones in the Bible, not just two.

Oswalt explains, “It seems likely that the sense of special selection and empowerment that adhered to the concept of anointing gave rise to the subst. masiah, anointed one. The identity of this person, whether priest (Lev 4:3), king (I Sam 2:35), or prophet (Ps 105:15) was defined by the fact that he had been anointed.” Note that Oswalt includes prophets as another category of special person anointed by God.

Psalms 105:15 is a general reference reference to God's prophets as his anointed ones (i.e. messiahs). In addition, C.A. Evans reminds us: “The anointing of Elisha is the only instance of an anointed prophet. However, one should recall that the prophetic speaker in Isaiah 61 claims to have the Spirit of the Lord and to have been 'anointed' to preach.” 

2. Messianic expectations in Judaism were not just centered on a coming king.

King

Contrary to what Rengstorf states, it was not only a messianic king that the people were expecting even though the anointed kings certainly served as one model for the coming Messiah. “In the Former Prophets several kings were anointed for their royal roles. This act symbolized the presence of the ruah Yhwh [Spirit of God] to prove the authority and provide abilities for the role of 'judge' or 'king'. The Term 'anoint' gives rise to the concept of the messiah (1 Sam 10:1-2; 16:13; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21) and indicates the special relationship of the anointed one to Yahweh.” (Hildebrandt) Note that this commentator slightly expands the Messiah-concept beyond a king to include other recognized leaders of the nation such as the judges.

Priest

A further expansion is provided by Firth: “Zechariah 3-4 records visions concerned with the high priest Jeshua and the governor Zerubbabel. These men provided joint leadership for the community, though both seem to have faced significant opposition...If Zechariah 4:11-14 refers to them as the 'sons of oil' ('anointed ones' in most English translations), then the sense of the vision would be that just as the oil from an olive tree is part of Yahweh's agricultural blessing for his people, so these two leaders are a blessing, even if this is not recognized by all.” Firth's understanding opens the door even further by suggesting that (1) a messiah (anointed one) can be a priest as well as a governmental leader and (2) his leadership roll may in fact go unnoticed by the people around him.

Evans even goes as far as to state, in direct contradiction to Rengstorf, “Early rabbinic literature is keenly interested in the 'anointed' (high) priest...much more than it is in the royal Messiah.” And the same is true of the Qumran Community who used the Zechariah reference to formulate a belief in one or two such messianic characters instead of a messianic king. Evans detects “features of Qumran's priestly messianism” in Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; and 7:1-17.

Prophet

In addition, we can see the popular expectation during the time of Jesus in the belief in a special prophetic character instead. Witness Matthew 16:13-14 where we learn that the people think that maybe Jesus is the reappearance of John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.

In that regard, Oswalt also points to another prophetic figure in a very important passage to the understanding of NT messianic thinking. “The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah [ch. 61] raises the concept of anointing beyond the merely historical role of the prophet when he declares that the Lord has anointed him to preach good news to the poor...This..concept..on its own right over and above the more narrowly prescribed functions of prophet, priest, and king, undoubtedly contributed to the rise of the concept of the eschatological Anointed One, the Messiah.”

This passage in Isaiah 61 is one of the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah, the sum total of which expressly point to a Messiah who will not be triumphant in an earthly sense and certainly not an earthly monarch, but will be strongly opposed and defeated by his enemies. The same idea is found in Daniel 9:24-26 where an anointed one will arise but be cut off.

This aspect of the Coming One was not at all part of the mindset of the Qumran Community. As Evans says, “Far from anticipating the coming of a suffering Messiah, Qumran messianism was traditional in all major respects. A triumphant, conquering Messiah, who of course would submit himself to Qumran's understanding of the renewed covenant, was awaited.”

Jesus the Christ

The Septuagint translated the term Hebrew masiah consistently by its Greek equivalent, christos (Christ). But is not the last name of Jesus, as even many people today ignorantly believe; it is a title. This is a common mistake that has a long history behind it. For example, the Roman historian Seutonius writes, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestos, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” This event occurred sometime between AD 41-54 and has been attributed as the cause for Priscilla and Aquila leaving there, as explained in Acts 18:2-3. It seems obvious that the Romans confused the title “Christ” (christos) as being the proper name “Chrestos.”

Rengstorf says, “It is significant that the essential unity of the proclamation of Christ with the title messiah is established objectively as well as subjectively, with the least ambiguity in the witness of John which, however, comes relatively late in the New Testament. It is attested particularly in Jn. 1:41 and 4:25. In both passages messiah and Christ are expressly equated.”

Evans points to additional passages in the OT that were taken in a messianic sense in Jewish and Christian writings as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These include references to a star to come out of Jacob and a scepter rising out of Israel (Numbers 24:17; Genesis 49:10), and a future “shoot from the stump of Jesse” (Isaiah 11:1-7). And Oswalt states, “Once the New Testament identified Jesus as the Anointed One, the Messiah, all the unqualified references to the 'anointed one' in the Old Testament could be seen to have even more relevance, so that a statement like that of Ps 2:2, 'The kings of the earth take their stand...against the LORD and against his Anointed One,' can be seen to have cosmic significance and not merely to be a hyperbolic expression of Israel's experience with her neighbors at some point.”

W can even detect a hint of the coming Messiah as early as Genesis 3:15 in which an offspring (singular) of Eve will defeat the serpent, Satan. Or also in Genesis 3:21, one can point to the hide from a dead (slain?) animal which is used by God to cover the sinful couple as a type of Christ's atoning death.

In conclusion: “The Lord has indeed selected one who is Prophet, Priest, and King. He has chosen and empowered him to fulfill what all the preceding anointed priests and prophets could never do – bring in the kingdom of God.” (Oswalt)

JUDGES 17:4-6 -- ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

In recent years, a different type of archeological dig has been taking place in Israel called Regional Investigation. The goal of these investigations is to take a typical site in a certain region, excavate it, and compare it to other sites in order to: (1) see how the people lived in that time period, (2) determine the effect the size of the site has, and (c) look for signs of interdependence of the sites on one another.

One such site was chosen for study in 1975 in the area of Mt. Carmel since scheduled construction work there was going to destroy any chance for future investigations. This three-year dig uncovered many details of daily life. But one of the most interesting finds came while excavating the remains of a private dwelling dating to the 11th-12th century BC (i.e. during the time of the Judges). The archeologists found typical cultic bowls as well as the bones of goats, almost exclusively from the right forelegs. It was this last finding that pointed to several early Bible passages.

Exodus 29:22-27

The setting for these verses is during the ordination ceremony for Aaron and his sons as priests during which a ram is slaughtered and certain choice pieces such as the fat and internal organs burned as a sacrifice. The right thigh is handed first to the priests, then back to Moses. Then the breast is kept by Moses for his share as the officiating priest, and right thigh is given back to Aaron and his sons as “a perpetual contribution from the Israelites.”

Verse 33 goes on to say that the priests are to boil the meat in a place set apart at the opening of the Tent of Appointed Meeting. They are the only ones who are to eat it.

Leviticus 7:30-36

Then we come to a somewhat similar ceremony here called the Peace Offering. But there are two differences from the priestly ordination ritual in Exodus. For one thing, this time it is the breast which is given to all the priests to share among themselves whereas the officiating priest is the one who receives the right thigh. Another difference is that the priests are allowed to eat their share at any clean place, not just near the tabernacle.

As to the piece of meat involved, Wenham says, “It is difficult to know precisely which cuts are intended by these terms. The right leg (shoq) might indicate the hindquarter, but Deut. 18 speaks of the shoulder (zerod), which suggests the forequarter. In a Canaanite temple at Lachish the right forelegs of several different species were found by the altar.”

Hamilton and Milgrom also agree that when used of animals, shoq refers to the thigh of the hind legs rather than the shoulders of the fore legs. But Allis states: “Whether fore-leg or hind-leg is meant is not certain.”

A.P. Ross suggests, “The right thigh of the animal may have been designated for priests because it bore the burden of the labor by the animal, or it simply may have been considered the best cut of meat. In 1 Sam. 9:24 this portion is reserved for the guest of honor.”

But I would suggest another possibility, at least for the case in I Samuel 9:24. The host at the particular meal in that verse was the prophet Samuel and his guest was none other than Saul, whom he was about to ordain as the first king of Israel. So Samuel may have been making a pointed reference back to the ceremony in Exodus 29 where the first priests of Israel were ordained.

Noting the differences in custom between Exodus and Leviticus, Milgrom proposes a complicated process of composition for the latter in which two different customs are fused reflecting the change in the ceremony with time. Thus, the earlier practice “reflects the practice of the small sanctuary with one priestly family” while the later one took place at a centralized shrine having multiple priests who would take turn serving. Averbeck critiques Milgrom's theory by saying, “His overly rigid conclusion forces him to argue for diachronic revision [i.e. something that has changed with time].” One specific weakness of Milgrom's argument is that he unnecessarily feels that the ceremonies in Exodus and Leviticus must be the same, which they aren't at all. The one in Exodus is an ordination ritual while the Leviticus passage describes a “Peace Offering” instead.

Judges 17:4-6

All of the above brings us back to the archeological find near Mt. Carmel. It appears to indicate that during the time of the Judges, private individuals could possess their own sacrificial paraphernalia. And the bones of the thigh found there also indicate that an officiating priest lived there and the bones are left from his portion of a sacrifice.

With this background, it is not at all strange to learn in Judges 17 of a wealthy individual commandeering a Levite to be his own private priest and install him in part of his house. After all, as the author of Judges says right after this passage, “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” That exact chorus appears once more in Judges, at 21:25. Together they serve to bracket the so-called Appendix to Judges and “provide a kind of inverse job description for the king. By detailing Israel's problem, the writer establishes an agenda for the solution, a pattern for kingship.” (L.G. Stone)

The only point remaining is why Bible scholars all appear to agree that the Jewish rituals all involved the right hindquarter of an animal as the priest's or priests' portion and yet the Canaanite shrines of the time appear to involve the fore-arm. The tie-breaker could be the find near Mt. Carmel. The bones there were from the fore-arms of goats, perhaps confirming that, as the archeologists suspected, the house uncovered was that of an Israelite. It would be interesting if the apparently exclusive dedication of the fore-arms of sacrificed animals to the priests was done to purposefully distinguish the Israelite practice from that found in the worship of the pagan tribes around them.

 

II CORINTHIANS 11:1-12:13 (A FOOL'S SPEECH)

This chapter begins the final major section of II Corinthians, and in many ways it differs from the opening chapters. This has even given rise to the theory that it belonged originally to an entirely different epistle of Paul's. But it actually fits in quite well organizationally with the rest of the letter (see my post “II Corinthians: Introduction to the Literary Structure”).

There is certainly no denying that Paul's tone becomes much more harsh starting with II Corinthians 10. It is here that he begins to address head-on the false teachers and would-be leaders of the Corinthian church who have resorted to slandering Paul in his absence in order to raise their own status within the congregation. But we actually see many indications of Paul's feelings toward those pretenders throughout the earlier portions of the letter as he begins to defend his own behavior against their accusations:

II Corinthians 1:12-14 – Paul states that he has a clear conscience in all his dealings with the believers there.

II Corinthians 1:15-2:4 – He defends himself against the charge that he has been vacillating toward them in word and deed, calling on God as his witness.

II Corinthians 2:17-3:6 – Paul refers obliquely to those who are mere “peddlers of the word” and rely on human credentials to establish their worth.

II Corinthians 5:12 – He tells the Corinthians that they should be the ones defending him against those who “boast in outward appearances, and not in the heart.”

II Corinthians 6:3-10 – He explains that he is not trying to put obstacles in the way of others' valid ministries, but he does commend his own sufferings on behalf of Christ as a testimony.

II Corinthians 7:2 – He pleads with the Corinthians to make room in their hearts for him and proclaims his innocence of any wrongdoings.

II Corinthians 8:20 – Some scholars see in Paul's comments here a possible reference which had been made questioning Paul's handling of the money taken up for the church in Jerusalem.

All of the above demonstrates that the last chapters of the book do not at all differ thematically from chapters 1-9. But one must admit that Paul pulls out all the stops in chapters 10-13. It is here that his emotions come to the surface and he can wait no more before telling the Corinthians exactly what he thinks of the upstart leaders of their congregation who have been bad-mouthing him. He resorts to everything from barbed sarcasm to heartfelt pleas in order to try and reach his audience. It is in these chapters that one would expect him to merely ramble on and on in a random manner with no consideration for whether his thoughts are presented in an orderly manner. But amazingly, chapters 10-13 prove to be just as orderly as any other part of the epistle.

The Structure of II Corinthians 10:1-13:10 (Section II')

A. Paul’s Coming Visit (10:1-18)

                        B. A Fool’s Speech (11:1-12:13)

1. Comparison with false apostles (11:1-21a)

2. Paul’s hardships (11:21b-33)

3. Paul’s vision (12:1-5a)

2'. Paul’s hardships (12:5b-10)

1'. Comparison with false apostles (12:11-13)

            A'. Paul’s coming visit (12:14-13:10)

As an inclusio for this section, II Cor. 10:8 and 13:10 both speak in almost identical language of Paul’s authority given for building up the church, not destroying it. Also, sections A and A' deal with the non-apostolic status of the “super apostles” at Corinth, those being “approved” (10:18; 13:7), and the Corinthians’ faith (10:15; 13:5).

Furnish’s title for the center section has been adopted for obvious reasons since “fool” or “foolishness” appear eight times here. Within II'B, the opening phrases of each subunit form a roughly symmetrical set:

1. “Bear with me in a little foolishness”

2. “Dare to boast...I am speaking as a fool”

3. “I must boast”

2'. “If I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool”

1'. “I have been a fool”

Paul boasts of his weakness in B1 (11:30) and B1' (12:9-10) and lays out his reasons for rejecting personal support. The center of Section B (units 2, 3, and 2') has been called “Boasting in Weakness” by Clines. Martin, on the other hand, labels the above Section II'B2 as “Trials” and II'B3 and 2' as “Ecstasy.” It seems more accurate to recognize that a discussion of Paul’s tribulations actually resumes in II'B2'. The cryptic reference to “the third heaven” at the exact center of this section has been much discussed since this concept appears nowhere else in the literature of the time. A possible literary explanation may be found in the other references to the number “three,” which appear in the last half of Section II' (at 12:8,14; 13:1).

The verb “give” occurs in all three major subunits of Section II' (at 10:8; 12:7; and 13:10).

There is a similar distribution of the word “when,” which only appears in this letter at 10:6, 12:10 and 13:9 (the last two associated with “weak” and “strong”). As an inclusio for this entire section, 13:10 repeats the thought of 10:1-2: Paul will be bold with the Corinthians only if forced to be so. Similar contrasts between Paul’s absence and presence (found at 10:1,10; 13:2,10) also serve to mark the bounds of Section II'.

So how can we reconcile the obvious fact that Paul is pouring out his heart and beside himself with grief over the Corinthians' rejection of him, and yet his writing is presented in a rhetorically correct format? We actually have to face this seeming contradiction elsewhere in the Bible, most notably in the Psalms (especially those of lament) and the Book of Galatians. Or we could cite the Gospel of Mark which the majority of commentators feel was written by him in a flurry of white heat, but still the final product is perhaps the most structurally organized book in the whole Bible. The answer can only come from the realization that the Bible is wholly a product of human authors and at the same time a complete creation of the Holy Spirit who inspired them. In that manner, it is not unlike Jesus Christ himself who was wholly man and wholly God.

 

JUDO IN THE BIBLE

 

In the martial arts such as judo, it is taught that one can use an opponent's strength against him in order to defeat him. This principle may take various forms in practice, and some of them even appear in the Bible where the people of God, with His help, overcome much stronger earthly opponents. Below are a few possible examples, but I am sure you can find many more. Those in the Old Testament refer to actual armed battles.

Judges 3:15-30 – Ehud and Eglon

A lone Israelite walks right into the heavily defended palace of the Moabite king Eglon in order to present him with tribute money, as the Israelites had been doing for years. The king takes no precautions whatsoever since he relies completely on his superior defensive position and the relative weakness of the Israelites, and he even invites the assassin into his private chamber, where he is promptly killed.

Judges 4-5 – Sisera and Jael

The Israelites miraculously beat the Canaanites who are led by General Sisera, and Sisera flees away from them into the supposed safety of an ally's tent. There Jael treats him kindly and feeds him until he falls asleep exhaustedly. She then picks up a tent peg and drives it into his head. This is not unlike a judo move in which one uses an opponent's momentum toward you to put him down, as opposed to trying to confront him directly.

Judges 7 – Gideon and the Midianites

Here we have the story of yet another judge who uses an unusual ploy to defeat a much superior Midianite army. With but a few men, he hides around the Midianite camp at night. Then, when they are changing the guards, the Israelites begin shouting, breaking pots, and blowing trumpets. Hearing all the noise, the Midianite troops are suddenly roused from their sleep and begin killing off one another in the confusion. This is a very literal example of using an opponent's strength against himself.

I Samuel 17 – David and Goliath

This, of course, is the classic example to quote in this context. The youth David soon realizes that it would be folly to meet the practiced warrior Goliath on his own terms weighed down with a heavy sword and armor. Goliath is so confident of his own superior strength that he doesn't even bother to use his massive shield to protect the only vulnerable part of his body, his forehead. And he is not able to quickly move out of harm's way due to his heavy armor.

II Samuel 5:6-10 – David and the Jebusites

Early unsuccessful attempts had been made by the Israelites to capture the impregnable mountain fortress of Jerusalem. And the city was also somewhat immune from siege warfare since there was a secret conduit of water into the city allowing them to hold out for a long time. But this strength is the very tool by which they are defeated by David's forces when they climb up a water shaft to gain access to the city.

II Samuel 20:4-22 – Joab and Sheba

Joab pursues Sheba, who has taken refuge in the walled city of Abel. Soon after the Israelites prepare to besiege the city, a wise woman who lives there convinces the people of the city to kill Sheba themselves and throw his body over the wall. Thus, as in Judges 4-5, the flight from one danger leads Sheba into even more danger.

II Kings 9:30-37 – Jehu and Jezebel

God's “avenging angel” Jehu marches into Jezebel's palace and spies her in an upper window. He merely summons her own guards and they throw her out to her death. As in judo, he utilizes her own strength against her while conserving his own energy.

Moving on to New Testament examples, one can see more figurative applications of the judo technique, especially illustrated by Jesus' interactions with his opponents.

Luke 20:1-8 – Jesus and the Chief Priests and Scribes

During this hostile encounter, Jesus' opponents demand that he tell them where the authority of his words originated from. He then turns the tables on them by asking them a similar question: “Where did John the Baptist's baptism come from, a heavenly or earthly source? That shuts them up because their main strength was from the great respect they commanded from the people, and they realize that they will lose much of that whichever way they happen to answer. Jesus has utilized his knowledge of that fact to defeat them.

Luke 20:27-39 – Jesus and the Sadducees

Soon after the above event, Jesus meets some Sadducees who try to trap him with a trick question regarding the resurrection, which they do not believe in. Jesus answers them in a rather straightforward manner, appealing to the teachings of the Pentateuch. And he does this in the presence of some scribes, probably Pharisees, who have been listening to the debate. They agree with Jesus, thus driving somewhat of a stake between the united forces of the Pharisees and Sadducees to destroy Him.

Acts 2:30-23:10 – Paul before the Sanhedrin

I mention the previous example, even though it is not the best for illustrating the theme of this short essay, mainly as an introduction to this final NT narrative. Paul has been brought before the combined Sanhedrin in order to condemn him. But taking a cue from his Master's life, Paul begins to proclaim “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees, and I am on trial concerning the hope of resurrection of the dead.” At these words, the Pharisees (who believed in the afterlife) and the Sadducees (who didn't) begin arguing against themselves and the council meeting breaks up in chaos. I see here definite echoes of Judges 7 in which Gideon and his troops manage to trick the enemy forces into turning against themselves in a confused manner.

Besides the NT narratives, one could also cite various teachings of Jesus and his followers regarding God choosing the seeming foolish to shame the wise and the weak to shame the strong (I Corinthians 1:18-31), rich men relying on gold and silver that will actually be used against them in the Divine Court to convict them (James 5:1-6), etc. But the prime example of some of the basic principles of judo is when God employed Satan and all of his minions (including Judas, the Sanhedrin, the Roman authorities, and the disillusioned populace) to have Jesus crucified. Paradoxically, by that very act Satan managed to defeat himself instead.

GOSPEL OF JOHN: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

John 1-4 How far apart are the cities, towns and regions mentioned in Jesus' ministry? How long does it take to walk from Jerusalem to Cana to Capernaum to Jerusalem to Sychar?

The whole of Jesus' ministry appears to have taken place within an area that is roughly 100 miles north to south and 60 miles east to west. From Jerusalem to Cana is about 77 miles; from Sychar to Jerusalem is 33 miles; and from Cana to Capernaum is 15 miles as the crow flies but almost double that on existing roads at the time.

The distance one could travel in a day probably varied greatly depending on the change in elevation, conditions of the road, and location of appropriate stopping points along the way. Walking time can perhaps be best estimated by considering the story recorded in Luke 24:13-35 regarding the two disciples who met the risen Jesus as they were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus (present site unknown). Most of the Greek texts say that Emmaus was 60 stadia (7 miles) away. We don't know when they set off for Jerusalem but they were able to walk there easily, have dinner with Jesus, and return to Jerusalem before dark to tell the news to the Apostles. Some Greek texts, however, say that Emmaus was 160 stadia away, but The New Bible Dictionary: Revised notes that there would not be enough time for them to make the round trip if that were the case. From these data, we can calculate a broad range of 15-35 miles traveled in a day.

John 3:16 Who said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life?” Was it Jesus or John?

Since most of the Greek manuscripts that we have for John's Gospel were written without any punctuation, the answer is mainly a matter of opinion. Thus, KJV, JB Phillips, NEB and NAS have all of verses 10-21 in quotation marks, indicating that Jesus said it. But RSV stops the quotation at verse 15, indicating that these words are a comment made by the author, John. Parenthetically there is the same disagreement among translators regarding the exact ending of John the Baptist's comment which begins at John 3:27.

One possible tie breaker is to look for stylistic or thematic features to decide if 3:16 makes more sense in Jesus' mouth or John's. In this particular case, the evidence is mixed.

1. Practically identical statements in verses 15 and 16 indicate that both may be by Jesus.

2. However, the similarity of verses 16 and 36a argues for John as the author of both.

In either case, the comment comes from a reliable source and should be believed.

John 4:23-24 I am curious about John 4:24 and the notion of worshiping God in spirit and 'in truth'... I have always assumed that the reference to 'in truth' meant an accurate worship of God for who he is, not what we would like for him to be. What is the proper interpretation of this phrase?

Let's start with a few translation issues. The first question is whether “spirit” should be capitalized.  Almost all translations use the lower case; however, The Living Bible, TEV, and Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John I-XII) feel that it refers to the Holy Spirit.  The next point, brought up by Brown, is that the phrase “in spirit and truth” may in fact be a hendiadys (“one by way of two”).  This is a figure of speech occurring often in the Old Testament in which one of the nouns is meant to modify the other one. Thus, Brown opts for the meaning “Spirit of truth” while I personally go for “spiritual truth.”
Your reading of the passage is correct, as can be seen from the immediate context of the saying.  Jesus tells the woman in verse 22 that she is worshiping what she doesn't know. And then in verse 26, he proclaims that he is indeed the prophesied Coming One.  “Worship devoid of understanding God's activity in history operates within a vacuum. To make this point clear, the evangelist employed his theme of knowledge. Jesus said that Samaritan worship lacked knowledge, the critical relational aspect of genuine worship...” (Gerald Borchart, John 1-11)  Two added wrinkles that clarify the meaning of “truth” are pointed out in the commentaries I consulted.
The New Testament goes beyond viewing truth in the Greek sense of being the opposite of falsehood. “It has imported some features from the Old Testament as well. There the words for truth also refer to faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, etc.” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John)  Borchart  agrees: “[True] worshipers participate in the divinely revealed reality of truthfulness or steadfastness/ dependability, a category that epitomizes the way God reveals the divine reality to human beings.”
The second aspect of truth that needs stressing is its close association with God's revelation through the  person of Jesus Christ:  
	“True worshipers are those who realize that Jesus is the Truth of God (John 3:21; 14:6)...To worship in truth is to worship God through Jesus.” (Bible Knowledge Commentary)
	 “Paul in Ephesians 4:21 says 'as truth is in Jesus.'  He is saying that the very truth of God, truth itself resides in Him...Jesus is not describing truth as an ethical virtue or a philosophical concept...there is a close link between truth and the gospel of God's grace.” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John)
	“In spirit and truth: that is, in virtue of new birth, and in the light of the revelation of truth in Christ.”  (International Bible Commentary)

John 10:16 Jesus says he is the good shepherd and He lays down his life for the sheep. Then he says he has other sheep that are not of this sheep pen and that he will bring them also. Who are the other sheep? Is this a reference to the Gentiles, perhaps?

Well, according to the Book of Mormon the “other sheep” were the Nephites, a North American tribe who had already been converted before Jesus appeared on earth and were waiting for Him to appear in America. The “other sheep” couldn't be the Gentiles since at the time Jesus was speaking, the Gentiles were not yet his people.

The Jehovah Witnesses, on the other hand, state that the “other sheep” are the same as the great crowd in Revelation 7:9 who will live forever in a paradise on earth while being subject to the 144,000 specially chosen saints who will reign with God in heaven.

This illustrates the common practice of cults to take an obscure passage in Scripture, often coupling it with a completely unrelated passage, in order to establish a major doctrine.

Getting back to reality:

Since this is the only passage in the Bible where the term “other sheep” appears, a definitive answer to your question is hard to give. (The mention of a “little flock” in Luke 12:32 refers to Jesus' closest disciples and has no obvious relationship to John 10:16.)

The consensus of nine commentaries I consulted was that the most likely identification of the “other sheep” is the Gentiles. Other possibilities mentioned were Greek-speaking Jews or those living outside the Holy Land (Borchart, John 1-11) and Jews who hadn't yet come to belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII).

In support of the idea that Jesus was indeed speaking about the Gentiles are (a) the many OT prophecies of the Messiah bringing light to the whole world (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament) and (b) the citation by J. Barton Payne (Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy) of John 11:51-52 as a parallel passage: “Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.”

In any case, “The other sheep are not to remain distinct from the existing sheep...They are to become united in one flock...under the leadership of one shepherd.” (Morris, The Gospel According to John)

John 12:40 (Matthew 13:13; Mark 4:11-12) Why would God or Jesus purposely prevent people from understanding the truth?

This passage is as difficult to understand as the scripture it is quoting: Isaiah 6:9-10. Here are some possibilities to consider:

1. One is to realize that Jesus is quoting the Aramaic version of Isaiah, which can be translated differently: Also, you must keep in mind that the Greek word for “may” can also mean “who,” and “lest” may mean “perhaps.”

2. Another approach is to realize that the Hebrew language tended to express consequences as if they were purposes. So God is not telling Isaiah to purposely confuse the people through his prophecies, but only warning him that will be the probable consequence of his teachings. This possibility is confirmed by Matthew's version.

            3. Jesus used parables extensively in his teachings because the spiritually obtuse crowd was not yet ready for the plain gospel message and would have immediately rejected it if taught plainly. Therefore he masked the message purposely through the use of unforgettable stories that they would mull over in their mind and recall after his death.

John 14:1-2 I was once asked this question by an unbeliever, “If you expect a reward for living the Christian life, aren't you more selfish than those who live a moral life expecting nothing in return?”

I think your friend is correct in that we shouldn't dwell on our heavenly reward, certainly not as a motive for our deeds, rather than the more appropriate motives of love and gratitude. A Sunday school co-teacher wanted our class to spend one semester going through a thick book he had been reading outlining all of the specific rewards we get in heaven. I felt that it would be counterproductive, and we chose another subject. But it does bring up the general question of differential rewards in heaven in addition to the common heavenly reward of all believers.

Here are some Scriptures commonly quoted to show that we will all have different rewards when we get to heaven:

1. John 14:1-2: “In my Father's house are many rooms.” In the context, this means that there will be plenty of room for all to console them; not as an appeal to their love of the highest rewards. Certainly there is no hint that some of the “rooms” will be bigger than others.

2. Then there are the oft-quoted words of Jesus: “The first shall be last and last shall be first”

These words appear at the end of the parable of the laborers in the field (Matthew 20:1-16), but it is clear that there is one common reward for all the laborers. In this case, it is probably directed at the Pharisees, who will find themselves outstripped by those who believe Jesus' words even though they are not as learned in the law.

In Luke 13:28-30 this phrase concludes Jesus' story about people coming to God and he says, “I do not know you.” “First and last” in this case clearly applies to Gentiles vis-a-vis Jews.

Mark 10:28-31: Rewards on earth may be proportional to sacrifices (but also note the addition of “persecutions”) while only one reward in heaven is mentioned for all. The “first and last” saying harkens back to the rich ruler discussion in vv. 23-27.

3. In Mark 10:35-43, James and John seek special honors. Notice that Jesus deflects the question, hinting that there may be special positions in heaven but turning the question around to their responsibilities in the here and now.

4. And then there are the “crown” references:

2 Timothy 4:8: Paul gets a crown but so do others.

James 1:12: A crown is promised to all who love him.

Revelation 4:10-11: In any case, the crowns are likely to be cast at the feet of the only one who is truly worthy to receive them.

5. Matthew 5:1-12: The beatitudes are not enumerated to point out the differences in each type of Christian's reward, but to show that whatever our needs are, they will be met in heaven and that no good deed will go unnoticed by God. Otherwise, a more literal reading would indicate that only the pure in heart, in contrast to the merciful, etc., will see God.

6. The same thing applies to the promises in the letters to the churches (Revelation 2-3). There are many specific promises (white stone, new name, etc) but each reward goes to everyone who conquers.

7. Parable of the talents (Matthew 25:20-23): This would have been an excellent place for Jesus to teach that good servants will be rewarded differently in heaven according to works on earth, but instead, the same reward was given to both faithful servants. The purpose of the parable was to contrast the fate of the faithful with the unfaithful. The same purpose is intended in Revelation 22:12: “My reward is with me to repay according to everyone's work.” Read v. 11 for the context.

John 14:2-3 Do Christians go to Heaven?

Although I could find no exact quote in the New Testament to that effect, there are a myriad of scriptures that strongly imply that Christians do indeed go to heaven. Much, of course, depends on your own definition of what heaven consists of and where it is located. I personally prefer the image at the end of Revelation where the believers reside in God's presence in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth. This can still be considered to be “heaven” if that is defined as any place where God dwells.

Nevertheless, consider the following suggestive passages, arranged roughly from the most persuasive to the least:

John 14:2-3 “In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am there you may be also.” Since Jesus was taken up into heaven (Acts 1:11) and went to the Father (John 14:28) and heaven is obviously His Father's house, that is the place where Jesus is preparing a place for his followers and he will gather us to himself there.

The same thought is taught in Hebrews 11:16: “They desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore...he has prepared a city for them.”

Paul echoes this idea in II Corinthians 5:1: “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens [the singular and plural being interchangeably used in both the OT and NT].

If our future dwelling place is in heaven, it is hard to escape the logical conclusion that we will go there.

The same is true of the passages describing what else God has waiting for us in heaven.

    “You will have treasure in heaven” (Matthew 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22)

    “Your reward is great in heaven” (Matthew 5:12; Luke 6:23)

    “an unfailing treasure in heaven” (Luke 12:33)

    “store up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:20-21)

    “the hope laid up for us in heaven” (Colossians 1:5)

“an imperishable, undefiled and unfading inheritance kept in heaven for you” (I Peter 1:4)

If all these are waiting for us in heaven, it would make no sense to say that we are not going there to appropriate them.

Revelation 7 describes a great multitude from all nations “who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” and are obviously believers. They are in the very presence of God's throne, which according to Revelation 4:2 and many other NT passages is located in heaven. The same is true of the 144,000 in Chapter 14. Whether one believes that these events take place before or after the Last Judgment, at some point in time dead Christians have obviously “gone to heaven.”

Then there are the many references, especially in Matthew, to believers “entering the kingdom (or Realm) of heaven.” (see Matthew 5:20; 18:3; 19:23, for example) This can be another way of saying “going to heaven.” Some of these passages undoubtedly refer to us residing in the kingdom of God as soon as we become believers and are still alive. But there appears to be a future aspect to “entering the kingdom of heaven” as well. For example, Matthew 7:21 obviously refers to the Last Judgment when Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” Also, consider Matthew 8:11 referring to the heavenly banquet feast: “Many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”

Finally, to use a little convoluted reasoning, it is well recognized that “heaven” was a Jewish substitution for “God” used extensively in the OT and also in the NT, especially by Matthew. One could therefore reason that going to heaven is another way of saying “going to God.” And it would be hard to deny that Christians are going to eventually reside with God.

John 14:12 How can we possibly do greater works than Jesus did?

The usual answer to this question is that it is not the quality of our works in relation to those of Jesus, but it is the greater impact in terms of shear numbers of people affected and the geographical reach of Christians today. However, according to Darrell Bock (Christianity Today, June 2006) that may not be the whole story.

Luke 10:24 says that even the least of believers is greater than John the Baptist. And that is because our works are powered by the Holy Spirit. Both that gift and the forgiveness of sins happen because of Christ's death on the cross and were not available up to that time. But we now get to share in the fulfillment of God's saving purposes for the world.

John 16:5 Isn't there a contradiction here since the apostles had earlier asked this same question?

“Both Peter and Thomas had in fact asked this question verbally already. But then it was because of their dismay rather than because of a real desire to know Jesus' destiny (see 14:6).” The International Bible Commentary

“The disciples' reoccupation with their own problems prevented their understanding the crucial nature of the time ('now') and the momentous significance of the events (His death, burial, resurrection, and Ascension).” The Bible Knowledge Commentary

“[John's question in 13:36] had not really indicated a serious inquiry as to Jesus' destination. Peter was diverted immediately and he made no real attempt to find out where Jesus was going. He had been concerned with the thought of parting from Jesus, not with that of the Master's destination. He had in mind only the consequences for himself and his fellows. Neither he nor they had as yet made serious inquiry as to what was to become of Jesus. So does self-interest blind men.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John

Three more possibilities are mentioned in Raymond Brown's commentary The Gospel According to John XIII-XX1 . The first two (a and b) are obviously unacceptable:

    a. The verses were originally arranged so that Peter and Thomas' questions came after John 16:5 instead of before it.

    b. Verses 13:36, 14:6 and 16:5 were different versions of the same event written by different authors and combined into the account we now have.

    c. There is no sharp distinction in Hebrew (or Aramaic) between “not” and “no more.” Therefore 16:5 can read, “Yet not one of you now asks any more, 'Where are you going?'”

 

THE POWER OF THE DOG (PSALM 22)

 

I recently watched the acclaimed Netflix film “The Power of the Dog,” directed by Jane Campion. It was nominated for a number of Academy Awards and won Jane Campion her second Award for Best Director. Since the title comes from the Bible, I thought it might be interesting to analyze since, like Jesus' parables, it is quite ambiguous in its meaning and requires one to ruminate over it quite a bit. But to do so, I will have to reveal the plot, and so I advise you not to continue reading unless you have already seen it or are not planning to do so in the future.

As a film, it takes its time in advancing the plot and appears to be rather simple on the surface. It concerns two cattle ranchers in Montana during a transition time in the Old West between rough-and- tumble pioneers and the coming of civilization (as explained by Thomas Savage, the author of the novel from which the movie was adapted). Phil appears to characterize the past attitudes in that he gets down in the dirt with the ranch hands and commands their respect through sheer fear of his disapproval. By contrast, his brother is rather unassuming and mild, and is willing to change with the times and mingle with upstanding citizens such as the governor and his wife.

All is well between the brothers since Phil seems to crave his brother's company while, at the same time, constantly putting him down with his remarks. But then the brother decides to settle down and marry a pretty widow who has a rather effeminate and sensitive son who spends his time making paper flowers. Phil does not like anyone coming between him and his brother, and so he takes out his anger openly on his new sister-in-law and her “sissy” of a son, Peter. This eventually drives the woman to drink, especially when she finds she is pregnant and her ineffectual husband does nothing to stop Phil from constantly berating her.

At this point in the story, Peter returns to the ranch for the summer after his first year in medical school. One would expect Peter to avoid those who have been picking on him, but somewhat unexpectedly he parades right past Phil and the ranch hands in his “dude” clothes to the jeers of the cowboys. Just as surprisingly, Phil actually takes Peter under his wing: teaching him how to ride, braiding a leather lasso for him, and promising to take him on a long trip into the mountains.

Peter's mother gives all of Phil's drying cowhides away to a passing Native American, which enrages Phil since he needed some more hide to finish the lasso for Peter. But Peter, who had found a dead cow in the hills earlier, tells Phil that he has already cut up some hides into strips and gives them to Phil. Phil softens the leather strips in water, kneading them with his bare hands, one of which has an open cut on it due to a previous accident while castrating bulls. Phil contracts anthrax and dies. In the last scene, Peter is in his room reading Psalm 22:20 – “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.”

There are a number of ways to interpret the meaning of this film, and certainly the psychological make-up of the characters must be taken into account. About half-way through the film, we learn that Phil had actually been attending Yale University where he majored in literature and was quite musically inclined in addition. Apparently, pressures had forced him to abandon whatever personal plans he may have had in order to take care of the family's cattle business full time.

Then the audience, and Peter, learns that Phil has a secret hideout in the woods where he can be alone to commune with nature and look at homoerotic literature he has stashed there. That helps us understand Phil's constant reminisicences regarding Broncho Henry, his now departed older mentor, “adopted father,” and probable lover. This key figure in Phil's life apparently took him under his wing when Phil was forced to work back on the ranch and taught him to stifle his sensitive side in front of the other cowhands or they would rib him mercilessly. Phil really starts to bond with Peter when both of them are staring at the surrounding hills and Peter points out that the rock formations look like the head of a howling dog. Phil is amazed that he has seen so quickly what Broncho Henry had pointed out to him years earlier.

At the same time we are getting more insights into Phil's mind, we also begin to change our attitude toward Peter a little bit also. It turns out that Peter is the sort of sensitive person who can capture a rabbit, tenderly pet it, present it to his mother as a gift, and then kill it in order to dissect it. So we are not totally surprised when he rides out alone into the hills, finds a cow who has died of anthrax, carefully puts on a pair of surgical gloves, removes the hide, cuts strips off of it, and later presents it to Phil after Peter's mother has “coincidentally” eliminated all of Phil's other supply of hides. At this point, it is not much of a stretch at all to view Peter as a rather cold-blooded killer who possesses not nearly the sensitivity as Phil, even though Phil has had to suppress his feelings over the years out of necessity.

So what should we think regarding this movie, especially the title The Power of the Dog, and its relation to the biblical text? In the first place, there is a general correspondence between the Montana cattle ranch setting in the movie and the reference in Psalm 22:12 to the many strong bulls of Bashan who surround the author. A.A. Anderson notes, “The major part of it [i.e. Bashan] was a table land between 1500 and 2300 feet in height, well suited for the growing of wheat and raising of cattle.”

Secondly, as Holladay says, “Of the laments, none is more awesome than Psalm 22.” However, one of the unique features of this particular psalm is that the speaker nowhere protests his innocence.” That alone introduces a point of ambiguity, so that there is the possibility that he is in fact deserving of the treatment he gets. (Beigent and others)

In one thing most of the reviewers agree (quite mistakenly in my opinion) -- Phil is the “dog” and Peter is forced to act out of self-defense and to protect his mother and unborn child. These critics even propose the rather farfetched idea that Phil is plotting to lure Peter into the woods in order to kill him, making it look like an accident. (If that were Phil's plan, he certainly didn't need to spend all of his spare time during the summer laboriously plaiting rawhide strips for Peter's rope just in order to get him away where he could safely kill him.) One critic states, “Phil's power comes from demeaning people (see vv. 6-7, 22).” And another one says, “It is Phil's ability to prey on others' inadequacies and insecurities – thus making them question their value and feel like 'worms' – that is the dog's power.”

As for Peter being the innocent party whose thoughts are expressed in the words of the Psalmist, they point to two verses in Psalm 22 on which to hang their case. First, they say that the reference to “my darling” in v. 20 obviously refers to Peter's mother, whom he is trying to protect. Secondly, there is verse 7 in which “all who see me mock at me.” This appears to be expressed in the movie by the scene in which Peter is mocked by the cowboys as he walks by them in his city clothes.

As a rebuttal to that general view, let me offer the following facts. In the first place, although in v. 6 the Psalmist does say, “I am a worm and no man,” that statement could just as easily describe Phil as Peter. A.A. Anderson explains the phrase 'no man' as “perhaps 'an unwanted nobody', one who does not belong anywhere, and who has become an island in a sea of hostility.” I would defy anyone to see the movie and feel that this applies to Peter more than to Phil. After all, Peter can easily get away from what little heckling he gets at the ranch by just avoiding most of the others during the summer and then escaping entirely during the school year. On the other hand, it is Phil who has to be constantly surrounded by hostile men who would tease him mercilessly if they knew Phil's secret, and perhaps they did just that before Broncho Henry started to mentor him on how to get by.

Regarding the phrase “my darling” in the King James Version of v. 20, this is a total misinterpretation of the literal Hebrew “my only one.” Modern Bible scholars and interpreters almost universally understand this phrase to be synonymous with “my life” in the first part of the verse. Thus, it refers to the Psalmist's life, all that he has left. NEB translates it as “my precious life.” And Anderson gives the opinion that this phrase is “probably a description of life as the only thing left to the sufferer.” Thus, this verse should not be used as proof that the Psalmist should be equated with Peter.

At this point, it is helpful to look at what Jane Campion herself had to say since she was not only the director but also the co-writer of the screenplay. In one interview, she was quoted as explaining that “the psalm is sort of warning to the faithful and refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. It is [in effect] Jesus himself in the story who speaks of 'a pack of dogs that surrounds and besieges.'” So is Psalm 22 a sort of veiled prophecy of Christ's life, especially his last days? On this, the Bible scholars would overwhelmingly agree with her. Just consider some of the ways this psalm was fulfilled in the New Testament.

                                                                                              Psalm 22        New Testament

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”                       v. 1                 Matt. 27:46 and parallels

He is scorned and mocked.                                                          vv. 6-7            Mark 15:29

He is asked by others why God doesn't deliver him.                   v. 8                 Matthew 27:43

His enemies surround him.                                                         vv. 12-13,16a  Matt. 26:67-68; 27:27-31

His dying agonies (on the cross) are described.                          v. 14

He is thirsty.                                                                                v. 15a              John 19:38

He dies.                                                                                       v. 15b              Luke 23:46 and parallels

“My hands and feet have been pierced (or shriveled)”              v. 16b              John 20:25-27

Onlookers mock him.                                                                 v. 17                Matthew 27:39

They cast lots for his clothing.                                                   v. 18                Mark 15:24 and parallels

He prays for deliverance.                                                           vv. 19-21         Mark 14:36

God listens to him and releases him from his agonies.             vv. 21b-24       Luke 23:46

He calls believers “brothers and sisters.”                                  v. 22                Hebrews 2:12

Future generations will be told about God's deliverance.         vv. 29-31         Philippians 2:10-11

So, assuming that Campion is correct in her comment, and no one should doubt that fact, then we should expect to see a Christ-figure in the movie. But who is it, Phil or Peter? At least one reviewer out and out stated that it was certainly the gentle Peter, not the brutish Phil. But is that really correct?

Here are a few contrary indications to mention:

    This Psalm is being spoken in the first person by King David, who was well known as being musically inclined and especially skilled at playing a stringed instrument. Not coincidentally, Phil is shown at being musically adept in the same way.

    Another very obvious fact is that it is Phil who dies in order that other people around him can be delivered, not Peter. That hardly paints Peter as being a type of Christ.

    Thirdly, Phil dies as a result of a betrayal by one very close to him. That clearly points to Peter being Judas and Phil playing the role of Christ, especially since Peter's act of betrayal is disguised as an act of love for Phil just as Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss.

    Of course, the biggest objection to my thesis is that Phil can't be either the sufferer portrayed in Psalm 22 or Jesus since he is not at all an innocent party. But keep in mind two facts: (1) as mentioned above, this lament psalm is unique in not pointing out that the speaker is innocent and (2) when Christ died on the cross, he bore all the sins of the world on himself and therefore paid the required price of death for them. And in doing so, he brought salvation to all around him, including unborn generations such as Peter's coming half-brother.

For additional confirmation of this interpretation, it is important to take into account another comment by the director of the film. She told interviewers, “The power of the dog is made up of all those impulses, the deep and uncontrollable ones, that can come out and destroy you.” Totally ignoring that statement, one film critic stated, “Phil's power comes from demeaning people.” That certainly is true on the surface, but as Campion points out, we are encouraged to look a little deeper into the psychological motives, not just the superficial actions. Is she talking about Peter's uncontrollable urges? That would be highly doubtful. He is carefully controlled and methodical in what he does. On the other hand, Phil is shown to be a highly conflicted person who has struggled to overcompensate for his sensitive nature by coming off as even more brutish than his fellow cowhands. Thus, it is Phil's homoerotic attraction to Peter that comes to the surface and totally blinds him to Peter's treachery.

Another important point to discuss is the use of the term “dog” in the Psalm and in the film. Kiuchi says that it “is universally viewed as a contemptible animal” although in Deuteronomy 23:18 it may refer to a male prostitute, as in NIV. Commenting on that particular verse:

    Harrison says that 'dog' is “the Hebrew term for a sodomite.”

    Craigie states that 'hire of a dog' is “commonly taken to refer to wages acquired from male prostitution.

    Thompson agrees and points out that particular usage is known outside of the Old Testament.

    By contrast, Mayes says that “although the context of its use demands that it should be understood as the designation of a male prostitute, it does not necessarily have a pejorative connotation. It means 'a devoted follower' of a god.”

The word 'dog' appears twice in the psalm. The first time it is in the plural and refers to the many enemies of the Psalmist who surround him and are poised to destroy him. In that verse, the definition of 'dogs' as contemptible beings fits the context best. The next time is in v. 20 where only one 'dog' is mentioned, although Anderson feels that it can be understood as a collective noun referring to the dogs of v. 16. And as the film uses that verse in its title, it can refer both to the 'dog' being a contemptible person and a sodomite (i.e. a homosexual). That fact alone does not narrow down the possibilities any since both Phil and Peter can be made to fit either description. So let me mention two more ways in which the movie portrays Phil as a type of Christ much more closely than Peter does:

    One of the first scenes in the movie is of Phil and the ranch hands sitting down at a long table to eat with Phil at the head and Peter as their waiter standing at the foot of the table. It is quite reminiscent of the Last Supper in that Phil has his disciples all at the table together and dismisses Peter (an incipient disciple) from the table with some abruptness just as Jesus dismissed Judas from the table. I even attempted to count the number of Phil's followers at and around the table but could only come up with eleven counting Peter, not twelve. But I may have missed counting all of the men. In any case, it is clearly Phil who has followers gathered around him, not at all the loner Peter.

    There is another scene in the movie with a NT allusion, the time when all of the cowhands are washing in the stream while Phil withdraws by himself to lie down, commune with nature, and recall his happy days when Broncho Henry was still around. This is quite similar to the occasions when Jesus left the Apostles, who were sometimes also on the water, in order to be alone to spiritually recuperate and commune with the Father in prayer.

The above scene also brings up two other important points. Jesus needed to escape on occasion from those he was constantly around in order to get spiritual renewal. This was especially necessary due to the strain of having to deal with very unenlightened minds who were often incapable of misunderstanding who He was and what he was saying. The same appears to be the case with Phil. But those times in which the cowboys do seem to hang on his every words are when Phil tells stories about his departed surrogate father figure Broncho Henry (God the Father) and the miraculous things he could do.

ANTICHRIST AND HIS ILK

Satan is the prime mover behind the forces opposing God throughout the Bible. But there appear to be certain human personalities, especially during the Last Days, whom he inspires in a special, supernatural way in an attempt to accomplish his will. The main problem in identifying these people is that we are given very limited descriptions of them. In addition, there is the possibility that although different labels are attached to them, they may just be different ways of describing one powerful personage.

It is impossible for me to canvass this subject adequately since whole books have been written on the subject. For example, Beale devotes 50 pages of his excellent commentary on the Book of Revelation just discussing the Beast of chapter 13. And there is no way I can even begin to list all of the religious and political personages over the years who have been “identified” as the Antichrist. But let us look at what little we are told in the New Testament about this (or these) person(s).

False Prophets

Watson believes that the whole concept actually can be traced back to Deuteronomy 18:18-22 in which God says through Moses that there will be a future “prophet like Moses” who should be listened to instead of any false prophet who either represents another god or whose prophecies do not come true. In the New Testament, John the Baptist was felt by some to be this predicted prophet like Moses (John 1:25), but then it is revealed that Jesus is actually that person (John 7:40; Acts 3:22; 7:37). Thus, by inference, prophets who oppose Jesus were first predicted in Deuteronomy.

The Contemptible Person

The next time this arch-rival of God appears is in Daniel 7-11 where he goes by various names: little horn (7:8; 8:9), contemptible person (11:21), and king who acts as he pleases (11:36). Almost all scholars agree that the original historical prototype here is Antiochus IV. He tried to exalt himself above all gods and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. Jesus later alludes to this event when he references the “Abomination of Desolation” (Daniel 9:27) in Matthew 24:15, referring this time to the coming destruction of Jerusalem. But a yet future personage and event is felt by some to be in view here.

Man of Lawlessness

This mysterious person only appears in II Thessalonians 2. There is some textual variation in v. 3 since a few early manuscripts read “man of sin” instead. But there is little difference between the two designations since, according to I John 3:4, “everyone that does sin also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” In light of this dual error, Abraham Smith is correct in summarizing the situation: “some identify him as a false prophet or an emperor.” And even more specifically, John Stott says, “Paul calls him both 'the man of lawlessness (3) and 'the lawless one' (8). Presumably this means that he will be defiant of all law, both the moral law...and the civil law...”

Brauch notes: “This depiction of 'the lawless one' within the context of a rebellion against God has affinities with related concepts in Judaism and early Christianity.” Taken in chronological order, some of them are given below:

Daniel 11 predicted that a future ruler would exalt himself above all gods and desecrate the temple. The closest fulfillment of that prophecy was undoubtedly the leader Antiochus IV, as mentioned above, who did that very thing in 168 B.C.

Then there is the intertestamental Jewish composition The Martyrdom of Isaiah in which Satan is called 'the angel of lawlessness.'”

In AD 40, not long before Paul wrote II Thessalonians, Emperor Caligula attempted to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem but was prevented from doing it.

The Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C. and desecrated the temple by entering the Holy of Holies.

“For Christians in subsequent decades who endured persecution at the hands of Rome and its emperors, the spirit of antichrist, if not the antichrist himself, was seen as personified in the persecuting Caesars.” (Brauch)

One would expect that the specific mention in v. 4 about this person sitting himself down in the temple of God would narrow down the possibilities considerably, but as Marshall says: “No specific temple is in mind, but the motif of sitting in the temple and claiming to be God is used to express the opposition of evil to God.” Stott agrees with this position.

Leon Morris states, “This passage is probably the most obscure and difficult in the whole of the Pauline writings and the many gaps in our knowledge have given rise to extravagant speculations.” A whole catalog of political and religious leaders over the centuries is provided by Stott in his commentary on I-II Thessalonians for those who are interested. But Brauch summarizes, “These attempts to discover the lawless one along the stream of history have clearly not been successful, revealing that such undertakings are likely presumptuous and futile.”

Stott summarizes the situation: “Yet all of these, together with other evil leaders down the centuries, have been forerunners or anticipations of the final 'man of lawlessness', an eschatological yet historical person, the decisive manifestation of lawlessness and godlessness, the leader of the ultimate rebellion, the precursor and signal for the Parousia...And whether we still believe in the coming of Antichrist will depend largely on whether we still believe in the coming of Christ.”

Parenthetically, the present restraining of the man of lawlessness until he is revealed can be closely related to the temporary binding of Satan followed by his release to deceive the nations, as mentioned in Revelation, especially if one subscribes to the amillennial view of the end times.

Antichrist (antichristos)

Note that in the above quote, Stott simply assumes that the 'man of lawlessness' is identical to the Antichrist. And he may be correct in light of the similar biblical descriptions of the two.

    Both personages are associated with the last days (II Thessalonians 2:3 and I John 2:18).

    Both deny God and Christ (II Thessalonians 2:4 and I John 2:22).

    They are deceivers (II Thessalonians 2:9-10 and II John 7).

    They, or their spirits, are already at work prior to their revealing (II Thessalonians 2:7 and I John 2:18;4:3).

    True believers will not be swayed by them (II Thessalonians 2:13-15 and I John 2:21,23-25).

The term “antichrist” only appears in the epistles of John (I John 2:18,20; 4:3; II John 7). But, as F.F. Bruce points out, “the idea expressed by the word is not.” He sees the same concept n II Thessalonians 2:1-12; Mark 13:13-14; and Revelation 13.

Grayston suggests that Judas may have been the Antichrist since John 17:12 calls him “the son of perdition,” a description of the Antichrist in II Thessalonians 2:3.

False Messiah (pseudochristos)

This Greek word only appears in Matthew 24:24 and its parallel in Mark 13:22, both times in the plural. These people are associated with false prophets, perform signs and miracles to, if possible, deceive the elect. Kauder contrasts antichrist, which “indicates a fundamental, dualistic opposition” with false messiah, which “gives the word the ethical connotation of being false or deceptive.”

But Marshall points out that antichrist may mean one who opposes the Messiah and/or one who actually claims to be the Messiah. Thus, there may be no fundamental difference between an antichrist and a false Christ. C.H. Williams lumps together both categories of people as “usurping Jesus' own claim to authority.”

The Beasts

Finally, we come to the beasts from the sea and land described in Revelation 13. The first of these symbolic beings combines much of the imagery associated with the creatures found in Daniel 7. He, or it, worships the dragon (i.e. Satan), is seemingly brought back to life miraculously, blasphemes against God, is given great worldly authority, persecutes the saints, and is worshiped by others. The beast from the land appears to be more like a false prophet who convinces people to worship the first beast through the execution of various miracles. It is this second beast who has the mysterious number 666 attached to it, over which much ink has been spilled over the years.

Various calculations using the Hebrew concept of gematria (where letters are each assigned numbers) have been utilized to identify the beast with Nero or other Roman emperors. But in light of the highly symbolic use numbers have throughout Revelation, it is probably more likely that 666 is meant to signify a “trinity of imperfection” (Adam was created on the 6^th day, and the number 6 is one shy of the number 7, standing for perfection): in other words, an attempt of a person to raise himself to the status of the Trinity.

One or Many?

It is not really an easy question to answer as to whether the entities above are all different from one another for two reasons: (1) there could be a whole succession of such personages over time, each one a type of a culminating opponent of God; and (2) some of the references above contain two such paired beings present at the same time (i.e. false prophets and messiahs in Matthew and Mark as well as the two beasts of Revelation 13).

On the other hand, the numerous evangelical sources I consulted all devoted considerable time demonstrating the many close correspondences in descriptions between the categories above. The sum total of such observations, some of which are given below, leads one to believe that there will be only one culminating being, known under different titles and perhaps accompanied by his prophet, appearing in the Last Days:

    Beale on the beast of Revelation 13: He feels that the “view of a multiple, trans-temporal, yet final appearance is supported by the 'already-but-not-yet' concept of that figure in the Johannine epistles and by 2 Thess. 2:1-12.”

    Kauder's entry on “Antichrist” in the Dictionary of NT Theology actually combines a discussion of this word from John's letters with the similar personages in II Thess. 2, Dan. 8, Mark 13, and Rev. 13.

    Similarly, Leon Morris' article on “Antichrist” in New Bible Dictionary relates the Antichrist of John's letters with Paul's man of sin in II Thessalonians, the personage described in Daniel 7, and the beast of Revelation. He summarizes, “It is not our purpose here to identify any particular one with the antichrist, but simply to point to the fact that this book too knows of one empowered by Satan who will oppose Christ in the last days. This may fairly be said to be characteristic of the Christian view of the last days.”

I will quote Marshall at some length because he also does a good job of summarizing the situation. “Such persons are clearly opposed to Jesus as the Christ, but here they appear to be either prophets who declare untruths or persons who falsely claim that they themselves are Messiah. We may compare the imagery of the beast and the false prophet in Revelation 13; 19:20, where the false prophet promotes the worship of the beast. But this passage in Revelation leads us to the second possible root of John's language [in I John 18-27] in the expectation of one particular arch-opponent of Christ, the Anti-Christ par excellence. This expectation is reflected in the coming of the 'man of lawlessness' in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and possibly also in 'the abomination that causes desolation' in Mark 13:14. These figures stand in a succession of such pictures in Jewish and Christina writings which portray the final opponent of God.”