QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 105
A quick question if you have time. You may email it as I have to sign off. I
went to a men's bible study last night and it stumped the group....Even the
leader. In Hebrews 3:6, what is meant by "but Christ a Son over His own house."
? I understand that Christ is over God's house (the church) but what does it
mean by "a" Son?
The book of Hebrews refers to the Savior as "Son" no less than twelve times
(1:2,5,8; 2:6; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5,8; 6:6; 7:3,28; 10:29). This accents His humanity,
for Christ's Sonship has strictly to do with Him becoming a Man and being
glorified as a Man. Hebrfews deals extensively with this, comparing Jesus to
angels (Heb 1:4-7,13), Moses (Heb 3:3-6), and Aaron the high prfiest (Heb
5:4-57:11-14).He is also the only means by which the household of the Lord can
be expanded, or realize new members. That is why He is called "everlasting
Father" (Isa 9:6), and the One to whom "children" have been given (Heb 2:13).
The words "a Son" are compared with the description of Moses as " a servant"
(Heb 3:5). Jesus is also referred to as "a Son" in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:8). Isaiah
also refers to the coming Savior as "a Son" (Isa 7:14; 9:6). Mary was told she
would bring forth "a Son" (Matt 1:23; Lk 1:31). There is no cause for a anyone
to be confused by this language.
This is the same kind of reasoning as is used in the fifth chapter of Romans.
There Adam is referred to as "one" and "one man," and Jesus is also referred to
as "one" and "one man" (Rom 5:15-19). This kind of reasoing is also used in
Hebrews where Jesus is called "a high priest" (Heb 4:15; 5:5,10; 6:20; 7:26;
8:1; 9:11;10:21). The use of "a" is one of comparison -- "a" Son with "a"
servant; "a" man who obeyed with "a" man who disobeyed; "a" high priest who ever
lives with "a" high priest that died.
In the text to which you referred, Moses was "a servant" over God's house.
Jesus, however, is by comparison "a Son" who is over His own house -- a house
that God built (Heb 2:5) and gave to Jesus ("His own house"). The point the
Spirit is making is that if men were punished for not following a servant who
was managing God's house, what will be done to those who refuse a Son who is
over HIs own house (Heb 3:8-15).
A
friend wrote me a very important question: "Do you believe Muslims are
worshipping the same God we believe in?"
First, the claim that Muslims worship the same God as Christians is based upon
the phrase, "The God of Abraham" (Gen 26:24; 31:42,53; Psa 47:9). Genesis 26:34
is a statement God Himself made to Isaac, referring to Abraham as Isaac’s
"father."
Genesis 31:42 is a statement of Jacob to Laban, in which he referred to "the God
of Abraham my father, and the fear of Isaac." The Muslims do not honor that
lineage, not acknowledging Isaac as Abraham’s primary offspring [God called
Isaac Abraham’s “only son’ (Gen 22:2), even though he fathered Ishmael and six
other sons as well (Gen 25:1-2)].
Genesis 31:53 is a statement made by Laban to Jacob, in which he referred to
"the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor," Abraham's brother. It would be
possible for the Muslims to wrest this text, although I do not know their
position on Nahor.
Psalm 47:9 refers to the nation of Israel, called "the people of the God of
Abraham." Muslims could not claim the God of this text. They reject Isaac,
saying that the blessing came through Ishmael. They do not even recognize Sarah.
Secondly, they do not recognize the children of Israel (Jacob) as a legitimate
nation, being their perpetual enemies.
Second, God is also referred to as "The God of Abraham" and "Isaac." This was
spoken to Jacob when he had a dream in which he saw a ladder extending from
earth to heaven. At that time the Lord said to him, "I am the LORD God of
Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee
will I give it, and to thy seed"(Gen 28:13). This is not the God honored by the
Muslims, for they do not receive Isaac, and would refuse to honor the God who
was associated with him.
Third, all of other references to "the God of Abraham" include both Isaac and
Jacob: "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Ex
3:6,15,16; 4:5; 1 Kgs 18:36; 1 Chron 29:18; 2 Chron 30:6; Matt 22:32; Mk 12:26;
Lk 20:37; Acts 3:13; 7:32). Muslims do not believe in the God who is associated
with Isaac and Jacob. Their God is the God of Abraham and Ishmael.
Fourth, God is also referred to as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
(2 Cor 11:31; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). Muslims do not acknowledge the God who is
"the Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ. They do not perceive Jesus as the only
begotten Son of God.
Now, since Jesus has come, He has spoken with great clarity about believing on
God. "He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on HIM THAT SENT ME. And
he that seeth Me seeth HIM THAT SENT ME" (John 12:44-45). He also affirmed that
those who did not know Him, did not know God. "Ye both know Me, and ye know
whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, whom ye
KNOW NOT" (John 7:28). Again He affirmed, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me
receiveth HIM THAT SENT ME" (John 13:20). Therefore, believing on God,
perceiving Him, knowing Him, and receiving Him, is contingent upon the
individual's acceptance of Christ Himself. Where that acceptance is not found
God is not known, and those who do not know him cannot possibly believe on him.
Peter said with remarkable clarity that it is by, or through, Jesus that we
believe in God. "Who BY HIM DO BELIEVE IN GOD, that raised him up from the dead,
and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God" (1 Pet 1:21). If
this is true, then it is not possible to “believe in God” without doing so
through Jesus Christ, all the arguments and postulates of men notwithstanding.
John admonished his readers, "Keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). He was
not speaking of visible and tangible images, but of false CONCEPTS of the Living
God. We know this is the case because of the preceding verse. "And we know that
the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know HIM
THAT IS TRUE, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. THIS
IS THE TRUE GOD, and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). A God who is not known because
of the ministry of Jesus is not God at all -- such is a false God, another God,
a spurious God. He is really nothing more than an imagination of fallen men.
When the Thessalonians "turned from idols to serve the living and true God" (1
Thess 1:9), it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Israelites, and the
Father of the Lord Jesus. It was the God to whom Jesus brings us 1 Pet 3:18),
and the God with whom He acquaints us.
One other thing. The truth of the matter is that not one knows who God is except
Jesus Christ. Prior to Jesus, the only people who in any sense knew God were
those to whom He revealed Himself. Now that Jesus has come, God has delivered
the exclusive knowledge of Himself to the Son, and He alone can make the true
God knowable to men. Jesus precisely stated this in the eleventh chapter of
Matthew. "All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the
Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him" (Matt 11:27). The NIV reads, "neither
knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal Him."
And
exactly who does the Son choose to acquaint with the Father? Is this an
arbitrary decision on His part? It is precisely at this point that we have a
very familiar verse -- yet one that is, after all, not very familiar at all.
"Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of [from] me; for I am meek and lowly in heart:
and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Mat 11:28-29). That is the person who
Jesus chooses to reveal the Father to -- the weary and heavy laden that make
their way to Him, perceiving Him as the Christ of God. And what is it that they
will “learn?” They will learn what is absolutely hidden to them without the
ministry of Jesus – “the Father.”
So do the Muslims worship or believe in the same God as Christians? There is not
the slightest chance that they do. They have even aligned themselves against the
only fleshly people God ever claimed (Israel), and they are no friends of
Christians either, who are referred to as "THE sons of God" (John 1:12; Rom
8:14,19; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2).
In this case, the same situation prevails that did among some that were in
Corinth. They had been exposed to "ANOTHER Jesus," "ANOTHER Spirit," and
"ANOTHER gospel" -- all of which were wholly spurious (2 Cor 11:4). They were
nothing more than imagination that were to be cast down with powerful spiritual
weaponry (2 Cor 10:4-5). With Muslims, they have been exposed to "ANOTHER God."
Not only is their "god" not the true God, he is in competition with the real
God, and will ultimately be destroyed by Him.
I
have been contemplating for about a year why it is that the disciples, in their
daily conversations with our Lord Jesus Christ, never once (to my knowledge)
called Him "Jesus." It is always "Lord," "Master," "Teacher," "Rabbi,"
"Messiah," "The Christ," or "the Son of God." Philip once called him Jesus of
Nazareth but that was in his conversation about Jesus, not with Jesus. And, of
course, they preached Jesus as the Christ. Is the significance here that the
disciples, who surely knew His name, saw Him as someone far more than just a man
named Jesus? And are we being too casual or personal or flip in always referring
to the Son of God as Jesus? I would greatly appreciate your insights on this
matter, Given.
As you probably know already, the name "Jesus" occurs 983 times in
Scripture. 625 times in the Gospels, 68 times in Acts, 276 times in the
Epistles, and 14 times in the Revelation. The demons called the Savior "Jesus"
(Matt 8:29, Mark 5:7). Bartimaeus also called Him "Jesus" (Mark 10:47).
There are various levels of perception of the Savior. Some accent His manhood
(Jesus, Master, Teacher,. Rabbi), some His salvational role (Christ, Savior,
Messiah, etc, and some His identity with God Himself (Son, Christ, Lamb, etc.).
You are correct in observing that the disciples did not speak with Him as
"Jesus." We know that they had identified Him as the “One of whom Moses in the
law, and in the prophets, did write” (John 1:45). Others who witnessed His
mighty works and heard His words concluded the same (John 6:14; 11:27). While
the disciples preeminently REFERRED to Him as "Jesus," often with some other
appellation ("Christ," "Lord," etc), when they addressed Him personally they did
not do so in that manner. In His presence they entertained a more lofty
perspective of Him.
It appears that from the time He was born until His baptism, "Jesus" was the
name by which He was exclusively known: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus" (Matt
1:21). His distinction was declared by the words “of Nazareth” (Matt 26:71; Mk
1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Lk 4:34; 18:37; 24:19; John 1:45; 18:5,7; 19:19; Acts
2:22; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9).
It is not flippant to refer to Him as "Jesus" if we do so with perception. 34
times, Acts through Revelation refer to Him as "Jesus" with no additional
modifiers: Acts 1:1,11,14,16; 2:32; 4:2,13,18; 5:30,40; 7:55; 8:35; 17:7,18;
19:15; 25:19; 28:23; Rom 3:26; 2 Cor 4:11; 11:4; Eph 5:21; Phil 2:10; 1 Thess
4:14; Heb 2:9; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 13:12; Rev 14:12; 17:6; 19:10; 22:16).
When Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus He said, "I am Jesus . . . " (Acts 9:5;
22:16). Paul reported to the Jews that Jesus said, "I am Jesus of Nazareth"
(Acts 22:8). Some our Lord's last words to John the Beloved were, "I Jesus have
sent Mine angel . . . " (Rev 22:16).
All of this confirms that this is not a demeaning way of referencing our blessed
Lord. I cannot, however, conceive of myself or any other individual personally
addressing the Lord as "Jesus," with no modifiers like "Lord," "Christ," "Holy
One," etc. However, if one chooses to teach that this would not be proper, I
think he would have a most difficult time making the point. And, if he did make
it in a convincing way, what would he have accomplished? If we are confronted
with people who address Jesus in this manner, do they not do so because of
faulty vision? If such a conclusion is true, then the situation cannot be
settled by a rule. It is the vision that must be enhanced by means of a proper
proclamation of the Lord Jesus.
In my opinion, more of a marked emphasis must be placed upon the Person and
accomplishments of the Lord Jesus. Too often He is seen as the Means to this or
that -- from unity to health and prosperity. It is this abbreviated, and often
thoroughly incorrect representation of Christ that has led to unbecoming views
of Him.
Paul said it well. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth KNOW WE HIM NO
MORE" (2 Cor 5:16). Within the framework of spiritual understanding Paul often
referred to the Lord as "Jesus." That reference, however, was within in the
strict setting of redemption.
Can you address what a Christian's attitude toward the summer solstice should
be. Here on the west coast, there are many solstice celebrations and some
Christians attend them. Some of these are so pagan in nature with gay pride
marches and naked men's bicycle parades.
In Sweden, where winter days are long, the summer solstice is a national
celebration with none of the pagan trappings and everyone celebrates the coming
of summer.
I am attending a church where there are many Swedes and this issue has come up
when some women decided to call their summer barbeque a "Solstice Celebration."
I and several others objected, so it was changed to a "Summer Barbeque on the
Solstice." I think that still begs the question of why Christians are paying any
attention at all to this solar event. >>
My understanding of scripture is that there are curses of God upon people who do
so. I read where the Israelites were to be so cursed that even their very bones
would be uprooted and scattered to parch in the sun if they celebrated the
movements of the sun, moon, and stars.
I want to write a paper to give our leadership team before next summer that will
inform the church of a Christian's right view on this matter. Your thoughts
please. >>
It is never right for the child of God to celebrate occurrences of nature.
Nature has been consigned to the "bondage of corruption," and is looking forward
to the time when the children of God will be made known (Rom 8:20-22). It is
"groaning" in travail, looking forward to its appointed release at the coming of
the Lord. What could possibly be right about having a celebration concerning any
aspect of creation, which is dying. The celebration should be in honor of the
God of creation, and not of creation itself.
When God judged the Gentile world, it was partly owing to their undue elevation
of the creation. They failed to associate creation with the "power and Divinity"
of the One who made it, and God took due note of their attitude. They are said
to have "worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator" (Rom
1:25, NIV) -- and the sun is a "created thing."
Another thing that makes this practice most reprehensible is that God's greatest
work has been revealed to be salvation, not the natural creation. It is a "great
salvation" that cannot be neglected with impunity (Heb 2:3). How can people turn
their attention to the creation without diminishing the magnitude of the "new
creation?" Jesus is the One through whom God made all things (Eph 3:9) -- and
they were made for Him NOT man. As it is written, "For by him were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things
were created by him, AND FOR HIM" (Col 1:16). If there is nothing wrong with
celebrating some aspect of nature, could it not be argued that nothing is also
wrong with celebrating the creation of "thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers"? If it is acknowledged that it is not right to
celebrate the creation of these lofty personalities, how then can celebrating
the impersonal creation be justified?
Candidly, I am surprised that a church would be involved in such things. It
betrays a fundamental ignorance of what it means to be reconciled to God. It
also confirms that Jesus has really not been seen as He is -- "the Head over all
things" (Eph 1:22). I understand that people will argue about this, but their
arguments are just puffs of smoke. God is seen, as we are plainly told, "in the
face of Christ Jesus" (2 Cor 4:6). To celebrate the position of heavenly bodies
is nothing more than to celebrate a dying order -- and you have to turn away
from the face of Jesus to do so..
It might be possible to understand such folly prior to Jesus, when there was a
relatively sparse amount of understanding concerning God's "eternal purpose"
(Eph 3:11). But that is not the case now. If God is going to "gather together in
one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even
in Him" (Eph 1:10), what could possibly constrain a person to in any sense focus
upon the sun of creation, or celebrate anything it controls? One has to put
Christ into the background to do this, and that cannot possibly be right -- not
since God has put Him into the foreground, focusing all attention upon Him.
Additionally, the fact that this so called celebration is honored by many who
themselves are most reprehensible to God ought to at least cast suspicion on the
whole practice.
Will
I go to hell for smoking weed?
That is the wrong question. You should ask yourself questions like, "Is God
glorified by me smoking weed?" "Am I smoking weed for myself or for the Lord?"
"Do I want to be found smoking weed when Jesus comes?" "When I stand before the
Lord on the day of judgment, how will I be able to explain why I smoked weed? --
for "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom 14:12).
If
a man does something to shine light in the path of a non believer should he be
put down?
if a man does something to shine light in the path of a non believer and is put
down by another Christin, who is wrong?
The question is not who is wrong, but who is right. It is right to shed light --
to let our light shine before men.
My
question concerns the appointing of Matthias as an apostle. Acts 1:16, and 20
are Scripture that certinaly needed to be fulfiled. However verses 21-22 are
not. These verses are regulations that Peter may have just made up. Jesus told
them to wait until the Holy Spirit came instead impulsive Peter choses men and i
am sure they were good men that is not my concern, and then throws lots to
choose them. It is also curious that Matthias is never mentioned again in the
New Testament. In Revelation there are 12 Apostles sitting on throwns do you
think the 12th is Paul or Matthias?
I realize this is a position taken by many, but it is 100% wrong. The book of
Acts was written over thirty years after the events of the first chapter took
place. It is inconceivable that Luke, who had a "perfect understanding of all
things from the very first" (Lk 1:3) would have failed to tell us Peter was
wrong in stating the qualifications of an apostle, and out of order in his
exhortation. He certainly was not merely writing a history of rights and wrongs
without delineating the difference between the two.
If Mathias was nothing more than a human choice, this would also mean these
brethren were wrong in praying for Divine guidance (Acts 2:24-25), and that God
did not answer their prayer as they requested. That would also indicate that
Solomon was wrong when he said, "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole
disposing thereof is of the LORD" (Prov 16:33).
This view also demeans Peter and those with Him who had been continuing in one
accord in prayer and supplication -- hardly the kind of soil from which rash and
hasty decisions are grown. Peter's handling of Scripture was anything but an
academic exercise, and revealed insight that could only have come from God.
Jesus had previously breathed on Peter and the other disciples, saying "Receive
ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). I suppose one might conjecture that nothing
happened at that time, but I find it difficult to conceive how such a
supposition could be supported. It is more likely that this initial benefit
would direct the brethren while they waited for "the promise of the Father."
Not only is Matthias not mentioned after this text, the following apostles are
also never again mentioned anywhere in the Bible: Andrew, Philip, Thomas,
Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, and Judas the
brother of James (Acts 1:13-14). That certainly does not suggest they were not
really apostles.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter "stood up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14). Matthias
was there, but Paul was not. When the multitude responded to Peter's preaching,
they said to "Peter and to the rest of the apostles" -- the "eleven" who were
standing with him (Acts 2:37). These are "the apostles" in whose doctrine the
disciples continued (Acts 2:42). They are "the apostles" who wrought "many signs
and wonders" that day (Acts 2:43). If this is not the case, then Peter would
have been standing with "ten," not "eleven." Another alternative is that Luke
did not realize Paul was the twelfth apostle, even though he had traveled
extensively with him. If that is the case, it also casts a shadow of doubt over
the rest of the book of Acts.
In Acts 6:1, "the twelve" called the multitude of disciples together. Matthias
was there, but Paul had not yet been converted. Paul says that following
Christ's resurrection, He was "seen of the twelve" (1 Cor 15:5). Judas was gone.
Matthias had not yet been chosen, but was obviously one who saw the risen Christ
-- a qualification for being an apostle.Paul is not included in that number, for
he cites himself as seeing Jesus "last of all," and not with the other apostles
(1 Cor 15:8-9).
The bishopric vacated by Judas was one that focused on the Jews -- the twelve
tribes of Israel. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 19:29 and Luke 22:30, where
He told the disciples of their role in the world to come. Paul's apostolic focus
was on the Gentiles. This distinction was duly noted by Paul, Peter, John, and
James the Lord's brother (Galatians 2:7-9).
I will say no more on the subject, but whoever originated this view about Paul
being the twelfth apostle did little thinking about what he affirmed.
This
is one that is just a concern small concern of mine i keep hearing preachers say
"when Paul fell off his horse" Where is the horse. After it says they led him by
the hand if he was riding a horse would they have not taken the reings of the
horse?
You are right, there is nothing to suggest that Paul was riding on a horse when
he fell to the ground (Acts 9:4). Paul was journeying from Jerusalem to
Damascus. As the crow flies, that is over 250 miles. I suppose Paul could have
walked it, but it is not likely. At any rate, there is no need to pursue a firm
answer on this matter. I see nothing that can be gained by it, and it could
force us to draw some conclusions that would serve an honorable purpose.
Today
you wrote: "I have provided this somewhat extended explanation because a
prevalent view among the people with whom I have been identified. They do not
see sorcery as real, but consider it as delusion and mere phantasy. If that is
the case, this is the only instance in the Bible where a sin that is unreal is
condemned."
Kindly permit me to disagree!
To my understanding, the sin of sorcery is the desire and the attempt to obtain
knowledge from other perceived powers than from God, in rebellion against His
revealed word and moral directives. Idols are not real gods either, yet idolatry
is utterly condemned. Both idols and sorcerers are deceptions, yet people
continue to be deceived by them.
The fact that demons knew who Jesus was, and who Paul was, is nothing to be
marveled at. Such knowledge was well known to many believers of that time and
there is no reason to assume that spiritual entities are not aware of all that
takes place among men. It was not a knowledge of future events that only God
knows.
I am persuaded that only God is a creator and has total control over all His
creation. Satan and his demons are all creatures and have no power over the
physical world. Their power lies in their deception: false miracles and
pretended wonders.
I certainly will permit you to disagree, and I know you will permit me to do
the same. Here are some considerations.
There is no question about God having total control over all His creation --
including the devil himself. He also has been known to dispatch some of that
power to others.
1. The fire that fell on Job's sheep, burning them up, was not a delusion, and
was instigated by Satan (Job 1:16). That was power in the physical world. God
had told Satan, "Behold all that he has is in thy power" (Job 1:12). It was not
that way by default, but by Divine dispensation. The invasions of the Sabeans
and the Chaldeans were not traced back to some military strategy, but to the
initiative of the devil.
2. The wind that smote the four corners of the house in which Job's children
were feasting was in the physical realm, was very real, and is associated with
Satan (Job 1:19).
3. The boils with which Satan smote Job from head to foot were not delusions
(Job 2:7).
4. God warned Israel of a false prophet who make a sign or wonder come to pass
(Deut 13:1-2).
5. Jesus said there would be false Christ's who would show "great signs and
wonders," not "false" signs and wonders (Matt 24:24).
6. Moses said the rods of the Egyptians magicians "became serpents" (Ex 7:12),
they turned water into blood (Ex 7:22, and brought frogs upon the land (Ex 8:7).
However, when they attempted to cause to lice to come from the dust, "they could
not" (Ex 8:17), nor could they perform any of the other plagues. God made a
distinction in their first three efforts and their last one. To me, that does
not suggest the first three were mere delusions or slight of hand.
7. The Gadarene demoniac, under the influence of an "unclean spirit" tore chains
apart and broke iron shackles (Mk 5:4). I consider that to have been super-human
feats.
8. The woman with a spirit of divination said of Paul and company, "These men
are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation"
(Acts 16:17). Where did she get that information?
9. The Revelation speaks of an evil personality who worked in concert with the
devil. He is said to do "great wonders,' make fire come down out of heaven, and
do "miracles." There are no modifying words concerning these "wonders" and
"miracles." The result of them were deception, but there is no suggestion the
wonders and miracles themselves were only delusions (Rev 13:11-14; 19:20).
Revelation also speaks of "the spirits of demons, performing signs" (Rev 16:13).
While I understand there are many figures and types in Revelation, the figures
themselves must, in my understanding, be supported by some substance. Otherwise,
they are meaningless.
10. Paul spoke of his intention to come to Thessalonica several times, saying
that he was not able to do so because Satan "hindered" or "stopped" (NIV) him (1
Thess 2:8). How would this have been possible if Satan has no power in or over
the physical world?
11. When Satan showed Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time"
(Lk 4:5), nothing in Scripture suggests that the sight was a delusion. I
consider that display to have been a supernatural occurrence.
12. Satan is the "prince of the power of the air," and personally works in "the
children of disobedience." That "power" is not mythical or a delusion, as the
evidence of his working confirms (Eph 2:1-2). There are also "principalities and
powers" that operate under his administration (Eph 6:12). Satan and all of his
workers labor to deceive men, but the power that they employ is not always a
delusion or unreal.
13. Paul describes a despot who operated according to "the working of Satan,
with all power, signs, and lying wonders" (2 Thess 2:9). The word "working,"
according to the lexicographers, "is used only of supernatural power, whether of
Satan or of the devil" (Thayer). It is the same word that precedes the word
"delusion" in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where it is translated "strong." That is,
the delusion itself was supernatural. The despot is also said to employ "all
power" (dunamis), that is, a power that someone has to do something -- and
"there is no power" that does not come from God, or is not delegated by Him who
all-powerful. The despot also employs "signs." Lexically, these are signs
"transcending the common course of nature" (Thayer). The third thing employed by
this worker of Satan is "lying wonders," or pseudo-miracles. That is, indeed,
something that Satan employs. However, all of his works are not pseudo wonders.
Well, that is certainly enough for now. I just wanted you to know that I was not
speaking off of the top of my head in my comments concerning sorcerers.
- - - - Discussion continued below
I
am persuaded that only God is a creator and has total control over all His
creation. Satan and his demons are all creatures and have no power over the
physical world. Their power lies in their deception: false miracles and
pretended wonders.
First, I
never implied that Satan had power on his own. I affirmed he received his power,
like everyone who has power. The living God is the only Source of power. He
does, however, delegate power to whom He chooses, and for the purposes He
chooses. That is what He did in the case of Satan's assault on Job. Assessing
what Satan had done by permission, the Lord said, "Have you considered My
servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright
man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity,
although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause" (Job 2:3).
Did nature just go berserk at that time, with unusual lightning strikes. Job was
being tested, to be sure, but not by random occurrences of nature. That is why
God revealed Satan was behind those occurrences, and that they would never have
occurred without Satan being empowered by God to do them. God said put Job's
possessions in Satan's power. That is what He said (Job 1:12).
The expression "lying wonders," or any expression like it, is found a single
time in Scriptures (2 Thess 2:9). There it is one of three categories -- "all
power and signs and lying wonders." A lying wonder is not what it is represented
to be. That does not mean it is not a wonder, but that it does not confirm what
it is targeted to prove. In Second Thessalonians, it refers to "the son of
perdition," who presents himself as God. The wonders he wrought, however, did
not substantiate his claim. That is the point of the text.
I know of no place in all of Scriptures where things wrought by magicians,
sorcerers, and the likes did not actually occur. Moses did not even suggest
this. He gave no indication that the Egyptian magicians hid articles or snakes
in their sleeves, or something similar. When commenting on that experience, Paul
said that Jannes and Jambres "withstood Moses" (2 Tim 3:8). Where is mere
slight-of-hand represented as resistance -- the kind that calls for reciprocal
action?
When Isaiah spoke of those with "familiar spirits," are we to imagine they did
not really have them (Isa 8:19). And, if this is the case, why didn't the
prophets declare this.
When the Psalmist spoke of false gods who could not speak, see, hear, smell,
handle, or walk, he said he was speaking of "idols of silver and gold, the work
of men's hands" (Psa 115:4-7).
Jesus never hinted that the false prophets and christs would work wonders that
did not really take place, or that they were nothing more that slight-of-hand.
He referred to such things as "great signs and wonders" (Matt 24:24), and "signs
and wonders" (Mk 13:22). John referred to them as "great wonders" (Rev 13:13),
and "miracles which he (an adversary) had power to do" (Rev 13:14). There is not
so much as a syllable explaining that such things really did not take place at
all.
I know that the incident of the witch of Endor is conveniently explained away by
saying Samuel really did not appear. And, indeed, if all we knew is what that
wicked witch said, it might seem plausible to accept this view -- even though
nothing in the text remotely suggests such a thing. It is what Samuel said that
explodes this myth. The Scriptures, given by the inspiration of God, say the
witch knew it was Samuel (1 Sam 28:12). Saul recognized that it was Samuel (1
Sam 28:14). The one writing the text does not suggest the woman was lying or
that Saul was deceived. However, it is what Samuel said that clinches the case.
The words attributed to Samuel cover verses 15-19, and they are unquestionably
from the Lord Himself. The Spirit-inspired text states that "Samuel said to
Saul." His words include the following.
1. The Lord had departed from Saul (28:16a).
2. The Lord had become Saul's enemy (28:16b).
3. The Lord had done according to Samuel's own word, rending the kingdom from
him (28:17a).
4. The Lord had given the kingdom to Saul's neighbor, "even to David" (28:17b).
5. The Lord did this because Saul did not execute wrath upon the Amalekites
(28:18).
6. The Lord would deliver Israel, with Saul and his sons, into the hands of the
Philistines (28:19a).
7. The Lord would also deliver the host of Israel into the hands of the
Philistines (28:19b).
The inspired writer then says Saul "was sore afraid because of the words of
Samuel" (29:20). The 31st chapter of First Samuel confirm what Samuel did
happen. It was not until David was later anointed king that Israel finally
defeated the Philistines (2 Sam 8). If all of that was foretold by a demon, or
was fabricated by the witch, I find that harder to believe than the event as the
Holy Spirit wrote it up. I could never accept a view that holds the Spirit did
not inspire this to be written in the precise manner in which it appears.
I
am an elder at Seerley Creek Christian Church, and I need to know how to counsel
a man in our church who is wearing women's clothes. He says he does this to
grieve for his wife who just passed away. My question is What scriptures do I
use to counsel him. I need to protect the other members from this strange
behavior. My fellow elder brothers are in shock as well as I am, and we are
looking for answers, Can you help?
I am sorry that you have had to contend with such a deplorable circumstance.
Your reaction to this situation is altogether proper, and I commend you for it.
The Scriptures speak specifically to this issue, so there is no need for any
doubt concerning it. While the subject is addressed under the Law, it is
associated with the repulsiveness of such conduct in the eyes of the Lord. "The
woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put
on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God"
(Deut 22:5). The NIV version reads, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a
man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this"
(Deut 22:5).
Some one may contend that this statement was made under the Law, and therefore
has no relevance in our time. However this is altogether erroneous. The text
states that those who do such things are themselves an abomination, or
detestable, to God -- and God does not change.
Paul also founds an argument concerning the proper conduct of men and woman upon
man being in the image of God. While the subject he addresses is not immediately
related to the issue you are facing, in principle is there that is relevant to
it., "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a
shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed
ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but
the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the
woman of the man" (1 Cor 11:6-8). The argument here is that the man is not to
outwardly appear as a subordinate to the woman. In the case before you, in order
to justify a man wearing women's clothes, it would have to be substantiated that
the Lord wore women's clothes. In such a case, the man would, by wearing women's
clothes, be reflecting the glory of the One to whom he answers.
I personally do not believe the man when he says he does this to grieve the
passing of his wife. He is dishonoring his wife in his conduct, as well as the
Lord who made him a man.
Should he choose to continue this way of dressing, he must be expelled from your
assembly. He is conducting himself as, what men call, a transvestite -- a man
wearing women's clothes. This is the very sin that is mentioned in First
Corinthians 6:9 -- "effeminate," in the King James Version. That word is
associated with clothing, or appearance, and has an application to men dressing
like and conducting themselves like, women. The word literally means "unmanly,"
and extends itself into homosexuality or sodomy. Paul is careful to say that
such people "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9), and that being
in Christ cleanses men from such proclivities (1 Cor 6:11).
You and your fellow elders must be firm in dealing with this. The man's actions
are being observed by children, young believers, and others. All who see him
must know what God thinks about the matter, and how such conduct will not be
tolerated among the people of God. At this point, the recovery of the man is not
the issue, but the protection of the flock. You may recall there was a
fornicator in Corinth -- a sin that is in the same classification as men wearing
women's clothes. The congregation was forthrightly to expel this man from their
presence. They did so, and the man was brought to repentance (1 Cor 5:1-6; 2 Cor
2:6-8).
May the Lord be with you as you deal with this difficult, but not impossible,
situation.
I
am about to begin a budgeting course for the . . . and it will
certainly be Christian oriented but I would like your view about tithing in the
age of grace, the church age. In my mind, tithing was an Old Testament concept
and stewardship, the idea that everything belongs to God and we have been given
a responsibility to manage part of it, is New Testament. In my mind, money I
spend to buy gasoline to take a homeless person to a shelter or an addict to a
meeting in God's eyes is the same as money I would place in the offering at
church. Do you agree ?
The tithe was in place long before the Law. Abraham "gave tithes" to Melchizedec
(Gen 14:20). The book of Hebrews states that his action even involved the
Levitical priests paying tithes (Heb 7:9-10). Jesus told the Pharisees that they
tithed, and ought to do so, without leaving other weightier matters "undone"
(Matt 23:23). When blessed by God, Jacob vowed, "I will surely give the tenth
unto Thee" (Gen 28:22). Tithing, then, antedated the Law. Holy men did this,
having a sort of intuitive knowledge that this was to be done.
Under the Law, tithing was the means by which the priesthood was supported (Num
18:24; Neh 10:37). The Levites also gave a tithe of the tithes that they
received (Num 18:26; Neh 10:38). This is particularly important because Paul
affirms that those who preach of the Gospel are supported in the same manner as
the priests of Israel. "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy
things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are
partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach
the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor 9:14).
In addition to this, it is categorically stated that the living Christ is
presently receiving tithes. "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he
receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" (Heb 7:8). I know that
some affirm this is speaking of Melchizedec. However, it is not "witnessed" that
Melchizedec lives. His genealogy is not provided, but that does not equate with
a witness that he is alive. Hebrews does witness that Jesus lives (Heb 7:25).
As to monies being spent on one's personal; ministry, I would call that an
offering -- over and above what is being given to the support of the Lord's
work. It is not proper for one to consider what is being expended on his own
ministry as being his primary offering to the Lord. The priests of old had to
give a tithe of what they received directly to the Lord -- without regard to
their own persons.
As to the matter of everything belong to the Lord, and we are stewards of it,
that has always been the case -- throughout all generations. It is ever true,
"The earth is the LORD'S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that
dwell therein" (Psa 24:1). When David gathered the offering for the building of
the Temple, he expressed his mind on the matter to the Lord. "But who am I, and
what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort?
for all things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given thee" (1 Chron
29:14). Thus, as you can see, the thought of everything belonging to the Lord,
and we being a steward of it, is by no means confined to the New Testament. That
has always been the case.
This is a matter you must settle in your own mind. For myself, I cannot confine
my giving to the work that I myself do. I must support the work of the Lord that
others are doing. It is God's ordinance that those who "preach of the Gospel
should live of the Gospel," or "get their living from the Gospel" (NASB) -- 1
Cor 9:14. If I support myself and my own work, I am not living from what my work
has produced. I must confess that, for myself, I do not believe this is right.
But now, you must reassess the matter on your own, and I know that your heart
will lead you to a proper answer.
Where
did demons originate? If they are spirits of the wicked dead ,why have`nt they
faced judgement. Hebrews 9;27 we are to die once then face judgment?
The Scriptures do not tell us of the origin of demons, and we are not at liberty
to speculate on the matter. Demons know that there is a "time" when they will be
"tormented." In fact, when some of them confronted the Lord Jesus, they thought
He may have come to torment them at that time (Mark 8:29).
But concerning their origin, God has not revealed a single word. I know that men
have speculated about this, saying demons are the spirits of the departed
wicked. However, they have not received their information from God, and we ought
to discard their speculations as worthless. If this is something we need to
know, we must wait until we are ever with the Lord to know it -- and I see no
purpose it would serve at that time.
As to the judgment, that is a day, indeed, that all will face. However, that day
is not faced when we die, but on a single day, referred to as "the day of
judgment." Every personality will be there, and everyone will receive their just
dues (Matt 10:15; 11:22,24; 12:36; Mk 6:11; 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17). Paul
said this would take place on an "appointed" day in which the entire world would
be judged (Acts 17:31).
In the book of job God and Satan talked to each other is there anywhere else in
the bible that hold a conversation together? If so can you tell me where the
location is at in the Bible.
Genesis 3:14-15; Job 1:7,8,12; 2:2,3,6; Zechariah 3:2; Matthew 4:3-10; 16:22-23;
Lk 22:32-33.
Jesus talked to demons (Matt 8:29; Mark 5:7-13; Lk 4:33-35.
I
am sorry to take from your time but I need to know how many great grandmothers
was Ruth to Jesus, I am writing a poem about a virtuous woman.
If you know and have the time to write and let me know I would appreciate it, I
don't want to write the wrong thing down, I thought she was the 14th great
grandmother.
First, the genealogy of Jesus is traced through the men. Matthew traces it
forward from Abraham (Matt 1:2-16), and Luke traces it back all the way to Adam
(Luke 3:23-38).
Boaz-RUTH beget Obed, David's Grandfather - (Ruth 4:13-17), Obed-? beget Jesse,
David's father (Ruth 4:22), David-BETHSHEBA-(2 Sam 12:24), Solomon-NAAMAH (1 Kgs
14:21), Rehoboam-? (1 Chron 3:10), Abijam-MAACHAH (2 Chron 15:16), Asa-AZUBA (1
Kgs 22:42), Jehoshaphat-? (1 Kgs 22:50), Jehoram-ATHALIAH (2 Chron 22:2),
Azariah-JERUSHAH (2 Chron 24:1), Jotham-? (2 Kgs 15:7), Ahaz-ABIJAH (2 Chron
29:1), Hezekiah-HEPHZIBAH (2 Kgs 21:1), Mannasseh-MESHULLEMETH (2 Kgs 21:15),
Amon-JEDIDAH (2 Kgs 22:1), Josiah-HAMUTAI (2 Kgs 23:31), Jechonias-? (2 Kgs
24:14-15) Salathiel-? (Ezra 3:2), Zerubbabel-? (Ezra 3:2), Abihud-? (Matt 1:13),
Eliakim-? (Matt 1:13), Azor-? (Matt 1:13), Sadoc-? (Matt 1:14), Achim-? (Matt
1:14), Eliud-? (Matt 1:14), Eleazar-? (Matt 1:15), Matthan-? (Matt 1:15),
Jacob-? (Matt 1:15).
There you have twenty-eight generations of grandmothers. Twelve of them are
named, and sixteen and unnamed. However, as I have said, the genealogy is traced
through the men. Counting backward from Mary, and including Mary, Ruth would be
number 29. Ruth was a virtuous woman, but not all of the grandmothers were.
I
have just read an article you wroteand wonder how you understand Phil. 1:6 in
relation to Peter's words? --
"For it had been better for them
not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to
turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2 Pet 2:21)
We are kept by the power of God "through faith" (1 Pet 1:5). That is the context
in which the work is completed. The work is finished through the work of the
Holy Spirit who changes us from one increasing stage of glory to another WHILE
we are beholding the glory of the Lord in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 3:18;
4:6). Faith is the appointed means by which the grace of God is experienced (Eph
2:8).
Paul had confidence that the work in the Philippians would be "performed" until
the day of Christ because he had beheld their consistency (Phil 1:3-5). This is
what made it appropriate for Paul to make the statement of reference (Phil 1:7).
The words of Paul to the Philippians, and the words of Peter in his second
Epistle cannot be woven together, and were never intended to be. They address
two differing conditions. Peter addresses the matter of false prophets who
"forsook the right way" (2:15). Speaking of the same men, Jude said they were
"twice dead" (Jude 1:12). Paul was speaking to people who had fellowshipped with
him "in the Gospel" from there very first day until the time he was writing to
them. One group was going forward, and the other was going backward.
In a broader sense, the two texts fit together to confirm that if God does not
build the house, all labor is pointless. Further, as is significantly confirmed
in Israel, God has nowhere pledged to finish His work where there is
retrogression. He has been known to actually abhor His own inheritance (Psa
106:40), which is the result of unbelief Heb 3:19-4:2).
Discussion continued below . . .
Thank
you for this good answer. My question has to do with the Lord actually beginning
a good work in us, or whether that has not actually happened at all. What Jesus
said about the angels separating the wheat from the tares indicates the two
never were the same, even though for a while, it appeared that they were. I am
not trying to uphold Calvin's ideas,
(something highly unpopular in ch.'sofC) but trying to understand what the
scriptures actually say.
It is very true that Jesus did not suggest tares could become wheat and wheat
could become tares. That is a high view, and it is a very true one. However,
this is not the only view or level of Divine workings. Adam and Eve were really
in the Garden of Eden -- yet they were expelled. Israel was really delivered
from Egypt, but many of them did not get into Canaan. Israel did finally get
into Cannan, yet were taken out of it because of their hardheartedness. Judas
did possess a very real Bishopric, and yet fell by transgression. There are
those, Jesus said, who only "believe for a while" (Lk 8:13).
From the most lofty view, most of which is hidden to us, the children of the
wicked one and the children of the kingdom are fully known, and do not pass from
one group to another. That is the ultimate view, and in the end there will be
those made known whom the Lord, from this point of view, "never knew." However,
as I have already said, that is not the only view we are given. There is also a
view of both good and bad being taken in the net of the Kingdom of God, with the
"bad" being gathered out at the conclusion of all things (Matt 13:47-48).
In many of these people, God started a very real work -- like Israel coming out
of Egypt, passing through the Red Sea on dry ground, drinking water from the
rock, and eating miraculous manna. However, as the Spirit says, "with many of
them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness" (1
Cor 10:5). That does not mean they were not really delivered from Egypt, and
that they did not really pass through the Red Sea, or that God did not really do
a work among them.
The resolution to the difficulty of these things is that Divine benefits are
presently realized by faith. Where there is faith, that realization is very
true, and not to be controverted. However, when faith wanes, so do the benefits.
Faith is a tenuous matter. It has to be "kept." For those who do not do it, they
will have taken from them what they really did receive -- just as surely as the
unfaithful stewards who received a "talent" and a "pound" really had something
from the Master in their possession, yet finally had it taken from them.
It is for this reason that professing "Christians" are admonished, "Examine
yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your
own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor
13:5). This is one of the many things that are grossly neglected among those of
the Restoration Movement. Resting on history instead of upon Christ Himself,
they assume that they have faith. However, that is an unwarranted assumption,
and must be vigorously thrust from us. Our faith is the whole matter in question
-- and it is something that must be kept, fed, nourished, and built up. What is
received by faith can only be kept by faith.
I
have read through your booklet, but have not had time to formulate my answer.
The last section on Revelation contains some questionable teaching. The
following statements reflect an body of doctrine that has been developed by men,
and is nowhere clearly affirmed in Scripture.
"At this time Jesus does not come to earth."
"After the rapture there will be what is referred to as a 7 year period of great
tribulation."
"During this period, believers who have been raptured will be judged according
to their works at the 'Judgement Seat of Christ' in heaven."
"After the end of the 7 year period of tribulation on earth, Jesus will take all
believers back to earth which is referred to as His 'second coming' to reign
with him for a thousand years
"During this period Satan will be bound. There will be no death, sorrow,
sickness, or pain."
"At the end of the millennium, there will be what is called the Great White
Throne Judgment at which time nonbelievers will be condemned to hell."
"After the Great White Throne Judgment, Jesus who is considered to be the
'bridegroom' will take all believers, considered to be the 'Bride of Christ' to
heaven to spend eternity with Him."
None of these statements are made in Scripture. They all reflect a perception of
the end times that certain historic teachers have developed. Jesus nor the any
Apostle ever clearly said these things. Men have taken what has been said,
largely in the book of the Revelation (which is a vision, not a body of
doctrine) and formulated an entire network of teaching, piecing together
expressions from Ezekiel, Daniel, the Gospels, some epistles, and the
Revelation.
This body of teaching requires that Jesus leave heaven two more times. It also
requires that the saints go to heaven, return to earth, then return to heaven
again. These things are never clearly stated by any inspired person. They
represent what men think is meant by what Jesus and the apostles said. Better to
simply say what Jesus and the Apostles said. God will bless that.
Terms like "7 year tribulation," "rapture,," and "the Great white throne
judgment" are not found in Scripture. Yet they are pivotal to this body of
teaching. They do not mesh with such statements as "FIRST gather together the
tares" (Matt 13:30) and "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the
goats" (Matt 25:32) -- and a host of others.
I recommend that you have a section about the Lord's return, simply stating what
Jesus and the apostles have clearly declared about it -- watching, being ready,
receiving rewards, every man being judged, ever being with the Lord, heaven and
earth passing away (2 Pet 2:10-13), etc.
Just a note about accommodating your book to elementary understanding. The more
this is done, the more power is taken from the writing. As much as possible,
avoid a purely academic approach. It tends to lull people to sleep in their
souls. Use key words that God uses, then provide a brief explanation of them. As
you must know, the Word itself is the sword of the Spirit, not conveniently
chosen words for the unlearned or words contrived by theologians.
Keep up the good work. You have been given a burden for the lost. God will bless
you as you earnestly do like Solomon -- "seek to find acceptable words" (Eccl
12:10).
I'm traveling right now and thus do not have a greek NT or greek tools with me.
I noticed a translation of "I must be in my Father's house" in the NIV. The
hotel Gideon Bible (assuming KJV) reads "I must be about my Father's Business."
Which is the better translation? Any other thoughts on that passage?
As usual, the purported scholars missed the spirit of the text, and fastened on
their concept of grammar instead. As I understand, the Syraic and Persian
manuscripts do read "Father's house." The Greek itself technically allows for
both expressions, although the sense of the language is that of "things
belonging to My Father." The point is to get at what the Spirit means to convey
to us. Was it that Jesus was obligated to be in the Temple? Or was it that He
was obligated to traffic in the Truth? For me, it is clearly the latter.
In viewing the text, the point is not WHERE Jesus was, but WHAT He was doing. As
you may recall, the account of the occasion reads thus: "Now so it was that
after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the
teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard
Him were astonished at His understanding and answers' (Luke 2:47, NKJV). In that
context, for Jesus to say He had to be in the Temple totally misses the point.
That is why the Spirit moved Luke to emphasize what He was DOING in the Temple.
It is also why the teachers were astonished at what Jesus said, not where He
was.
That is how the Spirit had the record written up. Now, was the point the house,
or what was going on in the house. Versions reading "business" include KJV, New
King James, Darby, Geneva, Bishop's New Testament (1595), Webster's (1822),
Tyndale (1534), and Weymouth. Young's Literal Translation (1862) captures the
sense very well: "did ye not know that in the things of my Father it behoveth me
to be?" The Amplified Bible reads, "Did you not see and know that it is
necessary [as a duty] for Me ?r?to be in My Father’s house and [occupied] about
My Father's business?"
Here was God's standard for a boy of twelve. It was not merely to be in the
Temple -- something that Jesus was only able to do occasionally -- in fact, once
a year (Lk 2:41). To suggest that Jesus would say He had to be in His Father's
house when He only had opportunity to do so once a year seems a bit absurd. It
would postulate that His life was built around the Temple rather than the Father
Himself. To me, that is very flawed reasoning.
We
are studying 1 Corinthians in our Men's Bible Study at church and last night
were in the fifth chapter. We were discussing the proper response to a man in
our midst who claims to be a Christian and yet it is known he is living in sin,
living with a woman who he is not married to as if they were married. The words
were applied from verse "Expel the wicked man from among you", verse 13. I
understand not having fellowship with the man as if there were no problem, but
one man said, "lock the door". If we don't allow the man to come into the
church, what kind of opportunities for him to hear the truth and be convicted
might we be keeping him from?
The purpose of the excommunication is to remove the man from any and all
activities of the church. This is in order that God alone may work with the man.
Such a sinner has passed beyond the help of the church. They were not even told
to pray for the man. He was to be "taken away from among " them (5:2). He was to
be delivered "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (5:5). He was to be
purged out of their assembly (5:7). They were not, in any sense, to keep company
with such a person (5:9). They were not to eat or drink with such a person
(5:11).
So far as the Corinthians were concerned, the recovery of the man was not the
point, but his defiling effects upon the assembly (5:6-7). He was not to be
thrust from their presence, for it was evident he was only becoming more
hardened in their presence.
Here the issue was not giving the man an opportunity to hear the truth and be
convicted. He had been living in sin while he was hearing the truth and in their
presence. Now he must be removed from such an environment forthrightly and
altogether. God, then, would work on his heart, if, indeed, it was not already
hardened beyond remedy. The people did expel this man (2 Cor 2:6). Further, the
man did repent and come back to the Lord (2 Cor 2:7-8). Had the Corinthians
chosen to allow this man to continue among them, he would not have repented.
That was the whole reason for Paul's instruction on the matter.
I
have a question for you regarding communion. I have search for a Church that
speaks the truth for a long time. The Lord has blessed my life with a small
group of brothers who are passionate about praise an worship. The Pastor speaks
the truth and I am concerned about Communion. Some Sundays, they dip the bread
into the cup. This is something that I'm not comfortable with as I do not
understand enough. Jesus is the perfect example and this is not the way that
Christ taught us to remember him in my own mind. I do not want to miss communion
either. What are your thoughts on this matter? Thank you in advance!
There are a number of people who dip the bread into the cup when they observe
the Lord's Supper. This is a tradition of men, and has absolutely no
confirmation in Scripture. It is commonly referred to as "Intinction," and is
practiced by some of the Easter Orthodox churches. It is officially defined as
"The administration of the Eucharist by dipping the host (bread) into the wine
and thus offering both simultaneously to the communicant ."
The practice is in sharp variance with the manner in which Jesus ordained this
practice. Here is how the Scriptures speak of Christ's instructions.
MATTHEW (Matt 26:26-29). While they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it,
broke it, and gave to His disciples, telling them to eat it. He said it was His
body. Then He took the cup, gave thanks, gave it to the disciples, and told them
to drink of it. He said this was His blood shed for many for the remission of
sins.
MARK (Mark 14:22-24). Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave to His
disciples telling them "Take, eat: this is My body." He then took the cup, gave
thanks, and gave it to them, ":and they all drank of it."
LUKE (Luke 22:19-20). Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to
His disciples, saying, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me" This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for
you."
John does not give an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper.
Paul wrote that Jesus especially revealed this ordinance to him. He related what
Jesus told him in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. First, Jesus took bread, gave thanks,
broke it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this
do in remembrance of me." "In the same manner," Paul said Jesus took the cup,
drank of it himself, and then said, "This cup is the new testament in my blood:
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Paul then instructed
the Corinthians, "For as often as ye eat this bread, AND drink this cup, ye do
show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor 11:26).
There you have everything God has said about the matter. There is no possible
way of getting dipping the bread into the cup in those texts. Jesus took the
bread and the cup separately. Luke says He even took the cup at the end of the
supper. He blessed them separately. He gave them to the disciples separately.
They were to eat the bread and drink of the cup.
The proactive of dipping the bread into the cup has been sanctioned by some
churches, but it has not been sanctioned by God. It is a kin d of nonsensical
shortcut where you can ingest the bread and the juice in one act. Jesus,
however, did it in two acts. Paul said eat AND drink.
After
32 years, my husband still has no interest in me. I am thinking the only
solution is to be divorced. In certain situations, such as abuse, neglect in a
marriage, is it against God to remarry if there hasn't been adultery committed?
Your situation is one for which there is no express answer in Scripture. There
are two revealed reasons for the termination of a marriage. One, as you already
know, is adultery or fornication -- unfaithfulness to the spouse (Matt 5:32;
19:9). the other is the refusal of one to dwell peaceably with a believer (1 Cor
7:13-16). In this latter case, an effort must have been made to dwell peaceably
-- that is, in a state where one's faith is not inhibited, and yet the
unbeliever is not content to allow the believer to serve the Lord without
restriction.
In your case you must know in your heart that you are driven by the proper
motives. Your heart must be pure.That is something only you and the Lord know,
and no one else can make that decision for you. God has gone on record that He
hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Yet, it is allow under certain circumstances, as
He has revealed.
You speak about remarrying. I must tell you that it is not right to ponder this
while you are married. It will prove to be an opportunity for Satan to tempt
you, and you must not make a place for him to do that (Eph 4:27).
You have a difficult situation before you, and my heart goes out to you.
However, it is not an impossible one. The first objective must be to be
reconciled to one another -- and that is a two-way street. In that matter, if
the husband is pleased to dwell peaceably and considerately with you, and has
not been unfaithful to you, God says remarriage is out of the question.Here is
what he says, "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is
not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his
wife" (1 Cor 7:10-11).
Do not be discouraged. God can grant you grace to recover from whatever damage
has been caused by this situation, and from your illness as well. The prophet
Joel spoke about this principle in terms of destroyed crops, but it applies to a
life as well. "So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has
eaten, The crawling locust, The consuming locust, And the chewing locust, My
great army which I sent among you" (Joel 2:25).
Go to next page
