Bible Study – Written Exposition

Ezekiel 24:15-27: The Death of Ezekiel’s Wife

Posted on 11th Dec 202518th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 24 opens with YHWH revealing to the prophet on 15 January, 588 BCE that the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem has begun that very day. Ezekiel then delivers the parable of the cooking pot to his fellow-exiles. It depicts Jerusalem as a cauldron filled with ‘choice cuts’ (its inhabitants) set on a blazing fire (the siege). The pot has corrosion (the bloodguilt and violence that characterises the city). Its contents must be emptied into the fire; then the pot will be heated until red hot in order to be purified.

This next section (24:15-27) transforms the metaphor of the cooking pot into a tragic living reality for Ezekiel. Just as the siege is announced to Ezekiel in 24:1 by a word from YHWH likewise he is informed of his forthcoming personal loss by a specific divine word in 24:15. That word commands Ezekiel to use his personal grief to perform a prophetic sign-act to the exiles.

DIVISION

15-18 YHWH ANNOUNCES THE DEATH OF EZEKIEL’S WIFE
19-24 EZEKIEL ANSWERS THE EXILES’ QUESTION
25-27 YHWH ADDRESSES EZEKIEL PERSONALLY

EXPOSITION

YHWH ANNOUNCES THE DEATH OF EZEKIEL’S WIFE (15-18)

This section (24:15-27) begins with YHWH addressing Ezekiel using the customary prophetic word formula ‘son of Adam.’ The oracle that follows focuses on a tragic personal loss for Ezekiel. YHWH will suddenly (‘at a blow’) take away the ‘delight of Ezekiel’s eyes’ but Ezekiel is forbidden to mourn, weep, shed tears, sigh aloud, cover his beard, eat the bread of men, or sit barefoot and bareheaded.

It is unclear whether that which is forbidden is petitionary mourning (as in Joel 1:13-14) in response to the announcement – i.e. asking the Lord to reverse his decision – or posthumous mourning; after the ‘delight of Ezekiel’s eyes’ has died. The traditional view is that posthumous mourning is in view. Once the ‘delight of his eyes’ is taken away Ezekiel is not to engage in a traditional public show of grief. The acts of mourning which are forbidden are ritual rather than emotional. Emotional mourning is permitted; he can mourn inwardly and sigh softly but must eat, drink and dress as normal.

It is only when we come to v.18 that we learn that Ezekiel’s ‘dearest treasure’ (NLT) is his wife: So I spake unto the people in the morning: and at even my wife died; and I did in the morning as I was commanded. This is reported in the first person (‘I’) but Ezekiel does not tell us his wife’s name or age and does not indicate how he felt or thought when his loved one’s imminent death was announced.

The fulfilment of the prophecy is swift but the timeline is unclear. Do the two mentions of ‘morning’ refer to the same morning or two different mornings?

Ezekiel delivers the prophecy to the exiles in the morning and immediately complies with YHWH’s instructions (that same morning). Then his wife dies that evening. OR
He delivers the prophecy to the exiles in the morning, his wife dies that evening and he obeys YHWH’s command the following morning.

The second possibility is the most commonly accepted. In either case he has little time to process his grief. I did . . . as I was commanded is a striking example of immediate and total obedience to the word of the Lord – at great personal cost.

EZEKIEL ANSWERS THE EXILES’ QUESTION (19-24)

Doubtless aware of Ezekiel’s love for his wife the exiles are shocked by his violation of the expected social and religious norms of mourning. They realise that this is a symbolic act and so they ask him for an interpretation of the sign and how it applies to them: And the people said unto me, Wilt thou not tell us what these things are to us, that thou doest so? This is the only occasion in the book when the exiles directly address the prophet Ezekiel – normally what they say is quoted to Ezekiel by YHWH.

Ezekiel answers their brief question by telling them that a word from YHWH came to him, telling him what he was to communicate to the people. The thrust of the message is that Ezekiel’s behaviour in the aftermath of his wife’s death is a prescriptive sign to the exiles. It shows how they ought to respond to the fall of the city of Jerusalem and specifically the temple. The death of Ezekiel’s wife is an analogy for the ‘death’ of the temple. The exiles’ response to that ought to mirror Ezekiel’s response to his wife’s death.

YHWH (v.21) intends to desecrate his sanctuary (by the blood of Judah’s slain sons and daughters and the presence of foreigners). The temple is the pride of the people’s power (cf. Lev 26:19), the desire of their eyes and that with which they have sympathy – i.e. they cherish the temple because to them it represents the glory and strength of the nation.

Notice that in vv.22-24 the collective response of the exiles to the fall of the sanctuary is to mirror the individual response of Ezekiel to the death of his wife. There are obvious parallels;

in v.17 Ezekiel’s wife is the delight of his eyes, in v.21 the sanctuary is the delight of the people’s eyes.
Like Ezekiel in vv.16-17 the people (vv.22-23) are not to publicly mourn, weep, cover their lips, eat the bread of men or go about bareheaded and barefoot.

Covering the upper lip seems to have been a sign of shame and sorrow, cf. Lev 13:45; Mic3:7. ‘The bread of men’ refers to food brought to the bereaved by family and friends. Other descriptions of mourning occur in Ezekiel 7:18 and 27:30-31.

The exiles are to imitate Ezekiel – he is a sign to them:

And ye shall do as I have done: Ezek 24:22
according to all that he hath done shall ye do: Ezek 24:24

In addition (v.23), they are to pine away (cf. 4:17; 33:10) for (on account of) their iniquities and groan one to another. Their grief will be compounded by the recognition that they have brought this disaster upon themselves because of their sin. They are not to make a public display of mourning but rather groan because of conviction of their guilt. The exiles share responsibility with those in Judah for the destruction of the city and the temple.

When the disaster comes the people of Judah and the exiles will recognise that YHWH is the Sovereign Lord

YHWH ADDRESSES EZEKIEL PERSONALLY (25-27)

Addressing himself to Ezekiel personally – thou son of man – YHWH refers to the false hope that the Judahites have placed in the temple, the city and future generations. They have considered these to be their strength (stronghold), joy, glory, delight and heart’s desire. Soon all will be taken from them.

As for Ezekiel, an eyewitness will escape the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and bring confirmation of its fall to him in Babylonia. Since his call Ezekiel has been mute (3:26-27), speaking only when he receives a direct oracle from YHWH, but on the day the messenger arrives Ezekiel’s speech will be restored, his silent mourning will end and his ministry enter a new phase. That too will be a sign to the exiles and they will recognise the presence of YHWH. This prophecy is fulfilled in 33:21-22.

SUMMATION

The death of Ezekiel’s wife symbolises the impending destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Babylonian forces of Nebuchadnezzar and emphasises the severity and finality of the coming judgement. The prophet’s personal tragedy demonstrates that YHWH’s judgement is irrevocable and his muted grief is a prophetic sign of how the people should and would react to the coming destruction.

Up to this point Ezekiel has been proclaiming YHWH’s judgement upon Jerusalem and Judah. The fall of the city and the temple will confirm that he is indeed a true prophet and that YHWH has been in control of events throughout as Ezekiel has said. With the fall of Jerusalem the old era will pass and the lifting of Ezekiel’s silence mark a new phase in his ministry. The exiles will recognise that YHWH is the Sovereign Lord and on that basis future restoration can be built. With his status as a true prophet confirmed the people will listen to Ezekiel, whose ministry will transition from one that proclaims judgement to one that offers hope. But before moving on to the restoration section of his book (chapters 33-48) Ezekiel records oracles against some of Judah’s hostile neighbours (chapters 25-32).

Exposition

Psalm 100 – A Psalm Of Thanksgiving

Posted on 26th Nov 202518th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

A PSALM OF PRAISE.
¹ Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands.
² Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
³ Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
⁴ Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
⁵ For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

INTRODUCTION

This short but well-known psalm has a superscription that is usually translated ‘A psalm of praise’ or ‘A psalm of/for thanksgiving.’ People who may not be fully familiar with Psalm 100 would, nevertheless, probably recognise the words of some old Christian hymns that its content has inspired. The two most famous are Thomas Ken’s doxology ‘Praise God from whom all blessings flow’ and the sixteenth century ‘All people that on earth do dwell’ – composed by John Calvin’s friend Louis Bourgeois and translated from French to English by William Kethe. Unfortunately neither of these hymns specifically mentions thanksgiving; however, ‘praise’ and ‘thanksgiving’ are more or less synonymous. This is explained by W. S. Plumer (1867, p.895) in his ‘Studies in the Book of Psalms:’

In our version the word rendered praise is elsewhere twice rendered praise, once sacrifice of praise, twice confession, about twenty times thanksgiving, once in the plural sacrifices of praise, thrice thanks, thrice thank offerings. The English version does not nicely discriminate between praise and thanksgiving. It is doubtful whether the Hebrew does, though some think differently. In v. 4 of this Psalm the word, rendered Praise in the title, is rendered thanksgiving. Many notice that no other Psalm has the same title as this.

The psalm is anonymous – its author is unknown – nor do we know when it was written or how it was used in Israelite liturgy. Some think that it was written by Moses, or is a psalm of David, others speculate that it was composed after the return from Babylonian exile for use in the restored temple worship.

Many scholars class it as a processional hymn sung by pilgrims at the entrance to the Temple (cf. v.4), others suggest that it was sung to accompany a thank-offering (cf. Lev 7:12) – but there is no mention of sacrifice in the psalm. Many things about the psalm are unknown but we do know from its title that Psalm 100 is a song of thanksgiving.

STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

Psalm 100 has a bipartite structure.

1-3 An Invitation to Worship the Lord
4-5 An Invitation to Thank and Praise the Lord

Each of these two sections contains an invitation expressed in 3 lines which is then followed by 3 reasons to comply (i.e. 3 calls followed by 3 causes).

1-3
Calls – make a joyful noise. . .; Serve the Lord. . .: Come before his presence. . .
Causes – the Lord he is God; he hath made us. . .; we are his people. . .

4-5
Calls – enter into his gates. . .; be thankful unto him; bless his name
Causes – the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; his truth endureth. . .

Notice:
Psalm 100 contains seven imperatives: make a noise; serve; come; know; enter; be thankful; bless.

References to the one who is the focus of Psalm 100: the Lord; him; he; his (people, sheep, pasture, gates, courts, name, mercy, truth).

EXPOSITION

1-3 An Invitation to Worship the Lord

(1)
Audible – the emphasis is on the loudness of the shout – like a fanfare acclaiming the Lord as king.

Joyful – worshipping the Lord should be a joyful act.

Global – this shout rings out across the world calling upon every person in every nation, not just Israel, to worship the one true God.

(2) The word ‘serve’ can refer to any type of work but here in the religious sense it equates to worship. This ought to be performed with an attitude of delight. The happiness and exuberance will express itself in ‘singing’ – a joyful shout – when they ‘come before his presence.’ The same word translated ‘come’ is translated ‘enter’ in v.4. ‘His presence’ is a reference to the Jerusalem temple which was regarded as the dwelling place of the Lord. This idea is developed further in v. 4.

(3) ‘He’ and ‘We’

He is God

The fourth imperative ‘know’ that follows on from the invitation to worship is very important because, in a world that has a wide variety of deities, it makes the exclusive claim that the Lord (YHWH) – Israel’s God – is the true God whose authority and sovereignty must be recognised and acknowledged. ‘The Lord, he is God’ – YHWH, the God of the Exodus, is Elohim – the true God.

The person who worships the Lord must be convinced in his/her own mind as to who he is – the one true God- and, having reached that verdict, celebrate him and renounce allegiance to all other deities.

He made us

If the Lord is the one true God then he is the creator (‘he hath made us’). He is all-powerful and we are dependent on him. The KJV reads ‘and not we ourselves’ but other versions translate this as ‘we are his.’ Alternatively, some scholars view this as an asseverative (earnest declaration) and translate it as ‘indeed;’ linking it with the next statement ‘we are his people.’ The Oxford Bible Commentary (2007, p.393) provides the following succinct explanation:

The Hebrew words ‘his’ (lit. ‘to him’) and ‘not’ are identical in sound but differ in spelling. Aquila, the Targum, and Jerome have ‘his’, as do all the most recent English translations, while the LXX, Symmachus, and the Syriac follow the alternative meaning, ‘and not we ourselves’, made familiar through the AV. . . A modern proposal is to take the word as a note of emphasis, producing: ‘and we are indeed his people’.

We are his

‘We are his people’ follows logically from the fact that he is our creator. He has made us and we are his by right therefore we owe allegiance to him. Some commentators interpret v.3 strictly as referring to Israel. They take ‘He has made us’ as a reference to YHWH making Israel a nation (e.g. Deut 32:6, 15: Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? . . .But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.). They view ‘we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture’ as referring to the redemption of the nation by the Exodus, freeing the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and bringing them into a covenant relationship with himself and leading and guiding them to The Promised Land.

For Christians this points to the greater, ultimate redemption accomplished by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross. By it we are saved, rescued from the slavery of sin and death, brought into a relationship with God and guided through life’s wilderness until we reach heaven, our permanent dwelling place.

The pastoral metaphor of sheep and their shepherd(s) is a common one in the Bible (Psalm 23 ‘The Lord is my shepherd’ and Jesus as the Good Shepherd in Jn 10:1-30 are well-known). See also Psa 74:1; 78:70-72; 79:13; 80:1; Isa 40:11; 44:28; Jer 10:21; Ezek 34:1-24; Zech 10:3; 11:4-17. Those who are shepherded by the one true God do not recognise the authority of false shepherds – false deities – lifeless idols that cannot guide and care for their worshippers.

Thus far the psalmist has made it clear that in order to worship God there are certain things we must acknowledge (‘know’). The three things are: 1. that he is the one, true God; 2. that he has made us therefore we are dependent upon and accountable to him; 3. that as the people (‘his people’) of the Lord we have a privileged relationship with him; enjoying his ongoing care, protection and provision like sheep from a shepherd.

4-5 An Invitation to Thank and Praise the Lord

This second part of the psalm moves to the very substance of worship; thanksgiving and praise rendered to the Lord by his people. The scene shifts to the outer gate of the Jerusalem temple – the building where God’s presence dwells. The last three of the psalm’s seven imperative verbs are in this section and they invite believers to enter the Lord’s presence, in his courts give thanks to him and bless his name. These detail the attitude of entry into God’s presence, a believer does not come to God reluctantly in fear or out of a sense of obligation but with a heart that overflows with thanksgiving and adoration – an attitude of gratitude.

In v.4 (enter into his gates with thanksgiving) we have another occurrence of tôḏāh, translated ‘praise’ or ‘thanksgiving’ in the title of the psalm. One can imagine pilgrims entering the temple gates and processing jubilantly into the courts – a movement from the outside world into the serenity of a sacred zone. Thankful for redemption, a relationship with the Lord God and the blessings of salvation they joyfully enter the courts ‘with praise'(tehillāh, a song of praise’) and bless the name of the Lord.

Thanksgiving and praise are almost indistinguishable but perhaps we could say that thanksgiving is primarily our response to what the Lord has done. It is gratitude for his blessings, gifts, guidance and activities in our lives and acknowledgment of the benefits those have brought us. Thanksgiving says: ‘Thank you, Lord, for. . .’

Praise, however, is primarily our response to who the Lord is. Praise is exalting God for his attributes like power, love, holiness, justice and faithfulness; independent of anything he does for us. Praise says: ‘You are worthy, Lord, because you are. . .’

Interestingly, ‘bless his name’ seems to bring those two aspects, thanksgiving and praise, together. To ‘bless his name’ is to express thanksgiving and praise by acknowledging and declaring both who God is and what he has done.

Verse 5 begins with ‘For;’ thus giving the reasons why we ought to thank and praise the Lord.

a) ‘The Lord is good’ – verse 3 affirms that the Lord is God; now v.5 states that the Lord is good. The word ‘good’ carries meanings like: well-pleasing, fruitful, morally correct, proper. As such, the Lord is the source of all blessings.

b) ‘his mercy is everlasting’ – ḥeseḏ: ‘Mercy’ is a popular word in the Old Testament and signifies God’s kindness, lovingkindness, mercy, goodness, faithfulness, love, acts of kindness. It is sometimes translated as ‘steadfast love’ or ‘covenant love.’ It is the basis of God’s acts of kindness towards his people and is said to be ‘everlasting’ (from eternity). The Lord is dependable because having shown lovingkindness in the past he will continue to show it in the future. Thinking about this prompts the believer to worship and praise the Lord even more.

Note: goodness and mercy are often linked together, see 1 Chron 16:34; 2 Chron 5:13; Ezra 3:11; Psa 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1.

c) ‘his truth endureth to all generations’ – ‘Truth’ has the idea of faithfulness. In Deut 32:4 it is used to describe God’s character. The Lord keeps his promises, he can never fail for his faithfulness extends from one generation to another.

SUMMATION

Psalm 100 summons not just Israel but all people everywhere to worship God alone; the one, true God. The psalm focuses on the Lord and makes it clear that worshipping him is not a sombre duty but a happy response to who he is and what he has done. The believer is to enter God’s presence with thanksgiving and praise.

The main reason why there ought to be this response is the character of God himself. He is our God, our Creator and our Shepherd who is unchanging and fully dependable. He is good, his love endures forever and his faithfulness continues through all generations.

The superscription of the psalm identifies it as a psalm of thanksgiving. When thanksgiving is mentioned our minds immediately turn to temporal blessings such as family, friends, finances and the like. However, in just a few short verses, Psalm 100 digs deeper. It doesn’t just tell us to give thanks but points to the how, the why and the who behind true thanksgiving.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Barton, J. and Muddiman, J. (2007). The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plumer, W.S. (1867). Studies in the Book of Psalms: Being a Critical and Expository Commentary : with Doctrinal and Practical Remarks on the Entire Psalter. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black

JOURNAL ARTICLES

‌Amzallag, N. (2014). The Meaning of todah in the Title of Psalm 100. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 126(4). pp.535-545

‌DIGITAL RESOURCES

Hymnary.org. (2023). All People That on Earth Do Dwell. [online] Available at: https://hymnary.org/text/all_people_that_on_earth_do_dwell. accessed 26 November, 2025

Hymnary.org. (n.d.). Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow. [online] Available at: https://hymnary.org/text/praise_god_from_whom_all_blessings_ken. accessed 26 November, 2025

‌

Exposition

The Beauty of Unity in Psalm 133

Posted on 30th Sep 202518th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

A SONG OF DEGREES OF DAVID.
¹ Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
² It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
³ As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life forevermore.

INTRODUCTION

This psalm of just three verses is easy to read but difficult to put into practice. It is the 14th of 15 poems in the Psalter known collectively as the Songs of Degrees or (Ascents). This is a group of psalms (120-134) sung by the Jews when returning from exile or when going up to Jerusalem for one of the annual Jewish Festivals (Exod 23:14-17; 34:22-24). Psalm 133 is said to be ‘Of David.’ This could mean either that it was composed by David or was collected by him.

Imagine families from all over Israel and beyond travelling up to Jerusalem and then residing together in the city during the festival days. People from different areas, different tribes, having different customs and different accents; yet all coming together to worship the Lord and know the blessing of his presence. What a great experience that must have been and what a testimony to the heathen nations around them! This psalm celebrates the beauty of unity.

We live in a world that is obsessed with the individual. From an early age we are taught to be self-reliant, independent and are encouraged to be masters of our own destiny. Into our modern culture of radical individualism this ancient psalm from God’s Word speaks a powerful counter-cultural truth – our faith is not meant to be lived out in isolation. Psalm 133, as I have said, is a profound reflection on the beauty of unity. In it we have an exclamation about that truth, an elaboration on that truth and a declaration about that truth.

v.1 AN EXCLAMATION
vv.2-3a AN ELABORATION
v. 3b A DECLARATION

AN EXCLAMATION (1)

The psalm commences with a wisdom saying – something like a proverb – that comments on what is good. It is expressed as an exclamation: Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! The psalmist conveys pleasure with his use of the words: ‘Behold…how…how!’ Behold (Look, stop and take notice) how good and how pleasant it is when brothers live in harmony! At this thought the psalmist bursts out with a cry of wonder and joyful praise. This is not a cool, detached, academic observation – it is an exclamation of delight.

What the psalmist says has wide application. It covers most situations because he cleverly uses words that have more than one meaning.

Brethren – can mean a) children of the same parents b) kin – extended family members c) kindred – members of a larger social unit (e.g. tribe, nation).

Dwell – can mean sit, remain or reside.

Unity – can mean ‘proximity’ or ‘harmony.’

The wisdom saying probably refers to to the ancient custom of living in extended families (cf. Deut 25:5) – with one clan occupying and working the same inheritance (ancestral land). The family members all worked for the common welfare and shared the same objectives. If one was sick or died, the others rallied around to provide support. If one was attacked, the others rushed to his defence. If one suffered financial loss, the others chipped in to help. I am sure that you can see how we could apply this concept to the local church.

The psalmist, however, takes up this social custom and uses it to make a point about the spiritual unity of the people of God. That unity likewise involves more than just living peacefully; it includes shared objectives, responsibilities and efforts to look out for and meet the needs of the others.

‘HOW GOOD!

‘Good’ carries not just the idea that something is morally correct but also that it is useful and beneficial. This word ṭôb was how God assessed his work of creation in Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18 and 21.

HOW PLEASANT!

Notice the second adjective used by the psalmist. Nā‘ēm means lovely, good, attractive, joyous. Brothers (and sisters) living together in harmony is not just morally right and beneficial, it is also pleasant – delightful, enjoyable and lovely to experience. The two words ‘good’ and ‘pleasant’ also occur together in Gen 49:15; Job 36:11; Psa 135:3; 147:1; Prov 24:25.

The psalmist is speaking here about God’s people, the family of faith, so the lesson applies to us as well. Our unity ought not to be based on such things as personality or politics but should be because of our common salvation and mutual love for the Lord. Bringing this right up to date and making it personal, let us ask ourselves if that is our default setting in the church or assembly we attend. Do we appreciate other believers and view togetherness as a great benefit – something to be fostered and enjoyed?

Often the greatest threats to the unity of a church are sitting in its pews. Some people just cannot get along with and agree with others. One of Satan’s most effective tools is division among the people of God. We began by mentioning that this exclamation in Psalm 133 is based on the ancient idea of the extended family. We know that sometimes that didn’t work out too well. It is sad to read that even some members of the patriarchal families could not dwell together, for example:

And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle: Genesis 13:6-7

The apostle Paul, writing to the early church in Philippi, said: I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. Philippians 4:2. The apostle James wrote: For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. James 3:16.

The psalmist realised that there is not always harmony among the people of God. There are disagreements, some of them bitter. Sadly, it seems that for many maintaining unity is not a priority. It is almost as if the psalmist is saying to people like that: Wake up! Look at the incredible beauty of what you have when you are united in your purpose and witness! Realise how good and how pleasant it is!

AN ELABORATION (2-3a)

The psalmist knows that not everyone will believe his exclamation and so he elaborates on the notions of ‘good’ and ‘pleasant’ with rich illustrations, comparisons that would have been familiar to his first readers in the day and age he wrote. He uses two similes: unity between brethren is ‘like oil’ and it is ‘as dew’.

OIL

The oil is described as ‘good’ (same word as v.1), the KJV translates ‘good oil’ as ‘precious ointment.’ At the mention of ‘good oil’ a social custom would spring instantly to mind, a feature of ancient hospitality. In the hot, dry and dusty Near Eastern climate a mixture of olive oil and sweet spices was used for skincare. Travellers or guests would be welcomed with soothing oil being poured upon their heads (Psa 23:5; 92:10; 141:5; Lk 7:46.

Th psalmist then clarifies that he is not speaking of just any oil, but of the sacred anointing oil, made using a special formula (see Exod 30:34-38 for the ingredients), that was used to consecrate Aaron and the priests to the service of the Lord (Exod 30:30; Lev 8:10-12). In the imagery of Psalm 133 this oil is poured upon the head of Aaron, meaning any priest. The emphasis here is on the lavishness of the pouring; it is not just a dab of oil but such an abundance that it runs over the priest’s head, down his full beard and over the collar (lit ‘mouth’) of his robe.

That, says the psalmist, is what the unity of brethren is like. It is like a generous quantity of oil poured out in a sacred anointing. Unity marks us out as people saturated with the oil of consecration, set apart to serve God and exuding the delightful fragrance of holiness.

DEW

The second simile is ‘as dew of Hermon.’ Mt Hermon is the highest peak in Israel and is snow-capped for most of the year. The River Jordan, a key water source in the country, rises on its slopes. The dew (light rain, drizzle) of Hermon symbolises life-giving moisture, fertility, blessing, refreshment and pleasure.

Unity, says the psalmist, is like that dew of Hermon. It revitalises what is dry and promotes renewal and growth where there is stagnation. It provides daily, gentle refreshment.

Note: verse 3a – It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion! causes much discussion among scholars. How can the psalmist claim that the dew of Mt. Hermon, which is situated at the far north of the country, precipitates on the mountains of Zion (Jerusalem) some 125 miles to the south of Hermon? The best answer seems to be that the metaphor is presenting an ideal situation. Unity is something wonderful, it is as if the dew from Hermon (or, dew like that of Hermon) were falling on Zion.

A DECLARATION (3b)

The psalm ends with a move from description to proclamation. We have noticed the exclamation – it describes unity. Then the elaboration – that illustrates unity. Now the declaration tells us the cause and effect of unity.

Notice the word ‘for.’ It is crucial because it tells why. It gives us the reason for the goodness, the pleasantness, the abundance and the refreshment. They all come from the Lord; ‘for’ (because) he bestows his blessing wherever unity is found.

Notice the word ‘there.’ It is in an environment where there is unity that God’s blessing is experienced. Where brethren dwell together in unity the Lord commands the blessing. This is his deliberate, powerful act. The psalmist reminds us that this is not just present blessing (peace, growth, powerful witness) but also future blessing – ‘life forevermore.’

Note: many take ‘there’ to mean Zion rather than, as I have suggested, anywhere unity is found.

SUMMATION

God’s people living together in unity is good and pleasant. It enriches our lives. It is abundant and refreshing like oil and dew, and it draws down God’s blessing. Strange as it may sound, ‘coming down’ is a feature of this ‘psalm of ascents’ (going up): the oil is poured on the head, flows down the beard, down to the collar of the robe. The dew comes down from Hermon. The blessing comes from God above.

Let us remember the exclamation: ‘How good and how pleasant unity is!’
Let us meditate on the elaboration: unity is beneficial and refreshing.
Let us rest on the declaration: where there is unity the Lord commands the blessing.

The New Testament does not contain a direct quote from Psalm 133 but it does say quite a lot about unity. Allow me to close by quoting Col 3:12-15 from the Christian Standard Bible:

Therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and dearly loved, put on compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, ¹³ bearing with one another and forgiving one another if anyone has a grievance against another. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you are also to forgive. ¹⁴ Above all, put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. ¹⁵ And let the peace of Christ, to which you were also called in one body, rule your hearts…

Exposition

Ezekiel 22:17-22 – The Oracle Concerning the Smelting of Jerusalem

Posted on 23rd Sep 202518th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

TEXT

¹⁷ And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
¹⁸ Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver.
¹⁹ Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.
²⁰ As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you.
²¹ Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof.
²² As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you.

This brief oracle builds upon the idea of purification raised in the previous one (22:15), which predicts that the removal of Judah’s filth will be accomplished through the dispersion of the people among the nations.

This oracle employs the metaphor of smelting; however, the crucible or furnace is Jerusalem itself. The smelting therefore represents the siege and sacking of the city by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE.

(17) The formula ‘the word of the Lord came unto me saying’ indicates that this is a new oracle and that it comes by direct revelation from YHWH and thus has divine authority.

(18) Again addressing Ezekiel as ‘Son of Adam’ YHWH informs him that he regards the ‘house of Israel’ as dross. ‘House of Israel’ does not refer to the northern kingdom of Israel as that had been destroyed by the Assyrians almost 130 years earlier. Ezekiel uses the phrase as a term for the covenant people of YHWH – in this context the entire society of Judah (those living in and around Jerusalem). ‘Dross’ describes the existing condition of Jerusalem as YHWH sees it.

The metaphor here is that of smelting – a process for extracting metal from ore by heating and melting. The application of intense heat separates the pure metal from the impure dross; the latter rises to the top and can be skimmed off.

The point of the process described here is to obtain precious silver – but seemingly only base metals (copper, tin, iron and lead) are present in the ore. The elements mentioned represent the various strata of Judahite society – the priests (v.26), the princes (v.27), the prophets (v.28) and the people (v.29). The metaphor only stretches so far as in real life no-one would smelt knowing at the start that all they have is dross.

(19) ‘ ‘Therefore’ – The action that will be taken against Judah will be a direct result of the diagnosis by the Sovereign Lord (Adonai YHWH) that they are dross. As the one possessing absolute power and authority YHWH has the right to judge them.

He says that he will gather them ‘into the midst of Jerusalem.’ This may be a reference to people fleeing to fortified cities for safety from the Babylonians, as mentioned in Jer 4:5. Normally one would think of God ‘gathering’ for protection (e.g. 1 Chron 16:35; Isa 40:11; Mt23:27) but here we have a reversal of that thought. The people are being gathered for siege. They will undergo the fiery ordeal of smelting in the city.

(20-22) The metaphor becomes a simile (‘as they gather…as silver is melted’) with a concentration on the fierce heat that smelting requires. Just as in ancient smelting bellows were used to intensify the heat so YHWH’s breath (representing his wrath and fury) will heat up the furnace that ‘melts’ the people of Jerusalem.

The metaphor does not take the process any further. Although the ‘house of Israel’ is described as dross in v.19 we wonder if any silver will be found and separated? Can the ore be so corrupted that it contains no precious silver at all?

We are not told the result of the process, only that when the people of Jerusalem are smelted (i.e. experience invasion, war and devastation) they will realise that the fury has been poured out upon them by YHWH.

SUMMATION

In this oracle the metallurgical imagery of smelting is figurative of the purging of the people of Jerusalem by invasion, war and the death of many citizens. Ezekiel uses this metaphor to provide an explanation for the soon-coming disaster upon the people of Jerusalem – it is their own fault. Their sin has become so pervasive that purification is necessary and inevitable, a holy God cannot let it go unpunished.

Note: for use of the image of metal refining elsewhere in the Bible see: Isa 1:22, 25; 48:10; Jer 6:28-30; 9:7; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3; 1 Pet 1:7.

Exposition

Ezekiel 22:1-16 – The Oracle Concerning Bloodshed in Jerusalem

Posted on 19th Sep 202518th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

Ezekiel chapter 22 belongs to a series of oracles spoken a few years before the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE. These oracles, dated 14 August 591 BCE (20:1), focus on YHWH’s punishment of Israel/Judah. Chapter 22 presents three oracles indicting the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. In each the charges against Jerusalem are presented and judgement pronounced.

22:1-16 The Oracle Concerning Bloodshed in Jerusalem

22:17-22 The Oracle Concerning the Smelting of Jerusalem

22:23-31 The Oracle Concerning the Leaders of Jerusalem

THE ORACLE CONCERNING BLOODSHED IN JERUSALEM (1-16)

In this oracle, which gives a catalogue of Jerusalem’s sins, the most common words are ‘blood’ (2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13) and ‘in thee’ (6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16).

(1) The formula ‘the word of the Lord came unto me, saying’ indicates that this is the beginning of a new oracle. It occurs again in v.17 and v.23.

(2) Addressing him as ‘son of Adam’ YHWH involves Ezekiel in the condemnation of Jerusalem by asking the double question ‘wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge?’ This is, in effect, an instruction (cf. 20:4; 23:36). Ezekiel is to judge the ‘bloody city’ (city of bloods) and point out her abominations (offensive things). The Jews thought of Jerusalem as the holy city (e.g. Mt 4:5; 27:53) but here Ezekiel calls it by a name that the prophet Nahum had used earlier (c. 650 BCE) to describe Nineveh (Nah 3:1). Ezekiel uses the description again concerning Jerusalem in 24:6,9.

(3) Ezekiel is to make it clear that his message has a divine origin (‘thus saith the Lord’) and proceed to inform Jerusalem and its people of the crimes of which they are accused. The charges are twofold; a) bloodshed, and b) idolatry.

a) BLOODSHED – This problem of violence and murder in Jerusalem was also highlighted by the prophet Isaiah:

And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Isaiah 1:15
How is the faithful city become a harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Isaiah 1:21

In Jerusalem itself there is total disregard for human life. ‘In the midst’ is repeated in v.7 and v.13. As a result of this ‘her time may come’ – a time of punishment – see Ezek 7:7,12.

IDOLATRY

Jerusalem makes idols (frequent, repeated, ongoing action) all over her to defile her. This breaks the first of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3).

(4-5) Verses 4-5 list five results of the crimes of bloodshed and idolatry:

i) Thou art become guilty in thy blood that thou hast shed; – ‘thy blood’ is ‘the blood of your victims.’ These would not only be people who were murdered but also human sacrifices which were part of idolatrous worship – children sacrificed to Molech (Ezek 16:20).

ii) and hast defiled thyself in thine idols which thou hast made

iii) and thou hast caused thy days to draw near, and art come even unto thy years: – these sins will accelerate the time of the city’s destruction (cf. 12:22-23; Jer 11:23). Some interpret ‘days’ as referring to the siege and fall of Jerusalem and ‘years’ to the time spent in captivity.

iv) therefore have I made thee a reproach unto the heathen, and a mocking to all countries. – even the Gentiles are horrified by Jerusalem’s behaviour and mock it. The consequences of her sin involve public shame. This was prophesied by Moses in Deut 28:37: And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations…

v) Those that be near, and those that be far from thee, shall mock thee, which art infamous and much vexed. – ‘Polluted in name and full of confusion,’ Jerusalem’s notoriety will spread near and far; the city will be universally despised and derided.

Verses 6-12 expand on the types of sins that are rife in Jerusalem.

(6-7) OPPRESSION

(6) ‘every one were in thee to their power’ lit. ‘everyone according to his arm’ i.e. strength, might. Every leader in Jerusalem uses his personal power for violence and murder.

The expression ‘to shed blood’ – occurs in v.6, 9, 12.

The princes of Israel could refer to the political leaders of Judah or to the Davidic kings who ruled in Jerusalem; some of whom were willing to engage in judicial murder e.g. Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:16), Jehoiakim (Jer 26:21). Instead of ensuring a stable and just society the powerful oppress others in order to benefit themselves.

The princes of Judah are like those who move boundary markers; I will pour out my fury on them like water. Hos 5:10 CSB
On the day of our king, the princes are sick with the heat of wine — there is a conspiracy with traitors. Hos 7:5 CSB
Both hands are good at accomplishing evil: the official and the judge demand a bribe;
when the powerful man communicates his evil desire, they plot it together. Mic 7:3 CSB
The princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are wolves of the night, which leave nothing for the morning. Zeph 3:3 CSB

(7) ‘In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow.’

‘They’ in v.7 probably refers back to the ‘princes of Israel’ in v.6 but many commentators view it as referring to everyone in general in Jerusalem. The ethics of the Sinai covenant have been disregarded and the most vulnerable in society – older people, resident aliens, orphans and widows – are being exploited.

‘father and mother’ – The leaders/people have broken the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12, see also Deut 5:16; Lev 19:3) by ‘setting light by’ (i.e. dishonouring, slighting) their parents.

If you insult your father or mother, your light will be snuffed out in total darkness. Prov 20:20 NLT

Children, obey your parents because you belong to the Lord, for this is the right thing to do. “Honour your father and mother.” This is the first commandment with a promise: If you honour your father and mother, “things will go well for you, and you will have a long life on the earth.” Eph 6:1-3 NLT

‘resident aliens’ – these were foreigners allowed to live and work in Judah. Since they did not own land they were easily exploited. See Exod 22:21; Lev 19:13; Deut 10:19; 24:14-15.

‘the fatherless and the widow’ – See Exod 22:22; Deut 24:17, 19, 20, 21.

(8-11) RELIGION

These verses list sins that offend religious sensibilities and violate the ethical injunctions of the Holiness Code (Lev 17-16); especially Leviticus chapters 18 and 19. The list includes the sins of Sabbath desecration, slander, murder, idolatry, depravity and incest.

(8) Thou hast despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my sabbaths. These sins said here to have been committed by the city of Jerusalem are specifically attributed to the priests in v.26. Jeremiah, who was prophesying in Jerusalem at the same time as Ezekiel was prophesying in Babylonia, also preached against desecration of the Sabbath by the population of the city (Jer 17:20-23).

Disrespecting holy things would include activities like eating sacrificial meat while in a state of ritual impurity (Lev 7:20) or consuming it after the ‘expiry date’ (Lev 7:15-18; 19:6-8).

(9) In thee are men that carry tales to shed blood: In Jerusalem there are deceitful and treacherous men willing to give false testimony so that another may be put to death. Lit. ‘men of traffic’ or pedlars. Travelling salesmen probably carried gossip, the expression eventually came to mean slanderers or scandal-mongers. Possibly the idea here is that of informer. Naboth was a victim of malicious accusations in 1 Kgs 21:10-11. This behaviour was forbidden in the Holiness Code: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Lev 19:16

in thee they eat upon the mountains: in the midst of thee they commit lewdness.

The people of Jerusalem are involved in idolatrous worship (eating sacrificial meals at the high places) and, probably through participation in cultic rites, act in a depraved manner. The word zimmāh (see also v.11) meaning wickedness or lewdness is used in Leviticus of various sexual offences (e.g. Lev 18:17; 19:29; 20:14). See Ezek 16:27, 58; 22:9,11; 23:21, 27, 35, 44, 48.

(10-11) These verses give examples of the types of forbidden sexual acts practised in Jerusalem. They include cohabiting with a father’s wife, forcing (humiliating, oppressing) menstrual women to have sexual relations, committing adultery with other men’s wives (his fellow’s wife) and incestuous activity with female relatives like daughters in law and paternal sisters (see Lev 18:7-20).

(12) ACQUISITION

The people will stop at nothing, including murder, to acquire money and land. They indulge in economic exploitation – bribery, usury, extortion. These are sins of covetousness.

Acceptance of bribes – Lev19:15; Deut 16:19.

Usury (exorbitant interest on loans) – Lev 25:36-37

Extortion of a neighbour – Lev 19:35-36.

Verse 12 ends with the core accusation – they have forgotten God.

13-16 YHWH’S REACTION

(13) The Lord responds to these crimes by clapping his hands in a gesture of anger, vexation and indignation (6:11; 21:14,17). He is particularly enraged by their covetousness in pursuing ill-gotten gains and by the bloodshed that has been in their midst.

(14) YHWH asks the city a rhetorical question that emphasises that the people will not be able to endure the punishments that YHWH will certainly bring upon them because of their misconduct. Can thine heart endure, or can thine hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with thee? In the terrible time of judgement their courage and strength will fail.

I the LORD have spoken it, and will do it. – ‘I am YHWH, what I have spoken I will do’ YHWH can be relied on to carry out what he says. This expression is also found in Ezek 17:25; 36:36; 37:14 and Num 14:35.

(15) Ezekiel predicts the Exile and claims that it is not only punishment but also purification. Exile will eradicate (consume, cause to cease, take completely way) the filth of idolatry and injustice.

(16) This will happen while the nations watch. While enduring public humiliation (‘take thine inheritance’ means ‘be profaned, be violated, dishonoured, degraded’) in the sight of the nations they will acknowledge the sovereignty of YHWH. The oracle ends with the recognition formula ‘thou shalt know that I am the Lord.’

The idea is that the Jerusalemites will be a disgrace in the sight of the surrounding nations but, as they recover from the pollution of idolatry, they will become inwardly (in thyself) conscious of their filthy state before God and eventually appreciate the Lord – as a holy and just God.

SUMMATION

Ezek 22:1-16 is a prophetic oracle in which YHWH, via Ezekiel, accuses Jerusalem of many sins and announces impending punishment in the form of exile. Ezekiel is instructed to act as judge over the ‘bloody city’ and confront it with its transgressions. These include murder, idolatry, profanation of the sabbaths, sexual depravity, extortion and the oppression of strangers, orphans and widows. The oracle singles out as especially guilty those leaders who abuse their power for personal gain. YHWH declares that Jerusalem’s doom and disgrace is inevitable.

RELEVANCE TODAY

This passage is a reminder that any society that forgets God will turn to idolatry (placing other things before God), produce corrupt leaders and tolerate injustice, oppression and exploitation of the vulnerable. Ignoring justice, compassion and faith places such a society at risk of divine judgement.

Exposition

1 PETER – INTRODUCTION

Posted on 9th Jan 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

1 PETER – CHRISTIAN HOPE IN TIME OF TRIAL

INTRODUCTION

There are 21 epistles (letters) in the New Testament.

– Thirteen of them were written by the apostle Paul and are therefore known as the Pauline epistles.

The Pauline Epistles fall into three groups:

1) Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians.

2) The Prison Epistles – These four epistles are thought to have been written when Paul was under house arrest in Rome c 60-62 CE. Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were written to churches. Philemon was a personal letter.

3) The Pastoral Epistles – 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus

– The Epistle to the Hebrews is by an unknown author.

– There are a further seven letters which are known as the General or Catholic Epistles because they do not address specific issues in one of the churches but were probably circular letters. These are: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude.

1, 2 and 3 John, along with the Gospel of John and the Revelation, are known as the Johannine Writings.

1 and 2 Peter are known collectively as the Petrine Epistles.

DATE & PLACE OF WRITING

Peter’s first letter is thought to have been written shortly before the persecutions of Christians by the Roman emperor Nero which began in 64 CE. In 5:13 the author says that he is writing from Babylon. He may indeed have been writing from Babylon on the Euphrates but it is possible that he may have been writing from Rome. Some think that ‘Babylon’ may have been a code word for Rome; viewing it as the seat of ungodliness and corruption.

THE RECIPIENTS

The recipients are identified in 1:1 as ‘God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.’ The addressees were Christians scattered over a large area consisting of the four provinces of the Roman empire in Asia Minor in the first and second centuries CE (Pontus & Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia). Peter’s first letter was written to fellow-Christians who were suffering, or about to suffer, persecution because of their faith in Jesus Christ. It addresses various issues in a compassionate and sympathetic manner. It is referred to in 2 Peter 3:1.

THE AUTHOR

In 1 Peter 1:1 the author identifies himself as the apostle Peter. What does the New Testament tell us about Peter?

1. He was one of Christ’s disciples; also known as apostles and frequently referred to as ‘the Twelve.’

2. He was the most prominent member of the group of disciples. Their names are listed four times in the New Testament (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 10:16-19; Lk 6:12-16; Acts 1:13) and Peter’s name is first in every list. When the references to him are taken together he has more mentions in the New Testament than the apostle Paul (162 mentions). Peter (161), Simon (50), Cephas (6) and in Jn 13:6 ekeínos (that one) usually translated ‘Peter’ (1).

3. He had a popular name. There are other people called Simon in the New Testament:

Simon the Zealot Lk 6:15

Simon the father of Judas Iscariot Jn 6:71

Simon, a half-brother of Jesus Mt 13:55

Simon the Pharisee Lk 7:20

Simon the leper Mt 26:6

Simon of Cyrene Mk 15:21

Simon the magician Acts 8:9

Simon the tanner Acts 9:43

4. He was from Bethsaida near Capernaum (Jn 1:44: Mk1:21, 29) and worked as a fisherman (Mt 4:18; Mk 1:16). He and his brother Andrew seem to have been in a business partnership (Lk 5:4)) with James and John.

5. He was married.

‘And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.’ Mt 8:14

‘Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?’ 1 Cor 9:5

6. He did not have a religious education. In Acts 4:13 the Sanhedrin realized that Peter and John were ‘unlearned (agrámmatos) and ignorant men’. This does not necessarily mean that they were illiterate. ‘Without letters’ probably meant that they were not scribes i.e. had not had a formal religious education. Peter would have had the normal schooling of a Jewish boy at that time.

7. He was called by the Lord (Mt 4:18-20) who changed his name to Peter – ‘a stone’- this ordinary man became a great apostle.

8. He was committed to the Lord.

‘And they straightway left their nets, and followed him’. Mt 4:20

‘Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?’ Mt 19:27

9. He recognized and declared the Lord’s deity.

‘And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Mt 16:16

10. He was not perfect:

a) He spoke up when it was more appropriate to stay quiet (Mk 9:5-7).

b) He rebuked the Lord (Mt 16:21-23; Jn 13:6-9)

c) He denied the Lord three times (Lk 22:54-62). Later he was asked three times if he loved the Lord and was restored (Jn 21:17).

11. He had a varied ministry.

a. He was one of the most trusted disciples. Along with James and John, Peter was one of Jesus’ inner circle. Together these three men were privileged;

– to witness the power of the Lord in the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mk 5:37)

– to witness the preeminence of the Lord at the transfiguration (Mk 17:1-2)

– to witness the passion of the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:32)

b) He suggested that there ought to be a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15)

c) He preached to large crowds on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40)

d) He healed a lame man (Acts 3:1-11).

e) He defied the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1-22)

f) He dealt with the problem of Ananias and Sapphira’s hypocrisy (Acts 5:1-10).

g) He handled the problem of Simon the Magician (Acts 8:9-25).

h) He raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:32-43)

i) He took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1 -11:18)

j) He wrote two epistles (1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1).

12. He was martyred.

‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.’ Jn 21:18-19

THEME

The theme of suffering is prominent in 1 Peter. The word ‘suffering’ and similar words occur 21 times in the letter.

1:6-7 Suffering from trials permitted by God to test the Christian’s faith.

2:19 Suffering for conscience’s sake toward God.

3:14 Suffering for righteousness’ sake.

4:12-14 Suffering for the name of Christ.

5:8-10 Suffering as a result of Satanic opposition.

Chapter 1 SALVATION

Chapter 2 SANCTIFICATION

Chapter 3 SUBMISSION

Chapter 4 SUFFERING

Chapter 5 SHEPHERDING

Chapter 1 HOPE

Chapter 2 HOLINESS

Chapter 3 HOME

Chapter 4 HARDNESS

Chapter 5 HUMILITY

KEYWORDS

‘SUFFERING’

‘PRECIOUS’

‘ BE’

‘GRACE’

‘SALVATION’

‘REVELATION’

‘GLORY’

‘FAITH’

‘HOPE’

1 PETER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 PETER – OUTLINE

1 PETER 1:1-2 – COMMENTS

1 PETER – 1:3-12 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 1:13 – 2:3 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 2:4-10 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 2:11-17 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 2:18-25 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 3:1-12 – COMMEN TS

1 PETER 3:13-17 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 3:18-22 THE SPIRITS IN PRISON

1 PETER 4:1-6 THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE DEAD

1 PETER 4:7-19 LIVING WITH ‘THE END’ IN VIEW

1 PETER 5:1-4 – EXHORTATION TO ELDERS

1 PETER 5:5-14 – CLOSING WORDS

General

THE PSALM OF JONAH

Posted on 24th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘I called out to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.’ Jonah 2:2 ESV

The book of Jonah is a strange and unusual little book that is well-known and loved by children and adults alike. It has always been classed as one of the prophetic books but the only prophecy it contains consists of just five Hebrew words which in English read: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’. Otherwise it is the story of Jonah, a prophet from Gath-hepher near Nazareth who ministered early in the reign of King Jeroboam II of Israel (northern kingdom), possibly around 775 BCE (2 Kings 14:25). He was called by the Lord to go to Nineveh and preach a message of repentance to Assyria; Israel’s greatest enemy at that time. Full of prejudice Jonah did not want the Assyrians to experience the love and grace of God so he fled in the opposite direction, with no intention of completing the task (1:3).

The book divides into two parts. Chapters one and two deal with the Lord’s command to preach to Nineveh, Jonah’s flight from God and his submarine experience in the belly of a great fish. This came to an end following his prayer three days and nights later. Chapters three and four record the sequel to his delivery from this ordeal; including a renewed command to preach and his still-grudging attempt to accomplish his mission.

One might ask why Jonah waited in his distressing situation for three days and nights before praying but, whatever the reason, we have in chapter 2:3-10 a lovely poetic psalm (hymn of praise or thanksgiving) in which Jonah acknowledged that ‘salvation is of the Lord’ (2:9). Jonah’s psalm is full of scripture, there are many allusions to the Book of Psalms itself, which shows us that Jonah was familiar with, and greatly influenced by, the word of God that was available to him at that time. It is a pity that he was unwilling to share it with others.

So often we are like Jonah in our disobedience, in our lack of concern for friends and neighbours, in our dissatisfaction at how God works, and in our selfishness and pride. After correcting us, however, God is patient and quick to forgive.

‘Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:’ Job 5:17

Jonah was afflicted because he was disobedient, stubborn and selfish.

God afflicts us because He is faithful. ‘I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.’ Psa 119:75
God afflicts us when we go astray. ‘Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.’ Psa 119:67
It can be profitable to be afflicted. ‘It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.’ Psa 119:71

This Psalm of Jonah was a very personal prayer of recognition, repentance and request. He was close to death, and knew it. In the midst of his anxiety and fear and in his desperate situation he realized that God’s plan for his life was better than that. In our current situation we too might see no future and no hope. Our circumstances leave us feeling exhausted or defeated. We ask: ‘What can we do?’ ‘Will things ever get better than this?’ ‘Is this all that lies ahead for us?’ ‘Where can we find deliverance from the struggles we are having now?’

Jonah must have been asking himself questions like these. How did he find the solution?

Jonah realized that he was in trouble. ‘There is a problem here.’ Jonah realized that he needed help. ‘Fixing this myself is impossible.’
Jonah turned to the only one who could help him. ‘Salvation is of the Lord.’

Jonah prayed with a sense of urgency and deep need. He realized that he had no hope of escape from his dreadful situation, that he was unable to save himself and that if he was to be saved, only the Lord could bring it about. He said, “I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord.” What was the result? Twice in verse 2 we read that the Lord heard him. May we be encouraged by this today.

General

CASTING

Posted on 24th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.’ 1 Peter 5:7

It is interesting that the apostle Peter employed a term from his former occupation as a fisherman to advise Christians how to handle the cares and worries of daily life. What does ‘casting’ involve? It calls for ‘throwing away’ and ‘letting go.’

This verse falls naturally into two sections; each emphasizing a responsibility. Our part: ‘casting all your care upon him’ and God’s part: ‘he careth for you.’

As the ravages of Covid 19 intensify, ‘lockdown’ continues and anxieties increase let us follow Peter’s advice, bearing in mind those two parts. We do the casting, God does the caring.

Latin loanwords

MACELLUM

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’ 1 Corinthians 10:25-26

Greek: μάκελλον (mákellon)
Latin: macellum
English: food market (shambles)

The city of Corinth, strategically located near an isthmus that linked Northern Greece and the Peloponnese, was one of the most important cities in the ancient world. Situated at a ‘crossroads’ it grew wealthy and politically influential through trade and by taxing and imposing tolls on goods moving through the area. It controlled four harbours: Kenchreai, Lechaion, Schoenus and Poseidona. Kenchreai on the Saronic Gulf was convenient for ships from Asia and the Aegean Sea and Lechaion on the Gulf of Corinth for ships from Italy and the Adriatic Sea. Rather than risk treacherous Cape Malea at the southern tip of Greece merchant ships would sail into Schoenus or Poseidona to be dragged overland on wheeled oxcarts to the opposite coast via a paved trackway called the Diolkos. The city was overlooked by an elevated citadel known as the Acrocorinth which had its own water supply and could be defended if under attack.

From about 600 BCE Corinth was one of the wealthiest and most powerful of the independent Greek city-states. These states went to war with Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great), were defeated by him at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 and united into one kingdom called the League of Corinth or Hellenic League. Corinth later joined an anti-Macedonian Achaean League and, in 243, broke free from Macedonian authority.

From about 230 the Achaean League tried to counteract growing Roman influence on Greek political affairs until finally, in 147, the Romans sent a delegation to Corinth demanding the immediate disbandment of the League. The refusal to obey resulted in the Achaean War. In 146 the Roman forces, under Lucius Mummius, defeated the Corinthian army and dealt harshly with the losers. They destroyed the city; killing all the men and enslaving the women and children. This ended the period known as Greek Corinth.

The city lay almost deserted until, just before his assassination in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar issued a decree that Corinth be rebuilt as a Roman colony (Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis). It was the largest city in Greece and, as capital of Achaea from 27 BCE, was the headquarters of the Roman administration. The population size is unknown but thought to have been about 80,000. Although a Greek city, Corinth was Roman in its urban design, legal system, culture and religion. Many gods were worshipped there but Corinth was famous in the ancient world as the ‘City of Aphrodite.’ Due, however, to its status as capital of the Roman province of Achaea, emperor worship was the most prominent cult of all, dominating every aspect of life.

The Romans repopulated the city with a mix of former prisoners, traders and retired army veterans but the bulk of the settlers were emancipated slaves (see 7:22 for the only NT use of the technical term ‘freedman’ – apeleutheros). Latin was the official language and Corinthian coins bore Latin inscriptions. Koine Greek, as in the rest of the empire, was the common language; that is why Paul’s letters to the assembly were written in Greek.

Paul arrived at Corinth in the year 50 CE and began to preach the gospel in this ‘boom town’ devoted to pleasure, sport (every two years the Isthmian games took place at the temple of Poseidon), idolatry and commerce. According to Luke’s account in Acts 18:1-17 Paul began his evangelistic work among the Jews but, after some initial success, encountered strong opposition from that quarter. During his eighteen-month stay (Acts 18:11), he also preached to Gentiles (1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2) and subsequently gathered converted Jews and Gentiles together to form ‘the assembly (ekklēsia) of God at Corinth’ (1 Cor1:2), and another one at nearby Kenchreai (Acts 18:18; Rom 16:1).

After moving on from Corinth Paul maintained an interest in the spiritual progress of the new Christians, but eventually some serious issues did arise in the assembly. These he tried to handle by a combination of letters and visits; 1 and 2 Corinthians mention several other letters (1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-9; 7:8-12; 10:10) and possible visits (1 Cor 4:19-21; 11:34; 16:5-7; 2 Cor 1:15 – 2:1; 12:21; 13:1-2) by the apostle Paul. The epistle we know as 1 Corinthians addresses various difficulties, about which the assembly had sent representatives to Paul (1 Cor 16:17) and had written asking for his advice (1
Cor 7:1). Matters had also been reported to Paul by concerned individuals (1 Cor 1:11). The major problems were:

• An emphasis on eloquence and philosophy which elevated human reasoning above Paul’s teaching.

• Factions and divisions in the assembly.

• Christians suing one another in the civil law-courts.

• Relationship issues: virginity, marriage, divorce, fornication and gross sexual immorality.

• Wrong attitudes to money.

• Disorder in the assembly.

• Misunderstandings about spiritual gifts.

• Beliefs about (the) resurrection.

• The consumption of idol food.

We hear little about the latter problem in western churches today, probably because it is not relevant to our everyday social situation. In our secular society, polytheistic religion, although present, does not impinge upon the lives of most people. Such was not the case in first-century Corinth where idolatry was visible everywhere: in temples, statues, images, inscriptions, coins, etc. Paul understood, as in fact he told the believers in 5:10, that there was no way the Corinthian Christians could avoid contact with idolaters.

Artisans and traders in Corinth were members of craft or merchant guilds. These associations held social gatherings in pagan temples and hosted communal meals in the attached dining halls (1 Cor 8:10). Temple facilities would also have been used for family get-togethers such as parties and funerals and inevitably an animal that had been sacrificed for the event would feature on the menu. In chapter 8 Paul opposes the idea of a Christian attending celebrations in a temple precinct and knowingly eating idol food. In 10:20 he again opposes eating such food, maintaining that in sacrificing to idols the Gentiles worship demonic spirits. However, in the short section 10:25-29, Paul takes a more pragmatic and open-minded approach.

Our interest lies in 10:25-26 in which he addresses the problem of goods sold in the food market (shambles). This reference is probably to meat rather than other types of food and relevant to the less well-off members of the assembly whose daily diet, on account of poverty, would have been pescatarian. Meat was expensive at that time, but they may occasionally have been able to afford small portions of salted hams, donkey meat, sausages, blood puddings or tripe. An opportunity to purchase quality cuts (at bargain prices) from animals approved for sacrifice would have been attractive.

The believers would not have known the source of the food; as not everything that was for sale in the macellum would have been offered to idols. In light of that, Paul told the Corinthian believers not to question the food’s provenance for the sake of conscience but to go ahead and eat it: ‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (mákellon), that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.’ What was a mákellon?

From earliest times, along with other types of goods, foodstuffs were bought and sold in wooden huts in open spaces or along busy streets near the centre of Mediterranean towns. This was haphazard, unhygienic and difficult to control. During the Late Classical (400-300 BCE) and Hellenistic (323-30 BCE) periods commercial activity moved to large indoor markets situated near the public square (Greek agora or Roman forum), which was the centre of civic life. During the second century BCE (200-101), however, references to a structure called a ‘macellum’ occur in Latin literature. The Romans began to build one in new towns, and the trend caught on in Greece also, where it was called a ‘mákellon.’ This was a building designed specifically for the sale of food. All of them had a similar basic layout consisting of a large open courtyard (usually rectangular or circular) surrounded by columns (peristyle) and having two entrances. Each macellum housed a series of shops and sometimes had a second floor. As a specialized food market, hygiene was paramount, so it had a water supply and paved floors for ease of cleaning. There were grooves or pipes for drainage. The macellum also housed the offices of magistrates (aediles) who enforced trading standards such as weights and measures.

Some of the macellae, including the one excavated at the site of ancient Corinth, have foundations for a circular room. Some think that this was a facility for cleaning and selling fish, others that it was a small temple. No-one knows if the macellum at Corinth served any religious function; it is only from Paul’s instruction to Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:25 that we are even aware that sacrificial meat was sold in the food market.

In verse 26 Paul backed up his advice to the believers by directing them to the Old Testament scriptures (Psa 24:1; 50:12; 89:11). He reminded them that everything on earth belongs to the Lord; therefore, it was permissible to eat the meat sold in the macellum, even if previously offered to an idol.

Roman names

GALLIO

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat.’ Acts 18:12

Name: Gallio

Full Roman Name: Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus

Position: Proconsul of the senatorial Province of Achaea

The casual reader of the Book of Acts might view Paul’s appearance before Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaea, as just another interesting detail that Luke has included about the apostle’s stay in Corinth. It is, however, one of the major incidents recorded in the New Testament and the most significant as regards the early history and expansion of Christianity. The historical details given in Acts 18, along with external sources, provide us with a fixed date in the career of the apostle Paul and shed light on Jewish hostility and Roman indifference (as exemplified by Gallio) towards the increasingly popular new religious movement.

In 50 CE Paul arrived in Corinth and began his evangelistic activity in the Jewish synagogue, aiming to convince Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Acts 18:4). This must have continued for several months (‘every sabbath’ 18:4) but, following heated discussions, disagreements, and rejection of his message by the Jews, Paul turned his attention towards the local Gentiles and moved his operational base to a building next door to the synagogue. Its owner was Justus (some manuscripts say Titius Justus) who in 18:7 is termed a ‘God-fearer’ (a Gentile believer in God who had not (yet) fully converted to Judaism).

Relations between the two groups of next-door neighbours got worse. Tension must have increased greatly when the president of the synagogue, Crispus, ‘believed on the Lord’ and, as it were, moved to the other side of the fence. Also, the Jews cannot have been happy with the ongoing success of Paul’s mission because ‘many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized’ (18:8). Eventually,the Jewish leaders brought Paul before Gallio; the proconsul of the Roman province of Achaea.

Gallio was born about 5 BCE at Cordua in Spain, into a high-ranking Roman family which had close ties with the imperial household. His father was Seneca the Elder (Lucius Annaeus Seneca), a well-known writer, historian, and rhetorician who, with his wife Helvia, had three sons; of whom Gallio was the eldest. Another son was Seneca the Younger, a Stoic philosopher and writer who was tutor to the future emperor Nero. The third was Marcus Annaeus Mela, father of the poet Lucan. During his reign Nero suspected Gallio and his brothers of involvement in various plots against him and eventually, at different times and probably on Nero’s orders, all three ended their lives by suicide.

Gallio’s name from birth was Lucius Annaeus Novatus but, when he was a young adult, a wealthy family that did not have a male heir adopted him; as was customary among Roman aristocrats. He took the name of his adoptive father, senator Lucius Iunius Gallio, and became known as Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus. Gallio became an expert on Roman law, and had a reputation for hard work, fairness, and a polite but no-nonsense approach in court. He became a senator in 37 CE and was later appointed proconsul of Achaea by the emperor Claudius.

One can deduce the date of his term of office in Achaea from what is usually called the Gallio (or Delphic) Inscription. In 1905 four fragments of this inscription were found in temple ruins at Delphi in Greece. In 1910 three more were found and a further two in 1967. The following is reconstructed from these nine fragments:

‘Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12th year of tribunician power, acclaimed emperor for the 26th time, father of the country, sends greetings to… For long have I been well-disposed to the city of Delphi and solicitous for its prosperity, and I have always observed the cult of the Pythian Apollo. Now since it is said to be destitute of citizens, as my friend and pro consul L. Iunius Gallio recently reported to me, and desiring that Delphi should regain its former splendour, I command you to invite well-born people also from other cities to come to Delphi as new inhabitants, and to accord them and their children all the privileges of the Delphians as being citizens on like and equal terms…’

This is a copy of a letter from the emperor Claudius in which he refers to a report from ‘my friend and proconsul L. Iunius Gallio’ about depopulation in Delphi and recommends future resettlement of the city. In the letter Claudius says that he has been ‘acclaimed emperor for the 26th time’ which dates the letter to between 25th January and 1st August 52. Claudius had recently received the report; therefore Gallio’s appointment to Achaea was probably from 01 July 51 until 30 June 52.

Unlike Claudius, who was an admirer of everything Greek, Gallio disliked Greece and did not serve out his full term of office; possibly leaving before shipping finished for the winter months at the end of October 51 CE. His brother Seneca wrote:

‘When in Achaia, he [Gallio] began to feel feverish, he immediately took ship, claiming that it was not a malady of the body but of the place’ (Seneca, Epistle 1 04.1)

Under Nero, Gallio was appointed a ‘consul suffectus’ (a replacement who took over when a consul died, resigned or was removed from office) in 56 CE and later served as the emperor’s herald.

As an eminent legal expert, a man of integrity who enjoyed the confidence of two Roman emperors, and someone who reached the highest levels of office in the Roman empire, Gallio was no fool. The Jews at Corinth were to discover this fact when he immediately saw through the deception that was behind the charge that they tried to level against the apostle Paul.

The Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Corinthian tribunal over which Gallio, as proconsul, was presiding. The Greek word for tribunal is bema. The name comes from the raised platform (bema) which stood in the main square of a Greek or Roman city and from which orators addressed the public at civic ceremonies.

The Bema (KJV ‘judgement seat’) was also used for legal purposes; the supreme authority of the presiding judge was signified by his elevated position while seated on it. The word bema could refer to any elevated platform, a step or even the length of a footstep (Acts 7:5) but the Bema in Corinth was not a simple rostrum. It was an impressive building built of marble, decorated with intricate carvings, and prominently situated in the city forum. A site guide to ancient Corinth published in 2018 by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens describes the architecture of the Bema as follows:

‘The Bema was a complex marble structure dating from the middle of the 1st century A.D. that dominated this part of the Forum at Corinth. It took the form of an open propylon with a Π-shaped ground plan, which stood on a rectangular podium measuring 15.6 × 7.2 m. This podium had a krepidoma with two steps and it projected 3 m above the level of the Forum to the north. Its superstructure consisted of eight pillars, three at each corner linked by walls lined with benches, and two across the front. The podium was flanked at a lower level by two unroofed exedras with benches on two of their three sides. Beside each exedra was a marble staircase leading up to the terrace to the south. Parts of the Bema’s walls and steps, as well as the floors of the exedras, have been restored.’

The grandeur of the physical Bema in Corinth and his appearance before Gallio seems to have impressed Paul so much that he used the word bema figuratively in a letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:10) to describe a future tribunal, with Christ presiding, at which the life and service of every Christian will be reviewed (see also Rom 14:10).

We read in Acts 18:4 that Paul ‘persuaded’ (peíthō) Jews and the Greeks in the synagogue every sabbath.’ According to Acts 18:13, the Jews attempted to have Paul tried on the following charge: ‘this man persuades (anapeíthō) the men to worship God contrary to the law.’ In verse 13, however, ‘persuade’ means ‘persuade earnestly’ and has the idea of ‘seduce’ or ‘incite.’ The Jews accused Paul of misleading ‘the men.’ This term may indicate just the Jews and Greeks of verse 4 but is more likely a general reference to all the residents of Corinth. Paul, according to the Jews, was dishonestly encouraging men to ‘worship God contrary to the law.’ They did not specify whether they meant Jewish or Roman law. Gallio was astute enough to realize that their charge was deliberately ambiguous.

The relevant Roman law would have been that which governed the meetings of associations (collegium or sodalitates). The Romans were always wary of the possibility of sedition in conquered territories so they ensured that religious cults, political societies, and trade guilds were licensed by the state and allowed to meet no more than once a month. However, since they had great respect for ancestral religions, they granted Jewish synagogue meetings exemption from this restriction. The Jews were therefore maintaining, although both groups were studying the same scriptures, that the gathering in the house of Justus next door to them was not a Jewish synagogue meeting and ought to be regarded as an illegal and unlicensed religious cult led by Paul.

Gallio saw that their accusation was not essentially religious but that they were playing politics. He ruled (Acts 18:14-15) that if the Jews could back up their charge that Paul was guilty of a ‘criminal act’ or a ‘wicked plot’ he would proceed with a trial, but, in his opinion, the matter had to do with (1) ‘words’ (debate), (2) names (disputes over the meaning of words or terms), and (3) ‘your own (i.e. Jewish) law’.

Gallio thus dismissed the charge (under Roman law) that Paul was involved in political disturbance, and he also refused to judge Paul on matters relating to Jewish law. He had no interest in these. As Luke comments in verse 17: ‘Gallio cared for none of those things’.

Some (mis)apply this comment by Luke and suggest that Gallio was indifferent to the preaching of the gospel and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. This, of course, is not what Luke is saying. In fact, it is unlikely that Gallio ever heard the gospel because in verse 14 Luke emphasizes the fact that Paul did not get a chance to open his mouth. The plural ‘those things’ refers to the three points in Gallio’s ruling(v.15). He refused to pronounce judgement upon what he regarded as internal differences of opinion within the Jewish religion. Gallio was an honest and upright Roman official who did not give in to and conspire with the Jews; unlike Pilate and Felix.

Governors and judges in other locations throughout the empire would have looked to this ruling by such a distinguished jurist and have likewise adopted a tolerant attitude towards Christianity. Thus, having the luxury of minimal interference from the Roman government, the new religion spread swiftly throughout the empire. Thanks to Gallio’s assessment of Christianity as just a sect within Judaism, Christians could legally meet weekly for worship and to celebrate the Lord’s supper. For the early church the positive effects of Gallio’s ruling lasted more than a decade.

Even at the end of Acts, while Paul awaited trial for two years at Rome, the authorities did not curtail his religious activities. Luke could therefore bring the book of Acts to a close by observing (Acts 28:30-31 ESV) that, right in the very capital of the empire, Christian work was permitted to continue ‘without hindrance.’

Exposition

WHY DOES GOD NEED A SACRIFICE TO FORGIVE?

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ Jn 1.29

This quotation from the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel records the words of the austere early first century Jewish prophet John the Baptist addressing a crowd of people which included Jewish religious leaders (Jn 1.19). In those days many flocked to the desert locations which John preferred in order to hear him preach. On the day in question John saw Jesus approaching and pointed him out to the assembled crowd with these immortal words: ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’

It may be difficult for anyone brought up in the western world to grasp what John meant by this expression, but to someone living in a culture where the ritual slaughter of animals to placate a deity is commonplace, his words would be more obvious. Certainly the first century adherents of the Jewish religion, with its temple and offerings, would have immediately understood that this son of a priest (Lk 1.5-25; 57-80) was using the terminology of sacrifice.

New Testament writers describe the death of Jesus Christ in various ways. It is called, for example, a ‘ransom’ (Mk 10.45) and a ‘redemption’ from bondage (Eph 1.7; Col 1.14). Terms implying the payment of a price occur also in 1 Corinthians 6.20; 7.23 and in Galatians 3.13; 4.5. It is viewed as an ‘expiation’ or ‘propitiation’, which have the idea of appeasement (Heb 2.17; Rom 3.25; 1 Jn 2.2, 4.10), releasing one from guilt, delivering from the fear caused by a bad conscience and restoring peace with God. But the writers of the New Testament most commonly explain His death as a ‘sacrifice’ for sin (1 Cor 5.7; Eph 5.2; Heb 7.27; 8.3, 9.14, 26, 28; 10.10, 12, 14).

Thus, when John cried out ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ he may have reminded his hearers of the lamb slain at the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Ex 12.1-14, 1 Cor 5.7) and commemorated annually in the Jewish Festival of Passover. Or he may have been thinking of countless animals offered over the centuries as Jewish offerings (Lev 1-7). More likely, however, he had in mind the haunting words of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy, which proclaimed the Suffering Servant of the Lord who gave His life for many:

‘He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.’ (Is 53.7)

The Christian faith is based on the doctrine that the death of Jesus Christ was a sacrifice that paid the penalty for the sins of mankind. So why was it necessary that one should be offered on behalf of others? In our search for an answer we must go back to the beginning, to the Book of Genesis. There we see that sacrifice was instituted by the one living creator God of the universe. We read about the first sacrifice, although it is not specifically so described, in the book of Genesis chapter three. The first human couple, Adam and Eve, warned by God not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, disobeyed, with the result that sin entered the world. This is often referred to as ‘the fall’.

The basic meaning of ‘sin’ is to ‘fall short’ of a target. For example, in Judg 20.16 the Hebrew word is used in its ordinary sense describing elite troops who could sling a stone at a hair’s breadth and not miss. To sin is therefore to ‘miss the mark’, to ‘fall short’ of God’s standard of holiness and righteousness (Rom 3.23). The first sin was no isolated act of disobedience to the will of God, but rather set in motion a host of disastrous consequences for humanity. Since then every one of us has been born with a fallen nature and has the disposition to disobey God (Gal 5.17).

In addition to this inherent sin nature, we have Adam’s sin imputed (credited) to us as members of the human race. Because he is head of the human race we are reckoned to have sinned in him, and are therefore liable to the same judgment (Rom 5.12). In addition we all habitually make wrong choices which the Bible refers to as ‘sins’. These are evident in our thoughts, words and actions. The only exception to this universal guilt is the Lord Jesus Christ who could not, would not and did not sin (2 Cor 5.21; Heb 4.15, 7.26; 1 Pet 1.19, 2.22; 1 Jn 3.5).

Not only are we all sinners (Rom 3.23), our sins result in alienation from God who is just and holy (Isa 59.2). He cannot overlook sin and requires that a penalty be paid. That penalty is death (Ezek 18.20; Rom 6.23). God must punish sinners and we are unable to save ourselves. How can we therefore escape the righteous judgment of God? That is only possible by a sinless sacrifice that satisfies God’s justice!

After the fall, Adam and Eve had a sense of their nakedness and tried to make coverings out of the leafy material available to them in the Garden of Eden. Their own efforts to conceal their shame were unsuccessful, leaving them exposed to God’s judgment. God, however, in His kindness and mercy provided them with coats of skins (Gen 3.21). This teaches us that our own efforts to deal with the effects of sin are useless; only God can meet our need. In the case of Adam and Eve the provision of the skins had a cost. For them to live animals had to die. This principle of the sacrifice of a life is set out in Leviticus chapter 17.11:

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The death of these animals, and others subsequently killed in Jewish worship rituals, pointed forward to the one great, perfect sacrifice provided by God. That was the Lord Jesus Christ who is God manifest in flesh. He is both human and divine and on earth lived a life of perfect obedience to the will of God, even to the extent of death by crucifixion (Phil 2.8). His offering was a once and for all infinite sacrifice (Heb 10.12), acceptable to God – as proved by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 2.24-26) – and able to reconcile us to God, making amends for our offences.

Thus, drawing upon the rich Old Testament background of substitutionary sacrifice, John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as the ‘Lamb of God’. Those who heard him that day were privileged to have the Lamb of God among them, already on his way to the cross to bear the burden of sin and guilt. The accumulated transgressions, past, present and future, of God’s children in every tribe and nation worldwide, was summed up by John in that simple expression: ‘the sin of the world’.

When John the Baptist declared, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ he was acknowledging that God demands a sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and was directing attention away from himself to the One who would be that all-sufficient sacrifice. Christ offered ‘one sacrifice for sins forever’ (Heb 10.12). The work of salvation has been completed. Neither you nor I can do anything to merit or to improve it; instead, we must accept salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2.8-9). Such loving sacrifice demands a response (Jn 15.13-14). May ours be that of the two disciples of John who heard his second proclamation the following day and ‘followed Jesus’ (Jn 1.35-37).

Exposition

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, P. N. 2006, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International

Ashton, J. 1991, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Barrett, C. K. 1978, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction With Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Bauckham, R. 2007, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Beck, D. R. 1997, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel, BRILL, Leiden

Bennema, C. 2002, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Brown, R.E. 1966, The Gospel According to John I-XII in Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York

Bruce, F. F. 1983, The Gospel of John, Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids

Carson, D. A. 1991, The Gospel according to John, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Endo, M. 2002, Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Evans, C. A. 1993, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Continuum International, London

Evans, C. A. 1997, Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, Continuum International, London

Gieschen, C. A. 1998, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, BRILL, Leiden

Hallett, G. 2005, Identity and Mystery in Themes of Christian Faith: Late-Wittgensteinian Perspectives, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Farnham

Hamid-Khani, S. 2000, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Harris, E. 2004, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist, Continuum International, London

Harstine, S, 2002, Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Ancient Reading Techniques, Continuum International, London

Hurtado, L. W. 2003, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Jasper, A. E. 1998, The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of John’s Prologue, Continuum International, London

Keener, C.S. 2003, The Gospel of John, A Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Köstenberger, A. J. 2004, John in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, Ada, Michigan

Kysar, R. 1993, John, the Maverick Gospel, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Kysar, R. 2006, Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel, Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas

Lindars B. 1972, The Gospel of John, Oliphants, London

Lincoln, A. T. 2005, The Gospel According to Saint John in Black’s New Testament Commentary series, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Longenecker, R. N. 2005, Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

McGrath, J. F. 2001, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology, Cambridge University Press

Miller, E. L. 1989, Salvation-history in the Prologue of John: the Significance of John 1:3-4, Brill Archive, Leiden

Ngewa, S. M. 2003, The Gospel of John, Evangel Publishing House, Nairobi

Neyrey, J. H. 2007, The Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press

Phillips, P. M. 2006, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Sequential Reading, Continuum International, London

Pink, A. W. 1968, Exposition of the Gospel of John, Zondervan, Grand Rapids

Ratzinger, J, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, Doubleday, New York

Resseguie, J. L. 2001, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John, BRILL, Leiden

Ridderbos, H. N. 1997, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Sadananda, D. R. 2004, The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

Schnackenburg, R. 1980, The Gospel According to St. John, Seabury Press, New York

Thompson, M. M. 2001, The God of the Gospel of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Trites, A. A. 2004, The New Testament Concept of Witness, Cambridge University Press

Voorwinde, S, 2005, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human Or Divine?, Continuum International, London

Wallace, R. S. 2004, The Gospel of John: Pastoral and Theological Studies, Rutherford House, Edinburgh

Westermann, C. 1998, The Gospel of John in the Light of the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Willoughby, W. R. 1999, John: Believing on the Son, Christian Publications, Pennsylvania

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Barton, G. A. 1902, ‘On the Jewish-Christian Doctrine of the Pre-Existence of the Messiah’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 78-91

Borgen, P. 1972, ‘Logos was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John’ Novum Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 2, pp. 115-130

Bowen, C. R. 1924, ‘Notes on the Fourth Gospel’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, No. 1/2, pp. 22-27

Boyarin, D. 2001, ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 243-284

Boyle, M. O. 1977, ‘Sermo: Reopening the Conversation on Translating JN 1,1’, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 161-168

Bruce, A. B. 1896, ‘Four Types of Christian Thought. IV. The Fourth Gospel’, The Biblical World, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 168-179

Burrows, M. 1926, ‘The Johannine Prologue as Aramaic Verse’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 45, No. 1/2, pp. 57-69

Coloe, M. 1997, ‘The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1’, Australian Biblical Review, Vol. 45, pp 40-55

Cowan, C. 2006, ‘The Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel: Johannine Subordination revisited’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 49. No. 1, pp 115-135

Giblin, C.H. 1985, ‘Two Complementary Literary Structures in John 1:1-18’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 87-103

Glasswell, M. E. 1985, ‘The Relationship between John and Mark’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Vol. 23, F 1985, pp 99-115

Kraaling, C.H. 1930, ‘The Fourth Gospel and Contemporary Religious Thought’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 140-149

MacLeod, D. J. 2003, ‘The Reaction of the World to the Word: John 1:10-13’, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 160, No 640, pp 398-413

MacLeod, D. J. 2003, ‘The Witness of John the Baptist to the Word: John 1:6-9’, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 160, No. 639, pp 305-320

Matera, F. J. 2006, ‘Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: a Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology’ Theological Studies Vol. 67, No. 2, pp 237-256

Meagher, J. 1969, ‘John 1:14 and the New Temple’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 57-68

Middleton, R. D. 1938, ‘Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel’, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 101-133

Miller, E. L. 1993, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 445-457

Pagels, E. 1999, ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 477-496

Price, J. L. 1967, ‘The Search for the Theology of the Fourth Evangelist’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 3-15

Pryor, J. W. 1985, ‘Of the Virgin Birth or the Birth of Christians? The Text of John 1:13 Once More’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 27, Fasc. 4, pp. 296-318

Pryor, J. W. 1990, ‘Jesus and Israel in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:11’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, Fasc. 3, pp. 201-218

Ridderbos, H. 1966, ‘The Structure and Scope of the Prologue to the Gospel of John’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 8, Fasc. 2/4, pp. 180-201

Rishell C. W. 1901, ‘Baldensperger’s Theory of the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 38-49

Schnelle, U. 2001, ‘Recent Views of John’s Gospel’, Word & World Vol.21 No. 4, pp 352359

Seitz, O.J.F. 1964, ‘Gospel Prologues: A Common Pattern?’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 262-268

Staten, H. 1993, ‘How the Spirit (Almost) Became Flesh: Gospel of John’, Representations, No. 41, pp. 34-57

Strachan, R. H. 1914, ‘The Idea of Pre-Existence in the Fourth Gospel’, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 81-105

Voorwinde, S. 2002, ‘John’s Prologue: beyond some Impasses of Twentieth-century scholarship’, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp 15-44

Wordsworth, W.A. 1957,‘The Bodmer Papyrus and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, Fasc. 1, pp. 1-7

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Exposition

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘the fact that the light has never been quenched is proved by the witness of the prophets, above all by the witness of John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and the herald of Christ. But his function as a witness has to be clearly distinguished from that to which witness is given – the light, which became flesh in Jesus Christ.’

The Fourth Gospel identifies the purpose of John the Baptist’s appearance and ministry as that of ‘witness’. In the Prologue the two mentions of John as witness are inserted at strategic points, reinforcing what has been said. Verse seven (‘to bear witness of the light’) harks back to what is said in verse five about the coming of the light and verse fifteen to what is said in verse fourteen about what Ridderbos (1997, p.42) calls ‘Jesus’ antecedent transcendent glory.’

Trites (2004, p.78ff.) argues convincingly that the Fourth Gospel ‘presents a sustained use of juridical metaphor’. She maintains that ‘in the Fourth Gospel God Incarnate has a lawsuit with the world’ (p.79). She indicates that in the first twelve chapters, which deal mainly with the conflict between Jesus and “the Jews”, John is stating a case, advancing his arguments, challenging his opponents and presenting his witnesses. She understands the idea of witness in John’s gospel in terms of Old Testament legal language and points out that other juridical words such as judge, judgement, cause, accuse and convince are also used in a context of debate or hostility.

Her assessment of John the Baptist as witness (p.91) is insightful:

‘John is the first and one of the most important witnesses to Jesus and his testimony is a threefold one, as the Prologue makes clear: (1) He is not the Light. (2) He is sent to bear witness to the Light. (3) The purpose of his witness-bearing is that all may believe in Christ (1:6-8). This pattern is followed in subsequent sections dealing with the Baptist. John is mentioned at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel , for he is the first to point his fellow men to Jesus, and in that sense all believers have been brought to Christ through him (1:7b). While there had been other men sent from God, John’s task was unique. He bore witness to the incarnate Word, to his superiority to himself, and to his prior existence.’

Others said to be witnesses in the Fourth Gospel include: Jesus Himself (3:11; 5:31; 8:13-14; 18:37), the Samaritan woman (4:39), God the Father (5:32,34,37; 8:18; I John 5:9), Scripture (John 5:39), the works of Christ (5:36), the crowd at the raising of Lazarus (John 12:17), the Spirit (15:26-27; I John 5:10,11), the disciples (John 15:27; 19:35; I John 1:2; 4:14), and the author himself (John 21:24).

Although John the Baptist was sent from God as a witness to the Light he is portrayed as insignificant in comparison with the Light itself. Jesus called him a ‘lamp’ (5:35) but he was certainly not the Light. The writer of the Gospel asserts John’s subordination to Jesus (1:20, 27, 29, 33, 36) and strongly denies that John the Baptist is the Messiah. According to Luke 3:15 some people thought that John the Baptist might be the Messiah’. In the Prologue John gives no information on John the Baptist but concentrates only on his function as a witness to the Light.

‘It is employed with two different nuances in this verse. In the first two instances the reference is to the created world, the world that constitutes humanity’s environment and that includes humanity itself. In the third instance – the world did not know him- the reference is to the world of humanity that by its response reveals its devastating plight of having become alienated from and hostile to the Word/Light that sustains it. It is this second negative connotation of ‘world’ that will become dominant in the Fourth Gospel.’

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Exposition

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 21st Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Ngewa (2003, p.10) says of the background to Logos:

‘If Semitic, then the main idea is that God communicated himself through Jesus Christ. If the background is Greek, the central idea is that Jesus holds things together. Neither of these ideas is excluded in what John says about Jesus in this passage. ‘

In the Prologue the author presents three views of the Logos:

1) In verse one he presents the Logos as being with God and within this expresses three important ideas.

– The eternal existence of the Logos (‘In the beginning was the word’).

– The eternal relationship of the Logos (‘with God’).

– The eternal status of the Logos (‘was God’).

The Logos exists before creation, enjoys a special, intimate relationship with God and in his very nature is God. The writer is thus claiming that Jesus who lived on earth was in fact the eternal Word, God himself. The idea is repeated in verse two, emphasizing the point.

2) In verse three he talks about the Logos and Creation and emphasises the divinity of the Word by stating that he was God’s agent in creation . This is put both positively (‘Through him all things were made’) and negatively (‘without him nothing was made that has been made.’).

3) In verses ten to fourteen he speaks of the Logos in the world and deals with the rejection of the Logos (1:10-11), the new birth of those who accept him (1:12-13) and with the Incarnation (1:14).

The word ‘logos’ (word) is employed thirty-nine times in John’s Gospel but it is only in the Prologue, where it occurs four times, that ‘logos’ is used as a Christological title. The term ‘Logos’ is never again applied to Jesus in John’s Gospel. Jesus later identifies himself as ‘Light’ (Jn 8:12; 9:5), as ‘Son’ (Jn 5:19-24), and as ‘Life’ (Jn 11:25) etc. but never says ‘I am the Word.”

This is because from chapter 1:14 on, he is no longer called ‘the logos’ but ‘Jesus’ Jesus and ‘the logos’ are one and the same; ‘the logos’ is the pre-existent Christ.

Christ’s pre-existence is not only mentioned in the Prologue but also on several occasions throughout the Gospel of John there are references to his life before Creation. He speaks of himself as having ‘come down from heaven’ (3:13; 3:31; 6:33; 6:38; 6:62). He says: ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ in 8:58 and, in the prayer of chapter seventeen, ‘And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began’ and ‘you loved me before the creation of the world.’ (17:5, 24).

Kysar (1993, p.31) maintains that the affirmation that Jesus existed from the beginning is ‘one of the highest claims that the Christian has made for Christ’. He observes:

‘The pre-existence of the Logos affirms not only that he existed before creation itself, but that he existed ‘before all things began’. His existence goes back into that mysterious time before time – into the realm of temporality that eludes human conceptuality. While we cannot fathom what it would mean to exist before all else, we can try to fathom what the author is trying to affirm by saying this. Christ is so important that he could not simply have come into being like any other person or object. Christ is made to transcend beings and things by the assertion of his pretemporal existence….Christ is no created being. He is before creation.’

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Exposition

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Posted on 20th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

More than two thousand years ago a carpenter from Nazareth in Palestine emerged from obscurity. His influence was to divide his own nation, transform the lives of his disciples and impact the world. Who was Jesus? Where did he come from? What did he do and teach? How did people respond to his claims? What was his destiny? John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, seeks to address questions like these. He sums up his purpose in a statement in chapter 20:30-31:

‘Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’

The author thus encourages the reader to consider Jesus Christ, whom he presents as the worthy object of faith.

THE PROLOGUE

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels ( Matthew, Mark, Luke) which all introduce Jesus by locating his ministry in a historical setting, John’s prologue presents Jesus as the Word (Logos) in eternity. According to Lindars (1972, p.77);

‘The prologue is a work of immense assurance and literary power. It moves with measured steps from the Creation to the climactic moment of the Incarnation (verse 14), and then indicates the fulness of the revelation which results from it – like the dawn gradually illuminating the sky until the sun suddenly bursts above the skyline and sends its rays horizontally across the earth.’

Carson (1991, p.111) comments; ‘The Prologue is a foyer to the rest of the Fourth Gospel (as John’s Gospel is often called), simultaneously drawing the reader in and introducing the major themes’.

It is my intention to identify and comment briefly upon the major themes in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel.

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.