Why Gabriel—not Michael?

Biblegems #18

Is it significant that God sent Gabriel to both Joseph and Mary rather than Michael or some other angel?

Actually, the Bible does not specify that the angel who spoke to Joseph in a dream was Gabriel. All we know for sure is that it was “an angel of the Lord” (Matt. 1:20ff). His message to Joseph is strikingly similar, however, to Gabriel’s message addressed to Mary (Lk. 1:26ff); and Luke 1:19 tells us that it was Gabriel who appeared to Zechariah with the news that Elizabeth was to have a child in her old age. So it is certainly likely that the angel Joseph encountered was Gabriel as well.

The only other times in Scripture that Gabriel is mentioned by name is in the book of Daniel, chapters 8 and 9, where Daniel receives from the angel an interpretation of his vision of the end times. When we compare his activities with that of Michael, another angel of the Lord, some striking differences between them emerge.

In each angel encounter with Gabriel, he is quite talkative—not in a prattling way, but he does have much to say as he dialogues with humans. In contrast, the archangel Michael has virtually no direct communication with human beings, but rather acts as a guardian and protector for the prophet Daniel (Dan. 10:13) and for the people of Israel as a whole (Dan. 12:1; Rev. 12:7). In fact, the only reference we have to Michael saying anything at all is from the book of Jude, where “the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (9).

From the evidence available in Scripture, it seems evident that God’s appointed role, at least in part, for Gabriel is to serve as His principal messenger to key people in the outworking of His plan of salvation throughout history. Michael’s principal role is apparently that of Israel’s protector from those who would derail God’s chosen people from their appointed place in God’s plan of salvation.

In either case, these glorious beings represent a vast host of heavenly beings (Heb. 12:12), all of whom are “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:4). As beautiful, powerful and other-worldly as the angels are, “it is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come…” (Heb. 2:5). “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Heb. 2:9).

Gabriel’s great privilege was to announce to Mary, and very likely to Joseph, that they would be the earthly parents of the One he had already known and worshiped in heaven, and would come to know again and worship as the Lamb who had been slain.

Why "Jesus"—not "Immanuel"?

Biblegems #17

Here is a great question someone has submitted for this Christmas season: “Why did they name Him Jesus when the OT said His name would be Immanuel?”

“Immanuel” shows up in Scripture only three times (Is. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23), each time referring to the Messiah.

The first occurrence in Isaiah 7:14 prophecies that a “virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Matthew’s Gospel reports that the angel Gabriel, quoting this Scripture, announced to Joseph that Mary was the virgin of Isaiah’s prophecy, and that her child would be the “Immanuel” of that prophecy (Matt. 1:22). Yet it is also Gabriel who in the previous verse instructs Joseph to name the baby “Jesus” (Lit., Yahweh saves) because he will save his people from their sins (1:21).

So we know that Gabriel, as God’s messenger, understood “Immanuel” to be an adjective meaning “God with us,” not the Messiah’s name. Joseph also understood that naming the baby “Jesus” as the angel instructed did not contradict the Isaiah prophecy, but fulfilled it. This was further confirmed when the same angel instructed Mary to name the child “Jesus” (Lk. 1:31). Not only so, But Gabriel informs Mary that the child would be conceived through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, “so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35). In other words, the child would be God—with us!

Even the similarity in phrasing is interesting: Isaiah says that the virgin “will call him” Immanuel, and Gabriel says that the child “will be called” the Son of God. Neither time is the phrase meant to indicate the baby’s name, only what terms would be eventually applied to Jesus. The same can be said of another familiar Isaiah prophecy concerning the Messiah:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Is. 9:6).

So it is clear that the phrase “will be called” was never meant to mean “will be named.” “Immanuel” refers to what Jesus is—God with us; and the name “Jesus,” though likewise highly symbolic in its meaning, refers to Jesus’ identity as a person. It is one thing to know in theory that there might be a unique person somewhere in existence who is “God with us.” It is something else entirely to know who this specific person is by name, because: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Remember, you can submit your Bible question in the comment box below and share the blessing with others!

Where Is the Ark of the Covenant?

Biblegems #16

Here’s a great, two-fold question from a young man concerning the Ark of the Covenant: 1) What happened to the Ark, and (2) will it be ever be found again?

Here’s what we know for certain: The Ark of the Covenant, which had accompanied the Hebrews during their 40 year wandering in the wilderness, and was then situated at a variety of locations in conquered Canaan for several hundred years, was finally brought to Jerusalem by King David. His son Solomon built the First Temple and brought the Ark into the Holy of Holies (1 Sam. 5-6). It remained there until the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonian Empire in 586 B.C.

There are many theories as to what happened to the Ark. Some contend that it exists still in a cave within the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Others believe it survives in Africa or Egypt. But there is no real definitive proof as to its survival or possible whereabouts.

The apocryphal book of Maccabees, which relates the historical uprising of the Jews in Israel against the Seleucid Empire and the establishment of the Jewish Hasmonean Empire from 164 – 63 B.C., refers to the disappearance of the Ark. It states that the prophet Jeremiah hid the Ark in a cave on “the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God” (2 Macc. 2:4 RSV). The location was supposedly lost soon after, and Jeremiah is claimed to have prophesied that it would remain lost “until God gathers his people together again” in the days of the Messiah (2 Macc. 2:7-8 RSV).

The problem with this side-note in 2 Maccabees is that there is no record of such a prophecy in the book of Jeremiah itself. Indeed, Jeremiah prophesied that when the Messiah reigns on earth from Mt Zion, the Ark will not be recovered and “it will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made” (Jer. 3:16).

Most likely, from the limited information available, 1) the Ark was destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians (their record of the Temple artifacts brought back to Babylon does not include the Ark), or (2) The Ark was buried beneath the Temple just before the Temple was destroyed.

Jeremiah’s prophecy should remind us that the Ark ‘s purpose was fulfilled in the Old Testament, and its foreshadowing of the cross of Christ fulfilled in the New Testament. Other than satisfying a certain archeological curiosity, its recovery would serve no further spiritual value. And, when Jesus returns to establish His Kingdom, the Ark—if it were found—would seem as nothing more than a gold-covered box in comparison with the beauty, power, majesty and of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Sources: T he Jewish Virtual Library is a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise; LIVIUS , Articles on Ancient History (online); 2 Maccabees, RSV; The Bible (NIV),

Which Simon Is Which?

Biblegems #15

Is Simon the Leper in Matthew 26 the same person as the Simon mentioned in the other three Gospels?

The name “Simon” comes up 74 times throughout the four Gospels, so it’s no wonder that there is some confusion as to which “Simon” is which, or if they are all one and the same person!

Matthew 26:6-7 tells us that, “While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.” Anointing was a common practice in Bible times, and done for a variety of purposes (Ps. 23:5; 133:2; Is. 1:6; Ps. 104:15; Lev. 14:17-18). Also at the house with Jesus were his disciples (v.8), and perhaps several others not mentioned by name (Mk. 14:4).

“Simon the Leper” is referred to only in Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:3. Jesus was eating at Simon’s home in Bethany of Judea on the Mount of Olives two days before the Passover. Simon was likely present. If so, he had been healed of his leprosy, perhaps by Jesus, because Jewish law would otherwise have required him to be quarantined outside the village and prohibited him from any social contact whatsoever.

During the meal a woman anoints Jesus’ head with expensive perfume, and is then rebuked by many at the table, possibly even Simon himself, for being wasteful (Matt. 26:7-9). Jesus, of course, commended the woman and prophesied that she would always be remembered for her kindness whenever the gospel was told (Matt. 26:13).

A similar account is recorded in John 12:1-8, and another in Luke 7:36-40. But these two events are not identical. The woman in John’s Gospel is Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, and that anointing takes place six days before the Passover. The anointing in Mathew and Mark takes place two days before the Passover. The events also take place in two different homes in Bethany.

The anointing of Jesus in Luke 7:36-40 probably occurred two years earlier, during Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, not Judea. The woman in this case had once been a prostitute. She anointed Jesus at the home of Simon (a Pharisee, not a leper). She anointed Jesus feet, not his head, and dried them with her hair. No one complained about the cost this time, but took offense that Jesus would allow a sinful woman to touch him.

So, in answer to the question, these are three different Simons associated with three different women who performed a very common act of kindness for Jesus in different locations and at different times of Jesus ministry.

Do you have a question for Biblegems? You can submit your question by writing it in the comment box below. Look for new Biblegems next Tuesday!

Departing From Christ’s Doctrines

Biblegems #14

Does “departing from the doctrines of Christ” include those that teach that your salvation depends on what you do — for example, those who teach that you are saved by your repentance and keep your salvation by doing good works?

This question has its source in 2 John 9, which reads, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (KJV). The same verse in the NIV reads, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”

To answer this question correctly we need to check two fundamental principles of biblical interpretation. The first principle has to do with context. The second principle has to do with grammar.

Looking at the context of verse 9 requires that we go backward in 2 John to see what John was referring to when he used the phrase, “the doctrine (KJV) or teaching (NIV) of Christ.” That takes us to verse 7 where John cautions the Church about false teachers who do not acknowledge the incarnation of Christ. In fact, it is that critical doctrine that is the focal point of John’s concern in this short letter because what is at stake for the Church is the very nature of Jesus Himself as God in human flesh.

Looking at the grammatical construction of verse 9, especially word usage, we notice that John carefully uses the word “doctrine” in the singular, not plural, form. This tells us that John has a particular doctrine in mind, which he refers to as “the doctrine of Christ.” Once again, this draws us back to verse 7 where this specific doctrine is addressed. Both the context and the word usage agree that John is referring to the doctrine of the incarnation.

So the answer to the question — Does “departing from the doctrines of Christ” include those that teach that your salvation depends on what you do…? — is No. That is not what 2 John 9 is referring to. Other places in Scripture may address this subject, but not 2 John verse 9. And that is very important to recognize, because we need to be extremely careful not to use any phrase of Scripture in an overly generalized sense when its terminology and context is very specific, as in this case.

Remember this axiom: a text without the context is a pre-text. In other words, without the context in which a verse or portion of a verse is found, a text can appear to mean just about anything or apply to any variety of doctrines. Keeping the context always in view when interpreting Scripture will protect us from this error and allow the Bible to say what it means and mean what it says. And that is a real Bible gem!

Hired Hand Or Bond Slave?

Biblegems #13

In the parable of the prodigal son, why did the son want to be a hired hand, independent, working for pay, instead of a bond slave who recieved no pay, had no legal rights and no freedom (Luke 15:17-20)?

Bond slaves in the New Testament are symbolic of the believer’s position in Christ. We have been bought with a price and are His possession with no rights of our own, no independence, and totally under the authority of our Master. Why then, in Jesus’ parable, does the son seek a paid position in which he retains his independence?

The primary difference between a hired servant and a bond slave is, of course, that one gets paid while the other does not. It would seem on the surface that the prodigal son saw himself as deserving to get compensation for his work (if his father would even hire him), whereas in the role of a slave he could reasonably expect no more than food, shelter and the level of protection extended to any “property” owned by the father.

In New Testament times, however, when up to one out of every three persons was a slave, a bond slave was usually a permanent fixture in a family. That in itself provided a nearly guaranteed “job security” that a hired servant could only dream about. A hired servant could be let go when no longer needed, fired, have his pay withheld, etc. Not only so, but he was paid only for work actually performed, which may or may not have been sufficient to meet his needs. A bond slave, on the other hand, was fed, clothed and housed regardless of the fluctuations in workload from day to day. Slavery, in that sense, was much like a salaried position with benefits.

In addition to all this, because bond slaves were such a permanent part of the household, they were more often than not treated as family, even loved as family. Those who served with distinction and loyalty frequently received pay or bonuses to acknowledge their hard work and faithfulness. The life of a slave in many cases was much more comfortable than the hired servant who worked just as hard or harder, but received less for his trouble.

So, for the prodigal son to beg his father to take him on as a hired servant rather than a bond slave meant that he was offering himself for a position with no job security, no benefits and no sense of family or belonging. His independence would be a detriment rather than an asset.

In Jesus’ parable, the prodigal son does not see himself worthy of the privileges a bond slave has over a hired servant. He no longer hopes for any special treatment whatsoever. The depth of his repentance makes him willing to be cut off from any meaningful relationship with his family, resigned to a life of independence that will make him a slave of loneliness. Fortunately, his father’s love and mercy save the son from such a fate, providing what the son could never provide for himself. What a beautiful story of God’s saving grace!

No Original Carnivores?

Biblegems #12

In a comment on Biblegems #8, “The First Carnivores,” the question was raised: So does this mean there were no original carnivores?

The short answer is Yes… and No!

As was stated in Biblegems #8, carnivores such as lions, tigers and bears probably existed with the ability to eat other animals while Adam and Eve still inhabited the Garden of Eden, but they were commanded by God to eat only vegetation. The same would have been true of the first two humans as well. They had the physical capabilities necessary for eating meat but were restricted by God to a vegetarian diet until after the flood. Genesis 1:29-30 tells us:

           Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

The real question is, why? If God made people and animals with the ability to eat meat, and later gave His approval for eating meat, why was it not permitted in the early days of creation before the Fall of man?

The answer is that the death of living beings was not part of the original creation design. As normal as death seems to us now as part of the “circle of life,” it was not that way in the beginning. Death was introduced to the created realm by sin:

         Rom. 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And in the New Heavens and New Earth, death will no longer be part of the universe:

Rev. 21:3-4: And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

The “old order” referred to in Revelation 21 is the current order of man’s rebellion against God and the devastation that rebellion has brought into God’s beautiful creation throughout history. Before the Fall of man human beings were given the role and the authority to control the behavior of earth’s creatures:

           Gen. 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Since the Fall of man earth’s creatures no longer recognize man’s authority over them. The created realm exists in a state of turmoil and confusion, instinctively awaiting the day when mankind will be restored to a right relationship with his Creator and to his rightful place of authority in the universe:

          Rom. 8:19-22: The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation… itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

That day will come with the return of Jesus Christ in glory, bringing with Him all those who have put their faith in Him during this time of sin, suffering and death. At that time Jesus will establish His kingdom and the sons and daughters of God will reign with Him forever (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5). And from that time on…

They will neither harm nor destroy

on all my holy mountain,

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea (Is. 11:9).