The Resurrection

The following passage in 1 Corinthians 15 has been used effectively in apologetics: arguments to persuade the unbeliever that the Christian world view is reasonable. However, this approach misses the point of the passage. Paul's intention for the passage seems to be slightly different. Paul is writing to the believers at Corinth that the physical reality of the Christ's resurrection should effect change in every aspect of their lives. Let's look at the passage.

1 Corinthians 15:1-19
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Gordon Fee points out in his commentary that this passage is actually correcting the view of some of the believers in Corinth: they were denying the importance of the resurrection. Gordon Fee points out the importance of historical events that were witnessed on Easter is to reaffirm the importance of Christ's resurrection and thus, confirming our hope of our future resurrection in our daily lives.

Gordon Fee
There is a place for apologetics, that is, the defense of Christianity to the unconverted; but Easter is not that place. Easter, which should be celebrated more frequently in the church, and not just at the Easter season, calls for our reaffirming the faith to the converted. The resurrection of Christ has determined our existence for all time and eternity. We do not merely live out our length of days and then have the hope of resurrection as an addendum; rather, as Paul makes plain in this passage, Christ’s resurrection has set in motion a chain of inexorable events that absolutely determines our present and our future. Christ is the first fruits of those who are his, who will be raised at his coming. That ought both to reform the way the way we currently live and to reshape our worship into seasons of unbridled rejoicing. (Fee, p. 760)

Paul's point is that if the reality of our future bodily resurrection is false, then Christ's resurrection did not happen, thus why live for Christ?

Gordon Fee
His point, of course, is that he is indeed crazy to put his life in constant jeopardy for the sake of others, if neither he nor they have hope in the resurrection. But even more, this sentence also indicates the absolute central and crucial place that Christ’s resurrection played in his life. One must remember throughout that to deny the resurrection of the dead meant to deny the resurrection of Christ (vv. 12-19), which meant for Paul the denial of Christian life altogether. Thus everything Christians do a Christians—and especially the labors of an apostle—are an absurdity if there is no resurrection. (p. 768)

The reason we can live sacrificially and boldly for the Gospel is because our physical lives on earth is not all there is. We have eternal reward in heaven if we seek Christ now. We can have joy through suffering because God allows us to know him better through suffering and furthermore, we know will be with God with our physical bodies through all eternity.

The New International Commentary of on the New Testament: The First Epistile to the Corinthians

Favorite Movies

To Kill a Mocking Bird (1962, Robert Mulligan)
Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa)
The Third Man (1949, Carol Reed)
Citizen Kane (1941, Orson Wells)
Twelve Angry Men (1957, Sidney Lumet)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean)
A Christmas Carol (1951, dir. Brian Desmond Hurst)
King Kong (1933, Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack)
The Maltese Falcon (1941, John Huston)
The Searchers (1956, John Ford)
The General (1926, Clyde Bruckman, Buster Keaton)
Network (1976, Sidney Lumet)
Shawshank Redemption (1994, Frank Darabont)
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966, Sergio Leone)
Unforgiven (1992, Clint Eastwood)
The Sting (1973, George Roy Hill)
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939, Sidney Lanfield)
Rear Window (1954, Alfred Hitchcock)
The 39 Steps (1939, Alfred Hitchcock)
Parasite (2019, Bong Joon Ho)
The Natural (1984, Barry Levinson)
Young Frankenstein (1974, Mel Brokers)
To Be or Not to Be (1942, Ernst Lubitsch)
Rashoman (1950, Akira Kurosawa)
My Man Godfrey (1936, Gregory La Cava)
The Thin Man (1934, W.S. Van Dyke)
Lincoln (2012, Steven Spielberg)
Fiddler on the Roof (1971, Norman Jewison)
Singing in the Rain (1952, Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly)
Spirited Away (2001, Hayao Miyazaki)
Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Love the Bomb (1964, Stanley Kubrick)
Duck Soup (1933, Leo McCarey, Marx Brothers)
Mary Poppins (1964, Robert Stevenson)
City Lights (1931, Charlie Chaplin)
The Gold Rush (1925, Charlie Chaplin)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, Steven Spielberg)
Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski)
Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott)
All the President's Men (1976, Alan J. Pakula)
Schindler's List (1993, Steven Spielberg)
Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)
The Princess Bride (1987, Rob Reiner)
Gunga Din (1939, George Stevens)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938, Michael Curtiz and William Keighley)
The Great Escape (1963, John Sturges)
Chariots of Fire (1981, Hugh Hudson)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957, Billy Wilder)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959, Otto Preminger)
The Big Sleep (1946, Howard Hawks)
Moneyball (2011, Bennett Miller)
The Big Short (2015, Adam McKay)
The Graduate (1967, Mike Nichols)
Annie Hall (1977, Woodie Allen)
Shane (1953, George Stevens)
Rocky (1976, Sylvester Stallone)
Goldfinger(1964, Guy Hamilton)
To Sir, with Love (1967, James Clavell)
A Man for All Seasons (1966, Fred Zinnemann)

Equality with God

I have been reading A New Testament Theology (revised edition 1993) by George Eldon Ladd. I am in the section where Ladd is covering the apostle Paul's theology. He is trying to define how Christ, "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:

Philippians 2:5–7
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (ESV)

Ladd highlights the difficulty of understanding what "emptying himself" means. He points out that "a guideline may be found from the implicit comparison between Christ and Adam" (p. 744). Here's the key passage in Genesis 3:

Genesis 3:1–6
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Adam and Eve chose to take what is not theirs to obtain equality with God. Compare this approach with how Christ lived on earth, "Christ emptied himself by taking the the form of a servant." Christ's example is proclaiming God's glory through faithful, humble service. Humans try to obtain equality with God by trying to obtain glory for themselves by grabbing glory that is not theirs.

Like Living Stones -- 2 Peter 2:5

1 Peter 2:1–6
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (ESV)

There are five things to put away (or "put off" as Paul would say): mailice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy and slander. Let us look at the words in the Greek.

English	Greek	Definition
malice	κακίαν	It is antonym of the greek word for virtue
deceit	δόλον	It is derived from the verb, "to catch with bait."
hypocrisy	ὑποκρίσεις	pretense
envy	φθόνους	the envy which one man grudge another something which he himself desires, but does not possess
slander	καταλαλιάς	"to run"down," "to disparage"

Karen H. Jobes comments on the passage.

Karen H. Jobes
The vices listed in 2:1 that must be put off are those that destroy relationships and hence that destroy community. Peter is explaining in this letter how social alienation that the Christian experiences from society is to be remedied by genuine fellowship found within the community of believers, the nature of which he describes in 2:4-10. Peter's readers have been given a new birth as the people of God and therefore are to exhibit an ethical transformation in their relationships that is characteristics of the Father. (p. 131)

As Karen Jobes comments, these five vices destroy community. They are the evils one does to someone else. I read a lot of mysteries by British writers. A favorite plot device they use often is "poison pen letters." The letters indicate to the readers that some deeper, hidden, mischief is afoot. In these stories, the authors spell out, often in excruciating detail, the damage the letters do to the communal relationships. The letters disrupt trust, raise suspicions, and increase fear. They cause even more gossip to spread. Likewise in the local church, although these vices may not be expressed through poison pen letters, the evil will grow and if not opposed, it will eventually destroy a church.

The apostle Peter already addressed how to address these evils earlier in the letter.

1 Peter 1:22
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,

The answer is pursuing loving one another with a pure heart that has been transformed by the Gospel. Peter then writes about why pursuing love is so dear to God's heart. He is building us into His house: a holy temple. Christ is the cornestone and we are the building blocks. The building material of the cornerstone and the living stones has the same attributes: human nature. Again, Karen Jobes provides some insight.

Karen H. Jobes
The placement of the Living Stone with living stones in the temple implies the close relationship of Christ with believers and their common nature as human beings. The Cornerstone is called "living" by virtue of his resurrection; the same resurrection life enlivens the stones that come to him and take their place in the new temple. The image of the living stones of the new temple also has implications for the conception of the Christians relationship to other believers. Notably, these living stones are not lying about in idle isolation or disorder in Peter's description. They are not heaped in a pile or scattered across a field. Christians are not individually temples of God in the image Peter presents. They are each put in place in a spiritual house for the purpose of being a holy priesthood that offers acceptable sacrifices to God. (1 Peter, pp. 148, 149)

John Calvin agrees, but stresses even more the role love has in fitting believers together.

John Calvin from commentary on the Catholic Epistles
We must further observe, that he constructs one house from the whole number of the faithful. For though every one of us is said to be the temple of God, yet all are united together in one, and must be joined together by mutual love, so that one temple may be made of us all. Then, as it is true that each one is a temple in which God dwells by his Spirit, so all ought to be so fitted together, that they may form one universal temple. This is the case when every one, content with his own measure, keeps himself within the limits of his own duty; all have, however, something to do with regard to others.
(https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45/calcom45.iv.iii.i.html)

The apostle Paul uses this analogy as well in Ephesians.

Ephesians 2:19–22
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (ESV)

Notice to "build up" (οικοδομεισθε) in 1st Peter and to "build together" (συνοικοδομεῖσθε) in Ephesians are both in the present/passive/indicative. This means the action is being done to the members of the church and is an ongoing process.

There is an interesting verse in the Old Testament about how Solomon had his temple built is 1 Kings 6:7.

1 Kings 6:7
When the house was built, it was with stone prepared at the quarry, so that neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron was heard in the house while it was being built. (ESV)

It is not easy to find out why Solomon prepared the materials to fit together before bringing them to the construction site. The following verses from the Exodus and Deuteronomy, gives us a hint, but not the full story.

Exodus 20:24–25
An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones, for if you wield your tool on it you profane it. (ESV)

Deuteronomy 27:5–6
And there you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones. You shall wield no iron tool on them; you shall build an altar to the LORD your God of uncut stones. And you shall offer burnt offerings on it to the LORD your God, (ESV)

I have two observations. The materials were pre-selected and pre-formed before they were brought to be placed in the building. This practice seems to point not just reverence to God, but the honoring God as the builder of the temple. Josephus, a historian born in A. D. 37 of a priestly Jewish a family, wrote the following about the ancient temple.

Now the whole structure of the temple was made, with great skill, of polished stones, and those laid together so very harmoniously and smoothly, that there appeared to the spectators no sign of any hammer, or other instrument of architecture, but as if, without any use of them, the entire materials had,naturally united themselves together, that the agreement of one part with another seemed rather to have been natural than to have arisen from the force of tools upon them.
The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 8 Chapter 3, p. 216) (Translated by William Whiston, New Updated Edition, Hendrickson Publishers, 1987)

The physical temple is a type of the "temple to come". The builders of the physical temple tried to minimize the role man has in creating the temple. Ultimately, God will build the final temple himself. God has selected believers to be the building stones and Christ is to be the cornerstone. He is shaping believers so they fit together seamlessly and beautifully when he is done. He uses believers to shape each other (Proverbs 27:17). The Holy Spirit has given each of us a unique set of gifts that we may serve one another in the body of Christ. Through Christ's example of his life and death, we learn how to serve one another sacrifically through love and humility.

Bibliography

Karen H. Jobes, Baker Exegetical Commentary in the New Testament (ECNT): 1 Peter , (2005)

Secret Codes in Jeremiah

I found this interesting. Jeremiah or Baruch (his scribe) disguised names of rival countries in the book of Jeremiah for various reasons. One obfuscation technique that Old Testament writers used is called, "atbash".

In his commentary, J. A. Thompson, defines what an "Atbash" is:

"Atbash" is a device in which the letters of a name counted from the beginning of the alphabet are exchanged for letters counted from the end: Zimki would be 'Elam in the Hebrew alphabet, and bbl (Babel) would be ssk (Shesak, in v.[25:]26). In these ciphers aleph is replaced by by taw (t), beth (b) by shin (s), etc. (p. 518)

Old Testament scholar, Walter Kaiser, calls "atbash" a cryptogram. The cryptogram technique is used in Jeremiah 51:1.

Jeremiah 51:1-4
Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I will stir up the spirit of a destroyer against Babylon, against the inhabitants of Leb-kamai, and I will send to Babylon winnowers, and they shall winnow her, and they shall empty her land, when they come against her from every side on the day of trouble. Let not the archer bend his bow, and let him not stand up in his armor. Spare not her young men; devote to destruction all her army. They shall fall down slain in the land of the Chaldeans, and wounded in her streets. (ESV)

Kaiser's commentary on Jeremiah 51:1

God calls Babylon “Leb Kamai” (…), which means “the heart of those who rise against me.” But this is also a cryptogram, known as an atbash (see 25:26 for an explanation), so that the Heb. consonants lbqmy are reversed to spell instead kysdm, a disguised form of Chaldea/Babylon. It is employed here not because the name of Babylon is a secret for Jeremiah has already revealed the name (v. 1b), but so that the citizens of that land might realize that they are those who were opposing Yahweh from their hearts. (Kaiser, p. 565)

Earlier in Jeremiah (Jer. 25:26), Kaiser comments on a different passage using this same technique. The following is Kaiser's translation.

"all the kings of the north, near and far, one after another-- all the kings of the earth. After all of them, the king of Shesach will drink it too."

Here is Kaiser's comment on the passage:

Babylon is finally mentioned in v. 26b; however, it appears in cryptic fashion in a figure of speech knows as an atbash cryptogram. The word used here is “Sheshach” (v. 26b; 51:41). In this cryptogram, the alphabet is divided in halves so that the letters corresponding to the word “Sheshach” are read from the opposite half of the alphabet in reverse order. “Sheshach yields “B(a)b(e)l.” (Kaiser, p. 302)

Conclusion

I have no idea of the spiritual significance of the encryption. In the passage in Jeremiah 51, Baruch referenced both the name "Babylon" and its atbash "Leb-kamai." Baruch was not just encrypting names to protect himself. The original readers must have known its significance. The care the writers used in writing Jeremiah is displayed in details like this. To plumb scripture's depths and beauties is a lifelong pursuit.

Bibliography

1. Walter C. Kaiser, JR., Tiberius Rata, Walking the Ancient Paths: A Commentary on Jeremiah, (2019)

2. J. A. Thompson, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Jeremiah, (2019)

he will be quiet in his love (Zephaniah 3:17)

I am reading John Owen's book, Communion with God: Fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Owen quotes Zephaniah 3:17 using, of course, a very old version of the English Bible. One phrase in particular is translated differently from the English Standard Version. I compared both versions with a Bible translation I recently bought, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), which was published in 2021. The LSB translates the phrase in the same way that John Owen quotes it. Compare the versions.

Zephaniah 3:17
English Standard Version (ESV)
The LORD your God is in your midst,
  a mighty one who will save;
he will rejoice over you with gladness;
  he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.

Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)
The Yahweh your God is in your midst,
  a mighty one who will save;
he will be joyful over you with gladness;
  he will be quiet in his love;
he will exult over you with joyful singing.

Why the Versions are Different

LSB is an updated version of the NASB. The translators’ goal for the version was a word-for-word/phrase-for-phrase translation. They also tried to standardize how to translate certain words and phrases.

The LSB's choice of translating Zeph. 3:17d as "he will be quiet in his love" instead of "he will quiet you by his love" is an interesting choice. The LSB's choice emphasizes God's steadfast love in his choice of each believer and the ESV's choice highlights that God calms the believers' restless souls. Obviously, the first choice is a viable option and Owen notes the following about the verse.

Owen comments on how God is “quiet in his love”.

The love of God is so. Zephaniah 3:17, “The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy, he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing.” Both these things are here assigned unto God in his love, — REST and DELIGHT. The words are, “yacharish be’ahavato” — “He shall be silent because of his love.” To rest with contentment is expressed by being silent; that is, without repining, without complaint. This God does upon the account of his own love, so full, so every way complete and absolute, that it will not allow him to complain of any thing in them whom he loves, but he is silent on the account thereof Or, “Rest in his love;” that is, he will not remove it, — he will not seek farther for another object. It shall make its abode upon the soul where it is once fixed, for ever. And COMPLACENCY or DELIGHT: “He rejoiceth with singing;” as one that is fully satisfied in that object he has fixed his love on. Here are two words used to express the delight and joy that God has in his love, — “yasis” and “yagil”. The first denotes the inward affection of the mind, joy of heart; and to set out the intenseness hereof, it is said he shall do it “besimchah”, — in gladness, or with joy. To have joy of heart in gladness, is the highest expression of delight in love.

(Communion with God, Chapter 4: How to Commune with the Father in Love)

Summary

Both translations of 17d are viable; however, I like LSB's version better. It fits the context better. Furthermore, I like the message. Remember going into a ice cream shop with dozens of flavors of ice cream? You see little children run up to the counter and study the different flavors. Their eyes flit from flavor to flavor as they walk along the counter trying to decide. Finally, their feet stop, their eyes rest on the tub of their choice, and their fingers point to their chosen flavor. Their choice has been made and they will not waver from it.

This verse reads that God's choice rested on every member of his universal church. He doesn't waver between to love or not to love us: He chose to love us from all eternity past and his love will rest on us for all eternity future. God will not retract that choice when we sin. He rests in that choice so that we may rest from our efforts to earn our salvation. In that choice of us, both God and us will exult in loud singing forever and ever.

Isaiah 31:4-5 -- The Lion and the Birds

Introduction

Our men's group studied Isaiah 31 around Easter time and the allusions to Passover stood out to me. Isaiah 31 has two similes comparing God's care and protection of his people to the behaviors of two very disparate animals: lions and birds. The context of the passage is a recurring theme in Isaiah. God promises to punish Israel's idolatry and sinful behaviors by sending the Assyrian army to capture Jerusalem. Israel panics and wants to enter into a treaty with the weak, but obliging Egypt. God points out through Isaiah that a partnership with Egypt not only violates God's command, but is a rejection of Him for the the gods of Egypt, which is even more idolatry. God's promises protection for Israel if only they would repent and return to him.
Here is the first figure of speech:

Isaiah 31:4
For thus the LORD said to me,
“As a lion or a young lion growls over his prey,
    and when a band of shepherds is called out against him
he is not terrified by their shouting
    or daunted at their noise,
so the LORD of hosts will come down
    to fight on Mount Zion and on its hill.

The Lion

The first image uses the behavior of a lion protecting his fallen prey. Nothing will distract a lion from protecting his meal from perceived threats. Even shepherds shouting at the lion will not scare it off. Please don't make this an allegory: God is not a lion consuming Jerusalem as his meal. Rather, the point is the laser focus of the lion for his prey illustrates how God wants to protect Israel from the invaders. Let us look at another example of this type of figure of speech. Luther also used animal imagery to illustrate focus. Luther noticed his dog's undivided attention on the piece of meat he was eating. Luther said, “Ah, if I could only pray the way that dog looks at meat.” Luther was not saying he wanted to be a dog to pray better, he made an observation that he wanted the same undeterred focus in prayer that his dog was exhibiting on the piece of meat.

God wanted Israel to know that carefully protecting Israel was the desire of his heart. God was not a god like the pagan gods. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal when their god was not responding to their sacrifices by saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” (I Kings 18:28). Israel had God's full attention because he cared for them.

The Birds

The second image uses birds.

Isaiah 31:5
Like birds hovering, so the LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it; he will spare and rescue it.” (ESV)

I found this imagery confusing. My first thought was of carrion birds hovering over a carcass. I did some digging and a commentator, John N. Oswalt suggested the imagery was referencing a mother bird protecting her nest.

John N. Oswalt
This verse varies the figure by comparing God to a mother bird which flies back and forth over her nest when a predator is near, both to distract the enemy and, if necessary, to offer herself as a victim to save her little ones. As noted above, this verse presents another side of God’s relationship to Judah. Not only is he strong and determined, he is also personally attached to his people and will defend (or shield, as this is the verb from which that noun is derived ) them, if need be, with himself.

passing over is parallel to "defending," and this suggests that the meaning is "protect," even "hover over." This meaning applies very well to Exodus 12. (p. 574)

Another commentator on this passage, Alec Motyer, took special notice of the verbs. He pointed out that Isaiah used four verbs: protect [or shield as in a garden wall protecting a garden], deliver, spare, and rescue. He wrote that "four is often the number symbolic of 'on every side'. Here four verbs pointed to sufficient, surrounding help." (Motyer, p. 255, [brackets mine])

I noticed this behavior in birds. In the spring when I rode my bike alongside some fields, small birds flew out aggressively toward me. They then flew ahead of me and landed on the next fence post. When I approached that fence post they chirped loudly and flew to the next post ahead of me. They did this for a couple of hundred of yards and then left me alone. I assumed they were protecting their nests. The mother birds were trying to distract me, a possible predator, from their nests. They were interposing themselves between me and their nests and then tried to lure me away. Of course, this motif is in the gospels. Christ interposed himself to protect us from God's wrath. He became the victim of God's wrath to protect believers from that wrath. He continues to protect us from the world and Satan's stratagems.

This figure of speech would have been powerful imagery to Israel, Isaiah's original audience. Oswalt pointed out in the quote above that the word protect is the Hebrew word "pass over". The mother bird tried to distract me by hovering above the nests so that I would pass over the nest, and thus protect her nestlings. Likewise, in the passover, God did not call Israel to arms to overthrow Pharoah; God called Israel to trust in the sacrifice. God passed over the houses of Israel during Passover in Egypt because of the blood from the sacrifices painted on the doorways (Exodus 12:23). In one sense the mother birds were offering themselves as a sacrifice to protect their young.

Sparrow Strength

Motyer comments that Israel wanted the visible power of warriors, horses and chariots from Egypt to protect them. They did not want a God who seemed to be passively protecting them as a garden wall or hovering sparrows. Israel wanted a massive show of strength. Motyer points out that God wanted Israel to depend on God's strength and wisdom because his weakness is greater than man's strength.

Alec Motyer
Zion had despised the Lord and his power in favour of Egypt. Did they say ‘About as much use as a sparrow’? But the ‘sparrow-strength’ of the Lord is stronger than men (1 Cor. 1:25), and it represents here his gentleness towards his errant people, sufficient to shield, deliver, ‘pass over’, and ‘rescue’. (p. 255)

Philosophers like Nietzche mocked Christians for having a dying God as their savior. Nietzche could not understand why people participated in a religion which stresses faith and humility over power and boldness. Paul wrote in 1 Corintians 1:25,

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (ESV)

God's wisdom is far superior to ours. We need to trust to his purposes and ways if we want true safety. God is not glorified through missles and tanks. He is glorified in his people trusting in him.

God's Call to Israel

God uses "sparrow strength" at times to guard and protect us. Furthermore, Christ calls to us repentence in his meekness. Israel's application of the two figures of speech is in Isaiah 31 is in the subsequent verses.

Isaiah 31:6–7
Turn to him from whom people have deeply revolted, O children of Israel. For in that day everyone shall cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which your hands have sinfully made for you. (ESV)

The following comments explain the full impact of Isaiah's warning to Israel.

John N. Oswalt
they have deepened turning away is a graphic phrase. Not only have people turned aside from following God, they have intentionally deepened that turning away.
(p. 375)

God was calling Israel back from trusting in the idols of their own making and the idols of Egypt. Israel needed to realize they were going deeper into sin. Turning to Egypt means they were switching from being passive followers into active rebels. They might not see a display his power, but like the lions with their prey, God cares for them assidously. His attention will not be drawn away. His will not be thwarted. He will protect them from their enemies.

Like the sparrows, God was willing sacrifice himself to make the enemies to pass over them. Isaiah, in verse 31:7 even made a vague reference to the New Covenant: there will be a time in that day where the people of Israel will of themselves throw away their idols. God promises "in that day" that he will give them a new heart to worship him alone. God wanted Israel to join him now in living that future reality.

Applications

God is a mighty warrior, but he uses "sparrow strength" at times to guard and protect us. Furthermore, Christ calls to us repentence in his meekness. His ministry on earth was unpretentious. He even called himself meek and lowly.

Matthew 11:28–30
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (ESV)

In the tumult of life, we want displays of power, but God works in His wisdom. The Lord declared in Isaiah 55:8, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways." We have to trust God to work in his own timing and ways. When we not only doubt God's promises, but turn to alternate solutions, we deepen the sin of distrust and insult God.

A puritan, Thomas Goodwin, wrote how we may take comfort in Christ's strength in meekness.

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1679)
So, says Christ, injuries and unkindnesses do not so work upon me as to make me irreconcilable; it is my nature to forgive: "I am meek." Yes, but (may we think) he being the Son of God and heir of heaven, and especially being now filled with glory, and sitting at God's right hand, he may now despise the lowliness of us here below; though not out of anger, yet out of that height of his greatness and distance that he is advanced unto, in that we are too mean for him to marry, or be familiar with. He surely has higher thoughts than to regard such poor, low things as we are. And so though indeed we conceive him meek, and not prejudiced with injuries, yet he may be too high and lofty to condescend so far as to regard, or take to heart, the condition of poor creatures. No, says Christ; "I am lowly" also, willing to bestow my love and favour upon the poorest and meanest. (The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth (Kindle))

Christ loves his people. He will protect us in ways we can't even imagine. I see three applications of this passage.  

• He calls unbelievers to repent of their sin and follow him. There is no one who is so great a sinner that Christ in his meekness will not accept him. As Christians, we must share the Gospel with everyone especially sinners.
• He calls Christians to discard our idols such as money, entertainment, and power. God wants us to trust in His sparrow strength in working through providence to protect us. We may not see his hand in our tribulations but God is working in his sparrow strength to "work all things together for good for those called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28). Like the lion with his prey he will not be distracted. Because God has already sacrificed himself for us, we know that he will not withhold any good thing from us. (Romans 8:32)
• Christian leaders must model Christ's servant-leadership. Leaders must be willing to sacrifice themselves for their flock and serve in humility. Leaders must trust in God's sparrow-strength in making decisions in leading the flock.

Bibliography

Motyer, J. Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Intervarsity Press, 1993
Oswalt, John N., The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Wm., B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986

Baptisms in Acts

Introduction

As an elder of Grace Community Church (GCC) I hear many questions about why we believe in believer baptism and not infant baptism. GCC is a non-denominational church. Our congregation is mix of people with different denominational backgrounds: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostal and others. They all have different beliefs and experiences with baptism. Over the years, the elders' response to these questions is to encourage the questioner to search the scriptures themselves. Very often we do not hear back from the congregant. However, since I am encouraging believers to search the scriptures themselves, I decided to a study on baptism and to see how it is used in the New Testament.

A full blown study should trace baptism through the Old Testament, the intertestamental period, the Gospels, the Epistles, and church history. However, my purpose is not to write a doctrinal statement for our church, but rather to gather evidence to present to a believer about why GCC believes what it believes. This blog focuses on Acts, First Peter, Colossians, and a little church history. This approach seems justified by the story in Acts 19:1-7 where believers, who were already baptized into John's baptism, were baptized into Jesus. There is a qualitative difference between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John. How Jesus and the Apostles defined baptism is unique. Furthermore, I hope by focusing on the scriptures of which most believers are familiar that my arguments would be more accessible and convincing to them.

Research

The following table contains all the passages in Acts that reference baptism. In my conversations with believers who believe in infant baptism and from my reading of theologians who support paedobaptism, the Acts passages are the most widely used passages to defend the practice of infant baptism.

Verses in Acts on Baptism

Verse	Action 1	Action 2	Action 3	Audience
Acts 2:41	Received word	Baptized	n/a	Everyone who heard
Acts 8:12	Believed Philip as he preached	Baptized	n/a	both men and women
Acts 8:14-17	The apostolic team identified believers who were only baptized in the name of Lord Jesus	Prayed that they may receive the Holy Spirit	Received Holy Spirit	Samaritans
Acts 8:34-40	Philip told the eunch about the good news about Jesus	Eunuch requested to be baptized	baptized	eunuch
Acts 9:18	Jesus called Paul	Paul went obediently to Ananias	Scales fell from his eyes and he was baptized	Paul
Acts 10:44–48	Peter preached	Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word	Baptized	Gentiles
Acts 16:14–15	The Lord opened Lydia's heart to Paul's teaching	Baptized	n/a	Lydia and her household
Acts 16: 30–34	Asked what must I do to be saved?	Spoke the word of the Lord to him and his household.	Baptized	Jailer and his household
Acts 18:8	Crispus believed in the Lord, together with his entire household	Corinthians hearing Paul and believed	Baptized	Crispus, household, and some Corinthians
Acts 19:1-7	Heard correct teaching about John's baptism.	Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus	Paul laid hands on the and the Spirit came upon them.	About 12 disciples of John.

Observations

In each conversion story there are different elements. However, the pattern is the same: belief is first and then a baptism is performed. One interesting case is Acts 8:14-17, which is the story about the Samaritans. This is a special case and there is obviously something different on how the Holy Spirit brought in the Samaritans into the church. However, even in this atypical passage, they believed first and then were baptized.

Lydia's Household

The only possible exception is Lydia's household in chapter 16. It is different from the other passages in Acts because God opened her heart and then Lydia and her household were baptized. No mention is made of whether her entire household believed or not. However, to argue for paedobaptism from this one case seems problematic for several reasons.

First, one would have to argue that she had children too young to believe and that they were baptized. If you look at the word, "household" (Greek, "οἶκος"), it literally means dwelling, but it extends to the people who live there. There is no warrant to assume Lydia had infants in her household. On my block in my neighborhood, there are no infants. We have empty-nesters, families with teenagers, couples who do not intend to start a family or young couples who have not started families. To assert that Lydia's household had infants seems to be a big assumption. We need more evidence.

Second, Luke may have intended to include only the believers in the term "household." For example. at a University of Iowa football game, news announcers always note that all the spectators and players in the stadium turn and wave at the Children's Hospital after the 2nd quarter. Did the announcers mean all the spectators and players in the stadium? People bring their very young children to the games. Did the announcers intend to convey that even infants or the sleeping toddlers turned and waved at the hospital? The announcers meant everyone who understood and was able to wave, waved.

Here is a more similar example. Think about an activity such as a family walk after Thanksgiving. The next day we may report to a neighbor, "Yep, dinner was great and the whole family took a walk in the neighborhood in the afternoon." However, if a particularly nosey neighbor replied, "Everybody? What about baby Julie? She can't walk yet." We would reply with the baby Julie was in a stroller, of course. If the neighbor was even more obnoxious and pointed out that grandma Edna is confined to a wheelchair, we would replied with something like, "Uncle Henry pushed her" or "She stayed home of course". The phrase, "the whole family" meant everybody who could walk went on a walk. Likewise in Acts, the adjective "entire household" may not mean absolutely every single person, but just the people who believed, albeit the vast majority, were baptized.

Third, in Acts 18:8, Luke wrote, "believed in the Lord, together with his entire household." Again, Luke used the phrase "entire household". Did Luke intend the audience to believe that the infants believed too? We just do not know who was in the household. Luke assumed that his audience would understand that infants did not believe at that time. Again, Luke intended the reader to use common sense in reading the the passage just like in Lydia's story.

Fourth, even if Lydia did have her household baptized including infants, Luke does not provide any insight or comments on the baptisms. Would this one instance of infant baptism make infant baptism normative? The question is not whether there were infants baptized, but rather if the whole household including infants were baptized does this single instance indicate a normative pattern of infant baptism? In all the other baptism cases in Acts, those who were baptized believed before baptism. Luke could have assumed that this was a one-off case. Acts is a factual narrative. Luke was reporting how God was working through the Church and he was not strictly concerned with correct doctrinal practice. He was reporting on what happened and he was not stipulating orthopraxy. For insights on the correct practice of baptism, we must turn to the Epistles.

Fifth, there are passages about conversions (Acts 3:6-10, 6:7, 13:48) that do not reference baptism. Luke assumes the reader understood that the converts were baptized at some point. The elements of the conversion story: preaching and hearing the word, Holy Spirit coming upon them, believing in the Word, confession, and baptism are not included in every story. Luke for stylistic reasons or for his own reasons does not spell out all the elements of the conversion in every story. Likewise, for the story of Lydia's conversion, Luke may have skipped the step where he specified the members believed, because he assumed their belief and expected his readers to fill in the gaps.

In summary, the story of Lydia and her household does not endorse or condemn infant baptism. To argue that infant baptism should be a normative practice for the Church from this one passage seems to be an overreach at the very least. Another point, if the household was baptized and not every one believed, does that mean some people were forced to be baptized? Would we practiced that today? If a father heard the gospel and believed in today's culture, would we go back to his wife and teenaged children and make them get baptized?

Other Passages

Let us press on to other passages. Luke does not say they all believed in Acts 16:30-34; however, when Paul spoke to the entire household and after baptism, the whole household rejoiced. "They all rejoiced." This indicates that the entire household believed Paul's message before they were baptized.

One final observation is to highlight in Acts 19:1-7, believers were baptized twice. Once with John's baptism and after Paul laid hands on them, "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus". Double baptism is not a problem.

Historical Views

Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Reformers argued for paedobaptism. Both branches of the "Church" tied baptism to the washing away of Original Sin. Both the Catholic church and the Reformers persecuted the Anabaptists whose main doctrinal distinction was believer baptism. The following is a list of the various positions throughout history.

Thomas Aquinas
Practically speaking, then, in the case of infants, "baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction of fuller conversion. secondly, because of the danger of death, for not other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of baptism." Thus, Aquinas supported the continuation of infant baptism by appeal to original sin. (Allison, p. 623)

Martin Luther
Ultimately, Luther grounded his position on Scripture. For him the Bible does not explicitly command infant baptism. There would not be an adequate bilbical basis for start the practice were infant baptism not practiced already. But Scripture had enough to say about infant baptism that the church could not discontinue it. In particular, Luther appealed to Christ's command to let the children come to him. To deny baptism to children would be disobedience to this order. Also, Christ commands the church to baptize "all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), and this all encompassing group obviously includes infants. ... . Thus, Luther expressed hope: "We bring the child to be baptized with conviction and the hope that he will believe, and we pray that God will give him faith. But we do not baptize on the strength of this belief, but only on the fact that God has commanded it. And so Luther continued the traditional practice of infant baptism. (Allison, p. 625)

Calvin
Like Zwingli, Calvin justified infant baptism on the analogy between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the covenant sign of baptism. (Allison, p. 829)

"Infants are baptized into future repentance and faith." (Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.20, LCC, 2:1343)

Baptists
The London Confession of Faith
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or who are made disciples. ... . Being a sign, it must answer the things signified; which is, that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And, as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be realised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ. (as quoted by Allison, pp. 630-631)

Puritans
Hermeneutically; those theologians who argued for paedobaptism placed a great deal of weight on the covenant made with Abraham and its continued significance for the new covenant era. Accordingly, Flavel, whose polemics with antipaedobaptists such as Philip Cary (d. 1710) are well known, argues that the two Testamens should cast light upon one another. Specifically, Christians should not 'undervalue or reject an Old Testament text, as on way useful to clear and establish a New Testament point of faith or duty. In other words understanding the whole law (i.e., the Bible) helps one to know the sense of particular laws. (e.g., paedobaptism).
(Beeke and Jones, p. 36)

Karl Barth
Thus, for Barth, the proofs for infant baptism were a late addition to the doctrine, and thus foreign to any proper doctrine of baptism. The historical reality of infant baptism, and the Reformers' wholehearted acceptance of the practice, compelled them to justify it without ever questioning its legitimacy in the first place. Barth found the Reformers woefully lacking in the attempts to formulate such a bona fide doctrine. (Allison, p. 833)

What does baptism mean?

I admit my conversations with current believers and my reading of past theologians is very limited, but I have not seen the use of any exegesis of the passages in 1st Peter and Colossians, which are the clearest teachings by the apostles on the practice and theology of baptism, to defend the practice. Here are some notes on the key passages.

Colossians 2:11–12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (ESV)

F.F. Bruce
No longer is there any place for a circumcision performed by hands (which, being restricted to males, was in any case inappropriate for the new order in Christ); the death of Christ has effected the inward cleansing which the prophets associated with the new covenant, and of this Christian baptism is the visible sign.
(The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, pp. 103-104)

...

If, on the other hand, the "circumcision of Christ" is the circumcision which he effects, the inward cleansing brought about by his death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in those who are united to by faith, then the "stripping of the body of flesh" refers to the believer's baptismal experience (described in Rom. 6:6 as the crucifixion of "our old self" and the destruction of "the sinful body"). It involves the reckoning of one's former self with its desires and propensities to be dead, as a necessary prelude to putting on the new nature--putting on Christ himself in his resurrection life. What the believer puts off is "the whole personality organized for, and geared into rebellion against God." (ibid, p. 104)

...

For baptism not only proclaims that the old order is past and done with, it proclaims that a new order has been inaugurated. The convert did not remain in the baptismal water; he emerged from it to "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Baptism, therefore implies a sharing in Christ's resurrection as well as in this death and burial. (ibid, p. 105)

1 Peter 3:18–22
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (ESV)

Edmund Clowney
It is significant that Peter goes on to speak of the pledge made in baptism, the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The word for pledge implies an undertaking made in response to formal questions. Peter underscores the solemnity of the commitment made by these new Christians. They pledge the life of a good conscience. (Or, they make pledge sincerely, out of a good conscience.) In that pledge Christians agree with God's judgment on sin, and turn on their own sinful past (4:3). They acknowledge that to turn from their commitment would be to bring upon themselves God's just judgment. Yet Peter's words stress the wonder of the sacrament even more than its solemnity. As Noah was delivered by the grace of God, although only in symbol, so have they been delivered in fact. Christ has saved them, for he died for their sins and gave them life through his resurrection (3:18, 21). ("The Bible Speaks Today", The Message of 1 Peter, p. 167)

Conclusions

The purpose of baptism as specified in the Epistles is the strongest argument against paedobaptism. Both Peter and Paul stressed that baptism is an outward sign of a inward change effected through the Holy Spirit. Christians through their union with Christ died to sin and were raised to a new life. The dunking of a person in water by itself does nothing. Baptism is a one-time ordinance that believers can use to testify how Christ entered their lives and brought them into the Kingdom of God. Peter describes it as "an appeal to a God for a good conscience". Peter is stating that believers getting baptized before others is an appeal or pledge that their repentance is real and they want to live a new life before God through faith. The physical act itself does nothing: the removal of dirt does nothing toward salvation.

The household passages in Acts do nothing to argue for or against infant baptism. Luke is not specifying the order of salvation in his conversion reports. He is just highlighting how the Holy Spirit changed lives through the spread of the Gospel. Infant baptism, if you take away the idea of the washing away of Original Sin, becomes simply a pledge of guardians to raise their children in the Church. This is a good practice, but it is not what baptism is about. There are better ways for a family to do this other than using an ordinance that Christ specified for believers.

Please consider this blog as a beginning point for your own study of the scriptures on this issue. Be noble-minded like a Berean (Acts 17:11). Search the scriptures for yourself!

Appendixes

Bibliography

Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, 2011

Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, Reformation Heritage Books, 2012

F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon and to the Ephesians, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984

Edmund Clowney, The Bible Speaks Today, The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, Series Editors: J. A. Motyer and John R. W. Stott, Intervarsity Press, 1989

Verses

Acts 2:41
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:14–17
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Acts 8:34–40
And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea. (ESV)

Acts 9:18
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;

Acts 10:44–48
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (ESV)

Acts 16:14–15
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (ESV)

Acts 16:30–34
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (ESV)

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 19:1–7
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all. (ESV)

Acts 22:12–16
“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ (ESV)

Dichotomy versus Trichotomy

Introduction

The ACBC (Association of Certified Biblical Counselors) has in its certification process two exams: a theological-oriented exam and a practical counseling-oriented exam. The theological exam has a question about how man is constituted. Does the Bible see man as a trichotomy (triplex): a body, a soul, and a spirit or does it see it as a dichotomy (duplex): immaterial (soul/spirit) and body. The difference may seem trivial to some, but there are practical implications. The most simple difference is in counseling. Some religious counselors suggest that if a human can be separated into 3 parts, then we help people using those divisions. For example, medical doctors should treat the body, psychiatrists/secular psychologists should treat the soul (the unredeemed part of the human being), and the religious counselor should treat the spirit (the redeemed part of the human being).

The ACBC strongly recommends the dichotomy view since it treats the counselee as more of a integrated whole. They reject the philosophical basis of the secular psychiatrists and psychologists. ACBC asserts the Bible is sufficient to disciple the whole person. They encourage the biblical counselor to treat the whole person and actively seek to work with medical doctors in treating the whole person.

My experience has been that theologians, especially reformed theologians, argue that the dichotomy is the most biblically supported view and that trichotomy is supported by church members. This page is a summary of my notes on the subject.

Definitions

Dichotomy

Dichotomy according to Merriam Webster means "a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities." In the context of theology, dichotomy means that a human being is made up of two parts: the immaterial (spirit/soul) and the physical (body). It is the predominant position of Reformed theology and most serious Evangelical theologians for hundreds of years; however, there are notable exceptions like A. W. Pink. The following quotes defines "dichotomy rather well.

Charles Ryrie
Man is made up of two substances, material and immaterial. Each consists of a variety within. The many facets of the material and the many facets of the immaterial join together to make up the whole of each person. Man is rich diversity in unity.
(Basic Theology, p 225)

Trichotomy

Trichotomy according to Merriam Webster is "division into three parts, elements, or classes". In theology in reference to humans it means that a human being can be divided into three substances: body, soul, and spirit (mind). There are numerous theories how the different divisions interact and exist together. Here are two quotes from two very popular systematic theologies that define the doctrine.

Charles Hodge
The doctrine [trichotomy] has been held in different forms. The simplest, the most intelligible, and the one most commonly adopted is, that the body is the material part of our constitution; the soul, or ψυχή, is the principle of animal life; and the mind, or πνεῦμα, the principle of our rational and immortal life. When a plant dies its material organization is dissolved and the principle of vegetable life which it contained disappears. When a brute dies its body returns to dust, and the ψυχή, or principle of animal life by which it was animated, passes away. When a man dies his body returns to the earth, his ψυχή ceases to exist, his πνεῦμα alone remains until reunited with the body at the resurrection. To the πνεῦμα, which is peculiar to man, belong reason, will, and conscience. To the πνεῦμα, which is peculiar to man, belong reason, will and conscience. To the ψυχή which we have in common with the brutes, belong understanding, feeling, and sensibility, or, the power of sense-perceptions. To the σῶμα belongs what is purely material.
(Systematic Theology Volume II: Anthropology, p. 47)

Wayne Grudem
According to many trichotomists, man's soul includes his intellect, his emotions, and his will. They maintain that all people have such a soul, and that the different elements of the soul can either serve God or be yielded to sin. They argue that man's spirit is a higher faculty in man that comes alive when a person becomes a Christian (see Rom. 8:10: "If Christ in sin you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness"). The spirit of a person then would be that part of him or her that most directly worships and prays to God (see John 4:24; Phil. 3:3).
(Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, p. 472)

As I mentioned above, A. W. Pink supports trichotomy. He argues since the Godhead has three persons, then God's image of man is reproduce through man being tripartite: soul, spirit, and body. (See The Total Depravity of Man, p. 11).

The position is popular among churches but I looked at several systematic theologies and all of them argue that trichotomy cannot be defended consistently in Scripture. This is not to say the terms soul and spirit are exactly synonymous, but rather their definitions overlap. Charles C. Ryrie in his Basic Theology asserts that "soul" and "spirit" are words that represent different facets of the same thing. For example, I can refer to my wife using multiple words and phrases: my wife, mother-of-my-children, my significant other, the love of my life, etc. If I use multiple terms to introduce her to a stranger like "Here is my wife, my best friend, and the love of my life.", I am emphasizing how much she means to me.

My Research

I used the following tables to summarize my research into the issue. The first table is the list of systematic theologies that argue for dichotomy. These theologies are written by mainstream evangelical authors. They all make solid arguments for the dichotomy view of man. I lean to the reformed side of theology, but I could not find any systematic theologies that argue for trichotomy.

Systematic Theology References that Argue for Dichotomy

Title	Author	Pages	Chapter
Systematic Theology	Wayne Grudem	472 - 489	Chapter 23: The Essential Nature of Man
A Theology of Biblical Counseling	Heath Lambert	194 - 203	Chapter 7: Biblical Counseling and a Theology of Humanity
Systematic Theology: Volume II Anthropology	Charles Hodge	pp. 47 - 51	Part 2 Division 2 Topic 2. Nature of Man: Trichotomy
A Theology of Christian Counseling	Jay E. Adams	pp. 110 - 114	Chapter 8, Counseling and Human Life: More than Redemption
Basic Theology	Charles Ryrie	223 - 229	Chapter 32: The Facets of Man

The second table is a list of key verses that provide teaching on anthropology: the branch of theology that studies Mankind. The columns are key terms that these verses use to describe the internal/non-physical study of man. The verses are listed at the end of the blog.

Verses

Scripture	Description	Spirit	Soul	Mind	Heart
Genesis 2:7	Creation	N	Y	N	N
Deuteronomy 6:4	Love	N	Y	N	Y
Matthew 10:28	Judgement	N	Y	N	N
Isaiah 26:9	Desire	Y	Y	N	N
Mark 12:29–30	Love	N	Y	Y	Y
Luke 1:46–47	Praise	Y	Y	N	N
Luke 10:27	Love	N	Y	Y	Y
1 Corinthians 15:45	Glorification	Y	Y	N	N
2 Corinthians 7:1	Sanctify	Y	N	N	N
1 Thessalonians 5:23	Sanctify	Y	Y	N	N
Hebrews 4:12-13	Sanctify	Y	Y	N	Y
Revelation 6:9	in Heaven	N	Y	N	N
Revelation 20:4	In Heaven	N	Y	N	N

Observations

1. Heart is used four times with soul. Heart is used once with both soul and spirit. Is heart a separate concept from soul and spirit? Do humans have four different parts? How does the mind tie in?
2. In Matthew 10:28 Jesus is talking about Him who can destroy both the body and soul. Jesus seems to be indicating the whole being here: both material and immaterial can be destroyed by God.
3. In Luke 1:46-47, This passage is called the "Magnificat". It is where Mary, the mother of Jesus, uses the forms of Hebrew poetry, to praise God. She references "my soul" in verse 46 and "my spirit" in verse 47. The Magnificat, like all good Hebrew poetry uses parallelism: similar but not identical terms in different lines to provide artistry and clarity of expression. The trichotomy argument that the "soul" is the unsaved part of man and the spirit is the regenerated part, falls apart here. Both soul and spirit are praising God.
4. In Revelation 20:4, John sees "souls of those whom have been beheaded." Where are the spirits? If "soul" represents the whole immaterial person in passage, why not other passages?

Arguments against Trichotomy

A key to understanding how God sees man is interpreting Genesis 2:7 correctly.

Genesis 2:7
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (ESV)

Ross asserts that the word "soul" in Genesis 2:7 should be understood as referring to the whole man: both material and immaterial together.

Allen P. Ross
Finally, according to Genesis 2:7, the combining of the physical body and the divine produces the "living being." The expression is often translated "living soul." The Hebrews, however, did not think in terms of a soul apart from the body. Rather, the word (nepes, "soul," describes the the whole person--the soul in the body, or a human being with all the appetites (nepes may include the idea of "throat," in the sense of a breathing person) The expression "living being" is used for animals (e.g., 2:19), but "image" never is, nor apparently, is "breath of life." Like the animals, man is a living, breathing being; unlike the animals, however, he arrived at that state in a way that assuredly distinguishes him from the animals.
(Creation and Being, p. 123)

Man's uniqueness in creation does reflect that Man is the image-bearer of God. Man's moral character and reasoning reflects God to creation. Even dichotomy is too strong of word for explaining how God structured Man. God will resurrect the body along with the soul, this indicates that God views humans: both material and immaterial as an essential unity.

Michael Horton:
Nevertheless, Scripture does presuppose and explicitly teaches a distinction between the body and the soul--the view known as dichotomy--especially its affirmation of the soul's living presence before God at bodily death. However, it will become obvious in the account I offer below that this view in no way entails, much less requires, a radical anthropological dualism. In that light, I would prefer a term such as psychosomateic holism, since dichotomy implies that the distinction between soul and body is more basic than its unity. The important point is that human nature is not to be identified exclusively or even primarily with the soul; the "real self" is the whole self--body and soul.
(The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, p. 377)

The verse used most by people who support trichotomy is Hebrews 4:12. "Soul" and "Spirit" are mentioned specifically in the same verse indicating that they cannot represent the same object. The following quotes from commentaries indicate that the distinction is not so clear.

Homer A. Kent Jr. on Hebrews 4:12
Although this verse clearly makes a distinction between soul and spirit, it hardly settles the long-debated issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy. Whether the spirit is a completely separate entity from the soul, or resides in the soul as one part of it, cannot be resolved by this verse. Joints and marrow is probably metaphorical here, illustrative of the most precise and inner most discriminating. Inasmuch as joints and marrow are not contiguous, the thought is not that of dividing joints from marrow, but of separating joints from the bones which meet at that point, and laying bare the marrow which is inside the bones.
(The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary, 89)

F. F. Bruce on Hebrews 4:12
It would indeed by precarious to draw any conclusions from these words about our author's psychology, nor is it necessary to understand them in the sense of the Pauline distinction between soul and spirit. That the word of God probes the inmost recesses of our spiritual being and brings the subconscious motives to light is what is meant: we may compare Paul's language about the coming day when the Lord "will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts." (1 Cor. 4:5).
(The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 113)

Let us look at the verse more closely.

Hebrews 4:12–13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (ESV)

Notice that soul and spirit are not the only words used in this verse to describe the immaterial part of humans: the word "heart" is used and it has "thoughts and intentions". How does the term "heart" differ from the terms, "soul" and spirit"? Second, notice that the terms "joints" and "marrow" do not describe the whole physical body. They are not even contiguous. One can divide bones from one another at the joint and one can split apart a bone to get at the marrow. Likewise, the verse is not talking about separating soul from spirit, but rather looking at the divisions of the soul and looking at the divisions of the spirit. All these terms: "spirit", "soul", "joints", and "marrow, are a metaphor of how the God's Word brings what is unseen and not understood in our lives to light.

2nd Corinthians 7:1
Another key verse that argues against the trichotomy view is 2nd Corinthians 7:1, "let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit." In another verse, 1 Peter 2:11, states that we are "to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against the soul." Using the "Trichotomy view" the spirit is what is in communication with God and is "quickened" or "awakened" when a person is converted. The trichotomy view needs to explain why Peter chose the words "body and soul" in verse 2nd Cor. 7:1 rather than body and spirit.

The Differences Between Spirit and Soul

Charles Ryrie on "Soul"
To sum up: soul can mean the whole person, alive or after death; it can designate the immaterial part of a person with its many feelings and emotions; and it is an important focus on redemption.
(Basic Theology, pp. 225-226)

Charles Ryrie on "Spirit"
As a facet for the immaterial part of man, one's spirit is the center of various traits, emotions and activities. Some of these include thinking (Isaiah 29:24), remembering (Ps. 77:6), humility (Matt. 5:3), grief (Gen. 26:35), vexation (John 13:21), jealousy (Num. 5:14), haughtiness (Prov. 1618), and contriteness (Ps. 34:18). Because it may evince undesirable emotions, the spirit needs attention in the spiritual life (Ps. 51:10; 2 Cor. 7:1).

...

To sum up: spirit does not indicate the whole person, but the immaterial part with its various functions and feelings. In Pauline thought it assumes prominence in relation to the spirtual life. (Basic Theology, p. 226)

Conclusion

The trichotomy view might be defended by explaining away the arguments for each verse listed above; however, the view that is the simplest and most clearly supported by scripture is the dichotomy view of man. The terms spirit and soul are used interchangeably and seem to largely overlap. As Ryrie asserts spirit and soul seem to be different facets of the immaterial part of man. Every time someone codifies the definitions of the terms "spirit" and "soul" to support the trichotomy view of man, one can provide verses that seem to be exceptions to the rules.

In counseling, the implications of the trichotomy view lead to confusion. The Bible is sufficient to address the whole person. Splitting a person into the different parts so they can be treated separately goes against biblical teaching. Man is a unity that needs to be treated holistically. Counseling addresses the whole man while depending on medical science to give the counselor insight. To suggest that there is a part of man, the soul, which is not being sanctified by our walking in the Holy Spirit, seems to provide excuses for people to sin. For example, counselees use phrases like, "the heart wants what it wants" to explain why a divorce is okay in their case. Sanctification involves the whole person putting to death the temptations of sin. The trichotomy view just muddies the waters of clear teaching.

Verses on Dichotomy:

Deuteronomy 6:4–5
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

Isaiah 26:9
My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 1:46–47
And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
     and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

Mark 12:29–30
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

Luke 10:27
And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (ESV)

1 Corinthians 15:45
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (ESV)

1 Peter 2:11
Beloved, I urge you has sojourners and exiles ito abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. (ESV)

Revelation 6:9
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Trichotomy

Hebrews 4:12–13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (ESV)

1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (ESV)

1 Corinthians 15:42–49
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (ESV)

Hebrews 4:15 -- Unable to Sympathize

Hebrews 4:15–16
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (ESV)

Introduction

Have you ever thought about why the author of Hebrews indicated that temple priests were unable to sympathize with their flock? They were human. The Levitical priests sinned. They had the same weaknesses and foibles as the rest of us. Why could they not sympathize with their people? How and why did Jesus provide a better way? How did the priests' emotional state stopped them from ministering to their flock?

I have pondered these questions concerning the passage over years. This answer was provided to me by a book on the history of theology. I came across a passage discussing the historical views of God's impassabilty.

Observations

The book pointed out that we misunderstand the phrase "unable to sympathize" in the verse because it has been poorly translated from the Greek. We tend to interpret that somehow the temple priests referenced are emotionally stunted and thus, unable to sympathize with our pain and suffering. However, Bray points out the phrase means something different.

Gerald Bray
Did Jesus suffer on our behalf because of his compassion for us? Hebrews 4:15 says that "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize we our weaknesses," but this is a mistranslation. The Greek word is sympathêsai, which implies physical suffering in a way that the English word that derives from it does not. The Jewish high priest could not be "sympathetic," not because he was emotionally challenged, but because he did not suffer for the sins of the people. The modern reader is liable to think primarily in terms of an emotional bond and wonder how the high priest could have been so hard-hearted. Perhaps he was not. Given that he was sacrificing for his own sins as well as for those of the people , he may been extremely sympathetic to them in our sense of the word, but because he could not be their substitute, the writer to the Hebrews argued that he could not feel their pain. That is what Hebrews 4:15 means, not that the temple priest lacked normal human feelings.
(p. 1212, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology)

I decided to do a small word study on "sympathize". My linguistic key states that the Greek word συμπαθῆσαι that we translate as "sympathize" is not a word for an emotion, "The word is not to be understood in a psychological sense, but rather in an existential sense. The enabled one suffers together w. the weakness of the one tempted (Michel)." (p. 331, A Linguistic Key to the New Testament Volume 2, Rienecker and Rodgers)

Conclusion

The Old Testament priests may have been able to sympathize with our weaknesses in the modern sense. The English word "sympathize" means to "understand or feel sorry for". It is a word that describes an emotion, but the Greek word means much more than an emotion. It means to somehow suffer for and with someone else. Priests in the Old Testament could not suffer for their flock. The best they could do is offer animal sacrifices for our sins. Christ in his life and crucifixion suffered with us and for us. He, being the Great High Priest, is the only one who has been fully tempted without ever sinning. He alone could suffer for our sins to redeem and free us from our sins. God through Christ has entered into our world of suffering to bring us eventually out of suffering into eternal life. This is why we can draw near with confidence to the throne of grace. Jesus has already saved His elect and He is effecting our salvation within us. Therefore, we know we can find grace and mercy when we need it.

"live with your wives in an understanding way" -- 1 Peter 3:7

In popular culture I have encountered a phrase that people use to justify a divorce, "we just grew apart." The phrase usually indicates that no guilt and no responsibility should be attributed for the breakup of the marriage. The couple could not help it. It was just the natural course of life that we just "grew" or "drifted" apart.

In our men's study I am preparing to lead the group through 1st Peter 3. The apostle Peter in verse 3:7 lays the responsibility on the man for keeping the marriage together.

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)

Notice the italicized part. Men are to "understand" or "know" their wives. A man's prayer life and his relationship with God depends on how he well he knows his wife and shows honor to her in light of that knowledge. Obviously, Peter wants to stress that living with our wives in an understanding way is very important to our spiritual lives.

To set the context, let us look at the very first phrase of the verse, "likewise, husbands" or "In the same way, husbands,". The husband's way is like the wife's path. "Likewise" is also used in verse 3:1 and is directed to the wives. This "likewise" points back Peter's instruction to the slaves in chapter 2. The way of Christ for husbands is the same as the path for wives and the way of Christ for wives is the same as the path for slaves: all of them are to humbly walk out their devotion to Christ by showing respect and loving everyone in the household.

George Clowney
Husbands, in the same way… The path of Christian living is no different for the husband than for the wife. Both are called to follow Christ in humble and compassionate love, accepting rebuffs with forgiving grace (3:8-9). Since the husband’s role is different, the form of his service is different. The wife is called to be submissive to her husband; the husband is called to honour his wife. That honour includes considerate understanding. (The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, pp. 133)

The next phrase "in an understanding way" is interesting. It means a husband needs to know his wife. He must study her needs and wants. He must study in the Scriptures to see what God wants for his wife. The husband needs to figure out how to help his wife grow in the knowledge of Christ. How this principle works itself out in every marriage will be different. However, getting to know one's spouse takes time. It may mean finding activities to do with your wife that you both enjoy. Husbands will never fully know their wives or lead their wives perfectly. However, honoring this command involves a deliberate choice of resources of time and energy. A wise farmer who was an elder of my church once advised me that a porch swing could be the best marriage counselor. Just setting aside and spending time with your spouse is key.

George Clowney
The husband is to live with his wife considerately, literally ‘according to knowledge’. The expression describing their living together is not limited to sexual intimacy, but it has particular reference to it. In all their life together, and particularly in their sexual union, the husband is to relate to his wife ‘according to knowledge’. Does Peter mean knowledge of the wife, or the knowledge of God and his calling? The close connection with the description of the wife as the weaker partner favours the specific sense: the husband must dwell with wife as one who knows her needs, who recognizes the delicacy of her nature and feelings.
(The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, pp. 133-134)

The apostle Paul wrote the sacrifices husbands must make for their marriage.

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)

I would like to think most husbands would lay down lives for their wives. Men should be willing to take a bullet intended for their wives, but Paul in Ephesians 5 intended more than an one-time sacrifice. Husbands are to daily give up their time and resources to study their wives in order to show love to them. This is not easy. Some men find it easier and less stressful to work overtime or listen to the game alone in the garage or drink a beer with friends at a bar. Family life can be difficult and messy. However, the joy of loving serving Christ with one's spouse through marriage will grow and outlast all these temporal pleasures.

Nazareth and Nazarene in Matthew 2:23

Matthew 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (ESV)

I have always been curious about this verse. I can think of no prophecy in the Old Testament which calls Jesus a Nazarene. Commentators give widely different explanations as to what Matthew meant. As I look at this verse, I am reminded of C. S. Lewis's admonition of the need to understand literature in its historical context.

C. S. Lewis:
A man who read the literature of the past with no allowance at all for the fact that manners, thought, and sentiment have changed since it was written, would make the maddest work of it.
(Studies in Medieval Literature, 'DE AUDIENDIS POETS', p. 1)

A verse like Matthew 2:23 challenges our thinking about how the first century New Testaments writers did hermenuetics. One view of the verse is given by George Bray in his book on Historical Theology:

George Bray
The Nazirites were members of a strict Jewish sect, and the word has nothing to do with Nazareth. But "Nazirite" sounds like "Nazarene," and that was enough to permit this kind of word play, which was very common among the rabbis. Furthermore, there are other, more substantial similarities between the two stories. Like Manoah and his wife, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would bear a son, who would also save Israel from its enemies. Samson, the son of Manoah, was certainly not the promise Messiah, but as a judge of Israel he was a prototype of the Saviour who was to come and he is mentioned in the list of the great heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. The fact that Jesus succeeded where Samson failed was further proof that the two men were connected because the Old Testament was interpreted as a record of Israel's failure to achieve what only the Messiah could do. Christ therefore fulfilled the promise made concerning Samson just as much as he fulfilled those made to Abraham and Moses. A verse that appears to be mistaken in linking "Nazarene" to "Nazirite" turns out to have a profound theological meaning provides a good example of how the early Christians found Christ in all the Scriptures, as he taught them to do.
(God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology, pp. 46-47)

Here is the relevant passage on Samson in Judges:

Judges 13:2–5
There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (ESV)

The parallel events between Samson's story Jesus's story are remarkable. Both are destined to their role in history before they were born. Both were to be "deliverers of Israel". Both accomplished their task in their death. Samson killed the Philistine leadership by bringing down the building where he and his captors were standing. Christ conquered Satan and death through His death on the Cross. Notice that both men had their arms outstretched in death. In Bray's explanation, Matthew intended his audience to draw these parallels and gained insights into Jesus's life and death and perhaps, Matthew intended his readers to glory in how every page in the Old Testament points to Jesus. (Luke 24:27).

A different approach to interpreting Matthew 2:23 is by Bible scholar, Stanley D. Toussaint in his commentary on Matthew. His explanation is as follows:

Stanley D. Toussaint
A third view is more plausible. It looks at the Old Testament prophecies of reproach such as Psalm 22:6-9 and Isaiah 53 as being summed up in the title Nazarene. "To be called a Nazarene was to be spoken of as despicable.". Matthew is pointing to those prophecies in the Old Testament which portray the Messiah as rejected and despised and claiming their fullment in the fact that Jesus is reared at Nazareth. Israel's feeling of contempt for their King is indicated by this verse and is proven by the chapter which Matthew has just written. (Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, p. 57)

If we accept this explanation, we gain more understanding of the passage by seeing how Matthew and his audience in the first century understood the word, "Nazarene".

There are more explanations for this strange verse, but these two theories are my favorite and they are not mutually exclusive. Both views may be wrong, but the effort in considering the verse within its historical and theological context is not wasted. I consider this kind of research a form of meditation. Samson, is a type of Christ, in his way and the parallels are worth our meditation. The term "nazarene" is an insult and how Christ suffered such abuse in his life is worth remembering. Just by double-checking these explanations and cross-referencing the ideas with other passages, we are spending time meditating on the life of Christ.