Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King Sr.

The doctrine of creation is not an obscure doctrine in Scripture. Although there are many biblical doctrines that are based upon just a few scriptural references, there are at least 75 references to creation in the Old and New Testaments. The first two chapters of Genesis contain the primary biblical information on creation, so they provide the basis of the biblical doctrine. The meaning of this simple narrative is truly straightforward. This portion of the Bible, however, has been the object of considerable speculation by various writers who have placed interpretations upon the text that have little to do with what the writer originally was trying to convey to his audience. Clearly, the meaning of Scripture as with any writing, has to do with how it would have been perceived and understood by its original audience. What any subsequent generation might force upon it, based upon its unique presuppositions and world-views, is a different matter altogether. Such things will change with the passing of the generations. But the author’s original intent ought to determine the meaning.

The Genesis account of creation, and with it the biblical doctrine of creation, has been the subject of such “rethinking” and “reinterpreting” over the years. This has elicited quite a number of approaches to the narration proffered by the author of the document. Consequently, there is much controversy on the interpretation of certain features of the chapters.  Still, certain basic truths stand out in such a way as to lie beyond legitimate controversy or quibble, or so it would seem. Let us begin by stating in uncomplicated language one of these points of a general interest, and then address those aspects of the chapters which require further scrutiny.

According to the first two chapters of Genesis, the entire process of biological creation appears to have been completed in a very short process of time. There is nothing in these chapters about eons or ages. Not one thing. There is no mention of protracted periods of time. Our author only speaks of evenings and mornings, and of the passage of a few short days which comprise a single creative week. It ends with a single Sabbath, not hundreds or thousands of them. In the present historic moment this may be the most controversial aspect of the chapter, even among professed creationists, for it flies in the face of so much of modern scientific theorizing about the origin of the universe. But the question whether the penman of Genesis wished his readers to believe this, based simply upon what he says about the matter, lies safely beyond dispute. According to this writer, the creation took only six days. When the seventh day came, creation was over.

This point appears to stand on its own merits. The text is so plain that little may be said to object to the conclusion that the writer of Genesis wanted his first readers to believe this basic fact. One may argue either that he does not believe it or that he cannot accept this to be accurate, based upon issues or information extraneous to Genesis, but he may not fairly claim that the early readers would have gotten any impression different from the one stated above in this little synopsis. As a liberal theologian, Dr. Gerhard von Rad, observed in his commentary on Genesis, “What is said here is intended to hold true entirely and exactly as it stands. There is no trace of the hymnic element in the language, nor is anything said that needs to be understood symbolically or whose deeper meaning has to be deciphered” (47, 48). According to Aila Annala, “Anyone who reads the Genesis story in Hebrew will find out quite soon that it is prose — a historical description of the beginnings. Something very typical for Hebrew prose are the many waw-consecutive forms in the beginning of the sentences (the repeated “ands” in the beginning of the sentences in many English translations). To make the creation story into a hymn is as difficult as trying to sing a couple of pages from a modern history book” (Creation Story: History, Myth, Hymn or Saga?). The writer has written what he has written; one ought to accept it or reject it. But one must not do it the injustice of attempting to bring those words into line with what one would have liked for him to have said based upon a modernistic interpretation of the events which he chronicles. 

The Spirit of Compromise

With the rise of modern scientific opinion, there has been considerable debate among Bible-believing conservatives regarding the length of the days referred to in the creation account. The debate, though, is only among religious conservatives, because modernist biblical scholars tend to take the “days” of Genesis at face value. As the quotation from von Rad shows, they believe that it means precisely what it says, namely, that the world was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. They simply do not believe it. They believe the writer was wrong. Liberal scholars read the account in Genesis 1-2 as outdated cosmology dreamed up by an ancient Hebrew bard who was attempting to answer the question, “Where did the world and all that it contains come from?”

Some evangelical scholars on the other hand, have interpreted the days of creation in such a way as to bring them into some semblance of accord with current concepts of geology. The temptation to do so is understandable (and thus to avoid a few of the major conflicts and more onerous contradictions between modern scientific theory and the Bible), but such attempts usually involve the imposition of a presupposed structure upon the interpretation of Scripture which the normal rules of biblical interpretation simply will not permit. 

Such “interpretation” is not only strained to the breaking point, but also presents itself as rather foolish to the scientific community. They view it as the struggle of religious zealots to retain some meager vestige of what they consider to be their “precious religious mythology.” They are not at all impressed with the effort. Those of us who take seriously the words of Genesis are not impressed either, for we view their attempt at striking a bargain with the Zeitgeist or “spirit of the times” as a traitorous sellout to contemporary culture. 

Their efforts are neither serious Bible study nor serious science. In the end, they make of themselves “men without a country,” so to speak. Evolutionists do not want them. Bible-believing Christians do not want them. But that is the way of the compromiser in every age. History provides us with many examples of this same mentality. The Judaizing teachers of Paul’s time were rejected by churches which stood steadfast in the faith, while also being rejected by orthodox Jews who could not accept the notion that Jesus was their Christ. This was the result, in spite of their attempted compromise: “As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Faithful saints rejected them because of their compromise, as we must today    reject those who invent compromises with the present culture. Likewise, the “Christian” gnostics attempted a compromise between the Christian system and the multifaceted Gnosticism, which itself was a commingling of Greek and Oriental mysticism, religion and philosophy. In the end, they too, found themselves unable to please either group. Ultimately, they became what Francis Legge has called one of the “rivals of Christianity” (Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity From 330 BC to 330 AD). The Apostle Paul considered their efforts at defining true wisdom as pure folly: “. . . avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith” (1 Tim. 5:20, 21).

 How Long Were the Days of Genesis One?    

Our examination of this issue must necessarily begin with a study of the words chosen by the writer of Genesis to describe the temporal aspects of his narrative. Before we take a look at the words involved, though, a simple generalization is necessary. Most words in any language have a somewhat flexible range of meanings, and their meaning is not determined by a lexicon so much as by the context. In Genesis chapters one and two the word “day” (yom), which has the simple lexical meaning of “‘day’ as division  of time” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the O.T. 398) has a similar range of meaning as does our English word. It would be easiest to illustrate this point in the English usage. 

One may, for example, speak of “George Washington’s day” as an indefinite period of time (the context makes this clear), and this is how the word “day” is used in Genesis 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Here the author simply refers to the time when God made the earth and heavens, not a particular day. Many interpreters wish to understand “day” in all its usages in Genesis 1 in this way. There are immense problems with this approach, however, as we will demonstrate below. 

If a physician, on the other hand, prescribes medicine that is to be taken at one dosage the first day, at a reduced dosage the second day, and so on, he means something quite different when he uses the word “day.” Moreover, it might prove to be a huge mistake to understand his words other than the way they were intended. But the context of the term leaves nothing to the imagination and little room for interpretation. “Day” is clearly used in this latter way in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. All the usages in this chapter being of the same type and utilizing the identical descriptive, “there was evening and morning, a first day,” and so on, it is natural for the reader to imply that the same thing is meant in each and every instance. And it is very unnatural, if not ridiculous, to infer the existence of millions or billions of years either during the days or between the days of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1-2 we have to understand yom as literal, 24-hour days, for the following reasons: 

1. The creation days are delimited by the evening and morning, both of which in the Bible always mean literal evening and morning. Are we to believe that for half the period represented, say on the fourth day, the sun did not shine and that for half the period it did? By saying “evening and morning” the text implies a period of darkness and a period of light. Could plants have survived over such an extensive period of darkness?
2.  The first day, yom ehad, is, in fact, not called the first day in the Hebrew text, but “day one” or “one day.” In this particular instance we could speak of a “proto-day,” a day that was to be the measure of all coming days. It was not possible to use the order “first” yet, since there had not been any day before. It was not until after this “proto-day” that one could start talking about the second day, third day, and so on. 
3. Together with an attribute expressing order (e.g., the second, the third, etc.), yom is only used literally in the Old Testament. 
4. If the days were intended to represent longer periods of time, then why did the writer not use the word dor, which means a period of time and can be used in different contexts, instead of yom? Why did he not choose to employ ‘olam which means “a time hidden, indefinite, or unlimited” (B. Davidson, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon 601).
5.  The word yom in the Bible, and its plural form yamim, in approximately 95% of its occurrences has the ordinary literal meaning. Passages such as Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 are not meant to interpret the events of Genesis chapters one and two. Their purpose and the occasion of their usage are to show God’s eternity, that one day is comparable to a thousand years and a thousand years like one day to one who dwells beyond the realm of time. They do not propose to offer a new way of viewing the creation week. In fact, they have no connection at all with the creation story. 
6. With the word yom, always it is the context and the clues provided in the context that determines its meaning. And if the contextual evidence in Genesis 1 and 2 is not sufficient to convince the skeptical, Moses proceeded to tell us what he meant in other places in the Pentateuch. In his discussion of the Sabbath command he said, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them . . . ” (Exod. 20:11). He also wrote, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” (31:17). These supplementary statements from the hand of the prophet clearly imply that the days of creation were ordinary days and that God rested on the seventh day rather than on the seventh era, for the Jews were required to rest for a day and not for an era. This is an excellent example of Scripture interpreting Scripture, which is Bible interpretation at its best.  
7. Psalm 33:6-9 says, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth . . . For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” According to the inspired writer of this psalm, when God spoke, the work of creating was done, and after that it merely stood fast. How is it possible to harmonize this bold declarative statement with an interpretation of the creation account which holds that God spoke merely to begin a process that took millions or billions of years to assume the form which it ultimately attained? 
8. Jesus declared the creation of man and woman to have been at the beginning of the creation, not toward the end. The Lord said, “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4). The parallel account in Mark 10:6 further clarifies: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” If the progressive creationists are correct, man and woman were brought on the scene much closer to the end of earth history than the beginning. But Jesus said,      “ . . . from the beginning of the creation God made them      . . . ” It was not at the end, it was at the beginning. It is easy to understand how the events of the sixth day of a 144-hour week might be viewed as “the beginning”; but it is difficult indeed to see how man’s creation 15-20 billion years after the “big bang” or original creation, and roughly 4.5 billion years after the creation of the earth, might in any sense be called “the beginning.” 

All these points taken together powerfully define the creative days as relatively short, not long periods of time. So we are left with no doubt whatever as to the signification of the word for “day” as used in Genesis 1. It means exactly what it says! It represents a normal, average, ordinary, twenty-four hour day — except that some very extraordinary things happened on those particular days!

In summary, it is plain from a simple reading of the chapter that these long periods of time are being read into the text and not out of it! One could never find these extensive periods in Genesis the first chapter without first believing this notion that the universe is billions of years old and then inserting them between the verses — not because they may be found in the word yom or somewhere else, but because they must be placed there in order to fit one’s preconceptions. 

2521 Oak Forest Dr., Antioch, Tennessee 37013

By Mike Willis

The Scriptures teach that God’s servants are to defend the truth. Consider the following texts:

But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel (Phil. 1:17). But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do (1 Tim. 1:3-4).

Throughout the ages, men have tried to deter the servants of God who were busy defending the truth against the assaults of unrighteous-  ness. Ahab accused Elijah as the “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17-18). Ahab hated Micaiah because he prophesied only evil against him (1 Kings 22:8). The false prophets who preached smooth things resisted Jeremiah because he preached the truth (Jer. 11:21; 23:25-26; etc.). Men have always opposed those who call men back to the word of God.

One of the marks of movement away from the Lord’s revelation is one’s reaction to the preaching of the word of God. John wrote,

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error (1 John 4:1-6).

When men react to the preaching of the truth by trying to silence the man who is preaching the truth instead of calling on the brother to repent who is preaching error, one knows that this is “the spirit of error.”

In the last decade we have had a sad spectacle to occur among brethren, a series of events that is a reflection of the spirit of our own age. As the influence of the world has spilled over into the church, we had to fight such issues among us as divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, and a unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship. Several books have been published among us on some of these issues including the following:  Homer Hailey’s The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God; Jerry Bassett’s Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage; Sam Dawson’s Fellowship: With God and His People.

Concerned brethren have risen up to reply to these false doctrines. Brother Weldon Warnock wrote a response to brother Hailey entitled A Review of Homer Hailey’s The Divorce and Remarried Who Would Come To God. Brother Ron Halbrook has published two booklets addressing these and other subjects entitled Trends Pointing Toward A New Apostasy and Understanding the Divorce and Remarriage Controversy. While a number have expressed appreciation for these answers to the false doctrines being taught, a rather strong reaction has come against the men who opposed the false doctrines. They are been branded as “jeremiad” zealots who have unmercifully attacked an aged warrior; radicals who are dividing the church; men who are without integrity; snarling dogs, and similar such vicious criticisms. These criticisms are aimed at conscientious brethren who were defending the truth against what even their critics identify as false teachings (although these critics nearly choke when asked to call those who teach those doctrines “false teachers”).

Another incident with remarkably similar results has occurred with reference to a discussion of the “days” of Genesis 1. Some brethren wrote articles and conducted lectureships or workshops around the country asserting that the days of Genesis 1 were long ages, in order to bring their interpretation of Genesis into harmony with late twentieth century “science.” When brethren replied to those preaching that the days of Genesis 1 were “long ages,” they were attacked as “troublers of Israel.” Mind you, those who preached what most admitted were false doctrines were not rebuked or condemned, only those who opposed them.

What is the long lasting impact of this criticism? Of course, none of us can know the future with certainty, but I can assure you of this one thing — these criticisms have the effect of discouraging younger brethren from opposing what they perceive as false doctrine! Who among us wants to have his name assaulted and slandered like those who have opposed the false doctrines of divorce and remarriage? Who would want his name attacked as has occurred toward brother Ron Halbrook who had the audacity to warn brethren about trends toward a new apostasy? The effect of this criticism is very clearly perceived: The critics have attacked those who are defending the truth and have thereby discouraged others from rising to the defense of the gospel in the future. Such criticisms stifle the defense of the gospel.

What will the future hold? As the spirit of liberalism continues to develop among us, these very critics who have been so vociferous in their criticism of others who opposed false doctrine are likely going to find themselves having to defend the truth against some issue facing the church in their area (provided that they live long enough). The very words that they have used to attack those who defended the truth against those who were teaching false doctrines on divorce and remarriage will be used against them.

The sadder thing, however, is this: The unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship that they preached with reference to divorce and remarriage will be applied to that future issue also, whatever that issue might be. I can almost hear the argument now on “baptism” at some future date: “Brethren have always disagreed throughout the restoration movement on the purpose of baptism. Brother Lipscomb and brother McGary debated the issue in the Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate. If they could disagree and continue in fellowship with each other, so also should we today.” If that argument has validity as a defense for an on-going fellowship with those who are wrong about divorce and remarriage, why won’t it work with those who are wrong about baptism? If the argument has any validity, it will work for both of these issues and a hundred more just like them. The ones who will be judged to be the “troublers of Israel” in that case will be those who are calling for an adherence to the teachings of Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, just like those who are judged to be the “troublers of Israel” today are those calling for an adherence to the teachings of Matthew 19:9.

We are being treated to a steady stream of dogma coming from sources who paint as villains those who stand for the truth against those who introduce unauthorized teachings and practices. Foy E. Wallace, Jr.’s role in opposing premillennialism, Roy E. Cogdill’s role in opposing institutionalism, and a number of brethren’s role in opposing Oral Roberts faith healing have been subjected to criticism. In all of these examples, those who stand foursquare for the truth are depicted as the “bad guys.” There is no doubt in my mind what impact such a characterization of those who rise to the defense of the gospel in the face of a serious threat of false teaching has on those who are developing their ideas of what it means to be a preacher of the gospel.

I remember distinctly the impact on my life that the reading of the biographies of men such as J.D. Tant, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Campbell, W.W. Otey, and other gospel preachers whose lives were extolled  by their biographers. What change would have occurred in my concept of what a gospel preacher’s work is had their biographers condemned them as negative, rancorous men? I am confident that holding such men up as esteemed brethren influenced in a positive way my understanding of the work of a gospel preacher in resisting false doctrines that face the church. What impact will occur when such men are contemned, belittled, and castigated?

Already a mind set has developed among us that identifies debating an issue of truth as a “work of the flesh” to be avoided. Those preachers who engage in public debates are less spiritual than those who refuse to participate. The end result of this mind set is obvious: We stifle the defense of the gospel! That is the result whether or not that is the intention of the critics of those who oppose false teaching.

When we effectively destroy the influence of those who stand up to resist false doctrines, the spread of false doctrine will mushroom. After all, there is no way to oppose it. You can’t preach against it or you may be branded as a jeremiad zealot and destroy your reputation among brethren. So, what do you do? You keep your mouth shut and bury your head in the sand while the false doctrine spreads. You will be counted an honorable brother who has done the cause of Christ much good, but the things you believe as fundamentals of the faith will soon become ancient relics of a bygone faith. If you think I am misrepresenting what has happened, visit a good restoration library and read through the pages of some of the journals that once were so welcomed among those who are now liberals.

If that is what we wish to happen among us, we are in a good position to have that occur. However, if we judge that would not be good for the cause of Christ, we need to be re-thinking our attitudes toward those who are courageous enough to lay their reputations on the line for a defense of the faith.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Alan Jones

“Has Ezekiel gone mad?” This may have been the reaction of some after they watched Ezekiel shave his head and beard, weigh the hair, divide it into thirds, and then burn a third, strike a third with a sword, and scatter the remaining third to the wind. However, Ezekiel was not mad, but he was signifying the punishment soon to fall on Jerusalem, a punishment which would pave the way for the salvation of the world (Ezek. 5:1-12).

When Ezekiel tossed his hair into the wind, he was not telling God’s people anything new. In giving the blessings and curses of the Law (Deut. 28-30), God had sworn that if Israel disobeyed him, he would scatter them among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other (Deut. 28:64; Ps. 106:26-27). Soon after Ezekiel’s hair was swept away by the wind, Jerusalem fell and the Diaspora or Dispersion began.

Against the Word of the Lord through Jeremiah, a remnant from Jerusalem went to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them (Jer. 43). When the Persians gave the order that those taken captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians could return to their homes, only a small proportion chose to do so. The sons of Korah wrote that God had scattered them among the nations (Ps. 44:11). Haman described the Jews to the Persian king as “scat­tered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom” (Esth. 3:8).

In the 400-year period of silence between Malachi and John the Baptist, the dispersing of the Jews continued both by force and free will. Ptolemy I of Egypt (322-285 B.C.) captured Jerusalem and took home captives, adding greatly to the Jewish population of Alexandria. Antiochus the Great of Syria (223-187 B.C.) removed 2,000 families from Jewish communities in Mesopotamia and Babylon and settled them in Phrygia and Lydia. Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C. and carried away hundreds of Jews to Rome. During the period “between the Testaments,” the Jews also voluntarily emigrated for the purpose of trade and commerce, as well as colonization, which was encouraged by the Greek kings who sought to “Hellenize” or to bring Greek culture to all of the peoples under their control. The Sibylline Oracles (mid-second century B.C.) say of the Jewish people, “every land and every sea is full of thee.”

God promised Abraham that he would bless all nations through his seed (Gen. 12:3). In his providence, he used the punishment of dispersion as part of the “fulness of the time” (Gal. 4:4) so that the good news of salvation through his Son might be readily presented and accepted throughout the world.

The large Jewish population in Alexandria led to the translation of the Old Testament in Greek. The Septuagint or LXX (named so because of its 70 translators), began to be translated between 300 and 200 B.C. and was the “Bible” of Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. More importantly, this translation made what was once only a Jewish book, not only accessible to the world, but an influence upon it.

Wherever the Jews went, if ten men were present in a city, they set up synagogues for the teaching of the Old Testament. Some Gentiles were proselytized to the Jewish religion. Other Gentiles became “God-fearers,” those who accepted Judaism, but were not fully proselytized. As Paul and others evangelized throughout the Roman world, they first sought out the synagogues (Acts 13:14-15; 14:1; 17:14; 10-12 etc). In the midst of the desert of an idolatrous and immoral world, the preachers of the gospel found an oasis, an audience who believed in the one true God, who believed in the Scriptures, who had concern for moral living, and who had Messianic hopes. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all wrote of widespread expectation that from Judea would rise a ruler whose dominion would be over all the world. Therefore, as the result of teaching in the synagogues, many converts were made, especially among the Gentiles.

The gospel had its beginning when the dispersed had gathered from around the world for the feast of Pentecost (First-fruits) (Acts 2:9-11). That the gospel was preached on this occasion was no accident. The first-fruits were gathered unto God from those around the world, who later would scatter because of persecution and take the gospel home with them (Acts 11:19-20). The Diaspora certainly was the key to the spread of the gospel to all the nations, leading to the obedience of faith (Rom. 15:26).

As Christianity was accepted by the Diaspora and they received the blessings of the gospel, God fulfilled in a spiritual way his promise “to bring His scattered ones back together, to give them the land of Israel and a new heart and a new spirit” (Isa. 11:11-12; Ezek. 11:16-20; Zeph. 3:9-10; Matt. 24:31). And, this restoration of Israel was too small. Through God’s use of the Diaspora, his Servant became a light of the nations so that his salvation might reach the end of the earth (Isa. 49:6). Aren’t we thankful for the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s hair scattered to the wind?

1022 Shadowridge Dr., Elsmere, Kentucky 41018 alanandjill@

By Rick Billingsley

In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever (Dan. 2:44). 

Daniel is prophesying to the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, that God will establish his kingdom (church) in the time of the fourth kingdom (Roman Empire). It will not be by accident, but by God’s providence that Rome will be a major world power that God will use to establish his kingdom. “. . . Daniel blessed the God of heaven: Daniel said, “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to the wise men. . .” (Dan. 2:19-22).

To fully understand the political scene of the New Testament it would be beneficial to study the past political history of the New Testament (Inter-Testamental History). Neither time nor space will allow me to give a complete historical analysis of the political scene before the writing of the New Testament. It would be good for one to study the reign of Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ reign, the Maccabean Revolt, and the Hasmonean era. 

The Seleucids, Ptolemies, Hasmoneans, Herods, and Caesars all made their contributions to the prologue of history that introduced the coming of Christ. It was in the Roman world that Jesus Christ lived and did his work, and it was during this world that the church began and flourished, and the apostles lived and wrote their letters. A study of the political background of the New Testament gives us a deeper appreciation for the New Testament and the men who penned it (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) and the people who lived by it. Hopefully, by this study, our faith will be deepened, and our knowledge of the scriptures widened. 

The political arena that surrounded the life of Jesus and the apostles in the first century influenced their social status, their languages, their education, and to some extent, their religion. 
The Roman Empire achieved what previous empires had attempted with only partial success — the welding of many nationalities and peoples into one unified whole. The Roman government was able to maintain a more or less stable civil order for nearly half a millennium. The government was centered in Rome. The two principal authorities were the Emperor and the Senate. The Senate was made up of several hundred prominent leaders who had gained prestige, usually by their wealth. The Senate was supposed to serve as a check to the power of the Emperor. The Emperor had almost absolute authority. The secret of Rome’s success, where others had failed, lay in her wise provision for differing kinds of local supervision and control. Rome did not superimpose a uniform government procedure upon its conquered territories. Rome allowed many localities to govern their own affairs as long as they did not violate Roman directives. These conquered areas were generally organized into provinces. These are mentioned in the New Testament: Bithynia (Acts 16:7), Cyprus (Acts 13:4), Judea (Gal. 1:22), and Spain (Rom. 15:24). The provinces were ruled in two different ways: Proconsuls, who were responsible to the Roman Senate, ruled over provinces better known as senatorial provinces. Secondly, there were governors, better known as Procurators or prefects. Procurators were assigned directly by the Emperor and held their offices only as long as the Emperor wanted them there. The proconsuls held their positions by annual appointment by the Senate. 

Roman Emperors

Augustus (32 B.C.- A.D. 14). At the time of Jesus’ birth Augustus Caesar was the Roman Emperor. He was part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, 27 B.C.-A.D. 68. He transformed the administration of his Empire, establishing a peaceful environment and stability to the whole Roman world. He was responsible for the census roll taken before the birth of Christ. This decree forced Joseph to take Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born (Luke 2:1-4). 

Tiberius (A.D. 13-37). Before Augustus died in A.D. 14, he forced his stepson, Tiberius, into a marriage with his daughter, Julia. He then adopted Tiberius as his son and made it quite clear that he was to be his successor. In A.D. 13, the year before Augustus died, Tiberius was made emperor. Tiberius had a nervous breakdown and withdrew himself to the Island Capri. Tiberius died in 37. Tiberius was not directly involved in the life of Jesus, but his presence was felt (Matt. 22:17-21; Mark 12:14-17; Luke 3:1). When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees and the Herodians about paying tribute, His reply was, “Render therefore unto Caesar (Tiberius) the things which are Caesar’s . . .” (Matt. 22:21). When Jesus was before Pilate, the Jews falsely accused Christ of not paying tribute to Tiberius (Luke 23:2). 

Caius Julius (37-41). Caius Julius is better known as Caligula. Caligula became Tiberius’ successor. He was the great-nephew of Tiberius. He proclaimed himself a god and thus encouraged the idea of Emperor worship. 

Claudius (41-54). After the death of Caligula, the Praetorian Guard stepped in as personal bodyguards to the emperor, and they forced the Senate to accept their choice of emperor. Claudius was not an obvious first choice for emperor. Handicapped as a child and left with a shaking head and a bad limp, he had always been treated with contempt by the imperial household. Much of Paul’s journeys were during the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28; 18:2). Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of the uproar the Jews made under the leadership of Chrestus. Among those Jews were Aquilla and Priscilla. 

Nero (54-68). Nero was only 16 when he became emperor. Nero was heavily influenced by his mother and by advisors, one of whom was Sencea, a Spanish philosopher. Nero did not want to be emperor but was manipulated in doing so by his mother. Nero arranged for the murder of his mother and his brother, which contributed to his emotional instability. When a fire devastated Rome in A.D. 64, Nero built an enormous palace in the ruins of the city. He blamed the fire on the Christians and arrested and murdered many of them. Paul and Peter were both killed by Nero. Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen and asked to be tried by Nero (Acts 25:9-12). Paul’s appeal took him to Rome where he spent two years in Caesar’s palace (Nero’s palace, Acts 28:16-31). Nero committed suicide and the family of Augustus died with him. 

Vespasian (69-79). After a year of civil strife that saw power change hands four times, the general Vespasian installed himself as emperor and inaugurated a short-lived dynasty (Flavian) which lasted from A.D. 69-138. During this time, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus lived and wrote his monumental work. In A.D. 70 Vespasian ordered his son Titus to destroy Jerusalem and plunder its temple. 

Domitian (81-96). The next prominent Emperor who was significant to the writing of the New Testament was Domitian. Under the rule of Domitian, the relationship between the Senate and Emperor broke down completely. Domitian was far more interested in maintaining efficient administration than in trying to mollify the senatorial aristocracy. Under his rule, Emperor worship intensified, Christians were severely persecuted, and John the apostle lived and wrote the book of Revelation.

The Herodian Dynasty

 It would be impossible to think of the political background of the New Testament without the mentioning of the Herodian clan. When Julius Caesar supplanted Pompey as Roman leader, Antipater was appointed Roman procurator of Judea and his son, Herod, became military governor of Galilee. Herod’s success in this post led the Roman Senate to appoint him king of Judea in 40 B.C. Herod was a ruthless person. He murdered anyone who dared to question or attempt to remove his authority. He killed his brother-in-law and three of his sons. He declared the decree that all male infants under two years of age should be killed. This forced Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

Since several Herods appear in the New Testament, it is necessary to differentiate between them. In addition to Herod the Great, others so named are Antipas, who dealt with John the Baptist, who tried Jesus, and whom Jesus nicknamed “that fox” (Luke 13:32). Herod Agrippa I, was responsible for the beheading of James the son of Zebedee, and for Peter’s imprisonment (Acts 12:1-2). Another Herodian, was Philip, better known as Herod-Philip (Mark 6:17). His reign was brief and little is known of him. Herod Agrippa II was the one Paul appealed to when he made his defense for his Christian belief. (Acts 21:17-40). With Agrippa II’s death, the Herodian dynasty ended.

Roman Procurators
After the death of Agrippa I, Judea reverted to rule by assigned Procurators. During the period A.D. 6-41, there were seven procurators of Judea: Caponius, 6-9 A.D., Marcus Ambivius, 9-12; Annius Rufus, 12-15; Veler- ius Gratus, 15-26; Pontius Pilate, 26-36 who tried Jesus; Marcellus, 36-37 and Maryllus, 38-41. In the time of Paul, the Roman Procurators were Fadus, A.D. 44-46, Alexander 46-48, Cumanus, 48-52; Felix 52-59 and Festus 59-61. Paul, after his arrest, appealed to Felix (Acts 24:2-23) and Festus (Acts 24:24-26). Under these Procurators the Jews and Christians enjoyed a considerable amount of peace. 

Conclusion 

It is amazing how God used these ungodly political figures to further his cause to redeem mankind to himself. Either directly or indirectly these political figures helped establish our faith in the New Testament. The New Testament is not only God’s will to govern our lives, but also a great historical record of the world’s kingdoms that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ established so he may establish his kingdom that will subdue all kingdoms.  “. . . God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed . . .” (Dan. 2:44).

Select Bibliography

Alexandria, Virgina. What Life Was Like When Rome Ruled the World. Time-Life Books 1992.
Balch, David and John E. Stambaugh. The New Testament In Its Social Environment. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Westminster Press. 1966.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction of the New Testament. New York, NY. Doubleday Publishing Co. 1997.
Bruce, F.F. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1999.
New Testament History. London: Nelson. 1969.
Deissmann, Adolf. Light From the Ancient East (Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan). Peabody, Mass. 1995.
Drinkwater, J.F. and Andrew Drummond. The World of the Romans. New York, NY. Oxford University Press. 1993.
Edwards, B.D. Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1867.
Fairweather, William. The Background of the Gospels. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Klock & Klock. 1977.
The Background of the Epistles. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Klock & Klock. 1977.
Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Book House. 1976.
Harrison, Everett F. Introduction of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971.
Hester, H.I. The Heart of the New Testament. Liberty, Missouri. The Quality Press. 1963.
Josephus. Complete Works (Translated by William Whiston). Grand Rapids, Michigan. Kregel Publishing. 1978.
Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. Vols. 1&2. New York, NY. WDEG. 1987.
Lewis, Naphtali and Ronald Meyer. Roman Civilization. NewYork, NY. Harper Torchbooks. 1966.
Levy, Thomas The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Facts on File, Inc. 1995.
Matthew, Shailer. A History of New Testament Times In Palestine 175 B.C. – 70A.D. New York, NY. The Macmillan Co. 1902.
Metzger, B.M. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and  Content 2d ed. Nashville, Tenn. Abingdon. 1983.
Packer, James I. The Bible Almanac. Nashville, Tenn. Thomas Nelson Publishing. 1980.
Porter, J.R. The Illustrated Guide To The Bible. New York, NY. Oxford University Press. 1995.
Stegemann, Ekkehard W. and Stegemann Wolfgang. The Jesus Movement. (Translated by O.C. Dean Jr.) Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1995.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Times. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1965. 
Winter, Bruce W. The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, Vols. 2 & 3. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1993-1994.

8103 Leawood Ln., Woodridge, Illinois 60517