Why don’t Christians keep the 4th commandment if they keep the others?
The Ten Commandments show us our failure, sinfulness and need of the Savior. It is impossible for anyone to keep them (see 1 Tim. 1:8f; Rom. 7:1f; 2 Cor. 3:6f; Gal. 3:10; 5:1f). Never in the NT epistles are believers told to keep the letter of the law, but rather through our new life in Christ and the ministry of the Spirit, we are to produce the righteousness of the law, i.e., the spirit of the law—its moral character in the sense of love for God and for others (see Matt. 22:34-40; Rom. 8:1-4). Thus, we are not under the letter of the law but the spirit of the law.
Historically, the early church assembled for fellowship and worship on the first day of the week, Sunday, not on the Sabbath. Likewise, in the epistles (after Pentecost) we are never told to tithe, but to give as we are prospered from a willing heart. The focus and emphasis of the NT epistles (those books written to guide the church, the body of Christ) is on learning to walk by the control or leading of the Spirit rather than by a set of legal commands.
Related Topics: Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Law
How did the Holy Spirit operate in the lives of OT saints?
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Old Testament times was selective and temporary. He was nevertheless working in the lives of people to do much of the same type of thing as seen in John 16:8-11, though the object of faith was different. In the Old Testament there was the anticipation of the coming of Christ through the tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrifices. The point is that the Holy Spirit worked in the hearts of people to enlighten, convict, and lead people to believe the content of the message as it existed in Old Testament times. The Holy Spirit obviously had to regenerate people and He led them, but it was not from the indwelling presence as it is today.
Scripture actually does not give us a great deal of detail on this. He was obviously at work in the lives of many in a powerful way as we see, for instance in Zechariah 4:6f. Another illustration that pertains to salvation for those not immediately associated with Abraham or Israel is Melchizedek. We do not know where Melchizedek got his information or how he became a priest of God, but he was a believer and even a type of Christ (Gen. 14 and Heb. 7).
I have included below, a section from Ryrie’s Basic Theology which I think will answer most of your questions.
III. THE SPIRIT’S WORK IN RELATION TO PEOPLE
The Spirit’s ministry to people in Old Testament times was not the same as it has been since the Day of Pentecost. Whatever it was, the Lord made it quite clear it would be different after Pentecost. Notice how repeatedly the Lord spoke of the “coming” of the Spirit (who was already present) in His conversation with the disciples in the Upper Room (John 15:26; 16:7-8, 13). This indicates both that the Spirit was at work then and that His work would take on a different character after Pentecost. When the Lord summarized that contrast He said the Spirit “abides (present tense) with (para) you and will be (future tense) in (en) you” (14:17). While there is an alternative reading of the present tense in the second clause, i.e., is in you, most commentators prefer the future tense.
This, of course, delineates the contrast between the ministry of the Spirit at the time the Lord spoke these words and the future ministry after Pentecost. Buswell, wishing to blunt that contrast, translates the en as “among,” making the promise mean that the Spirit would be among the company of disciples. He does acknowledge that it might be construed to mean “in you individually” (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962], 1:115). Many commentators simply seem to be unaware of any distinction being made here. F. Godet’s comment is to the point.
“The preparatory operation of the Spirit upon the disciples is expressed by the words: ‘He dwelleth with you’; and the closer relation into which He would enter with them at Pentecost by: ‘He shall be in you.’ Hence we must be careful neither to read with the Vulgate, menei in the future, He shall dwell in the first proposition, nor with some Alexandrines, esti, is, in the second. The whole meaning of the phrase consists in the antithesis of the present dwelleth (comp. menon in v. 25) and the future shall be. The contrast of the two regimens with you (comp. Par’ humin of v. 25) and in you corresponds exactly with that of the tenses” (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881], 3:141).
With this contrast in mind, we need to try to delineate and systematize what the Spirit did for people in Old Testament times.
A. The Nature of His Work
Three words seem to explain the Spirit’s ministry to people in the Old Testament.
1. He was in certain ones. Pharaoh recognized that the Spirit was in Joseph (Gen. 41:38). Likely Pharaoh did not understand this was the Holy Spirit, but later revelation seems to make this clear. The Spirit was in Joshua which is why God chose him (Num. 27:18). The Spirit was in Daniel (Dan. 4:8; 5:11-14; 6:3). In these instances the preposition used is beth, “in.”
2. The Spirit came upon some. The preposition used to depict this is al. A number of people experienced this ministry of the Spirit (Num. 24:2; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 1 Sam. 10:10; 16:13; 2 Chron. 15:1). These included judges, Saul, and the prophets Balaam and Azariah.
3. The Spirit filled Bezalel. (Ex. 31:3; 35:31). This seemed to be a special enablement to lead the craftsmen as they worked on the tabernacle.
B. The Extent of His Work
1. Limited as to people. After God chose Israel to be His people, the Spirit’s work was with that group primarily if not exclusively. Israel, of course, was a spiritually mixed nation with unbelievers as well as believers. Yet the Spirit ministered to the entire nation by being present and guiding the people (Neh. 9:20; Isa. 63:10-11, 14). This seemed to be a general relationship. There were apparently closer relationships He had with some within the nation (see above and Num. 11:29).
However, we do not have clear revelation of the Spirit’s ministry outside of Israel. Genesis 6:3 may be an exception if the verse means that the Spirit judged mankind for its wickedness in the days of Noah. But the verse may be a warning that the human spirit God placed in human beings would not always abide because mankind would be wiped out in the Flood. Certainly there was no indication that the Spirit convicted the world of sin in Old Testament times (as He does now, John 16:8), and no other nations enjoyed His general presence among them as Israel did. As far as the record is concerned His ministry was to Israel and individuals in Israel.
2. Limited as to kinds of ministry. As stated above, we find no ministry of general conviction, no indwelling and empowering as after Pentecost (7:37-39), no sealing, and certainly no baptizing (it is still future in Acts 1:5). Regeneration of the Spirit is not mentioned specifically, though some feel that the Spirit was regenerating in the Old Testament because believers give evidence of a struggle within their beings brought on by the presence of both the old and new.
3. Limited as to eternality. The Spirit empowered Samson; later the Lord left him (Judges 13:25; 16:20). The Spirit came on Saul and later left him (1 Sam. 10:10; 16:14). Apparently there was no guarantee of permanent presence of the Spirit in Old Testament times.
Perhaps I could draw an analogy between the Spirit’s ministry in the Old Testament and grace in the Old Testament. Both were present during that period, but the Spirit who worked in the Old Testament would “come” in new and fuller ministries after Pentecost, just as the displays of grace in the Old Testament were dim compared with grace that flooded the world when Christ came (John 1:17; Titus 2:11).
Regarding faith and salvation in the Old Testament, Ryrie says:
Faith was the necessary condition for salvation in the Old Testament as well as in the New. Abraham believed in the Lord and the Lord counted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). The Hebrew prefix beth indicates that Abraham confidently rested his faith on God (cf. Ex. 14:31; Jonah 3:5). The covenant relationship established by the Mosaic Law also implied that an Israelite had to have faith in the God of that covenant if he were to be pleasing to Him and not be cut off.
The object of faith was always the true God (Num. 14:11; 20:12; 2 Kings 17:14, Ps. 78:22, Jonah 3:5). This Savior God was the sole origin of salvation (Ps. 3:8, Jonah 2:9). To trust in idols was not only ineffective but ludicrous, for salvation was of the Lord.
Related Topics: Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Pneumatology (The Holy Spirit)
Can promises of judgment on Israel be applied to our nation?
While we should not make direct application of passages to our nation, we can see in them spiritual principles that may apply in a more general sense. For instance, Deuteromony 28ff promises blessing for obedience and cursing for disobedience. This was written to Israel, not the church nor to our nation. As a general principle, however, this illustrates that when nations ignore God’s truth, eventually they are not only going to experience moral degeneration but also God’s judgment for their wicked ways. Writing of Israel as God’s chosen nation, the psalmist wrote, “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance” (Ps. 33:12). But this is true of any nation that turns to the Lord, as with Nineveh which repented at the preaching of Jonah and was spared God’s judgment for several years to come.
These Old Testament passages, while not written directly to us, nevertheless have a world of general applications that can be made. However, if we are not careful, we can preach practical heresy in the name of application.
We have a new study on our web site in the “Theology / Dispensational” section that might want to check out called, “The Role of the Church to Israel.” A number of articles are written on this issue in Bibliotheca Sacra, the theological journal published by Dallas Seminary. The Theological Journal Library CD contains the journals of a number of conservative seminaries which I have found to be tremendously helpful.
Related Topics: Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Cultural Issues
Will the lost tribes of Israel be found and return to Jerusalem?
The concept of the lost tribes of Israel is a misnomer. They may be lost to men, but they have never been lost to God. The Scripture clearly anticipates the regathering of the whole house of Israel from all the tribes. The book of Revelation even declares that in the time of Daniel’s70th week (the Tribulation), 12,000 will come to Christ and be sealed from each of the twelve tribes of Israel (see Rev. 7). But that’s not all, the Old Testament emphatically declares that God will gather Israel, after being scattered all over the earth by the dispersions, from even the four corners of the earth (see Jer. 23:3; Isa. 11:11-12, 16; Jer. 31:7-8; 32:37). Furthermore, Romans 11 speaks of God’s future work for the nation of Israel. Much of the following comes from The Ryrie Study Bible and will help answer this question.
At the moment, there is a partial hardening in the nation of Israel. This hardening is partial (Jews are being saved today) and temporary, until the fullness of the Gentiles (i.e., the full number of Gentiles who will be saved) Acts 15:14). After that, God will turn again to the Jews and will save “all Israel” at the Lord’s return (v. 26).
When Israel rejected their Messiah, Jesus Christ, the nation lost her favored position before God, and the gospel was then preached also to Gentiles (Rom. 11:15). Hopefully the Jews would become jealous and be saved (v. 11). But the casting off is only temporary. When the Lord returns, the Jewish people will be regathered, judged, restored to favor, and redeemed (v. 26). This will be for them life from the dead.
The olive tree is the place of privilege that was first occupied by the natural branches (the Jews). The wild branches are Gentiles who, because of the unbelief of Israel, now occupy the place of privilege. The root of the tree is the Abrahamic covenant, that promised blessing to both Jew and Gentile through Christ (Rom. 11:17-24).
In Ezekiel 37 there is the prophecy of the future regathering of Israel to her land even though it will start in unbelief. Ezekiel predicts the political and spiritual revival of his nation (vv. 1-14) and the reuniting of its two divisions (vv. 15-28). The dry bones indicate an army slain in battle, a fitting description of the then hopeless condition of Israel. Verse 9 says they will come from the four winds (i.e., from the four quarters of the globe).
Of course, claiming that God has rejected his people and abrogated his promises to Israel, many today try to spiritualize these passages and apply them in some way to the church, but a literal (natural) and normal way of interpretation recognizes that, though God has set Israel aside for today, he has plans for them in the future (Rom. 11) and that these verses will be fulfilled in the future. Since 1948, we have been seeing the ‘clinking of the dry bones’ with Israel returning to their homeland, though in unbelief. In the future, God will bring them to faith through the judgments of the Tribulation as described in Revelation. Note that Ezekiel 20:33 anticipates a future regathering and judgment of Israel:
Related Topics: Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Eschatology (Things to Come)
When Christ came was it to establish an earthly or spiritual kingdom?
Christ came to establish both an earthly and a spiritual kingdom. This is clear from the prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments. The establishment of the earthly kingdom promised to Israel in the great covenants of the Old Testament, especially the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7) was, however, dependent on the repentance and response of Israel to their Messiah (Joel 2:12-3:21; Acts 3:19-21). Furthermore, these prophecies anticipate both a suffering Savior who must die for His people and for the all nations, and a glorious reign. This often perplexed the Old Testament prophets who saw both and had difficulty reconciling His suffering and glory.
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven— things into which angels long to look. (1 Pet. 1:10-12)
The Old Testament saw two comings like two great mountain peaks in the distance. You can see the two peaks, but not the valley in between. Though the Old Testament prophets spoke of grace being given to Gentiles, they did not understand all that was involved in God saving Gentiles through a suffering Messiah (see Col. 1:26-27). The Old Testament prophets did predict both the suffering (Isa. 53) and glory (Isa. 11) of the Messiah like the two mountain peaks, but they were not able to distinguish that the former would be fulfilled at His first coming and the latter at His second coming.
So, though there is a spiritual kingdom that God is establishing today with Christ seated at God’s right hand, the New Testament also anticipates the return of Christ and the establishment of His reign on earth as seen the book of Revelation and in the gospels like Matthew 24. Before He will reign on earth, a time of unprecedented trouble will come, the Tribulation, which will be culminated by the personal return of Christ who will destroy and remove the wicked and then establish his government on earth for 1000 years. This will then be followed by the eternal estates. See Revelation 19-22.
There are a number of good books that address this. If you have access to them you might try to get a copy of Progressive Dispensationalism, by Blaising and Bock, and Dispensationalism Revised and Expanded, by Charles Ryrie. We would also suggest our series, Studies in Revelation on our web site under “Bible Studies / NT / by book.”
Related Topics: Christology, Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Eschatology (Things to Come)
If Jews had accepted Christ as their Messiah would the earthly kingdom have been established then?
The question you asked is one that has been long debated even among dispensationalists and it has been used by those who oppose Dispensationalism. With all such theological questions, we must seek our answers in the Scripture and not by what simply seems logical to us, assuming the Scripture does truly teach this or that doctrine. A case in point is the doctrine of the Trinity which truly defies our own logic or understanding. It’s biblical and we believe it, but who can understand it? So the point is, what does the Bible teach regarding the offer of the kingdom?
If there had been repentance by the nation of Israel, as Joel prophesied and other Old Testament prophets, the Kingdom would have been established. This seems clearly the point of Peter in Acts 3:17f.
3:17 And now, brothers, I know you acted in ignorance, as your rulers did too. 3:18 But the things God foretold long ago through all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he has fulfilled in this way. 3:19 Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out, 3:20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. 3:21 This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets. 3:22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.3:23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.’3:24 And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed him, have spoken about and announced these days. 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.’3:26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”
The “times of refreshing” has generally been acknowledged as a definite reference to the Messianic age or the millennial kingdom. Of this, Ryrie has the following footnote to verse 19: “return. I.e., turn from sin to God by reversing their verdict about Jesus and confessing Him as the Messiah. times of refreshing and restoration of all things (v. 21) refer to the millennial kingdom.”
Also, the Bible Knowledge Commentary has the following comment:
Was Peter saying here that if Israel repented, God’s kingdom would have come to earth? This must be answered in the affirmative for several reasons: (1) The word restore (3:21) is related to the word “restore” in 1:6. In 3:21 it is in its noun form (apokatastaseo„s), and in 1:6 it is a verb (apokathistaneis). Both occurrences anticipate the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (cf. Matt. 17:11; Mark 9:12). (2) The concept of restoration parallels regeneration when it is used of the kingdom (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Matt. 19:28; Rom. 8:20-22). (3) The purpose clauses are different in Acts 3:19 and 20. In verse 19 a so that translates pros to (some mss. have eis to) with the infinitive. This points to a near purpose. The two occurrences of that in verses 19b and 20 are translations of a different construction (hopo„s with subjunctive verbs), and refer to more remote purposes. Thus repentance would result in forgiveness of sins, the near purpose (v. 19a). Then if Israel as a whole would repent, a second more remote goal, the coming of the kingdom (times of refreshing at the second coming of Christ) would be fulfilled. (4) The sending of the Christ, that is, Messiah (v. 20) meant the coming of the kingdom. (5) The Old Testament “foretold these days” (v. 24; cf. v. 21). The Old Testament prophets did not predict the church; to them it was a mystery (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:1-6). But the prophets often spoke of the messianic golden age, that is, the Millennium.
This offer of salvation and of the Millennium pointed both to God’s graciousness and to Israel’s unbelief. On the one hand God was giving the Jews an opportunity to repent after the sign of Christ’s resurrection. They had refused the “pre-Cross” Jesus; now they were being offered a post-Resurrection Messiah. On the other hand Peter’s words underscore Israel’s rejection. They had been given the sign of Jonah but still they refused to believe (cf. Luke 16:31). In a real sense this message confirmed Israel’s unbelief.
Some Bible scholars oppose the view that the kingdom was offered by Peter. They do so on the basis of several objections: (1) Since God knew Israel would reject the offer, it was not a legitimate offer. But it was as genuine as the presentation of the gospel to any nonelect person. (2) This puts kingdom truth in the Church Age. However, church truth is found before the church began at Pentecost (cf. Matt. 16:18; 18:17; John 10:16; 14:20). (3) This view leads to ultradispensationalism. But this is not a necessary consequence if this offer is seen as a transition within the Church Age. Acts must be seen as a hinge book, a transition work bridging the work of Christ on earth with His work through the church on earth.
In conclusion, Acts 3:17-21 shows that Israel’s repentance was to have had two purposes: (1) for individual Israelites there was forgiveness of sins, and (2) for Israel as a nation her Messiah would return to reign.
Many other commentaries and books of prophecy could be quoted to show this is a common view. The point is this, God made a promise to the Nation that on repenting and turning, He would give them their promise through Messiah and set up the kingdom and God will not go back on His word. But this is only part of the story. He also had a plan to reach the nations through Messiah through Israel, and knowing their stubborn and hardness of heart, He chose to use that stubbornness to set Israel aside temporarily to extend the offer of salvation to the nations. This is anticipated in Isaiah 6:9-13 (see also Matt. 13:13f; Romans 9-11).
The cross is in no way God’s “Plan B” for the prophets spoke of both the sufferings and the glories as 1 Pet. 1 shows (as does Acts 3:17-21). If Israel had repented before the cross, Christ would still have been put on the cross by the Romans. But all of this is purely hypothetical. In keeping with God’s promises, Christ had to offer the kingdom, but also, in keeping with God’s eternal plan to reach the world, Israel was bound to reject as God knew they would and the gospel was offered to the world. Read carefully Romans 11:7-28. Again, as Paul states in Romans 11, this is a mystery truth.
Israel’s corporate stumbling, which is temporary, not permanent, is called a mystery. In Scripture a mystery is not a truth difficult to understand, but a truth previously unrevealed (and therefore unknown) which is now revealed and publicly proclaimed (cf. Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26; at Matt. 13:10-16, see the chart that lists NT mysteries). Paul wanted to make sure his Gentile readers knew about the mystery concerning Israel in God’s sovereign choice. God’s purpose was so that you may not be conceited (lit., “wise in yourselves”). God’s sovereign plan to put Israel aside temporarily in order to show grace to Gentiles is no basis for conceit on the part of the Gentiles; it is designed to display further the glory of God.
Neither the offer of salvation of the Gentiles nor Israel’s hardening was a mystery in the Old Testament, as the verses above show, but the purpose of God in that hardening, was a mystery. All of this goes beyond our comprehension because our intelligence and capacity for comprehension is finite. The difference is even far greater than the difference that exists between a man and his dog. You can train your dog to go get the paper, maybe even your slippers, but you can’t sit down and read it to him and then discuss the news. Some things are just beyond our comprehension. A legitimate offer of the kingdom was made, but in the sovereign will and plan of God, there was no way that Israel as a nation was going to turn and repent. Some did, a remnant, but in God’s plan He is reaching out to the world through the rejection and hardness of Israel’s heart, a partial hardening until sometime in the future, via the awful testings of the Tribulation, when they will be brought to their knees, humbled, and will repent. To say, “What if they had repented” misses the point and is pure human speculation. They didn’t and God knew they would not, but in His faithfulness, He made the offer.
Related Topics: Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Ecclesiology (The Church)
What is the theme of Luke 19:1-10 and how would you tell the story to a child?
I think the first thing we need to do is to consider the context. It is repeated that Jesus is now on His way to Jerusalem (17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28, 41). In Luke 18:31-34 Jesus tells His disciples that He will fulfill prophecy by being rejected, put to death, and resurrected. What takes place in Jericho (with Zaccheus), then, must be related to our Lord’s ultimate goal of going up to Jerusalem to die. On the way to Jericho, Jesus healed the blind man. This was another proof that He was the Messiah (see Luke 4:18). It also caused the crowds to praise God, and to think well of Jesus.
The healing of the blind man happened just outside Jericho, as Jesus approached. The incident with Zaccheus happens in Jericho, as Jesus is passing through. Surely word of the healing of the blind man spread quickly, so that the crowds began to gather as Jesus passed through the city of Jericho. It was something like the triumphal entry would be in Jerusalem, in that Jesus would be enthusiastically received. But the crowds are fickle here, as they will be in Jerusalem. Those who hailed Him as the coming King were later those who cried out for His death. Our Lord’s dealings with Zaccheus quieted the praise of the crowds, and prompted their protests (see Luke 19:7 “They all began to grumble, saying, ‘He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.’”)
Notice, it was not Zaccheus who invited Jesus to his house for a meal. Zaccheus was trying to see Jesus, and perhaps to avoid the crowds as well. They did not like tax-gatherers. Indeed, he was a “chief tax-gatherer” (verse 2). Jesus looked up into the tree and saw Zaccheus. Jesus knew this man’s name, and called him by name, and then invited Himself to his house for a meal. Zaccheus was delighted, of course, but the crowds were very unhappy about this. Why? Because they considered Zaccheus to be a great sinner—and so he was.
All of this raises an issue which is at the heart of our Lord’s ministry, and which is the key to His rejection as well. In Luke 4:16, Jesus comes to the synagogue in His home town of Nazareth. He reads from Isaiah 61:1-2 and informs His audience that He is the fulfillment of this messianic prophecy. The people rejoice, until Jesus makes it clear that He has come to save sinners, including the Gentiles. That is too much for them, and now they seek to kill Him (Luke 4:22-31). It is this same issue of Jesus coming to associate with and to save sinners which arises early in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 2:13-17), and it centers around another tax-gatherer, Levi.
Now, back to Luke 19. Jesus approaches Jericho and on His way heals a blind man. This is proof that He is Messiah, and the crowds love it. But when Jesus carries out His ultimate messianic mission—saving guilty sinners—this is too much, and the praise of the crowds turns to protest. After this incident with Zaccheus, and while the same crowds are listening, Jesus tells a parable which warns them about their stewardship. The warning is about the failure to make use of that which God has given to us. I believe that the ultimate treasure He has given is the good news of the Gospel. So far as saving sinners is concerned, the Jews wanted to “bury” this, rather than to have to think about associating with those who were known to be sinners in the past.
Now, as to relating this story to little children. I think the story is quite simple. It is one of the “Sunday school stories” that every child seems to be familiar with. The story certainly indicates to us that God chose to associate with (and to save) this man whom He knew to be an unworthy sinner. The others were angry, because they did not see themselves as sinners, but as the righteous (this contrast is clearly made by Luke in Luke 17:9-14). Children need to see from this story that Jesus came to save those who are unworthy, those who are sinners. That is the message of the Gospel.
Children can be very cruel about who they will play and associate with. They often shun children who are different, dirty, or whom they have been told are “bad” in some way. They should have no difficulty in grasping the concept that Jesus came to be with those whom others didn’t like. Jesus came to save those who are unworthy sinners. What could be better news than this?
Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Teaching the Bible, Christian Home
Is there a difference between “sons of God” and “children of God”?
When we look up the two expressions largely in the English text, we find:
Sons of God Gen. 6:2; Gen. 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Matt. 5:9; Lk. 20:36; Rom. 8:14; Rom. 8:19; Gal. 3:26
Children of God Jn. 1:12; Jn. 11:52; Rom. 8:16; Rom. 8:21; Rom. 9:8; Phil. 2:15; 1 Jn. 3:1; 1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Jn. 3:10; 1 Jn. 5:2
It is interesting that the expression, “sons of God,” especially in the Old Testament, has a heavenly, more than an earthly feel. That is, “sons of God” are often angels. And in Luke 20:36 Jesus speaks of those who are resurrected from the dead as “sons of God” who are like angels. The “revelation of the sons of God” in Romans 8:19 also refers to the kingdom of God, which is yet to come, for which we hope and wait. The “sons of God” therefore seem to be the children of God who reign with Him in His kingdom. “Sons of God” therefore seems to focus more on our future hope and role in the kingdom. It seems to me that “sons of God” and “children of God” are used almost interchangeably in Romans 8. I think the point of Romans 8 is not to distinguish some Christians (“sons of God”) from other Christians (“children of God”), but to distinguish all Christians from unbelievers. (This, by the way, is his argument, starting in Romans 6. How can we who have died to sin, continue to live in sin? If we are saved then we are no longer of the world, and we should no longer act like we are of the world. We should act like God’s children, like His sons.) Thus, unbelievers are those who are “in the flesh” (8:6-9, 13), and all believers are “in the Spirit” (8:9, etc.) or “led of the Spirit.” I believe that the Spirit of God is at work in us, even when we are not aware of it, and not just when we actively seek His guidance (though this is surely commanded and desirable).
The fatal flaw, I think, to a distinction between the two expressions comes in Galatians 3:26, which says, “For we are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” That doesn’t sound like an elite group of faithful saints to me.
Related Topics: Theology Proper (God)
What are the Greek and Hebrew words for “confess”?
The primary Greek word for “confess” is homologeo which basically means “to say the same thing” and then “agree, admit, acknowledge.” The context must determine the precise nature, emphasis, and meaning of the word. Thus, it can mean to acknowledge sin or to confess or acknowledge someone as something. A similar and somewhat more emphatic word is exomologeo, “promise, consent, admit, confess or acknowledge” and from this, “to praise.”
In Psalm 32:5, the word for confess or acknowledge is yada’, which basically means “to know” or in the hiphil stem, “to make known” as in this context. Another word that looks similar, but is different is yadah, “to give thanks, praise,” and then, “to confess” as in Lev. 5:5 where it is used in the hitpael stem giving it the idea of “confess.” See also 2 Chron. 6:26 where it is used in the sense of “confess God’s name.” Another word is nadad, “to be conspicuous,” but in the hiphil stem it means “to make known, declare, tell.”
Related Topics: Terms & Definitions
What does Matthew 19:11-12 mean, “they were born that way”?
The following sections on Matthew 19:11-12 are from The Bible Knowledge Commentary and The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.
From The Wycliffe Bible Commentary:
1) Teaching on Divorce. 19:1-12.
1. Beyond Jordan. From the Greek peran (beyond) came the name “Perea” for the district on the east side of the Jordan River. 3. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The strict school of Shammai held that divorce was lawful only for a wife’s shameful conduct. Hillel, however, interpreted Deut 24:1 in the widest possible way, and allowed divorce for every conceivable cause. Thus Jesus was being asked, “Do you agree with the most prevalent interpretation (Hillel’s)?” 4-6. Rather than align himself with either position, Jesus cites the purpose of God in creation (Gen 1:27; 2:24).
Since God’s purpose called for man and wife to be one flesh, any disruption of marriage violates God’s will. 7, 8. Why then did Moses command? Their citing Moses (Deut 24:1) and the bill of divorcement in opposition to Jesus showed their misunderstanding of that regulation. For the provision was a protection of wives from men’s caprice, not an authorization for husbands to divorce at will. 9, 10. Except it be for fornication (cf. on 5:31). If fornication be regarded as a general term including adultery (an identification most uncertain in the NT), then our Lord allowed divorce only for the cause of infidelity by the wife. (Among Jews, only husbands could divorce. Mark, in writing for Gentile readers, states the converse also, Mk 10:12). However, if fornication be viewed in its usual meaning, and referred here to unchastity by the bride during betrothal (cf. Joseph’s suspicions, Mt 1:18, 19) then Christ allowed no grounds whatever for divorce of married persons. Thus he agreed neither with Shammai nor Hillel. Such a high and restricted view of marriage would account for the disciples’ remonstrance, It is not good to marry. It seems unlikely that the disciples, after having imbibed the ideals of Jesus, would have felt the limiting of divorce to cases of adultery an intolerable burden. 11. All men cannot receive this saying, i.e., the statement of the disciples. Though at times marriage may not be expedient, not all men are so constituted as to abstain. 12. Some are incapable of marriage because of congenital defects; others because of injury or restrictions imposed by men. Still others may forego the privilege of marriage in order to devote themselves more completely to the service of God (e.g., Paul, 1 Cor 7:7, 8, 26, 32-35).
This statement certainly casts no reflection upon marriage; rather it concludes a discussion in which marriage was exalted to its original pure state. [Everett F. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1962.]
From The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
19:1-12. Jesus … left Galilee for the last time and headed for Jerusalem through the region of Judea to the east side of the Jordan River. That area was known as Perea. There, as often before, He was followed by large crowds of needy people, and He healed them. But some Pharisees sought to test Jesus through a question: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? The nation was divided over this issue. Followers of Hillel felt a man could divorce his wife for almost any reason, but others, following Shammai, thought one could not divorce his wife unless she were guilty of sexual offense. Without getting involved in the Hillel-Shammai controversy Jesus reminded the religious leaders of God’s original purpose in establishing the marriage bond. God made people male and female (v. 4; Gen. 1:27). In marriage He joins them together in an inseparable bond. This bond is a higher calling than the parent-child relationship, for a man is to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife in a one-flesh relationship (Gen. 2:24). Therefore what God has joined together, men ought not separate (cho„rizeto„; in 1 Cor. 7:10 this word means “to divorce”). The Pharisees, realizing that Jesus was speaking of the permanence of the marital relationship, asked why Moses made a provision for divorce for people in his time (Matt. 19:7). The Lord’s answer was that Moses granted this permission because people’s hearts were hard (cf. Deut. 24:1-4). “Because your hearts were hard” is literally, “toward your hardness of heart” (skle„rokardian; from skle„ros, “hardness,” comes the Eng. “sclerosis,” and from kardian comes the Eng. “cardiac”). But that was not God’s intention for marriage. God intended husbands and wives to live together permanently. Divorce was wrong except for marital unfaithfulness (cf. Matt. 5:32).
Bible scholars differ over the meaning of this “exception clause,” found only in Matthew’s Gospel. The word for “marital unfaithfulness” is porneia. (1) Some feel Jesus used this as a synonym for adultery (moicheia). Therefore adultery by either partner in a marriage is the only sufficient grounds for a marriage to end in divorce. Among those holding this view, some believe remarriage is possible but others believe remarriage should never occur. (2) Others define porneia as a sexual offense that could occur only in the betrothal period when a Jewish man and woman were considered married but had not yet consummated their coming marriage with sexual intercourse. If in this period the woman was found pregnant (as was Mary; 1:18-19), a divorce could occur in order to break the contract. (3) Still others believe the term porneia referred to illegitimate marriages within prohibited degrees of kinship, as in Leviticus 18:6-18. If a man discovered that his wife was a near relative, he would actually be involved in an incestuous marriage. Then this would be a justifiable grounds for divorce. Some say this meaning of porneia is found in Acts 15:20, 29 (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1). (4) Another view is that porneia refers to a relentless, persistent, unrepentant lifestyle of sexual unfaithfulness (different from a one-time act of illicit relations). (In the NT porneia is broader than moicheia). Such a continued practice would thus be the basis for divorce, since such unfaithful and unrelenting conduct would have broken the marriage bond. (On the subject of divorce and remarriage, see comments on 1 Cor. 7:10-16.)
Whatever view one takes on the exception clause, Jesus obviously affirmed the permanence of marriage. Those who heard His words understood Him in this way, for they reasoned that if there were no grounds for divorce one would be better off never to marry. But this was not what Jesus intended, for God has given marriage to people for their betterment (Gen. 2:18). Marriage should be a deterrent to lustful sin and to unfaithfulness (1 Cor. 7:2). But a few either do not have normal sexual desires (they were born eunuchs or were castrated), or are able to control those desires for the furtherance of God’s program on the earth (Matt. 19:12; cf. 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 26). But not all are able to accept the single role (Matt. 19:11). Many marry and carry out God’s purposes, extending His work in the world.2
Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Christian Home