Shepherds' Fellowship

(By Massimo Mollica)

On September 23, Mark Zhakevich blogged here at the Shepherd’s Fellowship about the the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit in the OT. On the basis of evidence for regeneration, sanctification, and empowerment in the OT, he concluded that the Holy Spirit indwelt OT saints.  This blog sparked some friendly debate around Grace Community Church as not all around here agreed with Mark’s conclusions.

In response, I offer an alternative approach to Mark’s blog. I will offer some preliminary cautions when addressing the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the OT. Then I will highlight some of the weaknesses of Mark’s approach. Finally, I will make the case that the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit is something unique to the New Covenant.

Preliminary Caution

When understanding the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the OT, one must first let the explicit texts define the Holy Spirit’s OT ministry. Thus, Mark is right in discussing the empowering ministry of the Holy Spirit, as that is one of the primary emphases in the OT. Furthermore, if Scripture does not speak explicitly regarding a specific doctrine, then we should be reluctant to emphasize it. I think this is the case with the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit indwelt OT saints. There is not a single text in the OT or the NT that says the Holy Spirit indwelt OT saints. Therefore, at best it is a theological conclusion. It is that very theological conclusion that I question.

Weaknesses

There are four weaknesses in Mark’s approach that make his conclusions suspect. Prior to highlighting these weaknesses, I want to note that Mark is a personal friend and has been for many years as we grew up together. So, no hard feelings Mark.

1) First, he assumes that because the Holy Spirit regenerated, sanctified, and empowered people in the OT that it means He indwelt them. This is not tight logic. Just because the Holy Spirit had these ministries does not mean that He indwelt the OT saints. In fact, especially in the case of empowerment we must exercise caution because not all who were empowered by the Spirit of God were necessarily believers (i.e. Balaam in Num 24:2). 

2)  Second, Mark does not discuss Scriptures unfolding or progressive development of God’s presence among men, which I believe sheds light on the question of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling ministry.

3) Third, when addressing the meaning of John 7:39 and that which is new regarding the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the New Covenant era, Mark contradicts himself. He says that the OT never says that the Holy Spirit functioned to comfort, to witness to Christ, or to glorify Christ. Thus, Mark concludes these are all new roles in the NT era. Using the same logic, Mark should have concluded that the Holy Spirit did not indwell OT saints because the OT never says He did.

4) Finally, Mark does not look to the explicit texts in the NT that actually discuss the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit to see what sort of light they shed on the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the OT.

The Holy Spirit’s Indwelling Ministry is Unique to the New Covenant Era

As I argue for this position, I want to state up front that I agree with Mark that the Holy Spirit regenerated OT saints, even if the language of regeneration in the OT is a bit anachronistic. This is a safe conclusion from the doctrine of man’s depravity, from the OT use of language regarding the circumcision of the heart, and from Jesus' discussion of the new birth with Nicodemus in John 3. I don’t disagree that that the Spirit empowered people in the OT. I don’t necessarily disagree that the OT believers needed the Spirit for sanctifcation (though I don’t think the OT speaks very clearly to this). I disagree that the three ministries of the Holy Spirit in the OT that Mark discussed--regeneration, sanctification, and empowerment--either together or individually, demand one to believe that the Spirit indwelt OT believers.

In Scripture, the dwelling ministry of God among men is unfolded in progressive fashion. In the OT, God’s presence was made known among His people, first in the tabernacle and later in the Temple. In Ezekiel 10, the glory of God departed Israel and the Temple and will return later in the millennium (Eze 43). If you were to ask an OT believer where God dwelt, they would have pointed you to the Temple. They would not have said, “He dwells within men.” In fact, in Ezekiel 36:27, it says that in Israel’s future restoration under the New Covenant, then God would put his Spirit within in them. So, even Ezekiel recognizes that the Holy Spirit did not indwell OT saints. It is significant that one text in the OT that explicitly addresses the Holy Spirit’s indwelling ministry puts it in the future.

When we come to the gospels, God’s presence is made known in the Person of Christ as the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us (John 1:14). However, after the ascension and prior to Christ’s return, the dwelling ministry of God takes on a different form. The dwelling ministry of God in the New Covenant era is manifested through the Holy Spirit’s corporate indwelling of the church (universal - Eph 2; local - 1 Cor 3) and through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling individual believers (1 Cor 6:19). This started at Pentecost. The Spirit’s descent at Pentecost parallels the presence of God descending into the tabernacle at the end of Exodus and into Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings.  Thus, both the church and the individual are the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is this “temple” trajectory in biblical theology that Mark’s arguments seem to miss. The indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit in the NT is a step beyond any ministry he had prior to the ascension. To say that the Holy Spirit indwelt saints in the OT is to miss the heightened ministry of the Holy Spirit that started at Pentecost. If Pentecost does not mark a unique transition in the dwelling ministry of God, what exactly does Pentecost represent?

Four texts demonstrate that the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit within the individual is unique to the New Covenant.  First, 2 Cor 1:22 links the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in our hearts to the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit when it says of God, “who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.”  In Ephesians 1:3-14, The sealing ministry is something unique to the NT believer since it is linked to the eternal salvation purpose of the Triune God in Christ. Thus, the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit is unique to those who are in Christ. Second, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 link our being indwelt by the Holy Spirit with us having been bought with a price. Since Christ’s blood had not yet been shed in the OT, it is difficult to see how the Spirit indwelt them. Third, Romans 8:9-12 expresses the Holy Spirit’s indwelling ministry in unique relation to his having raised Jesus Christ from the dead.

Finally, and most conclusively, in John 14:17 Jesus says that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something still future when he says, “He abides with you and will be in you.” Jesus describes the ministry of the Holy Spirit with two different verb tenses and two different prepositions. For the disciples at the time Jesus spoke, and presumably OT saints, the Holy Spirit’s ministry was describes as an abiding “with” (grk: para). In the future, when Jesus would send the Spirit, which we know happened at Pentecost following Jesus’ ascension, the Spirit would abide “in” (grk: en) the disciples. Thus, the Spirit did not take up residence within believers until the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Even if the first three texts are not persuasive, the final one is difficult to get around. Combining these four texts, along with a proper understanding of the progressive development of the dwelling place of God makes it a safer conclusion to see the Holy Spirit’s individual dwelling of the believer as something new post-Pentecost.

(By Mark Zhakevich)

What is Man?

The constitution of man is presented in two major views: dichotomy and trichotomy. [1]  Dichotomists argue that man consists of body and soul/spirit, while the trichotomists maintain that the man consists of body, soul, and spirit. The distinction lies in the definition of the immaterial part of the person, whether there is any difference between the soul and the spirit. [2]  Based on (1) the Old Testament teaching of man as a unified being, (2) the two part presentation of man in the NT, and (3) the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12, the dichotomist understanding is preferred. 

OT on Man’s Composition 

The first time man appears in the Bible is in Genesis 1:26 where God contemplates the creation of man. This is followed by Genesis 2:7 where God forms man from the dust of the ground and breathes the "breath of life" into him who then becomes a living being.  Only two aspects are described in this passage: the physical and the breath, there is no reference to a third aspect. [3] The primary OT term for man is nephesh, which refers to "'man's total nature, for what he is and not just what he has;'" [4] this term "stands for the entire person." [5]  Solomon affirms the dichotomist understanding of man when he says "the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it (Eccl 12:7, NASB)."  The OT seems to distinguish only between the spiritual and the physical aspects of man without adding a third component. 

NT on Man’s Composition 

The NT likewise portrays man as possessing a body (soma) and soul/spirit (pneuma/psuche). The former refers to the physical aspect of man; the two latter terms refer to the immaterial.  In 2 Corinthians 7:1, Paul addresses the topic of sanctification, urging his readers to pursue complete holiness.  He writes: "let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness."  As he explains the areas of the individual that sanctification is to affect, he only mentions two: the spirit and the body.  His point is not that only those two parts should be holy, while the mind and the heart can be perverse, rather, he bifurcates the person into the material and immaterial. [6]  Paul is after holiness and if he delineates only two parts that the individual needs to concentrate on to be entirely holy, the implication is there is no third part; otherwise complete holiness will not be attained. 

In John 10:28, Jesus upholds the dual division of man when He encourages His disciples not to "fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”  Jesus is talking about eternity and one would think if there was another part of a person that might be eternally destroyed by God, Jesus would have mentioned it.  Jesus encapsulates the whole of man's material and immaterial existence in the terms "body" and "soul.”     
When the NT mentions "spirit" and "soul," it equates the two terms.  This is seen in Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1:46-47 where she says: "my soul exalts the Lord and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."  One option is to interpret soul and spirit as referring to different parts of a person's being, [7] however, the parallel fails when we apply the same rationale to "Lord" and "God," thereby making these terms to be references to two deities.  A better way to interpret this statement is to apply the rules of Hebrew parallelism, "in which the second line repeats the thought of the first but with different words. Just as spirit and soul refer to man's spiritual or rational nature, so Lord and God refer to one Deity." [8]  Mary is not accentuating a fine distinction by referring to soul and spirit; she is merely referring to the same immaterial part of the human being.

What about 1 Thessalonians 5:23?

Some argue for trichotomy from 1 Thessalonians 5:23 [9] where Paul writes, "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Is he referring to another part or is he equating "soul" with "spirit?"  Paul is emphasizing total sanctification of the man (cf. 1 Cor 7:34, 2 Cor 7:1) by compounding synonyms. [10]  In Matthew 22:37, Jesus does the same when he tells the lawyer to love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind.  In Mark 12:29-30, it is written that the individual is to love God with his heart, soul, mind, and strength.  These verses are not attempting to divide man's composition into various parts, rather, they emphasize wholeness.  If division in the person was the focus, then we could derive five or even six parts in the man: body, soul, spirit, mind, strength, and heart.  Jesus, however, is not dissecting the man, rather he is teaching that one's love for God must flow out of every part of the person; the whole being must love God. 

Paul uses a similar device in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and prays that the sanctification of the Thessalonians be whole, which includes the material part (body) and the immaterial part (whether it is called spirit or soul).  Complete sanctification is the central issue, not a lesson on the anatomy of a man.  There is a clear parallel with 1 Thessalonians 3:13 where Paul prays for the purity of their hearts.  The heart controls the life of a person, the mind, the intellect and the emotions of a person; all these should be holy.  F. F. Bruce argues that spirit, soul, and body in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 "together give further emphasis to the completeness of sanctification for which the writer prays, but the three together add but little to the sense of ["your hearts"] in 3:13." [11]  Paul piles up synonyms to refer to the totality of a person's being; praying the same prayer in 5:23 and in 3:13, namely that the Thessalonians would be completely blameless at the appearing of Christ. [12]

What about Hebrews 4:12?

At first glance, it seems that the author of Hebrews 4:12 is calling for a division between spirit and soul.  If that were the case, then the author of Hebrews is listing six different parts of a man, not merely three. [13]  It is better to understand this verse as emphasizing the living Word of God.  The Word of God is so powerful that it is able to reach deep down into the inner parts of a man, call it soul or spirit or mind; it is able to shine light into that deep part.  Nothing is hidden from the penetrating Word of God, "it can scrutinize the innermost thoughts of the human heart." [14]  Grudem comments that "the Word of God is so powerful that it will search out and expose all disobedience and lack of submission to God." [15]  The author of Hebrews is not dissecting the man; [16] rather this verse contains a "rhetorical accumulation of terms to express the whole mental nature of man on all its sides." [17]         

Conclusion

Not only do the OT texts, but passages in which Jesus, Paul and Mary speak, equate the spirit with the soul.  Even though at first glance 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 appear to support trichotomy, based on context and to be consistent with the rest of Scripture, it is better to interpret these verses from a dichotomist perspective.  Paul encouraged the believer to pursue the image of Christ in his total being, not merely certain parts.   

* * * * *

END NOTES:

[1] There is a third view, monism, which maintains that man is a single element and his body is the person. Cf. Millard J. Erickson's, Christian  Theology, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1984), 2:524-27.

[2] The trichotomist defines the soul as the intellect of man, his emotions, and his will. It is the part that can be yielded either to the service of God or to sin. The spirit however, is a higher faculty in a man, it is the part that "most directly relates to God."  In contrast, Grudem argues that there is no clear difference in the functions of each from a biblical perspective. "Everything that the soul is said to do, the spirit is also said to do and everything that the spirit is said to do, the soul is also said to do."  The spirit and soul are both said to be able to think, display emotions, praise God, and are affected by sin (Cf. Mark 2:8, Mark 7:20-23, Acts 17:6, Matt 26:38, John 4:23, Psa 146:1, 2 Cor 7:1, Jam 1:21).  Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. by Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 193-95.  
 
[3] David P. Scaer, "Theological Observer: Body, Soul, and Spirit," Concordia Theological Quarterly 66/2 (Apr 2002): 168.

[4] As quoted in George J. Zemek, A Biblical Theology of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace (Little Rock, Ark.: B. T. D. S. G., 2002), 14.

[5] Waltke, "nephesh," TWOT, 2:590.

[6] Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:34 where Paul also discusses holiness and consistent with 2 Corinthians 7:1, he writes: "to be holy in body and spirit."

[7] David Scaer notes that trichotomists interpret this statement as a reference to two parts in a human being. David P. Scaer, "Theological Observer," 168.

[8] Ibid.

[9] For thorough exegesis  on 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and the trichotomy-dichotomy debate, please refer to footnote 13 in William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews, NTC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2004), 146-50. 

[10] Grudem, Bible Doctrines, 196.

[11] F. F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982), 130. Cf. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2:539.

[12] A.T. Robertson notes that both the verb "preserved" and the adjective "complete" are in singular person, therefore "Paul conceives of the man as 'an undivided whole,' [it is a] prayer for the consecration of both body and soul."  Paul is not emphasizing each individual aspect of man, rather the whole of man's being.  A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1931), 4:39.  

[13] Grudem helpfully notes that "we do not divide joints from marrow, for joints are the places where bones meet, not the places where joints meet marrow." Cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 479.  Robert Reymond explains that "'soul' and 'spirit' are both genitives governed by the participle 'dividing,'" therefore, the author is saying that "the Word of God divides the soul, even the spirit" (emphasis his).  Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 422.   

[14] Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 135.

[15] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 479.

[16] "Our author is not concerned to provide  here a psychological  or anatomical analysis of the human constitution, but rather to describe in graphic terms  the penetration of God's word to the innermost depth of man's personality." Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 165.

[17] Quoted in James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1952), 56.  Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 113.

(By Robert Thomas)

* Dr. Thomas serves as a Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary.

How do you strengthen people who are persecuted because they are Christians?  How do you motivate God-rejecting people to repent and turn to Him?  God’s answer to both questions is by telling them what is to happen in the future, the very thing He does in the last book of the Bible.

That book, Revelation (sometimes called the Apocalypse) by name, centers around prophetic predictions of the future (Rev 1:3; 10:11; 18:20; 19:10; 22:6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19).  Revelation plays a significant role in biblical prophecy as a whole.  John, one of Jesus’ twelve Apostles, wrote the book in about A.D. 95 while in exile on a small Mediterranean island off the coast of Asia Minor (1:9).  The resurrected Jesus appeared to Him there and gave him information about the future for him to deliver to messengers from seven churches of the nearby Roman province located in the western portion of what is today the country of Turkey.

The announced subject of the book is “things that must happen soon” (Rev 1:1), the highlight of which is stated in the book’s theme verse, “Behold, He (Jesus) will come with the clouds” (1:7).  Revelation deals with the return of Jesus Christ and all the events accompanying His return.  In instructing John to write the book, Jesus appeared to the Apostle in a glorified state (1:12-16) and gave him an advance outline of the prophecy (1:19).  It was to include the vision of Jesus he had just seen (1:12-16), a message to each of the seven churches (Revelation 2–3), and events that were to transpire on earth after the faithful in the churches were taken away to heaven at Jesus’ promised coming (Revelation 4–22).

Two themes recur in Jesus’ messages to the churches, one of threat and one of encouragement.  The threats He issued to those in the churches whose relationship to Himself was only superficial.  Those He promised to come and judge because of their empty profession (2:5; 3:11, 16).  For them an unparalleled hour of trial is imminent (3:10).  His words of encouragement went to the faithful who had stood firm in the face of persecution caused by their faith in Him.  For these He promised His imminent return to deliver them from their adversity (2:25; 3:11, 20).  Chapters 2 and 3 advise the churches about needed adjustments in their lives in view of the outpouring of God’s wrath about to be described in chapters 4 and following.

Jesus devoted the bulk of His revelation to John to describing judgments about to fall on an unrepentant world because of their rebellion against God.  Through prophetic vision He first allowed John to visit the heavenly throne-room from which the judgments will proceed (Revelation 4–5).  There the prophet encountered the Father seated on His throne and the slain Lamb Jesus who was the only one worthy to open a seven-sealed scroll that the Father gave Him.

As it turns out, that seven-sealed scroll contained the remainder of Revelation except for some concluding remarks in chapter 22.  John saw the breaking of the first six seals (Revelation 6) portrayed as a drama before his eyes.  First came four different-colored horses with riders depicting peaceful conquest of the world, warfare and bloodshed, widespread famine, and death to one-quarter of earth’s population.  Then he witnessed martyred saints in heaven praying for God to avenge their blood by punishing people responsible for their deaths.  Next, the sixth seal divulged various cosmic and terrestrial disturbances that signal unmistakably to earth’s inhabitants that the seal judgments have initiated the predicted wrath of God against rebellious humanity.

The breaking of the seventh seal (8:1) resulted in the sounding of seven trumpets (8:7–11:15), in themselves seven physical judgments additional to and more severe than those of the first six seals.  The first six trumpets were prophetic of (1) the burning up of a third of earth’s vegetation, (2) destruction of a third of sea life, (3) poisoning of a third of earth’s fresh water, (4) darkening of a third of the heavenly bodies, (5) a pain-inflicting demonic locust plague, and (6) death to a third of earth’s inhabitants through another demonic visitation.

The blowing of the seventh trumpet (11:15) eventuated in another series predicting God’s future visitations against rebellious mankind, the seven bowls of God’s wrath (15:7).  The seven bowls represented to John what will be the seven last plagues that will complete God’s wrath (15:1) against creatures who have rebelled against Him.  The first six of those  plagues will produce (1) the afflicting of false-christ worshipers with incurable sores, (2) death to all sea life, (3) transformation of all fresh water into blood, (4) scorching of all rebels because of superheat from the sun, (5) darkening of the false-christ’s kingdom, and (6) battle preparation for the doom of earth’s kings (16:1-16).

The prophetic message of the seventh bowl of God’s wrath carries forward into the eternal state (16:17–22:5).  It will include eight main events: the second coming of Christ to conquer His enemies, a summons of birds to feast on conquered humans, the slaughter of Christ’s human opponents, Satan’s imprisonment, Satan’s release and final defeat, the setting of the Great White Throne, sentencing of lost people to the lake of fire, and a sketch of the New Jerusalem and those excluded from it (19:11–21:8).

Along with his description of the seals, trumpets, and bowls John’s visions also furnished supplemental data (7:1-17: 10:1–14:20; 17:1–18:24; 21:9–22:5) to clarify for readers details of the future judgments that will occupy seven years, one thousand years, and eternity future as this present creation of God runs its course and steps aside to be replaced by His new creation.

Revelation’s picture of the future is more than sufficient to strike terror in the thoughts of any person who has not made his/her peace with God through a personal invitation to Christ for salvation from sin and its punishment.  But that picture is also more than sufficient to offer incentive to the faithful believer in Christ to persevere through present trials, awaiting His imminent coming to deliver from those trials to a future of unparalleled joy.

Note: For more information on the details of Revelation, you may obtain a somewhat fuller discussion of the book in my portion of Four Views on Revelation (Zondervan, 1998), pp. 179-229.  For a full discussion of Revelation, please consult my Revelation 1–7 (Moody Press, 1992) and Revelation 8–22 (Moody Press, 1995).  To order online, please visit www.gbibooks.com.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

In Acts 12:20-24, Luke records the remarkable account of the death of Herod Agrippa I (who reigned from A.D. 37-44). Below is the same event described by the historian Josephus. It's fascinating stuff.

"Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Caesarea. . . . . There he exhibited shows in honor of the emperor. . . . On the second day of the festival, Herod put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a truly wonderful contexture, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment was illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it. It shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him. At that moment, his flatterers cried out . . . that he was a god; and they added, 'Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.'

Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and he fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, 'I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.'

After he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign." (Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.343-350).

(By Rich Gregory)

When the average person hears the word history, it may take several seconds to stop yawning. Understandably, the image that pops into their mind is of the droning professor from bygone years who seemed to enjoy the medieval torture of essay tests and arduous projects. Thus, when it comes time for the Bible interpreter to think about recreationally studying history, the thought can be revolting and is rapidly dismissed as being an extraneous exercise rising from the dark corners of academia. 

This perception however, could not be more damaging to the exegete.  It is important for the expositor to realize that the text of Scripture was first experienced in, recorded around, and must be interpreted through the original context and culture in which it was penned. To divorce exegesis from historical understanding is to strip away a great degree of practical understanding and can also greatly inhibit interpretational accuracy. Either one of these errors leads to an exposition that is found wanting in it’s drive towards accurate interpretation and proclamation. 

The application of historical study within sermon preparation is not a dry and dusty enterprise, but rather is tantamount to reaching through the veil of time and touching the original characters. It is an exercise that lends color, detail, and vitality not only to the text, but also to the expositor’s explanation of that text as well. As Walter Liefeld states in his book, New Testament Exposition, “When I begin to ask how people felt, what their needs were, why they needed a word from God or the particular ministry that was given them, and whether there is anything here that corresponds to our contemporary situation, I am beginning to bridge the chasm of the centuries” (p. 97). Historical study is the method by which we are able to progress beyond simply viewing the ruins of ancient societies and are actually able to “touch” the past, and insert ourselves into the world of the original text. When it comes to exposition, the text gives only the skeleton, while the background data serves to give the picture detail.  

We, as students of the book, are called to gain a proper practical understanding of God’s Word. That book, to which we have devoted our lives, is a book that was written by real men in real life situations, with real cultural concerns and pressures. Those cultural factors, albeit controlled by a sovereign God, dictated to them the way by which the narrative of the text would unfold and be recorded. We, as interpreters however, are bound by the problem of historical distance. We live in a different culture with its own customs, a country with its own history, and a millennium with a myriad of developments stemming from modern life. To have a grasp upon the practical understanding of the text, we must divest ourselves of our own modern mindset, and travel back to their way of life in order to fully understand the commands and events as they would have been perceived by the original recipients and actors.   

A good understanding of hermeneutics reveals that the interpretation of any text hinges upon understanding of the details of that text. The importance of historical detail is just as real a factor to the proper interpretation of the text as the syntactical, lexical, and contextual data. When you, through your mind’s eye, are finally able to breathe the air of the Promised Land as the people of God come up out of the desert, and are able to hear the march of Roman troops beating through the streets of Jerusalem, then you are close to being able to comprehend the world of the ancients. When, using your imaginative abilities, you are able to smell the salt off the Dead Sea as the walls of Jericho crumble, and when you are able to touch, through the veil of time, the judgment chair of Pontius Pilate, and know the pressures of his job as he pronounces guilt upon the innocent Son of God, then the contexts of the Scripture suddenly spring to life from their seemingly dusty pages and become a real, living account. Suddenly, you have been thrust into the redemptive drama authored by the hand and will of God alone. 

It is largely through a proper understanding of the ancient culture that modern application and interpretation flow. Once the history behind a text has been mined, the interpreter is able to place himself in the position of the original recipient or writer, and is subsequently able to have a better grasp of the timeless truth that God is communicating. After this timeless truth, augmented by the understanding of historical context, has been apprehended, the translation and application into modernity comes smoothly and seamlessly. As individuals who make homiletics and the study of God’s Word their livelihood, it is critical to merge a proper understanding of history with homiletical skill. To a certain degree, the health of our congregation, the accuracy of our interpretation, and the pointedness of our application rests partly upon our ability and willingness to engage the ancient world as it once existed.  Be willing to insert yourself into the world of the text in your quest to better understand and proclaim it’s glorious truths.