It was the time of the great reformation which the zeal of Hezekiah had set going. The appeal had gone out to all the tribes of Israel, regardless of boundaries or political loyalties, that they come up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover after the manner of their fathers. And although the messengers of the king had met with much derision and contempt, there were also many in the region of Galilee who responded and came with gladness to join in their new surge of godliness.

But there were hindrances of many kinds, with the result that it was not found possible to hold the Feast at the normal time — the fourteenth of the first month. However, the Law of Moses provided for a second celebration a month later (a kind of supplementary Breaking of Bread!) for the benefit of those who were unclean through contact with the dead or who were away on a journey when the proper time came round. Strictly speaking, neither of these “exceptive clauses” applied to these late-comers from the north. Even less were they a valid excuse for the people of Judah and Jerusalem.

Nevertheless the Feast went forward in the second month with zeal and rejoicing. It was not that king or priests or people were ignorant of what the Law laid down. There was no disposition to cover up or evade the technical infringement with any kind of clever argument. Rather, the issue became quite simply this: ‘Is it better for us and more to the honor and glory of God that we keep the Passover with an irregularity of procedure, or that we do not keep it at all this year?’ Faced with this alternative — especially in such circumstances — the proper decision was obvious.

Yet it was not to be denied that some commandment of the Law was infringed. Had they desisted altogether, still the Law said that the Passover must be kept. Had they kept it in the second month, then they were found guilty of appropriating to themselves the concessions of Num 9:10 which clearly did not apply in their case. Also, many of those coming from the north were not ceremonially purified to keep the Passover (2Ch 30:18). Here the Law was infringed again in unmistakable fashion. Yet the Feast was kept, “for Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary’, and the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.”

None would dispute that, infringements and irregularities aside, Hezekiah and the people did the right thing — or, rather, the best thing possible — in the circumstances.

This kind of tension between two conflicting laws and principles of God’s appointing, both of which apply in a given case, is not uncommon. It happened under the Law of Moses, as for example the dilemma of circumcision on the eight day when it chanced to fall on a Sabbath; Jesus entered into several controversies between the traditional interpretations of the Sabbath law and his own greater law of loving service to mankind.

Similar situations are not unusual in the life of the disciple today. If a young Christadelphian is commanded by his unbelieving parents to miss the Breaking of Bread so as to accompany them on a visit to an aged relative, which commandment does he break: “Do this in remembrance of me”, or “Honour thy father and thy mother”?

Is it right to buy some magazine which will further one’s study of the Signs of the Times if this means giving indirect support to some unrighteous cause which that publication happens to advocate?

Should an ecclesia spend thousands of dollars on the purchase of a fine organ to enhance its worship and praise of God if a quarter of its members believe that this money should be devoted instead, say, to the Bible Mission?

We begin to see now the bearing of the foregoing considerations on the vexed question of fellowship. Without any doubt, division and fragmentation arise because brethren resolve in different irreconcilable fashion yet another conflict of principles:

‘Here is the beginning of apostasy,’ says one; ‘I cannot with clear conscience belong to a community which tolerates such denials of truth; no matter what the cost, the Faith must be kept pure.’ And he gathers round him some of like persuasion and goes away to make a fresh, clean start — until the day when a like situation recurs once more, and then the process begins all over again.

Says another: ‘Here is teaching which grieves me very much and which may well show itself ultimately to be destructive of our Faith. I do not like it. I am worried by it. Then I must do all in my power to counteract it. Since my brethren who are in a better position than I to exercise a good influence do nothing about it, ought I not to withdraw for the sake of purity of the Faith? But then, there is also my responsibility to the rest who do not assess the situation as urgently as I do. These sheep, what shall they do? Have I no duty to them, to nurture and guide and warn them?’

Thus the conflict rages in the minds and hearts of faithful men. Undefiled separateness? Or love of the brethren in time of difficulty? This is the great issue. How is it to be resolved? Some have one solution, some another, and the outcome is mutual recrimination and division. Stark tragedy!

What, then, is the right way, and therefore the best way, to resolve this greatest of all spiritual contests for the loyalty of the believer? Whatever decision is reached, it is almost certain that a serious disadvantage will be involved. One evaluation, however, seems quite suitable in facilitating our choice, and this is the test of Jesus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Apply this test, then, to the “purity-at-all-costs” school of thought. What fruits have been gathered from this tree? The largely unchallenged assumption that root-and-branch disfellowship en masse is demanded by the Bible has left a phenomenal trail of Christadelphian wreckage scattered across the past century. Even at the present day several small boats toss on the waves, when united effort to manage one adequate vessel and keep it seaworthy would be an obvious policy of sanity. More than this, an invariable result of every crusade of every seceder has been a long-sustained campaign of harsh criticism and self-righteous censure against those from whom the separation has been made. “By their fruits ye shall know them!” What a contrast with Daniel who, belonging to a nation hardened in apostasy and riddled with guilt, prayed for them and for himself as though he shared their sin and their condemnation.

So the “separatist” solution has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. But the more “broad-minded” school of thought may also be lacking when “fruits” are considered, for false teachers if allowed to run wild do damage to others as well as themselves, and the lines of demarcation between Truth and Error may become blurred.

Is there an alternative to either of these extremes? As long as an ecclesia holds to a true foundation of faith, that ecclesia should not be abandoned. There may be unfaithfulness latent in any ecclesia, but if the formal basis of fellowship is sound, then as long as faithful brethren exist there, they should continue an unfaltering witness against error. This was the function of the prophets in a decadent Israel, and the counsel of the apostles to ecclesias with doctrinal and moral problems in the first century.

Such an attitude of mind and the solution here proposed can hardly be altogether satisfactory to the out-and-out idealist, but like Hezekiah he must learn to make the best of imperfect situations. The great evils are schism and apathy. Let us shun both, and choose instead the middle road, of loving, careful, unceasing entreaty and witness for truth. If we do this then we have the assurance that Hezekiah had, that God will pardon the failings of those who prepare their hearts to serve Him, even though their service may prove less than perfect. [From “Conflict of Loyalties”, by HAW (Tes 38:377-380).]

A tunnel was constructed from the spring at Gihon — what is now called the Virgin’s Fountain — under the city walls and through the rock to the southern end of the city of Jerusalem, to the pool of Siloam. This would be a difficult feat in these days of sophisticated surveying and measuring equipment. It was even more remarkable for the times of Hezekiah, because the impending invasion meant there was very little time, and gangs of workmen had to start from either end. When the tunnel was complete, the spring outside the city was blocked up and the water flowed into the city.

“And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?” (2Ch 32:2-4).

“And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” (2Ki 20:20).

The watercourse was a tremendous feat of engineering by any standards. At one time, critics of the Bible said openly that it was impossible, because of the great difficulty of the project: this was another example, they said, of the way in which Bible accounts had become exaggerated and then recorded as historical fact. This argument cannot be used against the Bible today because the watercourse has been discovered.

An Arab boy accidentally fell into the Pool of Siloam and discovered the underwater opening of the tunnel. Just as the new London Bridge has a commemorative plaque marking its official opening, so a plaque had been placed on the wall of the tunnel. This inscription is written in the old Hebrew script of the time of Hezekiah and part of the tablet, which is now in the Istanbul Museum, reads as follows:

‘Now this is the history of the excavations. While the excavators were still lifting up the pick, each towards his neighbour, and while there were yet three cubits to excavate, there was heard the voice of one man calling to his neighbour: for there was an excess of rock on the right hand. And when on the day of excavations the excavators had struck pick against pick, one against another, the waters floweth from the spring to the Pool, a distance of 1,200 cubits. One hundred cubits was the height of the rock above the head of the miners’.

We cannot deny the existence of Hezekiah’s watercourse because, as Keller describes, it is there —

‘a narrow passage about two feet wide and barely 5 feet high… cut through limestone. It can only be negotiated with rubber boots and a slight stoop. Water knee-deep rushes to meet you. For about 500 yards the passage winds imperceptibly uphill. It ends at the Virgin’s Fountain, Jerusalem’s water supply since ancient times. In Biblical days it was called the Fountain of Gihon.’

[The Bible as History — Keller, Hodder & Stoughton.]

The Greek word “homoioma” [likeness] plays an important role in the statements about Christ in Rom and Phi — in expressing both the “divinity” and the humanity of the Son of God.

• Rom 5:14 asserts that mankind as a whole, like Adam, has been subjected to the rule of death, even if it has not sinned in exactly the same way as he (epi tou homoiomati). Adam is the type of Christ, the Last Adam (cf 1Co 15:45). What Christ brings about by grace surpasses by far the equivalent effect of the fall of the first man.

• Rom 6:5 presents certain difficulties of exegesis: “For if we have been united with him in a death like his [tou homoiomati tou thanatou autou], we shall certainly be united in a resurrection like his” (RSV). The interpretation depends on whether one understands “homoioma” in this verse concretely as a picture, the symbolic representation of something else (ie baptism as representing something else), or as the actual realization of an event by means of a symbolic representation (ie, in some real and meaningful sense, believers “die” when baptized into Christ). If one prefers the second alternative, the text would mean: “In the act of baptism the death of Jesus Christ is present, although in a different form from that on Golgotha,” and we are “received into the same saving event”… (NIDNTT)

• Rom 8:3: “What the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: God… sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [en homoiomati sarkos hamartias] and for sin… condemned sin in the flesh” (RSV). Here is Christ being born, and thus coming, into the very arena of human nature, because it was only there — in that arena — that he could confront the power of sin (or the “devil”: Heb 2:14,15) and defeat it along the lines and on the terms intended by the Father. Did Jesus then come in the ABSOLUTE IDENTITY of sinful flesh? Yes, and no. Yes, as to the substance of that body which he possessed. But perhaps… No, as to that body and flesh being “sinful” — his flesh was not “sinful” in the sense of sinning or having sinned. However, this requires a further caveat: the flesh, or the body, of Jesus may be said to have been “sinful” in the sense that — as the principle of that flesh operated in other human beings — it led inevitably to actual sin… metonymical “sin”. And so God made him, Jesus, to be “sin” (in his sinful flesh), even though Jesus knew no sin (actually, by commission): 2Co 5:19-21.

• Similarly in Phi 2:7, Jesus is described as “being born in the likeness of men [en homoiomati anthropon genomenos]” (RSV). He was conceived in human form, and became like man. This “likeness” was real and not merely apparent. What has already been said about Rom. 8:3 applies here unequivocally. Christ was in fact conceived as a historically unique, unambiguously human being. He was in fact delivered to death, the curse of sinful men (cf Gal 3:13), although he himself was sinless (cf Heb 4:15). Thus at a specific point in time, and in a specific arena, or body (ie, “in his flesh”), he broke the power of sin and death.

In the 4th century AD the church was embroiled in a bitter controversy over the nature of Christ, and his relationship to the Father. A pastor and teacher named Arius believed and taught what came to be called Arianism: that God was greater than His Son, as a father must be superior to a son, and that the Son in turn had a literal beginning — thus, that he did not exist from all eternity, as had his Father. In general outline, at least, this was much closer to the truth of the Bible than were the “orthodox” views of the time — which should be considered the beginnings of the formulation of the false doctrine of the Trinity.

While the whole content of the Arian position was condemned by the orthodox church, the terms of the debate turned upon two very similar Greek words: “homoousios” and “homoiousios”. The difference was that the second word had one letter added, an iota. But the difference in meaning was very significant. The supporters of Arianism claimed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, who was the one true God. Thus they believed the Son was ‘like or similar in substance’ [“homoi” = similar] to the Father, but not identical. The word they used to denote the SIMILAR (but not exact) substance was “homoiousios”.

However, the Council of Nicea selected the word “homoousios” for what came to be called the Nicene Creed. [See Lesson, Nicene Creed] This word means ‘of one or the same substance’; thus the Church insisted on the essential and absolute unity of the Father and the Son; in English translation: “And [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God… being OF ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father…”

[The actual words, “homoiousios” and “homoousios”, do not appear in the text of the NT. The root word, “ousios”, does occur — but only twice: in Luke 15:12,13, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, where it signifies the possessions of the father, and the inheritance of the son. It is derived from the verb “to be”, and thus seems to suggest — very fundamentally (but also very vaguely and flexibly) — what one is or what one has. (It may have been this very vagueness, as applied to what God the Father and His Son share, that commended this word and its derivatives to the different camps of bishops!)]

Thus the only difference in the two terms was the Greek letter iota (similar to the English letter i) between the two halves of the words; this significantly changed the meaning of the first part of the word — either “homo” (the same or identical) or “homoi” (similar). Later this doctrine summarized in “homo-ousios” was expanded to teach, even more fully, the one substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — ie the Trinity!

---

Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea

Introduction

The Church emerged in a world which reflected both Jewish and Greek values. One question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the “One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world” (Ward 1955, 38). In short, philosophers were already questioning and seeking to understand the relationship between a Creator-God and the world which He had made.

The Jews believed in one unique and supreme God who created by His word. They generally saw this “Word” as an Eternal Wisdom from the one God — the Word which He pronounced in the beginning, or the Wisdom which He created. Thereby the Father communicated Himself to man (Guitton 1965, 81).

The Greeks, on the other hand, could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a “mediating Intelligence, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world” (Guitton 1965, 81) — a sort of semi-God who bridged the gap between a perfect God and an imperfect world.

The Church, as it developed its teachings, felt the need to “reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from Greek philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They sought to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures” (Ward 1955, 39). (It may be observed that, as more time passed, the official Church and its teachings got further and further from this presumed purpose.) This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached one climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that sought to bring together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the “Trinity”. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support (which wavered back and forth) as well as confusion in theological terminology (which included difficulties in translating complex terms from Greek to Latin, and vice versa) were the principal reasons for such a long drawn-out battle.

Arius and His Teaching

Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 AD, was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. Lucian is called the “Father of Arianism” because “Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy” — so writes a Catholic historian (Harkins 1967, 1057,1058). (Of course, “subordinationist” tendencies might properly describe just what Christadelphians believe today: ie, that Jesus was a begotten Son and thus subordinate, or subject, to his Father.)

With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was as follows: “Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God… the Godhead Himself was responsible for them… Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos as no more than a power or quality of the Father, Arius said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation. The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead. He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was a time when he did not exist he could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm his creaturehood, to deny his eternity and to assert his capacity for change and suffering” (Ward 1955, 41). This teaching of Arius “drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities” (Ward 1955, 43). The Person of Christ “belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize… He was neither God nor man” (Ward 1955, 42). [It ought to be noted here that, while Arius denies the teaching of the Trinity, as described by the pro-Catholic historians above, his view of Christ’s “creation” and involvement in the literal creation of the world were certainly not scriptural either.]

Arius versus the Alexandrian bishop

Arius’ views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that, since the Son was begotten of the Father, then at some point he began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the bishop and continued to spread his teaching. Alexander called a synod of bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred bishops who attended, eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other bishops refuting Arius’ views. In doing so the bishop Alexander used the term “homoousios” to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance. This term “was to become the keyword of the whole controversy” (Ward 1955, 43,44).

With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The bishop of that city, also named Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius’ most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod, which found Arius’ views to be correct, and condemned Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation. The term “homoousios” was rejected by Alexander’s own predecessor Dionysius when arguing against the Sabellians (a group who claimed the Father and Son were absolutely identical).

All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression — so that Imperial involvement in these matters would add more twists and turns to future events.

Constantine and Ossius

With the rise of Constantine to power, Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, who most certainly did not understand the full significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely a matter of words. He felt that both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither were involved in heresy. The letters failed to have any calming effect.

In 325 AD Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by 59 bishops, 46 of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea. Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated — that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated, and three bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.

In the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia. That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual, since in Hellenistic thought he “was given by God supreme power in things material AND spiritual” (Davis 1987, 56).

The Council of Nicaea

The General Council was well attended by the major church leaders of the Eastern Empire. Some Western bishops were also present. Because of old age and sickness, Sylvester the bishop of Rome (whom Catholic historians call “Pope Sylvester”!) did not attend but sent two representatives. The total number of bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Caesarea, who attended, claimed there were 250; Athanasius, also in attendance, mentioned 300; modern scholars put the number at 220.

If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that “daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against [what they called] the impious (!) doctrines of Arius” (LeClercq 1913, 45).

Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council, “Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted” (DeClercq 1967, 792). But it appears, from one reconstruction of the events, that Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council’s Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position. [Of course they did! How could Scriptural terms exclude a Scriptural idea?!] “Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement… The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451” (Davis 1987, 59). When the creed was finished, eighteen bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign it. Two Libyan bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled.

The Creed and an Analysis

Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth… Those who say: ‘There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;’ and that ‘He was made out of nothing;’ or who maintain that ‘He is of another hypostasis or another substance,’ or that ‘the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,’ the Catholic Church anathematizes [condemns]” (LeClercq 1913, 45).

In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy, anathemas (official, formally pronounced judgments) were attached directly condemning Arian positions (think of these as “doctrines to be rejected” by the emerging Catholic church!):

• The Arian denial of the Son’s co-eternity with the Father;
• The Arian assertion that “there was [a time] when the Son of God was not”;

• The Arian assertion that “before Jesus was begotten he did not exist.”

• The Arian doctrine that the Son — being a creature and not a creator — was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will; ie, that “He is mutable or alterable” [Note: this seems to contradict an earlier statement that Arius saw Jesus as one who assisted the Father in the actual work of creation; thus this later statement is at least closer to the truth of the matter]; and

• The Arian position that the Son was subordinate to the Father and not really God, as expressed in the phrase “He is of a different hypostasis or substance.”

Terminology Problem

A very important term used by the Council was “homoousios”. At that time this word could have three possible meanings. “First, it could be generic, ie, of one substance; and could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals. Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay” (Davis 1987, 61). The Council intended the first meaning — so as to stress the equality of the Son with the Father. If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council’s intention, it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable — this was a “heresy” even to the Catholic Church at this point! The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would imply that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.

The Council’s defeat by Arianism

It is not surprising — given the possible differences in meaning of the word as outlined above — that the Council by using the word “homoousios” could be called into question. And of course, the need to translate between Greek and Latin probably in some cases contributed to the confusion and misunderstanding.

Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council’s use of the word “homoousios” (suggesting that Father and Son were identical) was heretical. The Emperor now favored the Arians. With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea. Supporters of Nicaea in the East — especially Bishop Athanasius — were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases “from the substance of the Father” and “homoousios.” Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for “homoousios”. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 “in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression… The term ‘like in substance,’ homoiousios… had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula” (Barry 1913, 709).

Not all Arians agreed with this new word, however. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were in fact “not similar” — or “anomoios” (the “a” or “an” prefix signifying “NOT”) — while another group used the word “similar” or “homoi” to describe the Father and Son relationship. [Thus at least groups may now be discerned: the “Homo” (identical) group; the “Homoi” (similar) group; and now the “Anomoi” (not similar) group!]

With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios (“similar”) formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini. Both Councils, under the Emperor’s threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. This “homoios” (similar) victory “was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year” which condemned the terms homoousios (“identical”) and anomoios (“not similar”) (Ward 1955, 57). Now it seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.

The Final Battle

The seeming triumph of homoiousios (“similar substance”) was short-lived. First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition, and with the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed. Athanasius reasserted the homoousios (“identical substance”) position, and brought other church leaders to the “realization” that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also.

In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 by the Emperor which prohibited Arianism in the West.

Conclusion

The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian “heresy” seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.

Appendix:

Works Cited (essentially pro-Catholic publications):

1. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, Vol 1: Arianism, by VC Declercq.

2. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, Vol 8: St Lucian of Antioch, by PW Harkins.

3. Davis, SJ, Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.

4. Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper and Row.

5. Herbermann, Charles G, Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, editors 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Vol 1, Arianism, by William Barry.

6. Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol 11, Councils of Nicaea, by H Leclercq.

7. Ward, DD, Bishop JWC 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray and Co Ltd.

[For a timeline, see Lesson, Arian controversy.]

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness… For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion… They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice… Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom 1:18,21-27,29,32).

The above vv clearly include homosexuality (rather pathetically characterized these days as being “gay”) with the grossest forms of sin, depravity and even idolatry! There can be no question as to how God views the sort of conduct that certain “liberated” elements of our society boldly dismiss as an “alternative lifestyle”. It is a measure of the increasing sinfulness of our world that such a prohibition need even be discussed among believers, when Paul referred to it as the sort of immorality that should not even be mentioned among saints (Eph 5:3).

In this, as in other matters, however, the impulse alone is not a sin. Nevertheless, it can, and must, be controlled and suppressed. With God’s help (and the help of brothers and sisters) every sin can be forgiven and overcome. But it must be recognized as a sin, not an “illness” or an “alternative”. It has been well said that God never yet forgave an excuse!

“Being honest in the sight of all men means that we must be completely straightforward and truthful in our dealings with others — and also to ourselves. We say we have accepted the Truth and claim therefore that we are honest. But do we continue to make mischief and tell lies?

“Sometimes we find it hard to be honest because we don’t want to upset anyone. To take a very trivial example: we see a friend and we don’t think that her clothing is at all appropriate but we are afraid to say so and end up complimenting her. Is that being honest? In speaking the truth we have to be gentle and considerate, but sometimes even that can bring hurt feelings.

“We are supposed to be missionaries preaching the Lord Jesus Christ in word and action. He was always totally honest and true — as we must be! He was not only honest in the sight of all men, he was totally honest before God. And he will help us in our aim to be honest before God, for only then will our honesty be complete. Look how he helped Peter to overcome his shameful dishonesty. And he did it in deepest love.

“Sometimes we tell lies and excuse them as jokes when they are found out. ‘Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbour and says, “I was only joking!” ‘ (Pro 26:18,19). This kind of behaviour is often seen in children and because it is not corrected it continues into manhood. It is never too early to learn that complete truthfulness must be a way of life from childhood onward. These things the Lord hates — a proud look, a lying tongue, a false witness who tells lies, and he that sows discord among brethren.

“We must be on our guard that we are not taken in by lies just because we hear them over and over again. We must also make sure that we ourselves are not guilty of trying to convince others of something that is not true by the use of repetition. Remember that mob in the theatre in Ephesus? They wanted everybody to believe that the goddess Diana was real. So they just shouted and screamed and chanted in unison, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’ for a couple of hours until everybody was hoarse. But the idol was as dead at the end of all those ‘vain repetitions’ as it was at the beginning. Let us not be so proud as to refuse to give up a false opinion we have, even though the truth has been revealed to us.

“Recently I spoke to a sister concerning a brother and family member about some misunderstanding that had taken place. The sister made it clear that there was nothing I nor anyone could do to convince this brother that what he heard was a lie. He is stubborn and too proud to let go of self and be humble. We deplore this behaviour in others. Let us also be sure that we despise it in ourselves as well.

“In Psa 133, we are reminded that it is good and pleasant for brethren to dwell together in unity. The final blessing of eternal life will come only to brethren and sisters who dwell together in unity. Spreading lies and believing them causes discord and unhappiness. What a hateful thing to sow seeds of bitterness in a united family and cause unnecessary strife! This is the old nature of man, but for those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb, this should not be named among us. Our faith should be stronger than to tell lies.

“The Internet and E-mail have provided a new medium for spreading lies about those whom we may not like. We can hide our identity while still causing pain to others. I have been appalled at the misuse of the Internet by brethren who should know better. I know one sister who has suffered intense distress because of untrue things circulated widely about her, in some cases by brethren who have never even met her. It should never be like that in the family of God.

“Why should anyone — especially a brother or a sister — tell such lies deliberately? Is it to accomplish evil? Why go naked to such a work when there are many beautiful garments ready to hand? It is easy to feel bitter and find covering which might even deceive ourselves.

“We have much to be thankful for today through the mercies of God shown in the saving name of Christ Jesus. That’s why many of us who have lying lips like Ananias and Sapphira don’t drop down dead immediately as they did. There is still time to start a life of truthfulness. How long are we going to wait before we…

“Speak the truth and speak it ever, cost it what it will. He who hides the wrong he did, does the wrong thing still.

“Brethren and sisters, we cannot lie our way through to the Kingdom. Instead, be honest and true. Be truly serious about the word. Be true to one another” (Gerzel Gordon).

HOPE DEFERRED… DESIRE FULFILLED

“Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life” (Pro 13:12, RSV).

How many of us have experienced the first part of this verse? Maybe it was a job that you really, really wanted, and you had to wait and wait, and finally, it went to someone else. Or maybe it was a deep feeling for someone, and you thought, “I could be so happy with that person because that person displays every quality I want in a mate.” And yet, for whatever reason, it just doesn’t happen.

Or perhaps, it was the hope for a baby. Husband and wife enjoyed a good marriage; they were in love with one another; yet after months or maybe years of trying, no pregnancy. And the body absolutely ached with this unfulfilled desire.

Sometimes, what starts out in the mind as a hope deferred, after a while, takes on a life of its own. The hurt literally spreads to the rest of the body, and seems to consume the person — until finally he or she cannot function at any level.

There are examples in the Bible of these sorts of feelings. These longings reflect part of the character-building process used by God. Two familiar stories serve as test cases.

Abraham, Sarah, and the seed

At the age of 75 Abraham was told by God that he would have a son who would do amazing things — he would bring salvation to all who had faith in him. Yet Sarah — 66 at the time of the initial promise — was barren. So, month after month, year after year, Abraham grew more despondent. Nothing was happening. Finally, Abraham asked God if Eliezer of Damascus, his steward, might be the promised “seed”. But God said no. Yet it is recorded that “Abraham believed, and God reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6).

And still there was no seed; Sarah remained barren; time marched on. Sarah was obviously frustrated with this situation; at last, she decided to take matters into her own hands: she gave her maid Hagar to Abraham. He complied with her wishes, and Hagar became pregnant. She bore Ishmael to Abraham when he was 86.

Now at last, Abraham had the promised seed, right? But thirteen more years came and went with, as far as we know, no open revelations from God. The question must have pressed upon Abraham’s mind: “Is Ishmael the one or not?” As the baby grew into a child and a young man, it began to be obvious to Abraham and Sarah that Ishmael might not be the fulfillment of God’s promise. But how else could it be fulfilled? They were each getting older and older; Sarah was now 90 years old, and obviously could no longer bear a child. Or could she?

And then, an angel appeared to Abraham to tell him he would literally father a child by his beloved Sarah. Abraham laughed (in astonishment? in disbelief?). And so the angel told him, “The child will be named Yitzhak (Isaac)” — which means “laughter”! Sarah, hearing of this renewed promise, laughed also, and was rebuked. The angel said,

“Why did Sarah laugh, and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, in the spring, and Sarah shall have a son” (Gen 18:13,14).

And it happened! Twenty-five years after the original promises, Sarah finally bore a son, Isaac. And there must have been incredible joy. For the desire, finally fulfilled, became a “tree of life” (both then, for Abraham and Sarah and their descendants; and especially in the future, in the divine “seed” that came through Abraham and Isaac — the Lord Jesus Christ)!

David and the throne

As a teenager, the humble shepherd David was anointed by the great prophet Samuel to be king of all Israel. With the help of God he won a great victory, against Goliath and the Philistines; he returned from battle to the sounds of women singing his praises. Yet even as he did so well, his success inspired the envy and hatred of king Saul, who plotted to kill him. The young man David had to flee for his life. For years he lived in exile, existing from hand to mouth, constantly on guard against a sudden attack from Saul and his men.

During all this time, all these long years, when was David going to become king, as God had promised? Twice David was tempted with the opportunity to slay Saul; but no, he knew he must not lift his hand against the LORD’s anointed.

So how much longer did David have to hold out? Psalms written during this time of exile express his frustration in trying to do the right thing, while hiding in the hills, far away from the peace and comfort of a settled home.

“I cry with my voice to the LORD, with my voice I make supplication to the LORD. I pour out my complaint before him, I tell my trouble before him. When my spirit is faint, thou knowest my way! In the path where I walk they have hidden a trap for me. I look to the right and watch, but there is none who takes notice of me; no refuge remains to me, no man cares for me. I cry to thee, O LORD; I say, Thou art my refuge, my portion in the land of the living. Give heed to my cry; for I am brought very low! Deliver me from my persecutors; for they are too strong for me!” (Psa 142).

Can you not feel the truth of the proverb?: a hope deferred, a sick heart, intense frustration. What could David do? He could only look to God, pray to Him, trust in Him. God was the only way.

And finally, after many years, the way opened up. Saul was slain by the Philistines. David could now assume his kingdom. And here’s the fulfillment in David’s life of the last part of the proverb (a desire fulfilled; a tree of life): when he brought the ark of God to its permanent resting place in Jerusalem:

“So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom to the city of David with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn” (2Sa 6:12-15).

Application to us

And so it may be for each of us: finally, our desires are fulfilled. The barren couple, waiting and waiting, finally rejoices when they discover she is at last pregnant. The young lady, biding her time, finally meets the right young man, who loves her as she loves him. The coveted job turns out to be in a department that is suddenly terminated; so missing that promotion is, in fact, a Godsend.

But what do we do when the hope deferred continues to be deferred? when there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel? when nothing changes for the better?

There are only two options:

Give up, turn your back on God, and say, “I simply can’t take it any more. I quit.” Or… Realize that God might have something else in mind for you, and that the fulfillment of your particular desire — at least for now — does not fit into His plan. And then you do the best you can with what you have.

Conclusion

Darrell Royal was a great football coach at the University of Texas. One day he was asked why he hadn’t changed quarterbacks in a crucial game at the end of the season, when his starter — who had won so many games for him — was for once not playing well. Coach Royal quoted the girl at the party, who was asked for a dance by a stranger. “No, thanks,” she said. “I’ll dance with the one that brung me!”

God brought us into this life. He has been so good to us in countless way. And He has promised that He will never leave us nor forsake us.

We “dance” with God because, almost two thousand years ago, He gave His only-begotten Son for us. And that Son, Jesus, died and rose again so that we might have life, and life more abundantly. Together, God and Jesus have invited us to the “party” of their Kingdom. Jesus said, “To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev 2:7).

And we know that, one day soon, when Jesus returns, every desire WILL be fulfilled, and we WILL eat of that tree of life.

(WB)

The name Hosea means, in Heb, “Yah is help” or “Salvation”. He was contemporary with the more famous Isaiah, whose name is very similar. The name finds an echo in Hos 13:4: “I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no SAVIOR.”

Outline

1.	The unfaithful wife and the faithful husband: Hos 1:1 – 3:5
	a)	Hosea’s wife and children: Hos 1:1 – 2:1
	b)	Judgment on faithless Israel: Hos 2:2-13
	c)	The restoration of faithless Israel: Hos 2:14-23
	d)	Hosea’s redemption of his faithless wife: Hos 3:1-5
2.	The unfaithful nation and the faithful God: Hos 4:1 – 13:16
	a)	Israel’s unfaithfulness: Hos 4:1 – 6:3
	b)	Israel’s punishment: Hos 6:4 – 10:15
	c)	The Lord’s faithful love: Hos 11:1 – 14:9

Theme

The most prominent symbolism in Hosea’s prophecy is the marriage relationship as a parable of God’s relationship with His covenant people; this reflects an aspect of the help God gives to His people. Because of her unfaithfulness, God had “divorced” Israel; He had previously regarded her as His wife, but He now repudiates her. The prophets repeatedly refer to this symbolic relationship between Israel and God (Jer 3:8,20; Isa 50:1; Eze 16:32,38; cp also Eph 5:23; Rev 17:4,5; 19:7; 21:9), but nowhere else than in Hosea is it acted out so dramatically.

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, and even the hundredth straying lamb is carefully searched out. The children of Israel are the seed of Abraham; therefore they are the kernel of God’s purpose and “the apple of His eye”, so that despite their rebelliousness and faithlessness He continues to watch over them, and will never make a full end of them. He says to Hosea, “Go again, love a woman who is beloved of a paramour and is an adulteress; even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods” (Hos 3:1). The displeasure which God feels at Israel’s sin in departing from her Master to worship Baal takes the form of a loving husband’s feelings toward a grossly adulterous wife: feelings which are perhaps at once the most mixed, and the most harrowing, which it is possible for a man to experience. How strong must have been His yearning desire to go forth and accept the least sign of repentance on her part. Yet at the same time, how intense His feelings of loathing toward her abominations!

In the naming of Gomer’s children (of which some seem not to have been fathered by Hosea) there is found this mingled compassion and loathing: The second child was named “Lo-ruhamah”, which means “without compassion”, or “without pity” (Hos 1:6,7).

God contrasts His great compassion toward the Southern Kingdom of Judah with His lack of compassion toward the Northern Kingdom of Israel. And so God allows the overthrow of Israel by the kings of Assyria, but He saves Jerusalem and Judah from the same Gentile power by a miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s great army. The third child was “Lo-ammi”, which means “not my people” (v 8)… “for you are not my people, and I am not your God” (v 9).

Yet, because of His own covenants of promise to Abraham, God cannot allow this to be the permanent condition of His people Israel. The apostle Paul takes up these words from Hosea in Rom 9:25,26. Paul points out that the breaking off of Israelite branches has made room for the grafting of the Gentiles into the true olive tree, and then also speaks of God grafting natural Israel back in again. And he speaks of those who previously had not obtained the mercy of God, at last obtaining His mercy again (Rom 11, esp vv 30,31).

In the purpose of God concerning a final restoration of Israel, a reunited kingdom is envisioned, so that as the northern kingdom has no future separate existence, only the return of Judah from captivity is referred to. In Hosea’s day the faithful ones in Israel went over to support the kingdom of Judah (Hos 6:1; 2Ch 11:13,16,17; cp Eze 37:16-20). To indicate the Messianic application in the future, the meaning of the names are reversed; the negative (“Lo-“) is removed from “Ruhamah” and “Ammi” (Hos 1:10,11) — so that the names now signify “MY compassion” and “MY people”. After continuing “many days without a king” and all the things that make for a divine nation (Hos 3:4), Israel will finally “return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days” (v 5). (Here is indicated a Last Days application of the prophetic parable.)

“They shall go after the LORD, he will roar like a lion; yea, he will roar, and his sons shall come trembling from the west; they shall come trembling like birds from Egypt, and like doves from the land of Assyria; and I will return them to their homes, says the LORD” (Hos 11:10,11).

“Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction?” (Hos 13:14).

“They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom as the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon” (Hos 14:7).

Throughout the book of Hosea Israel and Judah are accused of relying upon Egypt, Assyria, and their own fenced cities, and of worshiping idols and the calves of Samaria. These evils brought appropriate recompense upon them. In the meantime, therefore, captivity in Egypt and Assyria will be their lot, and their king will be dethroned (Hos 7:11; 8:14; 13:1,2; 9:3,6; 10:3).

Israel having ignored the word of God revealed in His commandments, their faithfulness is described as “whoredom”, or “adultery” (Hos 1:2; 4:2,10-14; 5:3,4; 6:10; 7:4; 8:1; 9:11-14; 13:13). Yet, in spite of all, God would reinstate them (Hos 11:8-11). As he originally called Israel out of Egypt, so He would do so again. They would return from their false worship to the recognition of the one true God whom their fathers had worshiped.

What happened in a limited sense in OT times (with the return of Israel from Babylon to their land under the leadership of Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, Haggai, and Zechariah) will happen once again in the Last Days. Indeed, it has begun to happen already, with the return of millions of Jews from Europe (and now from the former USSR); but this return is only a preliminary — for there is no real acknowledgment of the hand of God in modern Israel’s affairs.

However, this state of affairs can change rapidly, when the children of Israel realize that they can no longer rely on their peace treaties with surrounding nations (like Egypt), nor the support of their former ally the United States, nor even their own military might. Age-old enemies will finally find the means to defeat them in battle. Then, like an adulterous wife who knows at last that there is neither comfort nor security in the arms of another, Israel will turn back to her God. “And I will have pity on Not pitied, and I will say to Not my people, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say ‘Thou art my God’ ” (Hos 2:23). The history of Israel, a pattern for the future?

“Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the LORD are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them” (Hos 14:9).

HOW JESUS USED THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS IN HIS GOSPEL TEACHING

1.	In addition to citing Moses and the Psalms to establish and endorse his teaching, Jesus called on the writings of the prophets to reinforce and emphasize his teaching (cf Luke 24:44; Mat 5:17; 22:40).
2.	Jesus could have argued that his teaching was correct and worthy of acceptance because he was God’s Son — but he did not. Old Testament Scripture was equated with the word of God, and that was sufficient to give his teaching divine authority (cf John 5:37-40; 8:45-47).
3.	For Jesus, Scripture could not be broken, that is, it was inherently true and must be fulfilled; Old Testament teaching should not be watered down or replaced by the words of men (cf John 10:34-38; 17:17; Mat 15:1-6).
4.	Jesus invariably argued his points using an Old Testament phrase or idea (eg, Mat 12:38-42; 13:11-17; 21:16,33-43; 23:29-39; John 6:45).
5.	Jesus clearly understood and presented Scripture in a way quite different from all others (eg, Mark 1:27; Mat 22:15-22; John 6:52-69); he opened up the understanding of the Old Testament, primarily because they spoke of him and he was able to explain the meaning (eg, Luke 4:16-21; John 5:39). So Jesus makes the Old Testament teaching come alive, and renders it much more comprehensible (cf Luke 24:25-32; Acts 1:3).
6.	But Jesus did not introduce any new teaching in the sense that it contradicted or repudiated the Old Testament teaching. The Old Testament is the basis of all New Testament teaching, and Jesus’ message is the same as the message of the prophets — for example:
	(a)	the Lord’s prayer taught in Mat 6:9-13 has 1Ch 29:10-13 background,
	(b)	the two great commandments taught in Mat 22:36-40 tied together Deu 6:5 and Lev 19:18, and
	(c)	the prediction of Jerusalem’s overthrow and Christ’s return taught in Mat 24:15 cites Dan 9:27.
7.	Jesus “filled full” the predictions about the suffering Savior (cf Luke 24:25-27,44-47), confirmed the promises made in the Old Testament (Mat 5:17; cf Acts 3:18; 13:33; Rom 15:8), and will be the completion of the Old Testament prophecies about the returning Christ (eg, Luke 21:7-36). However, the subject of this article is not so much how Jesus fulfilled/will fulfill the Old Testament prophets as how he used their writings in his teaching.
8.	The four Gospel accounts record the actual teaching situations of Jesus and therefore are the best source of information to determine how he used the Old Testament prophets. Of the many examples available, four are taken from each Gospel to provide a sampling sufficient to draw some conclusions.

Matthew

1. Mat 9:10-13 cites Hos 6:6 — to teach the leaders that they should go and learn what “desire mercy” means.

2. Mat 11:7-15 quotes Mal 3:1 — to teach the people about the greatness of the prophet John the Baptist (cf Mat 17:10-13).

3. Mat 13:10-17 quotes Isa 6:9,10 — to explain why he taught in parables, and why the apostles were privileged to understand.

4. Mat 24:3-28 cites Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) — to explain the signs of his coming and the end of the age to the apostles.

Mark

1. Mark 2:23-28 cites the story of David in 1Sa 21:1-6 — to show that the Sabbath was made for man and that Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath.

2. Mar 7:1-8 quotes Isa 29:13 — to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (their traditions and external cleansings).

3. Mar 7:21-23 builds on Jer 4:14; 7:24; 17:9 — to remind the disciples of a key teaching, namely, that the human heart is the source of all evil thoughts, etc.

4. Mar 8:31; 9:31; and 10:33,34 are a series of Old Testament references — to plainly teach the apostles of his impending death and resurrection… yet they did not understand!

Luke

1. Luke 4:16-31 quotes Isa 61:1,2 — to show how he was fulfilling Scripture before their very eyes, in their very hearing.

2. Luke 11:29-32 cites Jon 3:4,5 and 1Ki 10:1 — to use Jonah and the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba and Solomon as examples to prompt his hearers into belief in himself as the Messiah, who was much greater.

3. Luke 13:6-9 uses Jer 8:13 and Hos 9:10 as the background for his parable of the fig tree — to give a warning to Israel of its impending destruction.

4. Luke 21:20-24 talks of Old Testament predictions such as Lam 2:8,13 and Mic 3:12 soon to be fulfilled — to give a warning to Jerusalem of its impending destruction.

John

1. John 2:13-16 alludes to Zec 14:21 and Jer 7:8-11 — to explain his ousting of the temple moneychangers and to remind his disciples that the temple cleansing must happen.

2. John 7:38 consolidates the teaching of Isa 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Joel 3:18; and Zec 13:1 — to help the Jews understand that he was the promised Messiah.

3. John 12:12-16 enacted Zec 9:9 — to show the people and the disciples that he was the promised king.

4. John 17:6-19 claims that the Scriptures were now fulfilled — to emphasize that the time spent developing his disciples was according to God’s will.

Conclusions

• Belief in the prophetic message demands belief in Jesus and a corresponding change in life.

• Understanding the Old Testament is made easier by having the New Testament writings, especially the words of Jesus.

• Fulfilled Scripture concerning Jesus’ first coming indicates the certainty of fulfillment of Scripture concerning his second coming; that time seems to be near!

• We need to use the whole Bible in order to understand God’s message of salvation to us.

• Jesus used Old Testament Scripture to instruct himself (cf 2Ti 3:16,17); disciples should do likewise.

(NF)