Interesting tidbit - 25

Q:  "I am a new Christian, and my mother just passed away. Do the dead know nothing?"


A:  While it is true that "the dead know nothing" (Eccl 9:5), this refers to how the dead know nothing of what goes on here on earth. We read something similar in Job 14:10,21:

But a man dies and is laid low...His sons come to honor, and he does not know it; they are brought low, and he perceives it not.
Also, Isaiah 63:16 says:

For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us...
Finally, in 2 Kings 22:20, God says:

...I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring upon this place...
Having said all that, it must be remembered that while the dead know nothing of what is going on here on earth, this does not mean they are not conscious, aware and even able to speak in heaven, as we see in Revelation 6:9-11:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"  Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Interesting tidbit - 24

Q:  What does Paul mean when he says that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin?

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom 14:23).


A:  We know that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17).  The Word of God through Paul says that we can eat all things (1 Tim 4:4), but he who is "weak in faith" (Rom 14:1) doubts this and limits himself to eating "vegetables" (Rom 14:2).  His faith has not yet matured to believe Paul when he says he can eat meant, so "whoever has doubts...if he eats...does not proceed from faith..."

But if he wouldn't eat it "of faith," why would he eat it?  Well, in this passage he might eat meat trying to follow the example of his stronger brother.  This is why Paul encourages strong believers not to eat meat in front of weaker believers (Rom 14:15), which might embolden the weaker believer's conscience to go ahead and eat it (cf. 1 Cor 8:10)?  If he eats meat to try to walk in the footsteps of his stronger brother, rather than eating it because of faith in God's Word, it will cause him to stumble (Rom 14:13, 21) by doing something that bothers his conscience.

So back to the question:  How come "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"?  It's because "it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (Rom 14:14).  God actually adjusts the definition of what is unclean to agree with the weaker brother's conscience.  Since his faith does not yet believe that he can eat meat, his "eating is not from faith," and "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" to him.

But why would a weaker brother be "condemned if he eats"?  Well, the word "condemned" doesn't always refer to eternal condemnation in Hell.  The word "condemned" simply means judgement of any kind.  So when a weaker brother eats meat that he believes is unclean, it is sin for him, and he is condemned by his own conscience, since he judges what he has done to be sinful.

Interesting tidbit - 23 (2 Cor 7:9-10)

Q: What exactly do the verses in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 (cf 1 Cor 5) mean?  They seem to be saying that as believers we need to ask for forgiveness when we sin to be saved.  Does this mean we lose our salvation each time we sin and have to ask for forgiveness in order to be saved again?

As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.


A:  There are different kinds of salvation in Scripture. Paul spoke about the salvation of our souls in Ephesians 2:8-9, but he also spoke about his physical salvation from prison in Philippians 1:19 (cf. Ex 14:13):

for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance (The KJV uses the word "salvation" instead of "deliverance"; both words are derived from the Greek word sōtērian).

Paul also told Timothy that if he continued in sound doctrine, he would "save" both himself and his hearers from the misery that always comes from not continuing in sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16). There is also the salvation from despair that the hope of the Rapture gives (Rom 8:23-24). And the Rapture itself is called a salvation in Romans 13:11.

The salvation in the verses you ask about is yet another kind. Paul says he made the Corinthians sorry "with a letter" (2 Cor 7:8), i.e., his first epistle to them, in which he scolded them for not disciplining a man for his sexual immorality (1 Cor 5). They then "were grieved into repenting" about this (2 Cor 7:9).  And remember, the word repent means to have a change of mind, not to ask for forgiveness.  So the Corinthians changed their minds about allowing this man to stay in their assembly. This "saved" them from the dangerous leavening effect that his presence would otherwise have among them, and so their godly grief produced a repentance that leads to salvation, a salvation they would not regret or repent of (change their minds about) later.

This also worked another kind of salvation among them, one similar to the salvation Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 5:5, where he speaks about the sexually immoral man and tells them:

"to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

In context we know that delivering this man to Satan meant putting him out of the assembly (1 Cor 2-5:2-13). Letting him wallow in sin might destroy his flesh, but it would bring him back to the Lord, and "save" him from a loss of rewards at the Judgment Seat (1 Cor 3:15). The Corinthian assembly would also be saved from such loss by their obedience to Paul's instructions. Their godly grief worked this kind of repentance to salvation as well, another salvation they would not regret because no one at the Judgment Seat will ever repent of (change their mind about) having done the right thing.

Interesting tidbit - 22 (Acts 8:14-17)

Q:  Why didn't the Samaritans in Acts 8 immediately receive the Holy Spirit upon believing and being baptized in accordance with Mark 16:16-17 and Acts 2:38?  Why didn't this happen until Peter and John laid their hands on them?

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


A:  The answer can be found in the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans. The schism between Jerusalem and Samaria must be healed before Christ can reign.  Israel and Judah, the ten tribes and the two, must be reunited (Ezek 37:15-19) because Christ is to reign over all twelve tribes. The apostles recognized this. After all, hadn't our Lord promised them twelve throne in the kingdom (Matt 19:28)?  But it wasn't enough that the two factions be brought together. It was the ten tribes which had apostatized and had made Samaria their capital city and had set up their own temple at Mt. Gerizim. They must now renounce all this and recognize Jerusalem as the seat of authority, because there Christ and the twelve will reign. This fact was impressed upon the Samaritan believers, for although they had believed and been baptized, they did not receive the Holy Spirit until two apostles had come from Jerusalem and prayed for them and laid their hands upon them. Two apostles were enough for this, for it is written: Only on the evidence of TWO witnesses or of THREE witnesses shall a charge be established (Deut 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor 13:1) and Peter and John, with Philip, made THREE witnesses. Indeed our Lord had specified that any two of the apostles could act officially for Him in His absence: 'Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if TWO of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where TWO or THREE are gathered in my name, there am I among them.' (Matt 18:18-20). The believers at Samaria recognized the authority of the twelve at Jerusalem and, had the kingdom been accepted, would have become one nation with the Jews. As it is, the restoration of the United Kingdom of Israel under Messiah awaits a future day.

Interesting tidbit - 21 (Mark 2:22)

Q:  Is the new wine in Mark 2:22 the dispensation of grace?

And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins Mark 2:22).

A:  No, the dispensation of grace was a mystery that was not revealed until Paul (Eph 3:1-3). That means it cannot be found hidden in the Lord’s parables, for it was still "not made known" at that time (Eph 3:1-9).

Wine is a type of the Holy Spirit, for both are associated with joy (Zech 10:7; 1 Thes 1:6), and new wine is a type of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. You’ll remember that when the apostles were "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4), men thought that they were “filled with new wine" (Acts 2:13). 

With the parable of the wineskins, the Lord was saying that the new wine of the Holy Spirit could not be put into the "old wineskins" of Israel's religious leaders; it must rather be put in the "fresh wineskins" of His "little flock" (Luke 12:32). 

New wine is first mentioned in the Bible when Israel was gathered back into her land after her captivity (Neh 10:39; 13:5,12), a type of Israel's future gathering back into her land for the kingdom, and so it is associated with the kingdom that was taken from Israel's apostate leaders and given to the little flock (Matt 21:43). New wine was withheld from Israel when she rebelled against God (Isa 24:7; Hos. 9:2; Joel 1:5,10; Hag 1:11) and was given when she was obedient (Prov 3:5-10), and so it will be given in the kingdom (Joel 3:18; Zech. 9:17; Matt 26:29) when God's Spirit will "cause" them to walk in His ways (Ezek 36:27).

Interesting tidbit - 20 (2 Peter 1:20)

Q:  When I share Bible truth with some of my Greek Orthodox friends, they say, "That's your interpretation, and according to 2 Peter 1:20, we cannot have a private interpretation of the Bible apart from what the church teaches."  Is that really what 2 Peter 1:20 means?


A:  And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:19-21).

Peter is not talking about the interpretation that we give the Scriptures; he is talking about the interpretation that the Bible writers gave the Scriptures.

We know that the Bible writers wrote using their own words, for each one wrote in his own individual style.  Luke was a physician (Col 4:14), so his description of the healing of the lame man sounds like something a doctor would say (Acts 3:7).  This might lead you to think that when Bible writers sat down to write the Scriptures that God spoke to them and they just gave their own interpretation of what God said.  Peter is saying that Bible writers did not give their private interpretation of God's words, that the prophecy of the Scripture came when "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Remember, Peter is talking about how the Bible came to to us, not how we receive it.  It didn't come from someone's own interpretation.  Rather, they chose their words by the will of God.

Interesting tidbit - 19

Q:  What exactly does our Lord mean when He uses the word "generation" in Matthew 23:36 and Luke 11:51?

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation (Matt 23:29-36).
 
Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation (Lk 11:47-51).


A:  The word "generation" can have many different meanings.  Its most common meaning refers to those who are born to their parents, of natural lineage, or descendants.  For example, the natural lineage of Jesus Christ is given in Matthew 1:1-17.  He was born from this traceable line of descendants.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt 1:1)

In this context the natural lineage is the meaning of the word "generation."  When Jesus Christ spoke to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, He was speaking to a diverse group of Pharisees. They were not all from the same natural lineage.  Many of them were from different parents. This being the case, the most common definition of the word "generation" does not fit in this context.

Sometimes the word "generation" refers to a group of people who live at the same time, such as the "baby boomer" generation. This meaning cannot apply because God's judgment did not fall on the Pharisees that were in His immediate presence when he talked of "this generation." The Pharisees who were there died without experiencing this judgment.

There is another meaning to the word "generation" which helps us understand how the Lord used it in Matthew 23 and Luke 11. Here the word refers to those who belong to a certain group, who are similar in thought and belief, those who are related by way of actions or faith.

God uses the word "generation" in this way many times in Scripture. For example, He has a "generation" of men of faith, men who have been declared righteous.  All who are in this generation are related one to another because God has declared them righteous. This generation of the righteous is ongoing and added to daily, as men come to Jesus Christ through faith. This generation spans all of time and is not natural but spiritual.

There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous (Ps 14:5).

Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob (Ps 24:6).

His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed (Ps 112:2).

Jesus Christ used this meaning of the word "generation" when He spoke with the Pharisees. During His conversation, Christ talked about all those who make up the generation of Pharisees beginning with Cain, and not just those in his immediate presence. Christ has the whole spiritual lineage in view, all the Pharisees, from the first to the last. This evil generation is described in Proverbs:

There is a generation that curses its father,
And does not bless its mother.
There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes,
Yet is not washed from its filthiness.
There is a generation—oh, how lofty are their eyes!
And their eyelids are lifted up.
There is a generation whose teeth are like swords,
And whose fangs are like knives,
To devour the poor from off the earth,
And the needy from among men (Prov 30:11-14).

It is rebellious and murderous, filled with those who are self-righteous, and puffed up with their own goodness. The description of this generation matches the description of the Pharisees by the Lord Jesus Christ.  This generation is spiritual and continues to grow even through our day.

Interesting tidbit - 18 (Revelations 3)

Q:  I have a question about the book of Revelations.  In chapter 3 Jesus is addressing the church at Laodicea. How can He talk about rejecting this church if they are a group of believers? Doesn't this kind of fly in the face of the "once saved always saved" doctrine?


A:  While we like to use the seven churches in Revelations as analogies of the Church today, we must not forget that John's revelation is actually an unveiling to Israel of the Tribulation to come, during which time the good news of the earthly kingdom will again be preached. The assembly at Laodicea then will be primarily made up of religious unbelievers in danger of being "spit out of" the Lord's mouth. This has nothing to do with the loss of their salvation since the majority of them will not have possessed salvation in the first place.

This assembly at Laodicea has drifted far from their covenant relationship with God, which will need to be restored before they can proceed. In time past, God loved Israel, reproved her, disciplined her, and called her to repentance — they were His people. But not all within the chosen nation were saved: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring" (Rom 9:6-7).

That the rebuke and call to repentance in Revelation 3 is primarily intended for the unbelievers at Laodicea is confirmed by the fact that the Lord is standing at the door of this assembly, giving them one last opportunity before it’s too late. If they open the door, He will receive them and include them as participants in the marriage of the Lamb and the wedding feast to follow.  The conquerors (Rev 3:21 cf. Rev 2:26) are promised to be seated with Christ on the earth during the millennial kingdom. In that day, Christ will reign on the throne of David in Jerusalem, fulfilling the promise given to David, and these believers will rule "over the nations" with Him (Acts 2:30 cf. Rev 2:25-27). 

Interesting tidbit - 17 (Matthew 6:14-15)

Q:  I often hear people quote Matthew 6:14-15, "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" and then say, "See, God won't forgive us if we don't forget others."  But is this true?  Does His forgiveness really depend on whether or not I forgive others?  I thought we are forgiven through faith alone.


A:  No, it isn't true.  We must remember that Matthew chronicles the time when Christ was on the earth and that He said this to people who were still under the Law (Matt 5:17-20; 19:16-19; 23:2-3, 23-27; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:25-28; 18:18-22), which meant faith demonstrated by works was required for salvation at that time.** Today we are forgiven past, present and future, based solely on faith in Christ's death and resurrection on our behalf.

I find it fascinating the way things are flipped around after the cross.  Compare Matthew 6:14-15 with Ephesians 4:32 and Colossians 3:13:

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matt 6:14-15).

Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you (Eph 4:32).

...bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive (Col 3:13).

What a difference!  Paul makes it clear that, under grace, God has already forgiven the believer all sins.  Under the Law God's forgiveness was based upon a like spirit, but today we are forgiven for Christ's sake and told to forgive others as the Lord has forgiven us.

So you see, of course we should still forgive one another, not so that God will forgive us — but because God in Christ has already forgiven us!

Acts 13:38-39 tells us, "Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses."

Praise God that our forgiveness of others is not on the grounds of the Law; but of grace — after God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven us all our sins and freed us from all things.

**The Law was meant to show man that it is impossible to earn salvation (Rom 3:19-20; 7:12-13).

Interesting tidbit - 16

Q:  In Acts 11:26 it says, "And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."  The Apostle Paul addresses believers as saints, and brothers, but never Christians.  Wouldn't believers today be more properly called "believers" instead of "Christians" as so many denominations do?


A:  The term "Christian" is a title that was originally given to us by the world.  Notice, the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.  These believers spoke so often of Christ that the world came up with the name "Christians."  Of course, they meant it in a derogatory sense.  The citizens of Antioch were famous for their witty quips.  Since this expression has a Latin origin, it was probably the Romans among them who first gave this name to believers.

Still, based on Acts 11:26; 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16, there is no reason against being called Christians.  Today, however, the word is so sweeping that it includes both believers and religious unbelievers.  While a true believer is a Christian, one who calls himself a Christian may not necessarily be saved.  Therefore, it might be better to use only "believers," "saved," or "saints" — or at least qualify the term "Christian" when we use it.

Interesting tidbit - 15

Q:  Both Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 say that we will be "like angels" at the resurrection.  Does this mean we will become angels after we die?


A:  No. This is a common misconception.  In these passages Jesus is dealing with the subject of marriage. Angels were never given the command to "be fruitful and multiply."  They have no marital relationships. They do not reproduce, and in heaven, neither will we. Our purpose to "be fruitful and multiply" will have passed. It is clear that our bodies will be different, but we will not become angels.

Angels are simply regarded as "messengers," in both the Old and New Testaments. They have no need of, and cannot experience, the redemption that Christ came to provide for the human race. First Peter 1:12 says that angels long to look into the Gospel. Had they been formerly humans, salvation wouldn't be a mystery to them because they would have experienced it themselves.

So what does happen when believers die?

Their spirits go to be with Christ (2 Cor 5:8). In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul tells us that they are asleep in Jesus, meaning their bodies are dead, but their spirits are alive. This same passage goes on to say that when Christ returns, He will bring with Him those who are asleep in Him, and that their bodies will be raised — made new like Christ’s resurrected body — to be joined with their spirits which He brings with Him. All believers who are living at His return will also have their bodies changed to be like Christ, and they will no longer have old natures, only new natures. "And so we shall always be with the Lord," not as angels, but along with the angels. "Therefore comfort one another with these words."

Interesting tidbit - 14 (Matthew 15:24)

Q:  What did Christ mean when He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24)?  How are we to reconcile John 3:16 with Matthew 15:24, that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"


A:  Some have explained this seeming contradiction by saying that the Holy Spirit led John to write John 3:16 years after Paul had said, in Romans 10:12, there is no difference between Israel and the rest of the nations concerning God’s offer of salvation: "for whoever will call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom 10:13).

This is true, but to me the following explains it even more fully:

The OT abounds with prophecies that salvation would go to the ends of the earth through Israel. This is why our Lord confined His earthly ministry exclusively to the house of Israel. This is why Peter said to the people of Israel, "Unto you first..."

And yet it was no secret that salvation would go to all the world, but, it was to go through the covenant people. In fact, John 3:16 was spoken to "A RULER OF THE JEWS." This makes the words of our Lord doubly significant. It would not be at all amiss to paraphrase them thus: "For God so loved the world, Nicodemus — not only Israel, but the world — that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Even several years after the death of Christ, Peter declared that it was not lawful for the Lord’s messengers to go to Gentiles (Acts 10:28). Many have thought that the great commissions of Matthew 28:19 and 20 and Mark 16:14-16 made it lawful. But the Lord gave the apostle Peter the ‘sheet’ vision and sent him to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:9, 18). Then by a vision He sent Paul. (Acts 22:21).

Cornelius was a Gentile different from the general run of Gentiles to whom Paul was sent. Cornelius was a devout man — he feared God, prayed always, and gave alms to God’s people (Acts 10:2, 22). Cornelius feared God and did what was right (Acts 10:35). To Cornelius, Peter preached Christ, saying, “but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.”

Remember this was several years after Pentecost, when Peter was instructed to preach a "whoever" message to Jews gathered at Jerusalem, and to "all who are far off" (Acts 2:39). The words "far off" are found several times in the Bible, having two meanings, "far off from God" (Eph 2:13, 17) and "far off" from Jerusalem' (Dan 9:7). Paul was sent by Christ to the Gentiles "far off from God" and "far off from Jerusalem" (Acts 22:17-21; Rom 15:16-21).

Christ was born "King of the Jews" (Matt 2:2; Jn 1:49) and He died "King of the Jews" (Lk 23:3, 38). Christ was born to deliver Israel from sin, from the law, and from Caesar (Lk 1:67-77; Gal 4:4).  He was raised from the dead to be Israel’s Saviour and Prince, and to give to Israel "the sure blessings of David" (Acts 5:31; 13:34). Christ was born to take David’s throne and to reign over the house of Israel for ever (Lk 1:27-33). He was raised from the dead for the same purpose (Acts 2:27-33). He will come to earth again, for the same purpose.

Christ said, when He was Jesus of Nazareth in the land of the Jews, "it is not good to take Israel’s bread and give it to Gentiles" (Mk 7:27). He specifically instructed His messengers, "go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matt 10:5-8).

Christ was Minister of the Jews with a "confirmation" ministry; that is, fulfilling prophecy (Matt 5:17-18; Acts 13:29; Rom 15:8).  He came "only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24).

There is no record that He pursued Gentiles.  A Gentile had to become a Jew (a proselyte) in order to approach God.  More than 12 years after Christ died He directed the apostle Paul to say to the Jews, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46).  The glorious message of John 3:16 would never have reached the Gentiles if God had waited for Israel to proclaim it. As a nation they had rejected God's Son.  Later the truth of Romans 11:30, Romans 11:11 and Romans 11:15 was made known; that the Gentiles obtained Divine mercy, when and because of Israel’s unbelief; when and because of Israel’s FALL; when and because Israel was cast away. 

After this came the mystery of Romans 11:25, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (the period we are living in now), during which time we "have shared in their spiritual things" (Rom 15:27).  So now, though Israel, through whom the nations should have been blessed, gropes in darkness and staggers in unbelief, anybody, whether Jew or Gentile, may rejoice that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life!"

Then what? "Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26-29; Jer 31:33-34; Heb 8:10, 12).

After the Church is raptured, Christ will come in the clouds and to the earth as the Son of man.

Interesting tidbit - 13

Q:  The word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is the Hebrew word "almah" meaning, "a young woman" — in other words, a "young woman" who may or may not be a virgin.  Does this mean that Mary may or may not have been a virgin when she gave birth to Christ Jesus?


A:  It's true the Hebrew word almah simply means a "damsel" or a "maiden," who may or may not be a virgin.  However, almah can refer to a young woman who is a virgin, like in the case of Rebekah (Gen 24:43-45).  Interestingly, the Holy Spirit does not leave the matter open for debate regarding Mary.  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew directly quotes Isaiah and, in doing so, uses the Greek word parthenos.  This term is solely used of a woman who has never known a man.

“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN [Gr. parthenos] SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US” (Matt 1:23).

The purpose of the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Christ was to show that He was not stained with Adam's sin.  As Paul says, "He knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21).  Christ was an empty vessel when it came to sin.  This allowed the Father to pour our sins into His dear Son at Calvary, where He was made "sin for us."  It is essentially a matter of faith!  If Christ wasn't born of a virgin, then we are still in our sins.  (Sadler) 

Interesting tidbit - 12

Q:  What is progressive revelation?  And should we go according to when the books were actually written?  For example, in the New Testament 1-2 Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts were all written after the Pauline writings except for the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. John's gospel and epistles as well as the book of Revelation were written after all of these. If we were to credit someone with giving us the final Revelation, it would have to be John, right?


A:  The term "progressive revelation" refers to the idea and teaching that God revealed various aspects of His will and overall plan for humanity over different periods of time.    

Most Christians recognize this. In fact, anyone today who doesn't bring an animal sacrifice with them when they wish to approach God or make a parapet around the roof of their new house or put tassels on the four corners of their cloak (Deut 22) understands that distinctions in practice and knowledge have been progressively revealed and applied throughout history.

But how are we to discern how revelation progressed so that we know how to live today?  Do we go by when the books of the Bible were actually written?  Well we can't go entirely by that.  Some books are history books and, even if written later, may cover an earlier period, while other books speak of prophesy, things that are yet to come.  But clearly Christ chose Paul to bring the Word of God to completion with the revelation of the mystery, which is for us today (Rom 16:25-26; Col 1:24-27).

Unfortunately, many people today fail to observe progressive revelation.  It just isn't taught. Consequently, the fact that people were still under the Law when Christ lived on the earth is often overlooked.  I think this author makes this point rather well:

"In your Bible, after the book of Malchai and before the book of Matthew, no doubt there is a title page, declaring in bold print: "New Testament." And were you asked to turn to the first page of the New Testament, most likely you would turn to Matthew's first chapter. These verses [9:15-16] in Hebrews declare that the book of Matthew has no part in Israel's New Testament prior to chapter 27:50. In Mark the Old Testament runs through chapter 15:41, in Luke it is chapter 23:49 and finally, in John, Old Testament doctrine operates through 19:37. It is at those verse locations where we find the death of the testator, the Lord Jesus Christ; and these verses in Hebrews teach that the New Testament cannot exist before those points. While it would be wrong to disregard the gospels, it is equally wrong to attempt to live according to Israel's Old Testament doctrine. What [isn't being] taught is that every verse in our Bible operates on three levels in that every verse contains historical information, spiritual information and doctrinal information. Anyone at any time may profit from the historical or the spiritual information; but to apply doctrinal information one must be operating within the economy to which the doctrine applies."

Revelation continued to progress even after the death and resurrection of Christ.  I recently blogged about this here when I compared "selling everything" with "providing for one's family."

Yes, all Scripture was given on the installment plan. There is progressive revelation from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. But then and there it ceased.

Interesting tidbit - 11 (Purgatory?)

Q:  What does the Bible say about purgatory?  Is there such a place?


A:  No, there isn't; Scripture says nothing about a purgatory.  This place where men must go after death to purge their sins is an invention of religion.  The word purgatory comes from the word purge, and we are told that Christ "by Himself purged our sins" without any help from us (Heb 1:3 NKJV).

The Lord told the dying thief "today you shall be with Me in paradise" (Lk 23:43).  This is important because Scripture calls this man a thief.  Even his own testimony to the other thief was that "we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds" (Lk 23:41).  In other words, he admitted that he had not been framed or misjudged, but had indeed committed crimes worthy of the death penalty.  If there was a purgatory, certainly this man would have gone there, but we have the Lord's word for it that he did not.

Also, if anyone needed to go to purgatory, it was the sinful Corinthians.  Yet Paul told even these believers they could be "confident" that "to be absent from the body" is "to be at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8).

Interesting tidbit - 10 (Rom 3:30)

A:  What is the meaning of Romans 3:30 — "since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one"? Does "by faith" mean something different than "through faith?"

Q:  Theologians have have long puzzled over the reason why believing Jews are said to be justified "by faith," but believing Gentiles "through faith." Some hold that there is no difference in meaning between the two.  But others say that the justification of the Jews, as born heirs of the promise, are purposely said to be "of faith," while that of the Gentiles, previously "strangers to the covenants of promise" (Eph 2:12), are said to be "through faith," as thus admitted into a new family. So who's right? 

It seems to me that the second explanation makes more sense, that the answer to this question lies in the original status of each.  The Jews, belonging to the covenant race, were justified by (Gk., literally "out of") faith, while the "far off" Gentiles (Eph 2:13) must come through (Gk., literally "by way of" or "by means of") faith; but both Jew and Gentile are justified by God upon believing.

Not only were the Jews justified "out of" faith, it is also evident that they were justified by way of works, whereas the Gentiles were justified directly "by way of" faith. For the Jew, sacrifices, etc. were (instrumentally) the means of his justification — he came "by way of" works — but the Gentile comes directly "by way of" faith for his justification.

And according to this verse, all is based on the fact that "God...is one."  I think Vine explains this rather well:

“The oneness of God was a belief basic to Judaism and proclaimed by every devout Jew each day (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4). Here Paul appeals to this doctrine, claiming that since God is one, He must have the same concern for the salvation of the Gentile as he does for the Jew. The Judaism of Paul’s day, however, did not draw the same conclusion from God’s essential unity. They taught that the only way a Gentile could be rightly related to God was to become a proselyte to Judaism, including coming under the yoke of the law. And even then, they were always Gentiles, never quite up to the level of Jews by birth. In the eyes of the Jew, they had no natural claim on God. Paul says, however, that God is interested in the Gentiles apart from the law and that contrary to certain Jewish expectations, the Gentiles are saved through the same faith that saves a Jew.”

Interesting tidbit - 9 (Romans 15:25-26)

Q:  During Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, he stood before Governor Felix and said, "I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings." This is the offering (evidently a large amount) that Paul writes of in Romans 15:25-26, "...the poor among the saints in Jerusalem." Then verse 27 says, "Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things."

So the question is this:  How have we shared in their spiritual things?


A:  First of all, we now possess the Word of God which came to us through Israel. Romans 3:1-2 says that the chief advantage of the Jew was that they "...were entrusted with the oracles of God." So now we have the entire Bible: the truths of creation, the history of Israel and mankind through the centuries, the judgments of God, the covenants, the promises, and many prophesies concerning Christ and the things to come.  As Romans 15:4 states: "...whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." The things "written in former days" would include the warnings Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11. Verse 11 says, "now these things happened to them for examples, and they are written for our admonition...."  Most assuredly, "all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Tim 3:16). For wisdom, reproof, and instruction in righteousness, we read Proverbs. For examples of worship, prayer and praise, we read the Psalms. For a knowledge of prophecy, we have all the prophets, including the Lord Jesus who prophesied of the judgments to come and the future Kingdom.  In the four gospels we find the doctrines of the virgin birth, His deity, His ministry on earth, His suffering, His crucifixion, His resurrection, and His future Kingdom.  And Paul's epistles, which are addressed to Gentile believers, contain the revelations concerning the truths that God has especially for us today.  It is there that we look for knowledge of our salvation by grace, our position in Christ, our spiritual life, and our destiny.

Secondly, we now have the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant, namely salvation through His blood.  Jesus spoke of this in Matthew 26:28 saying, "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." However, the great truths of the New Covenant were not fully revealed until the Book of Hebrews was written. The author of Hebrews (most likely Paul) wrote to the Jewish Christians who knew all the ordinances and prophecies of the Old Testament as Paul did. The New Covenant shows that all the types, offerings and sacrifices, priesthood and ordinances of the Law are fulfilled in Christ.

But wasn't the New Covenant made "with the house of Israel "(Jer 31:31-34) rather than with the Church of our day? Well yes, but with Israel's rejection of Christ and her temporary blindness (Acts 28:28; Rom 11:11; Eph 2:12-13), the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant are now given by grace to those who do receive Christ.  The New Covenant's complete fulfillment is still in the future (Rom 11:25-27), but today we are partakers of this "so great a salvation" mentioned in Hebrews 2:3. 

Perhaps this is what Paul was referring to when he said he was a minister of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:4-6).

Interesting tidbit - 8

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake (Phil 1:29). (KJV)

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church (Colossians 1:24). (KJV)

In Philippians 1:29 we are told "it has been granted [us] for Christ's sake...to suffer for His sake."  Then in Colossians 1:24 it says we "fill up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions."  What exactly is Paul saying here?  I think Kenneth S. Wuest in his book Philippians in the Greek New Testament explains this rather well:

"The words “it is given” [in Phil 1:29] are from the word used of God when He in grace freely and graciously bestows on believing sinners the gift of salvation. The words “in the behalf of” are the translation of the Greek preposition used of the substitutionary aspect of our Lord’s death on the Cross. It means not only for the sake of but in the place of Christ. It should be clear that we cannot share in His expiatory sufferings on the Cross, much less endure those in His stead. The sufferings to which Paul refers here are Christ’s sufferings for righteousness’ sake while on earth in His humiliation. He says in Colossians 1:24 that he fills “up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ” in his flesh “for His body’s sake.” Our Lord’s sufferings for righteousness’ sake which He endured as a result of human antagonism against Himself, ended with His death on the Cross. He has left with the Church the message of salvation, the preaching of which draws the antagonism of the world. Thus, as the saints suffer for righteousness’ sake, they substitute for their absent Lord not only in the task of preaching the message He has given them but also in suffering for His sake and in His stead."

Interesting tidbit - 7 (Philippians 1:18 and Galatians 1:8)

Q:  Doesn't Philippians 1:18 contradict Galatians 1:8?

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice (Phil 1:15-18).

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (Gal 1:8)!


A:  In Philippians 1, Paul was speaking of some who were preaching Christ "from envy and strife" (v 15).  These preaching envied the great number of people Paul had reached with the gospel of Christ.  Consequently, they preached Christ from envy and strife, which the dictionary defines as "competition between rivals," and "of contention" (v 16), which is defined as "a striving to win in competition."  Like many preachers today, these men thought that reaching the lost was a competition among preachers, one in which Paul could no longer be engaged due to his incarceration in a Roman prison (v 13).

With Paul thus sidelined in prison, these brethren continued to preach Christ, "thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment" (v 16).  That is, they supposed Paul also viewed reaching the lost as a competition, and that it would just eat him up inside to hear his rivals were out gaining converts while he could not.  It is in this context Paul rejoices that Christ is being preached, for while these brethren were preaching Christ with a faulty motive, they were at least preaching the right message.

That's quite different from Galatians 1:8, where Paul pronounces a curse on all who preach a faulty message, even if their motive is pure and good.  God can bless and use the right message when it is preached with an envious spirit, but He cannot bless and use a faulty message, regardless of how pure and sincere the motivation behind it.

Interesting tidbit - 6 (2 Timothy 4:17)

Q:  What do you think the lion refers to in 2 Timothy 4:17, the devil, the Roman government, or an actual lion?

At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them. But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was rescued out of the lion's mouth (2 Tim 4:16-17).


A:  While the Romans fed people to the lions, Paul's singular use of "lion" here seems to refer to Nero himself.

Lions are considered the king of the beasts, and in Scripture kings are associated with lions (Prov 20:2; 28:15; Ezek 32:2).  Judah was called "a lion's whelp" (Gen 49:9-10), and Israel's kings sprang from this tribe, including her King of kings, "the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5).

In addition, the Greek word for "defense" in 2 Tim 4:16 (apologia) is translated "defense" and "answer" when Paul was answering charges levied by rulers (Acts 22:1; 25:16).

And so in 2 Timothy 4, Paul is speaking of his "answer" (apologia) before the Roman ruler Nero, from whom the Lord delivered him, as he says, "that by me the proclamation might be fully accomplished."   Though Paul was about to "answer" again before Nero, with a very different outcome, God spared him at his first answer so that he could finish his course (2 Tim 4:7) and the epistles that fulfilled the Word of God (Col 1:25).