Who is the Man of Sin? ~ Part 2

We are discussing the identity of the Man of Sin (see part 1 HERE), of whom Paul wrote in 2Thessalonians 2:3. We have also discussed the coming of Jesus being at first unobservable, as indicated by the request of a “sign” by the Apostles, which “sign” Jesus revealed in the Olivet Prophecy. In previous blogposts I had shown that Stephen’s death in Acts 7 represents the setting up of the abomination that makes desolate. In other words whatever was done to shed the blood of Stephen, the first martyr of Jesus, indicates that the abomination had been set up.

 

Dating the New Testament

It has been argued, and rightfully so, that there existed a strong oral tradition in first century Judaism. But, what should that mean to us in the 21^st century? Should we believe that no one wrote anything down concerning Christian literature prior to 70 CE except for Paul during this period of oral tradition? Certainly Josephus didn’t let his Jewish history to oral tradition and he drew upon the writings of others who recorded what Jewish officials were doing at the time the events transpired. So, other Jews, who also held to a strong oral tradition, were recording events of importance in written form.

 

Who is Luke’s Theophilus

Image via Wikipedia

The identity of Luke’s Theophilus (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:3) could be a very important matter. For example, if I were to address a letter to “Mr. President,” the weight of its content and some of its meaning would be determined by who my addressee happens to be. If it were the president of the Elks Club or the CEO of a large business or the President of the United States, knowing his identity would determine how the letter should be read. Similarly, the identification of Luke’s addressee could determine some of the meaning of the content of his works, especially matters of his Gospel that are peculiar only to Luke. Nevertheless, it seems that knowledge of who Theophilus is has been forgotten, and no one throughout the centuries (to my knowledge) has considered it important enough to engage in a real study to reclaim his identity until recently.[1]

 

Was Josephus an Ebionite?

I was reading The Life of Flavius Josephus recently, and I came across the statement: “…it is prohibited by our laws even to spoil our enemies;” [The Life of Flavius Josephus; sect. 26]. At this point it was noted by the editor: “I take it that Josephus, having been now for many years an Ebionite Christian, had learned this interpretation of the law of Moses from Christ, whom he owned for the true Messiah…”

I thought about this and wondered, if true, how differently Josephus’ works might be understood, especially concerning the “Testimonium Flavium” that has more recently been criticized. Would any serious scholar reject even the whole of it, if it were known of certainty that Josephus was an Ebionite?

 

When Was Stephen Stoned?

Most scholarship, I believe, puts the stoning of Stephen in 34 or 35 CE. Is there reason within the Scriptures to substantiate this claim? Yes, I believe there is! However, such substantiation comes from prophecy in both Old and New Testaments, but the understanding of these very prophecies is clouded by the interpretation of most scholarship, which puts the fulfillment of them at the second coming of Jesus.

 

Look Who Greeted the Coming of the Messiah!

The Messiah was promised long ago, from Eden in fact (Genesis 3:15), and Moses also foretold of the coming of one like him (Deuteronomy 18:15), and to whom Israel must listen or judgment would follow. It seems to me that, if the Jewish elite were really interested in worshiping and obeying God, they would have taken these things seriously, but they didn’t. And, this is what I believe Luke was showing Theophilus in the birth account of Jesus. Notice in Luke 2:1-20 that the great and powerful were caught by God completely unawares! But did this hinder God? Does God need the power of great men to move the world for his purposes? No, indeed, God’s own power is seen better and appears more glorious when it is expressed through weakness (2Corinthains 12:9). The powers of this world do not impress God, and I believe Luke is showing Theophilus that the Gospel, being a “grass roots” movement, so to speak, has become more powerful than is possible for him to eradicate. Moreover, since it is evident that it moves through the power of God and not of man, he needs to reconsider the action he has taken concerning persecuting the followers of Jesus.

 

Luke’s Birth Account of Jesus

If Luke is writing to the then current High Priest of the Jews, the stories he tells of Jesus would have to be important to his overall theme, which is to convict Theophilus of the sins of the priesthood, repent and accept the Gospel of the Kingdom, which offers Jesus as Savior through his crucifixion and resurrection.

 

Then the Church had Peace…

In yesterday’s blog I mentioned that the Theophilus priesthood was persecuting believers in Jesus and especially Hellenistic or Grecian Jewish believers. Scholars seem to be divided as to when this peace was experienced. Moreover, most scholars believe the persecution of Jewish believers in Jesus was a general persecution and not directed at a particular group among the believers. So, I thought I would explain the reasons for my stand, and I apologize in advance for the length of my blog.

In Acts 9:30 the brethren sent Paul back to Tarsus, apparently to save his life. He had been preaching in Jerusalem, and the Hellenistic Jews there wanted to kill him. Just after this the Scripture says, “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace… (Acts 9:31 NET). What does Luke mean, and can we know at what time the churches experienced this peace. Is it, as is implied in Acts, that, because Paul stopped persecuting the church, so then they began to have peace?

 

The Angel’s Promise

In the first chapter of Luke and angel visits the priest Zechariah while he was praying at the altar of incense in the Holy Place of the Temple. In yesterday’s offering, I submitted that Zechariah was praying for the Messiah. The angel told Zechariah that his prayer is answered—the Messiah was coming. To prove to Zechariah that the Messiah was indeed coming in that very generation, the angel promised Zechariah that he and Elizabeth would have a son!

The angel said Zechariah was to name him John, and that the babe would grow to be great and powerful in the Spirit. He would turn many in Israel to God and would prepare the way for the Lord (the Messiah) in the spirit and power of Elijah!

 

Theophilus and Zechariah—What was Luke’s Point?

The other Gospel accounts go right into John’s ministry, never mentioning his parents or the circumstances of his birth. What did Luke want to express to Theophilus by speaking of Zechariah’s experience as a righteous priest?

Luke begins and ends his Gospel narrative in the Temple. This would direct Theophilus’ attention to the priesthood, its duties to their brethren and to its service to God in the Temple ceremonies. Zechariah was a priest belonging to the course of Abijah, the 8^th division of the 24 division priesthood (Luke 1:5). This means his time of service came close to the time of Pentecost. Each division served for one week and all divisions served during the Holy Days—like Passover and Pentecost (Feast of Weeks). Every 6 months the courses would begin again.

 

In the Bosom of Abraham

The “Bosom of Abraham” is found in Scripture only in Luke 16 in the “parable” of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Rabbi Abraham Geiger suggests that Luke 16 preserves Jewish legend [Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben Vol.VII 200. 1869]. If, indeed, this is the case the legend would certainly not be of priestly origin, that is, not from the Sadducees, for they did not believe in life after death. The Pharisees, on the other hand, did believe in the resurrection and had many “stories” about what occurred after death. In fact, Josephus mentions their understanding thus:

“Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained… the just are guided to the right hand… by the angels appointed over that place… The countenance of the fathers and of the just, which they see, always smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham… But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment. [JOSEPHUS: Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades; chapter 1, paragraps 1, 3, 4]

 

Samuel’s Childhood—A Type of Christ!

There are some striking similarities in the first three chapters of 1Samuel that point to the birth and childhood of Jesus. Lee Dahn has written about Jesus’ experience at age 12 in the Temple at Jerusalem and how that is prefigured in the childhood of Samuel (Lee’s blog is HERE). I would like to add my two cents about this idea as well.

 

Is Luke’s ‘Theophilus’ Really Matthias?

According to the opinion of some that I have read, Luke may not have been addressing Theophilus, (Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1) the high priest, but his son Matthias, the high priest. This claim is supported by showing Luke calls Joseph, son of Caiaphas, by the name of Caiaphas, thereby allowing Luke’s intended addressee to be Matthias, son of Theophilus. I admit this is intriguing, but Paul implies in his second epistle to the Corinthians that Luke’s Gospel was written sometime before Paul’s 3^rd missionary journey (54-58 CE), or possibly even before Paul’s second missionary journey (51-54 CE). This would have been about a decade before the tenure of Matthias, son of Theophilus, as high priest. If so, there would be no reason to address Matthias as “most excellent” etc. Paul’s implication is made in 2Corinthians which he wrote from Macedonia near the end of his 3^rd missionary journey and on his way to Corinth to take the offering from the gentile churches to the poor at Jerusalem.

 

Who is Theophilus?

Recently, I became acquainted with the blogs of Lee T. Dahn (found HERE) and Richard Anderson (found HERE). Although they do address other subjects, their blogs seem to be dedicated to the works of Luke with the identification of Theophilus, Luke’s addressee, as a key concern.

What if I were to write: “Mr. President, pertaining to the affairs of which you have been informed, I have decided that it would be in your interest to know how these things developed from the beginning…” Wouldn’t the contents of my narrative be weighted by the identity of the person to whom I am writing? Wouldn’t analogies therein also take on a meaning according to the identity of my addressee? For example, what if I was a college student writing to the president of my class or the president of a speakers club? What if I was an executive of a large commercial industry writing to the president of another large industry, wouldn’t otherwise indistinct analogies that I might place within my narrative take on a meaning different from what one would ordinarily read into my words, if I were simply writing to another college student who happens to be the president of my class or college group? What if I were writing to the President of the United States about a particular group of which I was a member? Wouldn’t’ my narrative take on even a different meaning than these others, especially when I might be speaking of analogies or indistinct parallels? So, the identity of Luke’s addressee, considering these circumstances, could be very important, and the meaning of Jesus’ different parables would take on new meaning, if Theophilus could be shown to be the High Priest who governed Judea from 37-41 CE—and the son of Annas who was so influential in the crucifixion of Jesus! Wouldn’t this be so?

 

Paul Sails to Rome

It was determined that Paul should sail with other prisoners to Rome before winter. However, it was after the Jewish fall festivals (Acts 27:9) and the Mediterranean became dangerous for all ancient seafaring vessels near and during the winter season. They began having trouble when they neared the province of Asia and had to sail under Crete. Paul advised the centurion to winter at a haven there, but the ship’s captain preferred a better haven further north and west of their position but still on the island. The centurion agreed with the captain of the ship, but the weather turned against them, and were driven far off course (Acts 27:10-15).