The Religion That Started in a Hat

The usage of the term last days in Scripture                                                     By Jack Kettler

In Scripture, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the phrase “last days,” and its similar expressions, “latter days,” “afterwards,” and “time of the end,” “last time” appears in several places. Does this expression all refer to the same event in history? The study on this topic will be a brief introductory look at the phrase “last days” and its variants. The list of Scriptures surveyed in this study is abbreviated.

Old Testament Scriptures:

“And Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days.” (Genesis 49:1)

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible from Genesis 49:1:

“And Jacob called upon his sons … Who either were near at hand, and within call at the time Joseph came to visit him, or if at a distance, and at another time, he sent a messenger or messengers to them to come unto him:

and said, gather yourselves together; his will was, that they should attend him all together at the same time, that he might deliver what he had to say to them in the hearing of them all; for what he after declares was not said to them singly and alone, but when they were all before him:

that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days; not their persons merely, but their posterity chiefly, from that time forward to the coming of the Messiah, who is spoken of in this prophecy, and the time of his coming; some things are said relating to temporals, others to spirituals; some are blessings or prophecies of good things to them, others curses, or foretell evil, but all are predictions delivered out by Jacob under a spirit of prophecy; some things had their accomplishment when the tribes of Israel were placed in the land of Canaan, others in the times of the judges, and in later times; and some in the times of the Messiah, to which this prophecy reaches, whose coming was in the last days, Hebrews 1:1 and Nachmanides says, according to the sense of all their writers, the last days here are the days of the Messiah; and in an ancient writing of the Jews it is said (x), that Jacob called his sons, because he had a mind to reveal the end of the Messiah, i.e. the time of his coming; and Abraham Seba (y) observes, that this section is the seal and key of the whole law, and of all the prophets prophesied of, unto the days of the Messiah.” (1)

As Gill notes, this promise finds its fulfillment in the time of the Messiah.

“Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD’s house

Shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills;

And all nations shall flow to it.” (Isaiah 2:2)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Isaiah 2:2:

“(2) It shall come to pass in the last days.—The three verses that follow are found in almost identical form in Micah 4:1-3, with the addition of a verse (Micah 4:4) which describes the prosperity of Judah—every man sitting “under his vine and his fig-tree,” as in the days of Solomon. Whether (1) Isaiah borrowed from Micah, or (2) Micah from Isaiah, or (3) both from some earlier prophet, or (4) whether each received an independent yet identical revelation, is a problem which we have no adequate data for solving. Micah prophesied, like Isaiah, under Ahaz, Jotham, and Hezekiah, and so either may have heard it from the other. On the other hand, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, on which these verses follow, in Micah 3:12 appears from Jeremiah 26:18 to have been spoken in the days of Hezekiah. On the whole, (3) seems to have most to commend it.

For “in the last days” read latter or after days; the idea of the Hebrew words, as in Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14, being that of remoteness rather than finality. For the most part (Deuteronomy 4:30; Deuteronomy 31:29) they point to the distant future of the true King, to the time of the Messiah.” (2)

As Ellicott notes, this passage also finds fulfillment in the time of the Messiah.

“The fierce anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intentions of his mind. In the latter days you will understand this.” (Jeremiah 30:24)

From Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament on Jeremiah 30:24:

“Further explanation of the deliverance promised to Zion. – Jeremiah 30:18. “Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, I will turn the captivity of the tents of Jacob, and will take pity on his dwellings; and the city shall be built again upon its own hill, and the palace shall be inhabited after its own fashion. Jeremiah 30:19. And there shall come forth from them praise and the voice of those who laugh; and I will multiply them, so that they shall not be few, and I will honour them, so that they shall not be mean. Jeremiah 30:20. And his sons shall be as in former times, and his congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress him. Jeremiah 30:21. And his leader shall spring from himself, and his ruler shall proceed from his midst; and I will bring him near, so that he shall approach to me; for who is he that became surety for his life in drawing near to me? Saith Jahveh. Jeremiah 30:22. And ye shall become my people, and I will be your God.”

The dwellings of Israel that have been laid waste, and the cities that have been destroyed, shall be restored and inhabited as formerly, so that songs of praise and tones of joy shall resound from them (Jeremiah 30:18.). “The captivity of the tents of Jacob” means the miserable condition of the dwellings of Jacob, i.e., of all Israel; for “to turn the captivity” has everywhere a figurative sense, and signifies the turning of adversity and misery into prosperity and comfort; see on Jeremiah 29:14. Hitzig is quite wrong in his rendering: “I bring back the captives of the tents of Jacob, i.e., those who have been carried away out of the tents.” That “tents” does not stand for those who dwell in tents, but is a poetic expression for “habitations,” is perfectly clear from the parallel “his dwellings.” To “take pity on the dwellings” means to “restore the dwellings that have been destroyed” (cf. Jeremiah 9:18). The anarthrous עיר must not be restricted to the capital, but means every city that has been destroyed; here, the capital naturally claims the first consideration. “Upon its hills” is equivalent to saying on its former site, cf. Joshua 11:13; it does not mean “on the mound made by its ruins,” in support of which Ngelsbach erroneously adduces Deuteronomy 13:17. ארמון in like manner stands, in the most general way, for every palace. על־משׁפּטו does not mean “on the proper place,” i.e., on an open, elevated spot on the hill (Hitzig), neither does it mean “on its right position” (Ewald); both of these renderings are against the usage of the words: but it signifies “according to its right” (cf. Deuteronomy 17:11), i.e., in accordance with what a palace requires, after its own fashion. ישׁב, to be inhabited, as in Jeremiah 17:6, etc. “Out of them” refers to the cities and palaces. Thence proceeds, resounds praise or thanksgiving for the divine grace shown them (cf. Jeremiah 33:11), and the voice, i.e., the tones or sounds, of those who laugh (cf. Jeremiah 15:17), i.e., of the people living in the cities and palaces, rejoicing over their good fortune. “I will increase them, so that they shall not become fewer,” cf. Jeremiah 29:6; “I will bring them to honour (cf. Isaiah 8:22), so that they shall not be lightly esteemed.” – In Jeremiah 30:20. The singular suffixes refer to Jacob as a nation (Jeremiah 30:18). “His sons” are the members of the nation; they become as they were previously, in former times – sicut olim sub Davide et Salmonoe, florentissimo rerum statu. “The congregation will be established before me,” i.e., under my survey (תּכּון as in Psalm 102:29), i.e., they shall no more be shaken or moved from their position.” (3)

According to the commentators, this passage finds immediate fulfillment when the events occur, and secondly, the passage looks forward to the time of the Messiah.

“But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these.” (Daniel 2:28)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Daniel 2:28:

“Here the prophet gives God entirely all the glory, proving all the powers on earth to come short in it, it being one of God’s peculiar prerogatives to reveal secrets. Yea, in great humility he denies himself to have any share in it, as also Daniel 2:29.

What shall be in the latter days: observe here the prophet’s wisdom in this discovery, he doth not fall abruptly upon the dream, but first prepares this lofty king for it in general, and by degrees he doth labour to win him to the knowledge of the true God.

1. By this his power; and,

2. By his gracious favour to the king, in revealing to him the greatest secret in the world about the change of kingdoms and governments, and touching the power of Christ’s kingdom over all in the latter days. See Daniel 2:44.” (4)

Poole sees the fulfillment of this passage too in the time of the Messiah.

“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4)

“Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD’s house

Shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it.” (Micah 4:1)

“Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” (Hosea 3:5)

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Hosea 3:5:

“5. Afterward—after the long period (“many days,” Ho 3:4) has elapsed.

return—from their idols to “their God,” from whom they had wandered.

David their king—Israel had forsaken the worship of Jehovah at the same time that they forsook their allegiance to David’s line. Their repentance towards God is therefore to be accompanied by their return to the latter. So Judah and Israel shall be one, and under “one head,” as is also foretold (Ho 1:11). That representative and antitype of David is Messiah. “David” means “the beloved.” Compare as to Messiah, Mt 3:17; Eph 1:6. Messiah is called David (Isa 55:3, 4; Jer 30:9; Eze 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25).

fear the Lord and his goodness—that is, tremblingly flee to the Lord, to escape from the wrath to come; and to His goodness,” as manifested in Messiah, which attracts them to Him (Jer 31:12). The “fear” is not that which “hath torment” (1Jo 4:18), but reverence inspired by His goodness realized in the soul (Ps 130:4).

the latter days—those of Messiah [Kimchi].” (5)

The commentators conclude this phrase “the latter days” finds fulfillment in the times of the Messiah.

“And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” (Joel 2:28)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Joel 2:28:

“(28) I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.—Holy Scripture is itself the interpreter of this most weighty promise. St. Peter’s quotation and application of it in the Acts is its commentary. “Afterward “—LXX., after these things becomes in the apostle’s mouth—“in the last days”—i.e., in the Christian dispensation, when, after the punishment of the Jews by the heathen, their king came—“my Spirit”—St. Peter renders “of my spirit,” after the LXX., indicating the gifts and influences of the Holy Ghost—“upon all flesh”—i.e., without distinction of race or person—“they of the circumcision were astonished because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” The outward manifestation of these gifts, as shown on the Day of Pentecost, in accordance with this prediction, was gradually withdrawn from the Church; the reality remains.” (6)

Ellicott explains how this verse looks forward to the inauguration of the New Covenant.

In the Old Testament passages, the “last days,” and the similar phrases find their fulfillment in the ending of the Old Jewish covenant order and the institution of the New Covenant by the Lord Jesus Christ. The phrase “last days” does not necessarily mean the end of history.

New Testament Scriptures:

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

This two-part question is asking about the near term (great tribulation of 70AD coming in judgment) and long-term events (the second coming at the end of history).

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2Timothy 3:1)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on 2Timothy 3:1 is brilliant:

“(1) This know also.—Better rendered, But know this. The Apostle had warned Timothy (2Timothy 2:3-13) not to allow fear of oncoming peril and trouble to paralyse his efforts in the Master’s cause, for the Lord’s true servant should never lose heart, and then had proceeded (2Timothy 2:14-26) to detail how these efforts of his were to be directed, showing him how his teaching should stand in contrast with that of the false teachers. St. Paul now (2Timothy 3:1), having told him that although there was no reason to fear, yet warns him that grave dangers to the Church would surely arise, and that God’s servants, like Timothy, must be prepared to combat.

In the last days.—The majority of commentators have referred “the last days” here spoken of to the period immediately preceding the second coming of the Lord—a day and an hour somewhere in the future but hidden, not merely from all men, but from the angels, and even from the Son (Mark 13:32).

It seems, however, more in accordance with such passages as 1John 2:18 : “Little children, it is the last time”—where the present, and not an uncertain future is alluded to—to understand “the last days “as that period, probably of very long duration, extending from the days of the first coming of Messiah—in which time St. Paul lived—to the second coming of Christ in judgment. The Jewish Rabbis of the days of St. Paul were in the habit of speaking of two great periods of the world’s history—“this age,” and “the age to come.” The former of these, “this age,” including all periods up to Messiah’s advent; the latter, “the age to come,” including all periods subsequent to the appearance of Messiah. We find the same idea embodied later in the Talmud (treatise “Sanhedrim”) 6,000 years are mentioned as the duration of the world, 2,000 years, waste or chaos, 2,000 years under the law, 2,000 years the days of Messiah.” This last period, “the days of Messiah,” are often alluded to by the Hebrew prophets under the expression, “in the last days”—literally, in the end of days. (See Isaiah 2:2; Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1.) The words of 2Timothy 3:5, “from such turn away,” would require certainly a strained interpretation if we are to suppose that the “last days” referred to a time immediately preceding the end, or, in other words, the last period of the Christian era. The sad catalogue of vices is, alas, one with which all ages of the Church of Christ has been too well acquainted. The Christian teacher has no need to look forward to a future time of deeper iniquity, when in the Church of the living God will be found those who will deserve the dreary titles of this passage. The Church of his own age will supply him with examples of many such, for “In a great house . . . are there not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood, and earth, and some to honour and some to dishonour.” (7)

Ellicott argues convincingly “The words of 2Timothy 3:5, “from such turn away,” would require certainly a strained interpretation if we are to suppose that the “last days” referred to a time immediately preceding the end, or, in other words, the last period of the Christian era.” So “last days” in Timothy must be interpreted as the whole Christian era and not a short period.

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.” (2Peter 3:3)

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2)

Again from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Hebrews 1:2:

“(2) Hath in these last days . . .—Better, at the end of these days spake unto us in a Son. The thought common to the two verses is “God hath spoken to man”; in all other respects the past and the present stand contrasted. The manifold successive partial disclosures of God’s will have given place to one revelation, complete and final; for He who spake in the prophets hath now spoken “in a Son.” The whole stress lies on these last words. The rendering “a Son” may at first cause surprise, but it is absolutely needed; not, “Who is the Revealer?” but, “What is He?” is the question answered in these words. The writer does not speak of a Son in the sense of one out of many; the very contrast with the prophets (who in the lower sense were amongst God’s sons) would be sufficient to prove this, but the words which follow, and the whole contents of this chapter, are designed to show the supreme dignity of Him who is God’s latest Representative on earth. The prophet’s commission extended no farther than the special message of his words and life; “a Son” spoke with His Father’s authority, with complete knowledge of His will and purpose. It is impossible to read these first lines (in which the whole argument of the Epistle is enfolded) without recalling the prologue of the fourth Gospel. The name “Word” is not mentioned here, and the highest level of St. John’s teaching is not reached; but the idea which “the Word” expresses, and the thought of the Only Begotten as declaring and interpreting the Father (John 1:18; also John 14:10; John 14:24) are present throughout. There is something unusual in the words, “at the end of these days.” St. Peter speaks of the manifestation of Christ “at the end of the times” (1Peter 1:20); and both in the Old Testament and in the New we not unfrequently read “at the end (or, in the last) of the days.” (See 2Peter 3:3; Jude 1:18; Numbers 24:14; Daniel 10:14, &c.) The peculiarity of the expression here lies in “these days.” The ages preceding and following the appearance of Messiah are in Jewish writers known as “this world” (or, age) and the “coming world” (or, age); the “days of Messiah” seem to have been classed sometimes with the former, sometimes with the latter period; but “the end of these days” would be understood by every Jewish reader to denote the time of His appearing.” (8)

Ellicott again is brilliant in his analysis of “last days” being the age of the Messiah.

“How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.” (Jude 1:18)

“Last time” as we see in Jude, likewise must be understood as an age. What Jude is saying has relevance for the whole Christian era, not for only a few years preceding the Second coming of Christ.

The phrase the “last days” and its variations can be understood as beginning in the first century. In most cases, these “last days” are inaugurated by Christ’s first coming and continue until His second coming.

Last Days from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words:

“A — 1: ἔσχατος

(Strong’s #2078 — Adjective — eschatos — es’-khat-os)

“last, utmost, extreme,” is used (a) of place, e.g., Luke 14:9,10 , “lowest;” Acts 1:8 ; 13:47 , “uttermost part;” (b) of rank, e.g., Mark 9:35 ; (c) of time, relating either to persons or things, e.g., Matthew 5:26 , “the last (farthing),” RV (AV, “uttermost”); Matthew 20:8,12,14 ; Mark 12:6,22 ; 1 Corinthians 4:9 , of Apostles as “last” in the program of a spectacular display; 1 Corinthians 15:45 , “the last Adam;” Revelation 2:19 ; of the “last” state of persons, Matthew 12:45 , neuter plural, lit., “the last (things);” so Luke 11:26 ; 2 Peter 2:20 , RV, “the last state” (AV, “the latter end”); of Christ as the Eternal One, Revelation 1:17 (in some mss. ver. 11); 2:8; 22:13; in eschatological phrases as follows: (a) “the last day,” a comprehensive term including both the time of the resurrection of the redeemed, John 6:39,40,44,54 ; 11:24 , and the ulterior time of the judgment of the unregenerate, at the Great White Throne, John 12:48 ; (b) “the last days,” Acts 2:17 , a period relative to the supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the resumption of the Divine interpositions in the affairs of the world at the end of the present age, before “the great and notable Day of the Lord,” which will usher in the messianic kingdom; (c) in 2 Timothy 3:1 , “the last days” refers to the close of the present age of world conditions; (d) in James 5:3 , the phrase “in the last days” (RV) refers both to the period preceding the Roman overthrow of the city and the land in A.D. 70, and to the closing part of the age in consummating acts of gentile persecution including “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (cp. verses James 5:7,8 ); (e) in 1 Peter 1:5 , “the last time” refers to the time of the Lord’s second advent; (f) in 1 John 2:18 , “the last hour” (RV) and, in Jude 1:18 , “the last time” signify the present age previous to the Second Advent.

Notes: (1) In Hebrews 1:2 , RV, “at the end of these days” (AV, “in these last days”), the reference is to the close of the period of the testimony of the prophets under the Law, terminating with the presence of Christ and His redemptive sacrifice and its effects, the perfect tense “hath spoken” indicating the continued effects of the message embodied in the risen Christ; so in 1 Peter 1:20 , RV, “at the end of the times” (AV, “in these last times”).

B — 1: ὕστερον

(Strong’s #5305 — Noun Neuter — husteron — hoos’-ter-on)

the neuter of the adjective husteros, is used as an adverb signifying “afterwards, later,” see AFTER , No. 5. Cp. the adjective, under LATER.

Note: In Philippians 4:10 the particle pote, “sometime,” used after ede, “now, already,” to signify “now at length,” is so rendered in the RV, AV, “(now) at the last.” (9)

In closing:

In interpreting, the meaning of “the last days” and similar phrases have not been the easiest task for commentators. Sometimes the meaning is looking to end of the Old Testament period, the New Testament age, and the end of history. At other times, the immediate fulfillment when the events occur provides the best understanding. In eschatology, everyone wants to have a nice and tidy system. Unfortunately, as history has shown, this is not the case. History is littered with the failed predictions of men.

What we do know that the Lord Jesus Christ shall come again. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Genesis, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 811.
2. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 421.
3. Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament Jeremiah, Vol. 4, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p. 10-11.
4. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Daniel, vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 815-816.
5. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 769.
6. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Joel, Vol.5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 443.
7. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 2Timothy, Vol.8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 232.
8. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Hebrews, Vol.8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 283.
9. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 640-641.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

For more study:

The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/last_days_according_to_jesus/crisis-in-eschatology/

John the Baptist, was he Elijah?                                                                       By Jack Kettler

Who was John the Baptist? Was he a prophet? A messenger? Why did he not say whom he was when asked by the Pharisees?

In this study, we will look at these questions and see what the Scriptures say.

First, clearing up the confusion that sometimes exists between Elijah and Elisha:

1. Elisha was the successor to Elijah.
2. Elijah tutored Elisha for approximately eight years.
3. Elias in the New Testament is not referring to Elisha.

Introduction to the Old Testament prophet Elijah:

“And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, how long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” (1Kings 18:21)

The Old Testament predictions of a coming prophet:

“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (Isaiah 40:3)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Isaiah 40:3:

“(3) The voice of him that crieth . . .—The laws of Hebrew parallelism require a different punctuation: A voice of one crying, In the wilderness, prepare ye . . . The passage is memorable as having been deliberately taken by the Baptist as defining his own mission (John 1:23). As here the herald is not named, so he was content to efface himself—to be a voice or nothing. The image is drawn from the march of Eastern kings, who often boast, as in the Assyrian inscriptions of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal (Records of the Past, i. 95, vii. 64), of the roads they have made in trackless deserts. The wilderness is that which lay between the Euphrates and Judah, the journey of the exiles through it reminding the prophet of the older wanderings in the wilderness of Sin (Psalm 68:7; Judges 5:4). The words are an echo of the earlier thought of Isaiah 35:8. We are left to conjecture to whom the command is addressed: tribes of the desert, angelic ministers, kings and rulers—the very vagueness giving a grand universality. So, again, we are not told whether the “way of Jehovah” is that on which He comes to meet His people, or on which He goes before and guides them. The analogy of the marches of the Exodus makes the latter view the more probable.” (1)

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 3:1)

From the Pulpit Commentary on Malachi 3:1:

“Verse 1. – Behold, I will send (I send) my messenger. God answers that he is coming to show himself the God of judgment and justice. Are they ready to meet him and to bear his sentence? Who this “messenger” is disputed. That no angel or heavenly visitant is meant is clear from historical considerations, as no such event took place immediately before the Lord came to his temple. Nor can Malachi himself be intended, as his message was delivered nearly four, hundred years before Messiah came. The announcement is doubtless founded upon Isaiah 40:3, and refers to the same person as the older prophet mentions, who is generally allowed to be John the Baptist, the herald of Christ’s advent (Matthew 11:10; John 1:6). Prepare the way before me. The expression is borrowed from Isaiah, loc. cit. (comp. also Isaiah 57:14; Isaiah 62:10). He prepares the way by preaching repentance, and thus removing the obstacle of sin, which stood between God and his people. Whom ye seek. When ye ask, “Where is the God of judgment?” Shall suddenly come to his temple. The Lord (ha-Adon) is Jehovah, as in Exodus 23:17; Isaiah 1:24; Isaiah 3:1, etc. There is a change of persons here, as frequently. Jehovah shall unexpectedly come to his temple (τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ) as King and God of Israel (comp. Ezekiel 43:7). There was a literal fulfilment of this prophecy when Christ was presented in the temple as an infant (Luke 2:22, etc.). Even the messenger of the covenant. He is identified with the Lord; and he is the covenant angel who guided the Israelites to the Promised Land, and who is seen in the various theophanies of the Old Testament. The Divinity of Messiah is thus unequivocally asserted. In him are fulfilled all the promises made under the old covenant, and he is called (Hebrews 9:15) “the Mediator of the new covenant.” Some render,” and the Messenger,” etc., thus distinguishing the Angel of the covenant from the forerunner who prepares the way. But this is already done by the expressions, “My Messenger,” and “the Lord.” Whom ye delight in. Whose advent ye expect with eager desire.” (2)

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:5-6)

The following entry from the renowned International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) on Elijah will provide a helpful additional detailed look at the Prophet.

Elijah in the New Testament from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

“Malachi (4:5) names Elijah as the forerunner of “the great and terrible day of Yahweh,” and the expectation founded upon this passage is alluded to in Mark 6:15 parallel Luke 9:8; Matthew 16:14 parallel Mark 8:28 parallel Luke 9:19; Matthew 27:47-49 parallel Mark 15:35, 36. The interpretation of Malachi’s prophecy foreshadowed in the angelic annunciation to Zacharias (Luke 1:17), that John the Baptist should do the work of another Elijah, is given on the authority of Jesus Himself (Matthew 11:14). The appearance of Elijah, with Moses, on the Mount of Transfiguration, is recorded in Matthew 17:1-13 parallel Mark 9:2-13 parallel Luke 9:28-36, and in Matthew 11:14 parallel Mark 9:13 Jesus again identifies the Elijah of Malachi with John the Baptist. The fate of the soldiers of Ahaziah (2Kings 1) is in the mind of James and John on one occasion (Luke 9:54). Jesus Himself alludes to Elijah and his sojourn in the land of Sidon (Luke 4:25, 26). Paul makes use of the prophet’s experience at Horeb (Romans 11:2-4). In James 5:17, 18 the work of Elijah affords an instance of the powerful supplication of a righteous man.” (3)

The New Testament Scriptures on John the Baptist:

“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:7-11)

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, [Elias, (Ἠλίας, Greek) (Elijah English) Strong’s 2243] which was for to come.” (Matthew 11:13-14)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Matthew 11:14:

“(14) This is Elias. — The words of Malachi (Malachi 4:5) had led men to expect the reappearance of the great Tishbite in person as the immediate precursor of the Christ. It was the teaching of the scribes then (Matthew 17:10; John 1:21), it has lingered as a tradition of Judaism down to our own time. A vacant chair is placed for Elijah at all great solemnities. Even Christian interpreters have cherished the belief that Elijah will appear in person before the Second Advent of the Lord. The true meaning of the words of Malachi had, however, been suggested in the words of the angel in Luke 1:17, “He shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias,” and is here distinctly confirmed. The words “if ye will (i.e., are willing to) receive it” imply the consciousness that our Lord was setting aside a popular and strongly-fixed belief: “If you are willing and able to receive the truth that John was in very deed doing the work of Elijah, you need look for no other in the future.” (4)

“And his disciples asked him, saying, why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise, shall also the Son of man suffer of them.” (Matthew 17:10-13)

At this point, the disciples did not fully comprehend who Jesus was. That is why they asked Jesus the question about Elias/Elijah.

“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. And John was clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” (Mark 1:2-8)

In these passages, Mark describes the work of John and his message to the people of Israel.

“But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:13-17)

“He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.” (John 1:23)

Why did John deny the following when questioned by the priests and Levites? 

“And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.” (John 1:19-21)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on John 1:21:

“John was at Bethabara when these messengers came to him, John 1:28. They asked him if he were Elias. The Jews had not only an expectation of the Messias, but of Elias to come as a messenger before him, according to the prophecy, Malachi 4:5; as appeareth, Matthew 17:10 Mark 9:11; of which they had a gross conception here, that Elias should come out of heaven personally, or at least that his soul should come into another body, according to the Pythagorean opinion. Now the meaning of the prophecy was, that one should come like Elias; and this was fulfilled in John, Luke 1:17, as our Saviour tells us, Matthew 17:12 Mark 9:13; but they asked the question according to that notion they had of Elias. To which John answereth, that he was not; neither that Elias that ascended in a fiery chariot to heaven; nor any body informed with Elias’s soul: and thus the words of our Saviour, Matthew 17:12 Mark 9:12, are easily reconciled to this text. They go on, and ask him if he were

that prophet, or a prophet. Some think that they meant the Prophet promised, Deuteronomy 18:18; but that was no other than Christ himself, which he had before denied himself to be; nor doth it appear from any text of Scripture that the Jews had any expectation of any other particular prophet; but it is plain from Luke 9:8, that they had a notion that it was possible one of the old prophets might rise again from the dead, for so they guessed there concerning Christ. But others think that the article in the Greek here is not emphatical, and they only asked him if he were a prophet; for the Jews had a general notion, that the spirit of prophecy had left them ever since the times of Zechariah and Malachi; which they hoped was returned in John the Baptist, and about this they question him if he were a prophet. To which he answereth, No; neither that Prophet promised, Deuteronomy 18:18, nor yet any of the old prophets risen from the dead; nor yet one like the prophets of the Old Testament, who only prophesied of a Christ to come; but, as Christ calls him, Matthew 11:9, more than a prophet, one who showed and declared to them a Christ already come; for the law and the prophets prophesied but until John; the law in its types foreshowing, the prophets in their sermons foretelling, a Messiah to come; John did more. His father indeed, Luke 1:76, called him the prophet of the Highest; but there prophet is to be understood not in a strict, but in a large sense, as the term prophecy is taken, Romans 12:6. And the term prophet often signifieth one that revealeth the will of God to men; in which large sense John was a prophet, and yet more than a prophet in the stricter notion of the term; and in that sense no prophet, that is, no mere prophet: so, Numbers 11:19, Moses tells the people they should not eat flesh one, or two, or five, or ten, or twenty days, because they should eat it a whole month together.” (5)

John the Baptist was not the Prophet Elijah reincarnated. Nevertheless, he was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah.

Jesus identifies and explains who John is:

“And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” (Luke 1:17 ESV)

It is essential that the reader can see the distinction that John was a prophet, but not “that prophet.” As Poole notes, “That Prophet promised,” Deuteronomy 18:18; was none other than Christ himself. That is why John emphatically denied it that he was “that prophet.”

Another reason why Jesus and John were seemingly cryptic in dealing with the Jewish leaders:

“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” (Matthew 13:10-17)

God in His Sovereignty had not opened the hearing and eyes of all of the people of Israel.

“And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.” (John 10:41)

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on John, 10:14 provides an edifying closing commentary of John and his witness to the Christ:

“And many resorted to him, … From all the parts adjacent, having heard of his being there, and of the fame of him; and many of them doubtless personally knew him; these came to him, some very likely to be healed by him, others to see his person and miracles, and others to hear him preach:

and said, John did no miracle; though it was now three years ago, yet the name, ministry, and baptism of John, were fresh in the memory of men in those parts; and what they say one to another, was not to lessen the character of John, but to exalt Jesus Christ, and to give a reason why they should receive and embrace him; for if John, who did no miracle, who only taught and baptized, and directed men to the Messiah, was justly reckoned a very great person, and his doctrine was received, and his baptism was submitted to, then much more should this illustrious person be attended to; who, besides his divine doctrine, did such great and amazing miracles; to which they add, though John did no miracle to confirm his mission, ministry, and baptism,

but all things that John spake of this man, were true; as that he was greater than he, was the Lamb of God, yea, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, and true Messiah, who should baptize men with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (6)

In Closing:

To answer the question at the beginning of this study, John was a prophet and a messenger. John fulfilled Isaiah’s prophesy (Isaiah 40:3) by coming in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17).

Parallels between Elijah, John, Elisha, and Christ:

1. Elijah prepared the way for Elisha, (1Kings 19:16; 2Kings 2:6-8).
2. Elisha had a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, (2 Kings 2:9).
3. Elisha did more miracles than Elijah did.
4. Elijah was a type of John the Baptist (Isaiah 40:3, John 1:23).
5. Elisha was a type of Christ (Luke 4:27).*

*Shortlist of parallels between Elisha and Jesus to reach this conclusion:

• Both received the Holy Spirit at the Jordan River (2 Kings 2:7-15; John 1:28)
• Both cleansed lepers (2Kings 5; Mark 1:40-45)
• Both healed the sick (2Kings 4:34-35; Mark 8:22-25)
• Both raised the dead (2Kings 4:1-7; Luke 7:11-17)
• Both had treacherous disciples, (Gehazi 2 Kings 5:20 and Judas Matthew 26:14-16)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 521.
2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Malachi, Vol.14., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 39.
3. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘ELIJAH,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 933.
4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Matthew, Vol.1, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 66.
5. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, John, vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 281.
6. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, John, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 355.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

What does turn to him the other cheek mean?                                                By Jack Kettler

This study will look at turning the other cheek. Is Jesus literal in this passage? If not, how do we understand it?

Years ago in Portland, Oregon, in a Christian ministry that worked with street people, an unusual event occurred. An individual came into the outreach center and asked who believed this passage about being smitten on the cheek. He asked people to stand up and then proceeded to punch everyone in the face to see if they would turn the other cheek. These Christians did this and were punched in the face.

Were these Christians correct in their course of action?

“And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other, and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.” (Luke 6:29 KJV)

A parallel passage to this in Matthew:

“But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” (Matthew 5:39-40 ESV)

Old Testament parallel passages:

“They have gaped upon me with their mouth; they have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully; they have gathered themselves together against me.” (Job 16:10 KJV)

“Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults.” (Lamentations 3:30 ESV)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Lamentations 3:30:

“(30) He giveth his cheek . . . —  The submission enjoined reaches its highest point—a patience like that of Job 16:10; we may add, like that of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:39.) It was harder to accept the Divine chastisement when it came through human agents. Not so had Jeremiah once taught and acted (Jeremiah 20:1-6; Jeremiah 28:15). (Comp. Isaiah 1:6.)” (1)

In Jewish culture, striking a person’s cheek was a way to shame an individual into submission.

Old Testament background and context. Why a backhanded slap?

The only way you can hit a person on the right cheek is with the back of the hand. Striking a person on the right cheek with the right hand would require using a backhanded motion.

In Hebrew idiom, being slapped on the right cheek was an insult. It does not mean a physically fighting blow. A slap like this was not an aggressive action to start a fight; it was a rebuke or slap of discipline. The right cheek being slapped with a backhand is a message reminding the person that they are inferior, in the case of a slave or servant.

Offering someone your left cheek means that you are submissive to the action of the superior.

Jesus and the disciples were Jews, so they were familiar with Hebrew idioms.

Other considerations, the Judaic background:

Written in Talmudic Israel (c.190 – c.230 CE). Bava Kamma (First Gate) belongs to the fourth order, Nezikin (The Order of Damages) and discusses the civil matters, largely damages and compensation.

Two different renditions of Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:6:

1. “If someone slaps another person, he must pay two hundred zuzim. If it was backhanded, he must pay four hundred zuzim. If someone flicks a person’s ear, pulls his hair, spits so that it lands on him, strips his cloak off, or pulls off a woman’s headscarf in public, [the perpetrator] must pay four hundred zuzim.”
2. “If a man cuffed or [punched] his fellow he must pay him a sela [4 zuz]. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Jose the Galilean, One hundred zuz. If he slapped him, he must pay 200 zuz. If [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz.”

(Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:6)

This Talmudic Jewish law took openly humiliating another person very serious. The backhanded slap resulted in twice the penalty imposed on the striker. The double penalty was imposed even without personal injury. It was the public humiliation, which caused the double penalty. The event described in the Bava Kamma seems to be different from a master using a backhanded slap to discipline a servant.

With this Old Testament and Judaic background, we will now examine the text from Luke on being slapped:

In expositing these passages from Luke and Matthew, we will seek to understand how to apply this Scripture.

From the older Pulpit Commentary on Luke 6:29:

“Verse 29. – And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other. This and the following direction is clothed in language of Eastern picturesqueness, to drive home to the listening crowds the great and novel truths he was urging upon them. No reasonable, thoughtful man would feel himself bound to the letter of these commandments. Our Lord, for instance, himself did not offer himself to be stricken again (John 18:22, 23), but firmly, though with exquisite courtesy, rebuked the one who struck him. St. Paul, too (Acts 23:3), never dreamed of obeying the letter of this charge. It is but an assertion of a great principle, and so, with the exception of a very few mistaken fanatics, all the great teachers of Christianity have understood it.” (2)

According to this commentary, the smiting on the cheek was not to be taken literally.

Next, we will consider two entries from a contemporary commentary.

From William Hendriksen’s New Testament Commentary on Matthew 5:38-42:

“38–42. You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist the evil-doer; but to him that slaps you on the right cheek turn the other also. And if anyone wishes to go to law with you and take your shirt, let him take your robe also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. To him that asks (anything) of you give, and from him that wants to borrow of you do not turn away. In Exod. 21:24, 25 we read, “… eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Lev. 24:20 adds “fracture for fracture”; Deut. 19:21, “life for life.” This was a law for the civil courts, laid down in order that the practice of seeking private revenge might be discouraged. The Old Testament passages do not mean, “Take personal revenge whenever you are wronged.” They mean the exact opposite, “Do not avenge yourself but let justice be administered publicly.” This is clear from Lev. 24:14, “Take the blasphemer out of the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.” Cf. Deut. 19:15–21.

The Pharisees, however, appealed to this law to justify personal retribution and revenge. They quoted this commandment in order to defeat its very purpose. Cf. Matt. 15:3, 6. The Old Testament repeatedly forbids personal vengeance: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am Jehovah” (Lev. 19:18). “Do not say, I will repay evil. Wait for Jehovah, and he will save you” (Prov. 20:22). “Do not say, as he has done to me so will I do to him; I will pay the man back according to what he has done” (Prov. 24:29).

What then did Jesus mean when he said, “Do not resist the evil-doer; but to him that slaps you,” etc.? When Christ’s words (verses 39–42) are read in the light of what immediately follows in verses 43–48, and when the parallel in Luke 6:29, 30 is explained on the basis of what immediately precedes in verses 27, 28, it becomes clear that the key passage, identical in both Gospels, is “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). In other words, Jesus is condemning the spirit of lovelessness, hatred, yearning for revenge. He is saying, “Do not resist the evil-doer with measures that arise from an unloving, unforgiving, unrelenting, vindictive disposition.”

Once this is understood it becomes evident that “to turn the other cheek” means to show in attitude, word, and deed that one is filled with the spirit not of rancor but of love. Rom. 12:19–21 presents an excellent commentary.

Something similar holds with respect to the person who threatens by means of a lawsuit to take away someone’s “shirt,” the tunic worn next to the body, as payment for an alleged debt. Note that not the person whom Jesus is addressing is suing but his opponent is (cf. 1 Cor. 6:1). Rather than resentfully to contest this lawsuit, says Jesus, allow the plaintiff to have the outer robe also. This robe was considered so indispensable that when taken as a pledge it had to be returned before sunset, since it also served as a cover—often the poor man’s only one—during sleep (Exod. 22:26, 27; Deut. 24:12, 13; Ezek. 18:7; and Amos 2:8). In summary: we have no right to hate the person who tries to deprive us of our possessions. Love even toward him should fill our hearts and reveal itself in our actions.

The first verb in “Whoever forces you to go one mile.…” refers to the authority to requisition, to press into service. It is a loanword from the Persian language, which in all probability borrowed it from the Babylonian. The famous Persian Royal Post authorized its couriers whenever necessary to press into service anyone available and/or the latter’s animal. There must be no delay in the dispatch and delivery of the king’s decrees, etc. Cf. Esther 3:13, 15; 8:10. As happens frequently, so also here, the verb gradually acquired the more general meaning of compelling someone to render any kind of service. It is used in connection with Simon of Cyrene who was compelled to carry Christ’s cross (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21). Now what Jesus is saying is that rather than to reveal a spirit of bitterness or annoyance toward the one who forces a burden upon a person, the latter should take this position with a smile. Did someone ask you to go with him, carrying his load for the distance of one mile? Then go with him two miles!

Similarly, when someone in distress asks for assistance, one must not turn a deaf ear to him. On the contrary, says Jesus, give, not grudgingly or gingerly but generously; lend, not selfishly, looking forward to usury (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36, 37), but liberally, magnanimously. Not only show kindness but love kindness (Mic. 6:8; cf. Deut. 15:7, 8; Ps. 37:26; 112:5; Prov. 19:17; Acts 4:36, 37; 2 Cor. 8:8, 9).

Biblical illustrations of the spirit, which Jesus here commends:

1. Abraham, rushing to rescue his “brother” Lot (Gen. 14:14 ff.), though the latter had earlier revealed himself to be a rather avaricious nephew (Gen. 13:1–13).
2. Joseph, generously forgiving his brothers (Gen. 50:19–21), who had not treated him very kindly (37:18–28).
3. David, twice sparing the life of his pursuer King Saul (1 Sam. 24 and 26).
4. Elisha, setting bread and water before the invading Syrians (2 Kings 6).
5. Stephen, interceding for those who were stoning him to death (Acts 7:60).
6. Paul, after his conversion, writing Rom. 12:21; 1 Cor. 4:12; and 1 Cor. 13; and putting it into practice!
7. Above all, Jesus himself, praying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34; cf. Isa. 53:12, last clause; Matt. 11:29; 12:19; and 1 Peter 2:23).” (3)

From William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary on Luke 6:29, we read:

“Even more strikingly Jesus adds 29a. To the one who strikes you on the cheek offer also the other (cheek). What did he mean? That his words were not intended to be taken literally follows from his own reaction when he was struck in the face (John 18:22, 23). In fact, those who insist on interpreting every saying of Jesus literally get into difficulty again and again (Matt. 16:6–12; John 2:18–21; 3:3–5; 4:10–14; 6:51–58; 11:11–14).

What, then, did Jesus mean? When his words are read in the light of what immediately precedes in verses 27, 28, and when Matthew’s parallel (5:39 f.) is read in the light of what follows in verses 43–48, it becomes clear that the key passage, identical in both Gospels, is, “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). In other words, Jesus condemns the spirit of lovelessness, hatred, yearning for revenge. He is saying, “Do not resist the evildoer with measures that arise from an unloving, unforgiving, unrelenting, vindictive disposition.” Once this is understood it becomes clear that “turning the other cheek” means to show in attitude, word, and deed that one is not filled with the spirit of rancor but with the spirit of love. Rom. 12:19–21 presents an excellent commentary.

Jesus continues: 29b… and from the one who takes away your outer garment do not withhold your undergarment. Instead of being filled with bitterness and the lust for retaliation, show the very opposite attitude. Let him who deprives you of your robe take your tunic (worn next to the skin) also; and conversely (with Matt. 5:40), if anyone wishes to go to law with you and take your tunic (or shirt), let him take your robe also. Here again Rom. 12:19–21 shows what is meant.” (3)

Hendriksen demonstrates the passage in Matthew and Luke must be understood spiritually.

Additional thoughts on how to understand the Matthew and Luke texts: 

1. What may have been in mind here was a slap with the backside of the right hand. Such a hit would not be used to inflict harm but instead, shame. A slap like this is what a superior would do to disgrace a disobedient servant. The backhanded slap would put the servant in his place. Turning the cheek would be an acknowledgment of submission to the superior.
2. Another possibility is that by turning the other cheek, the person struck would put the striker in an indefensible place. He cannot repeat the backhand, because the one slapped face is now turned. The master does not want the slave to solicit sympathy, so he would not hit the servant who turned the cheek again with the other hand.
3. Jesus is prohibiting the human predisposition to seek personal vengeance. Accordingly, based upon this understanding, we see that in Matthew and Luke, Jesus taught His disciples not to retaliate against personal insult by turning the cheek.

In closing, from the New Testament commentary entries in this study, we can conclude:

“Whoever forces you to go one mile …” Matthew 5:41 refers to the authority to press someone into a task or service. If an authority figure asks you to carry his load for one mile, then go with him for two miles. Going the extra mile has the same effect as turning the cheek. It diffuses the situation.

If need be, we are to respond to injury without revenge by tolerating the act without accelerating the situation, leading to more harm. As Hendriksen notes, turning the cheek is not literal but spiritual. We do not give in to hatred and revenge. Turning the other cheek means to accept mistreatment and insults without retaliating or seeking revenge. This interpretation is consistent with many teachings in Scripture.

For example:

“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1 ESV)

As an aside, it does not mean that Christians have no recourse in the courts of law. As noted in the Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:6, penalties or fines could be levied against an aggressor.

We can conclude that the Christians in the Portland, Oregon street ministry were naïve in their understanding of Scripture. It would be of interest to see how these individuals and their understanding of those prior events today; including the aggressive person who propagated the violence.

A more prudent course of action would have been two or three males on staff reframing the attacker while others called the police in order to stop the disturbance. I would surmise that this course of action has been implemented in many mission centers around the country that work with homeless and street people.

 Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Lamentations, Vol.5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 191.
2. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Luke, Vol.16., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 147.
3. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Matthew, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 309-311.
4. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Luke, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), p. 349.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

The use of titles by ministers                                                                            by Jack Kettler

This study will look at titles and the Christian ministry. Are they appropriate? Matthew 23:9-10 will be the primary texts considered. Of primary interest will be the use of “father” in verse 23:9,   and instructor. Other translations instead of “instructor” have leader, teacher, guide, and master in verse 23:10.

Are these titles appropriate? At first, glance, when consulting Scripture, it appears not.

“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” (Matthew 23:9-10 ESV)

What does “father” mean in Matthew 23:9? Consider the following commentary entry:

From the Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 23:9:

“Verse 9. – Your father. This was the title given to eminent teachers and founders of schools, to whom the people were taught to look up rather than to God. It was also addressed to prophets (2Kings 2:12; 2Kings 6:21). In ver. 8 Christ said, “be not called;” here he uses the active, “call not,” as if he would intimate that his followers must not give this honoured title to any doctor out of complaisance, or flattery, or affectation. Upon the earth. In contradistinction to heaven, where our true Father dwells. They were to follow no earthly school. They had natural fathers and spiritual fathers, but the authority of all comes from God; it is delegated, not essential; and good teachers would make men look to God, and not to themselves, as the source of power and truth.” (1)

Can a title be used in a different way to not bring undue attention to oneself?

If the use of father is forbidden, then it appears we have the Scriptures pitted against each other.

For example:

“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9 ESV)

“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (1Corinthians 4:15 ESV)

How do we explain this?

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on 1Corinthians 4:15:

“5. Yet have ye not many fathers] we have here an interesting example of the fact that the spirit rather than the letter of Christ’s commands is to be observed, and that one passage of Scripture is not to be strained so as to contradict another. ‘Call no man your father on earth,’ says Christ (St Matthew 23:9): that is, as explained by the present passage, [1Corinthians 4:15] in such a spirit as to forget Him from whom all being proceeds.

In Christ Jesus I have begotten you] i.e. because Jesus Christ dwells in His ministers, and their work is His. Cf. Ch. 1 Corinthians 3:5-9.” (2)

Was Jesus speaking literally in Matthew 23:9?

Christians call their earthly dads “father.” The nation’s founders are called the “founding fathers.” In these two cases, are we violating Matthew 23:9, which says to “call no man your father on earth?”

Consider two other cases in Scripture where individuals are called “father” with no apparent rebuke.

In the Old Testament, there is the case of Elisha:

“And Elisha saw it, and he cried my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.” (2Kings 2:12 KJV)

In the New Testament, there is the case of Abraham:

“Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.” (Luke 16:24-25 KJV)

Thus far, it appears that if we follow the spirit of what Christ teaches, there are exceptions to a total prohibition on the use of the title “father.” There is a condemned way and an accepted way to use this title of “father.”

Moving on to Matthew 23:10, where the warning against titles is expanded:

“Neither be ye called masters: (καθηγηταί) for one is your Master, even Christ.” (Matthew 23:10 KJV)

As in Matthew 23:9, you have the using of titles condemned as in “Neither be ye called masters: (καθηγηταί) for one is your Master, even Christ.” (Matthew 23:10 KJV)

In Matthew 23:10, the forbidding of titles is expanded. As can be seen from the various translations, καθηγηταί also means leader, teacher, instructors, and guide, master.

From the Strong’s Concordance:

kathégétés: a teacher

Original Word: καθηγητής, ου, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: kathégétés

Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ayg-ay-tace’)

Definition: a teacher

Usage: a leader, teacher, guide, master.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Matthew 23:10 explains this text quite well:

“Ver. 8-10. It is most certain that our Saviour doth not here forbid the giving of the titles of masters and fathers to his ministers, for then Paul would not have given himself the title of father, 1 Corinthians 4:15; nor called the Galatians his little children, Galatians 4:19: nor called Timothy his son, and himself his father, Philippians 2:22; nor called himself a doctor of the Gentiles, 1Timothy 2:7 2Timothy 1:11. That which he forbids is,

1. An affectation of such titles, and hunting after them.

2. Rem tituli, the exercise of an absolute mastership, or a paternal, absolute power; so as to require any to believe things because they said them, or to do things because they bid them, without seeing the things asserted, or first commanded, in the word of God.

For in that sense God alone is men’s Father, Christ alone their Master. Pastors and teachers in the church are all but ministers, ministers of Christ to publish his will and to enjoin his laws; nor must any be owned as masters and fathers, to impose their laws and doctrines. This is twice repeated, because such is the corruption of human nature, that it is very prone, not only to affect these swelling titles, but also to exercise these exorbitant authorities.” (3)

From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Matthew 23:10:

“Neither be ye called masters – That is, leaders, guides, for this is the literal meaning of the word. It refers to those who go before others, who claim, therefore, the right to direct and control others. This was also a title conferred on Jewish teachers.

Neither of these commands forbids us to give proper titles of civil office to men, or to render them the honor belonging to their station, Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:17. They prohibit the disciples of Jesus from seeking or receiving mere empty titles, producing distinctions among themselves, implying authority to control the opinions and conduct of others, and claiming that others should acknowledge them to be superior to them.” (4)

As we see from Poole and Barnes, Matthew 23:10 does not forbid the use of titles to Christ’s ministers. What do the warnings about titles mean?

From William Hendriksen’s New Testament Commentary on Matthew 23:9-10:

“Over against this vice of pomposity, so characteristic of many a Pharisee or scribe, Jesus commends the virtue of humility: 8–10. But as for yourselves, do not let the people call you rabbi, for One is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, the One in heaven. And do not let the people call you leaders; for One is your Leader, namely, Christ. Those who think that Jesus is here condemning the idea of an apostolic office are clearly mistaken. Was it not the Master himself who instituted the office? See 10:1, 5, 40; 18:18; John 20:21–23. Cf. Acts 1:15–26; 6:1–6; 13:1–3; 14:23; 20:28; Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1, 2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 12:12; Gal. 1:1; Philem. 8, 9. In the light of both the preceding and the following context the statement is justified that what Jesus is here condemning is the yearning for rank, for special recognition above one’s fellow members. He is declaring that he alone is their Teacher. “The Father in heaven” alone is their Father; Christ alone, their Leader. It is not wrong, of course, to address one’s immediate male ancestor as “father.” However, here in 23:9 Jesus is not speaking about physical or earthly fatherhood, but about fatherhood in the spiritual sphere.

The warning was necessary. Many a Jew must have envied the man who was called “rabbi” (loosely translated, “teacher”); or, if a member of the Sanhedrin was addressed as “father” (Acts 7:2); or, if already departed from this earthly scene, having left behind him an illustrious memory, was referred to by the same title (Rom. 4:12; 1 Cor. 10:1; James 2:21). The epithet “leader” or “guide,” ascribed perhaps—this is not certain—to a beloved and highly honored teacher, sounded alluring. So Jesus is saying that the attention of his followers must not be fixed on human titles and distinctions but on God in Christ, worthy of all reverence, praise, and honor.

The objection may be raised, however, that Paul, by implication, calls himself the “father” of the Corinthians and of Timothy, and even the “mother” of the Galatians (respectively in 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Tim. 1:2, and Gal. 4:19). However, to state a fact is one thing; to yearn for distinctions and honors above one’s fellowmen, and unrelated to the glory that is due to Christ, is something different. It is the latter that Jesus condemns. It is clear from the Corinthian context that it was only “in Christ Jesus” that Paul had begotten the Corinthians through the gospel. So also it was only in a secondary sense that Paul could call himself Timothy’s father. He calls Timothy “(my) genuine child in faith,” and, according to Paul’s teaching, faith is God’s gift (Eph. 2:8). As the context makes very plain (see 1Tim. 1:12), Paul thanks Christ Jesus for having enabled him to be of service. Finally, also in the Galatian passage the emphasis is not on Paul but on Christ: “My dear children, for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs until Christ be formed in you.” There is therefore nothing in any of these passages that can be considered to be in conflict with Matt. 23:8–10.” (5)

John Calvin on Matthew 23:9-10:

“9. And call no man on earth your Father. He claims for God alone the honor of Father, in nearly the same sense as he lately asserted that he himself is the only Master; for this name was not assumed by men for themselves, but was given to them by God. And therefore it is not only lawful to call men on earth fathers, but it would be wicked to deprive them of that honor. Nor is there any importance in the distinction, which some have brought forward, that men, by whom children have been begotten, are fathers according to the flesh, but that God alone is the Father of spirits. I readily acknowledge that in this manner God is sometimes distinguished from men, as in Hebrews 12:5, but as Paul more than once calls himself a spiritual father, (1 Corinthians 4:15; Philippians 2:22,) we must see how this agrees with the words of Christ. The true meaning therefore is that the honor of a father is falsely ascribed to men, when it obscures the glory of God. Now this is done, whenever a mortal man, viewed apart from God, is accounted a father, since all the degrees of relationship depend on God alone through Christ, and are held together in such a manner that, strictly speaking, God alone is the Father of all.

10. For one is your Master, even Christ. He repeats a second time the former statement about Christ’s office as Master, in order to inform us that the lawful order is, that God alone rules over us, and possess the power and authority of a Father, and that Christ subject all to his doctrine, and have them as disciples; as it is elsewhere said, that Christ is the only head of the whole Church, (Ephesians 1:22).” (6)

In closing:

From the commentary and Scriptural evidence, it does not appear that the mere use of the word “father” or other titles is a problem. It is the misuse of the title when used to exalt oneself or used to manipulate, and control other men.

This warning against titles must be understood as those using a title like the Pharisees. To be seen of men. Using a title as a means of control over others. Binding men’s conscience to them rather than the Word of God.

Another consideration:

The Greek form of the word “clergy” is “kleros. “Kleros” refers to a group of people in 1Peter 5:2-3. In 1Peter, we learn where the elders are exhorted to “be shepherds of God’s flock that is under their care.

From Strong’s Concordance:

kléros: a lot

Original Word: κλῆρος, ου, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: kléros

Phonetic Spelling: (klay’-ros)

Definition: a lot

Usage: (a) a lot, (b) a portion assigned; hence, a portion of the people of God assigned to one’s care, a congregation.

The Greek form of the word “laity” is “Laos,” which Strong gives the number 2992 and defines it as “people.”

Laity/Clergy, the Laos/Kleros are both the people of God.

Rather than an outright ban on the use of titles, Matthew 23:9-10 is a warning to the overseers of Christ’s Church not to exalt themselves or to Lord it over the people of God. It is the misuse of titles, not the use of titles themselves, which are the problem.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Matthew, Vol.15., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 397.
2. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/1_corinthians/.
3. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew, vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 108-109.
4. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Matthew, Vol.1, p. 385-385.
5. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Matthew, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 824-825.
6. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Matthew, Volume Vol.3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 80.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

Herman Bavinck b. 1854 – d. 1921

Herman Bavinck (13 December 1854, Hoogeveen, Drenthe – 29 July 1921, Amsterdam) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and churchman. He was a significant scholar in the Calvinist tradition, alongside Abraham Kuyper and B. B. Warfield. Notable work four volume Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1 Prolegomena; Vol. 2 God and Creation; Vol. 3 Sin and Salvation; Vol. 4 Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. From Wikipedia

Herman Bavinck quotes:

Abraham Kuijper (/ˈkaɪpər/; Dutch: [ˈaːbraːɦɑm ˈkœypər]; 29 October 1837 – 8 November 1920), publicly known as Abraham Kuyper, was Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905, an influential neo-Calvinist theologian and also a journalist. He established the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, which upon its foundation became the second largest Reformed denomination in the country behind the state-supported Dutch Reformed Church.

In addition, he founded a newspaper, the Free University of Amsterdam and the Anti-Revolutionary Party. In religious affairs, he sought to adapt the Dutch Reformed Church to challenges posed by the loss of state financial aid and by increasing religious pluralism in the wake of splits that the church had undergone in the 19th century, rising Dutch nationalism, and the Arminian religious revivals of his day which denied predestination.[1] He vigorously denounced modernism in theology as a fad that would pass away. In politics, he dominated the Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) from its founding in 1879 to his death in 1920. He promoted pillarisation, the social expression of the anti-thesis in public life, whereby Protestant, Catholic and secular elements each had their own independent schools, universities and social organizations. From Wikipedia

Abraham Kuyper quotes:

“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” – Abraham Kuyper

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.” – Abraham Kuyper

“Whatever man may stand, whatever he may do, to whatever he may apply his hand – in agriculture, in commerce, and in industry, or his mind, in the world of art, and science – he is, in whatsoever it may be, constantly standing before the face of God. He is employed in the service of his God. He has strictly to obey his God. And above all, he has to aim at the glory of his God.” – Abraham Kuyper

“The question is not if the candidate’s heart is favorable to Christianity, but if he has Christ as his starting point even for politics, and will speak out His name!” – Abraham Kuyper

“The Holy Scripture is like a diamond: in the dark it is like a piece of glass, but as soon as the light strikes it the water begins to sparkle, and the scintillation of life greets us.” – Abraham Kuyper

“Every State-formation, every assertion of the power of the magistrate, every mechanical means of compelling order and of guaranteeing a safe course of life is therefore always something unnatural;” – Abraham Kuyper

“All authority of governments on earth originates from the Sovereignty of God alone.” – Abraham Kuyper

“Calvinism has a sharply-defined starting-point of its own for the three fundamental relations of all human existence: viz., our relation to God, to man, and to the world. For our relation to God: an immediate fellowship of man with Eternal, independently of priest or church. For the relation of man to man: the recognition in each person of human worth, which is his by virtue of his creation after the Divine likeness, and therefore of the equality of all men before God and his magistrate. And for our relation to the world: the recognition that in the whole world the curse is restrained by grace, that the life of the world is to be honored in its independence, and that we must, in every domain, discover the treasure and develop the potencies hidden by God in nature and in human life.” – Abraham Kuyper

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com