Doctrine of Abortion    Heb. 087b 

This is an article from the Encyclopedia of Judaism which was published in 2000.  One of the editors was Jacob Neusner who is a very well-known rabbinical scholar and several others.  In this article they write…

The Jewish legal and moral attitude toward abortion based on biblical Talmudic and rabbinic sources…

Note that. They’re not dealing with modern Jewish formulations.  They are going back to Mishnaic interpretation, rabbinic interpretation, Talmudic interpretation of the Bible.

The Jewish legal and moral attitude toward abortion based on these sources including the response literature…

That is some modern literature that has been described in detail in English by various authors.  It states…

            In Jewish law an unborn fetus is not considered to be a person.

Now let me pause here.   That is really critical terminology because I am going to read something written by Harold O. J. Brown earlier and he argues a number of non-secularists. I think in his position that if it human – let me make another aside here – what is in the womb is human.  It is not non-human.  It is not something else.  It is going to be a human being.  It is human.  Unfortunately some people have inadvertently overstated the case and say that it doesn’t matter.

“It is just a mass of biological cells.”

No, it is human.  But he makes the supposition that it is human therefore it is a person.  Person gets into a legal definition.  Let me set that aside until I come back and address it later on.

So he says here…

            Jewish law an unborn fetus is not considered to be a person.

That means a legal entity that can own property, transfer titles, be legally recognized.  The person in Hebrew is considered nephesh literally soul which is what I have been pointing out.

It is not a person.  It is not nephesh until it is born. The fetus is regarded as part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition.  Until 40 days after conception the fertilized egg is considered mere fluid.

Those 40 days – where does that come from?  That comes back from Aristotelian thought that at forty days there was a quickening.  What is that based on?  Who knows?  But that was it.  At 40 days there was a quickening and that is when it begins to become human.  So that is where the 40 days comes from.

Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22-23.

Now, that is the passage where it talks about case law.  You have two men fighting and they want to do each other bodily harm, but they inadvertently and accidentally hit a pregnant woman and the pregnant woman has a baby. One position that some people hold is a view that that is a miscarriage and that it is not a live birth.  But it is recognized by most scholars that the Hebrew word that is used there indicates live birth and is always used of live birth and so that’s the position that must be understood there.  It is a live birth which means that at the point of birth the baby is alive.  Any damage that is done is post birth.  So if life begins at birth, then obviously you have a living baby because it is after birth.  We will get into that in detail when we look at the exegesis of that passage.

So they are going to give the Jewish interpretation and this is only one Jewish interpretation and I have a host of other Jewish scholars who hold to the live birth view.  They argue that this is the miscarriage view.

NKJ Exodus 21:22 " If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

NKJ Exodus 21:23 "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

That miscarriage view would be that “if there other misfortune to the mother”. So that is how they interpret that.  The issue here is that by issuing a fine they are showing that what happens is significant.  It is not insignificant.  It is not just a mass of non-entity non-human cells. 

They say, “Well, if they had even considered it to be human, there would have been more than a fine.” 

No, what is interesting is if you get into looking at the Mosaic Law if a Jew harms another Jew there is a penalty.  If he kills a Jew (a Hebrew kills a Hebrew) there is a death penalty.  But if he kills a slave it is a fine.  A slave was fully human, but there is inherent recognition of a difference of a value of life.  That goes through a number of different laws in the Mosaic Law.  The writer of this article in the encyclopedia goes on to say…

            Most biblical commentators…

That would be Jewish – it is a Jewish encyclopedia.  Don’t get confused and think these are Christians.

Most biblical commentators interpret “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal   injury to the woman following her miscarriage.  In that case the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body.  Thus when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen that causes the fetus to be lost the only concern is to have the one who is responsible to pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus.

The major Talmudic source for abortion rulings in Judaism discusses a case of danger to the mother.  This reading reads…

If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth and her life is in danger one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb from limb because her life takes presence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born one may not touch it for one may not set aside one person’s life nephesh for that of another.  Commentators explain that the fetus is not considered to be a nephesh or person until it has left the womb and entered the air of the world.  One is therefore permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life.  Once the head or the greater part of the body of the infant comes out the infant may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born and in Judaism one may not sacrifice one life to save another.

There are many other Talmudic sources which support the non-person status of the unborn fetus.  In fact during the first 40 days of conception the Talmud considers the fertilized zygote to be nothing more that mere fluid however after 40 days have elapsed the fetus is deemed to be fashioned to form.  Laws of ritual uncleanness must be observed for fetuses older than 40 days implying that the unborn fetus although not considered to be a living person nephesh still has considerable status.  In fact Jewish law allows one to desecrate the Sabbath to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn fetus so that the child may observe many Sabbaths later.  The permissibility to kill the unborn fetus to save the mother’s life rests upon the fact that such an embryo is not considered a person nephesh until it is born.  Mimodades and Karo present another reason for allowing abortion or an embyotomy prior to birth where the mother’s life is in danger.  The argument of pursuit which understands the fetus to be pursuing the mother.

The point of this whole article (and it goes on for another two pages) is that in Jewish thought that because it is potential human life that apart from any other accident or any other factor all  things being considered what will result from what is in the womb is a human being.  God is putting together a human being bit by bit.  So nobody has the right to go in and stop it once this process has begun.  You can’t go in and test.  In rabbinical law you can’t test for any kind of diseases.  You can’t test for Down’s syndrome.  You can’t do any of these things because there is no stopping life.  That’s the position because they recognize inherently that what is in the womb is the image of God.  Therefore that involves both the physical and the soul dimensions.  So you just can’t mess with it.  This is extremely serious stuff.

On the other hand as I pointed out last time it is not deemed murder.  I think that is a very important distinction to make.  I am going to bring out something in just a minute.  We talked about that and this just shows that the position I am articulating which to a lot of evangelicals sounds really bizarre that you don’t have life until birth.

In fact in this next article that I am going to read by Harold O. J. Brown he says, “Who could ever imagine that the fetus could make it to birth without a soul?”

Where is your evidence for this?  Remember, that is an important word when I read you this next article.  Where is your evidence?

So we talked about the fact – what I have shown you is that this is not a position that is unique to Christianity; but it is one that is also consistent with the teaching of the rabbis going back to the Mishnah which is roughly at the time of Christ.  The Mishnah was written and codified in the 2nd—3rd century AD it represents an oral history that goes back to the 2nd, 3rd, maybe 4th century BC.

Now the next question that we are addressing is the question of when does God impart the soul?  How do we know this?  Now I have gone into Scripture to show that the Bible uses this language of “from birth to death”.  It is interesting one of the strongman arguments that I saw in this dissertation he just cited all of these things that creationists would argue from birth, from birth, from birth.

But, in all the passages he cited there was also the other end of the formula which is from death; but he left that out and said, “See they are basing everything on the use of a word.”

That was faulty argumentation.

So we have to ask the question, when does God impart the soul and how do we know the soul is there? Can you measure it?  Can you weigh it?  Can you see it?  Is there something physical that demonstrates the presence of the soul?

Now that is a very important question.  Well, in doing my research I ran across this second article which came out in the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Journal.  The Trinity Journal came out (volume XIV) in 1993.  It was written by Harold O. J. Brown.  Now this is significant because Harold O. J. Brown is probably one of the top 5 significant protestant theologians who pushed the whole anti-abortion movement from the inception.  In fact, in the article he tells a story.  Let me see if I can find it here.  He tells a story about when Roe v. Wade first came down.

He says, “Unfortunately for those who consider abortion a moral evil indeed under most circumstances a crime, the evangelical community was very slow to react to Roe.  Prominent Christian leaders such as W. A. Criswell (He was a pastor of First Baptist up in Dallas which at the time was the largest Baptist church in the world.) greeted Roe v. Wade with favor.  In some cases apparently what seemed to be a reflex anti-Catholicism.  The question on his stand on this writer Dr. Chriswell…

See Harold O. J. Brown was of such stature he could call up W. A. Chriswell on the phone and ask him, “What are you going to do about this?”

He did the same thing with Billy Graham.  Harold O. J. Brown is probably in his mid to late 80’s now.  He was a major figure in neo-evangelicalism in the 50’s through the early 90’s.

He talks about when they first formed one of the earlier anti-abortion movements. Billy Graham was first on the board, but then when he saw where it was going he got off the board.  He just didn’t understand all of this.  He went on to talk about the fact that it was really the writing of “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” by Francis Chaffer and C. Everett Coop that galvanized the religious evangelical community into an anti-abortion stance.  I remember going to see (they did) a full media film presentation of that series in Dallas in about 1979-1980.  I remember going to that (just like I did with “How Shall We Then Live?”) with Tommy and Charlie and a bunch of other guys. We all sat there and went through the whole thing.  But that’s what galvanized the action.

Now who’s this guy Harold O. J. Brown?  I think it is important to give you a little idea of who this guy is and what his credentials are.  At the time he wrote this he held the Franklin Forman Chair of Christian Ethics and Theology and was a professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Evangelical Divinity School.  He is now professor Emeritus from there.  He served as a pastor in Switzerland.  He taught on the faculty of Trinity for numerous years.  He earned his four degrees.  He is well-educated.  He earned his four degrees from Harvard University and Harvard Divinity School.

I have been to Harvard Divinity School. They didn’t teach the Bible there.  When I first went there and looked at the list of courses was in about 1981 or 1982 and there wasn’t a Christian course there.  Now they had Christian books in the bookstore.  They had some Greek and Hebrew tools in the bookstore that I bought because I hadn’t seen those prices in 10 years.  That is probably how long they had been in the bookstore.

He has a degree from Harvard University and Harvard Divinity School.  He received a Bachelor of Arts in Germanic languages and biochemical sciences, a Bachelor of Divinity in theology, the Master of Theology in Church history and a Doctor of Philosophy in Reformation studies.  He also studied at the University of Marburg (Germany) and the University of Vienna (Austria) and taught courses in Basel, Switzerland and in India.  Now I just want you to be aware of those credentials because of a couple of things he is going to say. 

Now, he makes a couple of telling comments (and I think self-damming comments) that are dangerous to his position within his article.  In one section of the article which he entitles “The Question of the Soul – Unanswered or Irrelevant?”  He recognizes that for some people it is important to know when ensoulment takes place.  Now you would think that he had made that decision – that if he is this hardcore frontline evangelical anti-abortionist that he would have understood that issue.

I am just going to read some spot paragraphs here.                    

He writes in one place.

It is interesting that some of the medical and legal discussions about abortion are now turning to speculation concerning the time of ensoulment.

That is in the medical and legal community because he is saying that there is recognition that if we are going to take the life of the fetus we have to decide when a soul gets there  If they are materialists and Darwinists they can’t really talk about a soul.  So he is recognizing that this is as a problem for their position.

He says that …

This discussion is now turning to the time of ensoulment even though neither academic medicine nor law has hitherto had much to say about the nature of the human soul or even whether such a thing as a soul actually exists.

He goes on to say…

It is precisely because ensoulment on the one hand from the purely scientific point of view cannot be brought into the relationship with life or divification however defined but on the other hand is precisely associated in folk thought.

You see it is the popular people that are concerned about when the soul gets there.  But what he is pointing out here is something I didn’t realize.  The whole pro-abortion argument has developed completely apart from any discussion of ensoulment.  It has nothing to do with it. That never enters into their discussion behind it.

He says…

On the other hand precisely associated faux pas popular culture with quickening and thus with life that the concept of ensoulment is creeping back into the discussion despite its self evident religious or theological nature.

Now here is the point.  He recognizes here that the question – when does the soul get there- is one that is theological or religious in nature.

He goes on to say…

In order to bring the question of ensoulment into the picture when discussing the morality of abortion, the present factual situation must be studiously ignored, (According to him.)

Factually the government is not prepared to take the question of the presence or absence of the human soul into account.

Why not?  They don’t have an epistemological basis to do it.  He later recognizes that we don’t want the government trying to decide when the soul gets there.

It goes on to say…

It is neither prepared nor equipped to consider whether such a thing as a human soul exists.  Thus the discussion of ensoulment for all practical purposes is necessarily confined to those religious circles especially, but not only Christian ones who do believe that man has a soul.  If it were possible to argue that for a certain time during gestation the fetus was without a human soul this would have only limited bearing on abortion law and abortion practice in the United States.

You see that is what he is recognizing.  Even if we could prove when the soul got there, it wouldn’t have any relevance on the legal decision.   The courts didn’t care when the soul got there.  That wasn’t a factor.

He says…

Because however everyone understands ensoulment, it is not possible to assume that the fetus remains without a soul until live birth.

What an assumption he has made!  See he has front loaded this with his own.

He says, “I can’t even imagine that a fetus would make it to live birth without a soul.  Nobody would do this.”

He says that…

Very few evangelical thinkers have proposed that the baby becomes a living person only when its first breath takes its first breath based on Genesis 2:7.

The problem is he gives no substantiation for that.  He just can’t imagine it so he generates it from his own arrogance.

Then he goes on to say in a separate paragraph several pages later…

The question of ensoulment cannot be answered scripturally.

Hello!  Here is this guy with all of these degrees - master of theology and PhD gone to Harvard, Harvard Divinity School, gone to a lot of conservative schools, teaches at conservative schools and is conservative to the core and he says that the Bible can’t tell you when the soul gets there.  After he has made a critique of both creationism and traducianism, his conclusion is that the Bible can’t tell you when ensoulment gets there.

So my question for him is - why are you saying it is a full human life at conception?  You don’t know when the soul is there.  Maybe the soul is not there.  How do you know?  He says that the Bible can’t tell him.

“So the question of ensoulment,” he says, “cannot be answered scripturally as the Scripture makes no reference to the process at all.”

But, even if we could answer it, naming and contrast to the prevailing views a late point in pregnancy our answer would not be relevant to the current legal discussion in as much as it would move on a theological plane and deal with issues of which the legislatures and courts are supposed to take notice.  Thus the only possible value of the discussion lies in the fragile support it may give to those Christians and others who believe in the soul and the effort to convince themselves our government and much of the medical profession have not embraced the method in which killing represents the solution.

Okay, what is he saying?

   1. He is saying that whatever is in the womb is human.  This is true.  This has to be admitted.  It is not just a mass of cells.  It is not a tumor. It is not a hangnail.  Given the normal progress this is how God is forming the home for a soul for a human being.  It is part of the image of God.
   2. He says Scripture cannot answer the question as to the timing of ensoulment.

This is completely false.

   3. We do not want the government or the courts attempting to decide the time of ensoulment apart from revelation.

Did you hear that?  He is actually right.  We don’t want the government coming in and determining when the soul is there because the soul can only be determined on the basis of (he would say) theological or religious basis.  I would say you can only know it from revelation.  You can’t know it from empiricism, rationalism or mysticism.  You can only know it from revelation.

   4. Only Christians have access to revelation.  I Corinthians 2:14.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Okay, that is a key lynchpin in my argument.  You can’t base law for believers and unbelievers on that which is not knowable apart from their system of epistemology.  You can’t hold unbelievers accountable for knowledge that is only available through revelation.  Only Christians have access to revelation.

   5. Christians don’t agree as to the time of ensoulment.  There is no clarity there.  Over the history of Christianity there is no clarity.

Now I have my position.  I think it is pretty clear.  But, over the scope of Christianity there are two views and Christians don’t agree.

So are we going to base federal legal statute on information that is only available through divine revelation only knowable to born again believers and born again believers can’t agree as to what it means?

Therefore my conclusion is that this shouldn’t be an issue of federal law or the courts.  In my view, you don’t have full human life.  Now that word “full” is very important the way I am articulating this position because, what is in the womb is potential and progressively developing human life.  It is the physical, material body part of it; but they both work together.  That it is not murder.  To have abortion on demand or abortion at will or abortion for birth control is tantamount to interfering in a divine process.

Now I am going to deal with some other passages of Scripture in there, but that would make it immoral and sinful but not a matter of federal constitution.  That is my point.

Okay, now I want to come back and deal with some problem passages over the next couple of weeks.

The first problem passage that was raised to me was Job 3:3. So turn in your Bibles to Job 3:3.

It is very important to look at the whole context here in Job 3.  Job 3:3 says…

NKJ Job 3:3 "May the day perish on which I was born, And the night in which it was said, 'A male child is conceived.'

Now the argument that is set forth here is life begins at conception.  We never said nothing begins at conception.  We said something did, something human begins at conception; but what we are saying is that the soul isn’t present until birth.  But this passage set forth - see you have a parallelism here and in that second half of the verse a male child was conceived.  See it is full human life.  Well, let’s look at the passage.  The context tells you that the issue here is primarily birth.  All through this section of Job, Job is bemoaning the fact that he was ever born.

NKJ Job 3:1 After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth.

Literally, in the Hebrew – cursed his day.  That is the Hebrew figure of speech for his birthday.  So he is cursing his birthday, not his day of conception.

The second thing we should note is that this extends throughout - that is a topical sentence.  It is narrative. The poetry begins in verse 3.  So the narrative says at this point Job opens his mouth and begins to curse his birthday and Job spoke and said…  Verse 3 is the first thing he says.

That is the Hebrew verb jalad meaning to birth.  It is not conception.

We might as well hunker down here with the way the rain is going.  We have 40 days and 40 nights.  We can go for a long Bible class tonight.  I don’t think we are going anywhere and I don’t think Ann Wright made it in with the cake tonight so there is nothing good back there to go back and eat.

So in the first stanza he says…

NKJ Job 3:3 "May the day perish on which I was born,

Jalad.

Then in the second clause he said…

And the night in which it was said, 'A male child is conceived.'

Now a male child has to do with the properties of the physical body, not the presence of the soul.  That is all that we are arguing - that there are two developments that take place in the development of the human being.  The first has to do with the development of the body and the second is the giving of the soul.  All this second stanza says is that a male child was conceived.

Now there are people that come along and say …when you look at some of these passages like if you skip down to verse 11 Job says…

NKJ Job 3:11 "Why did I not die at birth? Why did I not perish when I came from the womb?

There is the argument that because the first person singular pronoun is used there that he was present there.  Well, we have the same kind of thing, just hold your place and turn over to Psalm 139:13.  David says…

NKJ Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.

They are not somebody else’s.  My soul wasn’t there yet, but those were mine in my mother’s womb.  They weren’t somebody else’s.  So how else would you articulate it?

See, he says, “Me, I was in my mother’s womb.”

Well, yes he was but who else was it?  Your body wasn’t in there.  There is no other way to articulate this in English.

NKJ Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

All of this is using a first person pronoun to refer to that which is his body.

The point is if you look at the context of Job 3.  He goes on to say…

NKJ Job 3:4 May that day be darkness; May God above not seek it, Nor the light shine upon it.

NKJ Job 3:5 May darkness and the shadow of death claim it; May a cloud settle on it; May the blackness of the day terrify it.

NKJ Job 3:6 As for that night, may darkness seize it; May it not rejoice among the days of the year, May it not come into the number of the months.

Then we get down to more specifics in verse 10.

NKJ Job 3:10 Because it did not shut up the doors of my mother's womb, Nor hide sorrow from my eyes.

In other words my mother’s womb was not shut.  It was the birth.  You see this whole passage is talking about the birth of Job.  Why didn’t I die at birth?

We have looked at the terminology here - mirechem and mibeten.  Now one of the things that was pointed out in this dissertation which I thought did a decent job of this and a corrective in some sense is that as I pointed out before when you have certain words and components of words that sometimes you do yourself more damage by breaking down the particulars and the components than recognizing that the phrase or the clause or the whole saying has meaning in and of itself that is beyond the some of its parts.  So if you spend too much time trying to make a case for the preposition min or ek meaning “out from” as opposed to… I could use the preposition ek or min and say that I am going to pour this coffee out of this cup.  Now it has presence inside the cup and it comes from the source of the cup and it comes out.  You have other passages as we saw in Scripture if you try to take that meaning and that is a legitimate meaning for min or for ek.  If you take that meaning and make it cover every use of min or ek you have a real problem when you come to Revelation 3:10 when God promises that He is going to keep them out of the tribulation.  I forget the terminology there.  Let me go back and look real quick because that is the same type of prepositional construction.

Jesus says…

NKJ Revelation 3:10 "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

That means you are not going to go into the trial at all.  There are parallels to that so you can go either way.  So if you press the preposition too far you can create a problem.

But what I did with this one dissertation as I kept reading, I was chuckling to myself because the writer is a dispensational pre-trib writer and yet he went so far without paying attention to the fact that there is an ek over there in Revelation 3:10.  He went so far in arguing that min and ek must always be source that he moved himself right into a post trib position without realizing it.  See, you have to understand and keep in mind all of these different uses and they are not hard and fast.  Language isn’t mechanical like that.

What is important as I pointed out last time is that the uses of mirechem and mibeten and ek kolia in the New Testament are idioms for “from birth”.  That is how they are translated.  As I pointed out numerous translations NIV, NASB, New English Bible, The New English Version - all of these recognize in numerous places that this is an idiom that should be translated “from birth.”  Don’t try to parse it into some kind of separation from birth or things like that.  It just means “from birth”. It’s not separation out from the womb.  It is just an idiom for birth as opposed to conception because in the Hebrew language they didn’t have a noun for birth.  So the only way to make the statement “from birth” was to use a circumlocution.

But they did have a noun as I pointed out the last few lessons, they did have a noun for conception. So that was available to them.  When they do talk about conception, they talk about two acts – that Eve conceived and gave birth.  These are two different events.  They are not viewed as the same.  There is the beginning of the process which develops the physical home for the soul and then there is the actual birth itself.

So Job 3:13 is not a passage that would argue for conception being a starting point where the soul is.  There is no evidence that the soul is there at conception, only physical masculinity.  But throughout the whole passage the argument is at birth.  Birth and death are the parameters that are given there.

I am going to close in prayer.

The Tests of Abraham’s life  RD/Gen/113

The first test was to go to a new land and to leave the family behind. To understand the tests we have to go back and understand the framework, the Abrahamic covenant. The positional promises that God gave Abraham are reduced to three: land, seed, and blessing. The tests all relate to one of those three promises. In terms of our position in Christ, how many aspects are there to that positional grace provision? We have all learned that God gave us forty things. That is our positional reality—all those things that God did for us, that we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, which is a lot more than forty. So the tests that we encounter are going to be tests related to understanding what God gave us at the instant of salvation, because those are our eternal possessions that can never be taken away from us. So just as God tested Abraham with regard to the three components of that promise—land, seed, and blessing—we are going to get testing in relationship to understanding all of the dynamics of the Christian life in terms of what God has done for us in adopting us into the royal family, and all the aspects related to salvation—redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, aspects related to the Holy Spirit, His indwelling, baptism, sealing, filling, plus the fact that we are also indwelled by Jesus Christ, all these things. That is what we are going to be tested on. So that means that before we have the test we are supposed to acquire the knowledge. We learn in first and then apply it.
 
So the first test is to go to a new land. Is he really going to trust God to provide for him in the geographical place that God has provided for him. We know that he was a little hesitant in trusting God at first, so he goes to Haran first and is there for probably fifteen years or more, and then he moves on to the land finally.
 
Then he gets tested (Second Test) in relation to the land. Genesis 12:7, “And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto your seed will I give this land: and there built he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.” This is after he arrives in the land, and this is the second statement of the land promise. Is he going to trust God and stay in the land when the famine comes, or is he going to try to solve the problem on his own? He tried to solve the problem on his own, which is what you and I do. Abraham is down in Egypt and out of fellowship, and God is just multiplying his wealth! When he finally leaves Egypt he is wealthy, even though he has failed in his spiritual test, but he has picked up certain things that will be the basis for further tests. That is just what happens with us. But Abraham and Lot become so wealthy that when they get back to the land, which has a famine problem, the land which God has promised him can’t support them. So now there is going to be this family rivalry.
 
We often have all kinds of tests in life. We have tests of things that are just inconvenient, we have to deal with people who are just not doing the job the way they should, we have to deal with bureaucracies and systems, we have health testing, financial testing, testing in the area of grief or loss, weather disasters—all of these things that can happen, and we have to decide how we are going to respond to each one. The issue there is always how we are going to choose to handle the situation. We can either handle it through human viewpoint or we trust the Lord, so that the foundation of all of our problem-solving is really the faith-rest drill, and that leads to the use of one of the ten problem-solving devices. That is divine viewpoint. If we go to human viewpoint we just forget trust, forget faith-rest drill, and we operate on human viewpoint. We work out really good rationalizations for what we are doing. It sounds good, and it may have a lot of truth in it. In Job, if you look at the statements made by Eliphaz and by Bildad and by Zophar there are a lot of things that they say that are right, but their structure is wrong, their framework is wrong. That is why it is so important to have a framework of biblical doctrine because even though you have components within your framework that are true if they are not put together in the right structure the structure is not going to hold weight. There are verses in Job that can be pulled out and we say it is a great statement, it is true. But of you look at the context he has positioned it within a faulty argument. In a case like that a person is mixing truth with error. And that is what we all do. We rationalize, we justify. For example, Abraham when he told Abimelech Sarah was his sister: “My life is going to be threatened here, I have to protect myself, don’t I?” That was his rationale. It is just human viewpoint trying to solve life’s problems without really trusting God. So we develop the strategies that get very complex to protect ourselves from perceived danger, loss, whatever we think that the threat is; and they all just come out of our sin nature. We see that Abraham has to go through this process because in the early stages here he is half obeying and half failing. But in that incremental stage he learns a little bit more each time about the trustworthiness of God.
 
This is really illustrated in Lot because Lot is so arrogant that all he can focus on is the temporal reality. Abraham, when he comes to the third test when Lot’s servants and his servants are fighting against each other and he says that the land is too small to support both of them, Abraham has learned from the previous test. The previous test he flunked. He didn’t respond by trusting God (no faith-rest drill); he didn’t respond by grace orientation. He didn’t recognize that God had graciously given him the land therefore God would graciously provide for him in the land even though there was a famine. Now he is back in the land and he still has a famine problem, and now he has a people-testing problem because Lot and his servants are causing problems, but Lot is totally self-absorbed and he is focusing on temporal reality. Abraham has learned to be gracious, so he says take your pick of the land. Lot is willing to sacrifice his whole spiritual life so that he can live in the right place, and he wanted to be there because that’s where the entertainment was, where the action was, and where the city life of his day was. So he is going to justify it in his mind and that leads to self-deception where he is completely divorced from reality. We really saw that picture when judgment eventually came on Sodom because his wife just doesn’t want to leave. She looks back, she just can’t pull herself back from all the carnality and all the attractions of the cosmic system. So God judges her for that.
 
We learned about the arrogance skills and the whole cycle from self-absorption, self-indulgence, self-justification, self-deception to self-deification where we become our own god. That is the same process that is illustrated in Romans chapter one, and if we don’t break this cycle through confession of sin and humility, realizing what God has done for us and humbling ourselves through the mighty hand of God—1 Peter 5:5-7—then we are just going to continue to deteriorate until our lives just fragment, and then we get the natural consequences intensified by divine discipline.
 
So the third test was the test to treat Lot with grace and generosity, and again it is related to the land. And when it is over with he passes the test God takes him aside and, at the end of chapter thirteen, and says, Walk in the land in its length and width for I give it to you. So God praises him for passing the test.
 
Then we come to the fourth test which is related to blessing. Abraham is mandated to be a blessing to those around him. We see the invasion of the four kings. So the test is going to be related blessing and to grace orientation. Is he going to deal with his pagan neighbors and with stupid Lot on the basis of grace and on the basis of God’s character rather than his character? He passed that test and demonstrated that he can be a blessing to his pagan neighbors. And that is an interesting example to us, that we can be good and kind to the pagans in our environment who are completely hostile to everything that we stand for.
 
Then the fifth test which was the test to express his gratitude to God. That is when he returned to Salem and he meets Melchizedek, the king of Salem. Melchizedek represents a royal priest, and he is going to be the type of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ. But in this event Abraham has had a victory and so gets to express his gratitude to God and does so by giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek as an offering of gratitude to God for what He has done. He also refuses to take anything from the king of Sodom because he wants to make it very clear that his victory and his involvement in the battle was related to his obedience to God and he didn’t have anything to do with the perverts in Sodom.
 
The sixth test in chapter fifteen is again related to the seed. It has been some time now since God promised Abraham descendants, and it hasn’t happened yet.
Abraham was apparently beginning to worry about this a little bit, so God comes along in chapter fifteen and He gives him a command. That is how we know it was a
Test. When there is a command then there is a test related to obedience to the command. Genesis 15:1, “After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in
a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward.” It is in this chapter that He makes it clear that the descendant will come from his
own body, it won’t be through his servant. The covenant is cut at this point.
 
The next test (Seventh Test) is related to the seed again, in chapter sixteen. This time it is, Are we going to trust God to provide the seed through Abraham and Sarah or are we going
to try to make another human viewpoint end run? This was the incident with Hagar resulting in the birth of Ishmael who becomes the father of a certain segment of
Arab tribes, and this is where the whole Arab-Israeli conflict had its beginning. So he fails that test. Rather than sticking with it, persevering, and trusting in God no
matter how impossible it seemed that Sarah could have a child, he gave in to human viewpoint rationalization.
 
Then we have another test (Eighth Test)  related to the seed in chapter seventeen. Here the covenant is reconfirmed, but now a sign is going to be given of the covenant, the sign of
Circumcision. This is going to be a picture of sanctification, the removal of the influence of the flesh, the sin nature. He trusts God and he and all those in his household
are circumcised. Again, God reconfirms the covenant with him and He states in addition that it is going to be with Sarah and that He will establish the covenant with his
son, Isaac. So the contract is expanded even further.
 
A ninth test comes in chapter eighteen and again this relates to blessing. Three visitors show up. One is the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ and the other two are angels. He is very hospitable to his visitors and so he passes the grace orientation test.

Another test (Tenth Test)  in the chapter follows and this is again a test of grace orientation. God is going to take Abraham into His confidence and tell him that He is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain. That is where Lot lives and
so it is a test to see if Abraham is going to exercise impersonal love towards Lot. But Abraham passed the test, he has functioned honorably, he has passed the test of being a blessing to his undeserving neighbors and relatives, and he has dealt with them in grace.
 
The eleventh test occurs in Genesis chapter twenty, and again it relates to the seed. How is he going to protect the seed? Is he going to continue to trust God? Sarah
still isn’t pregnant, so now they go to live in Philistia, in Gerar, and Abraham lies about Sarah being his wife again. Why? Because he is afraid for his life. Rather than
trusting God he is afraid somebody is going to kill him and take Sarah for his wife. So he fails the test, but he is learning. He is learning that God is the one who is going
to protect him, and no matter what that seed is coming, the child is going to be born through Sarah, and in chapter 21 Isaac is born. And again there is a test to protect
the seed. Now there would be the threat of rivalry between Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael and Hagar are sent away to protect the inheritance and the seed.
 
Abraham’s final exam is in chapter twenty-two where God tells him to take Isaac the promised son to Mount Moriah and to sacrifice him. So again it is a test related to
the seed, it is a test related to the faith-rest drill, and it is a test related to his personal love for God. Is the promise of God more real to him than his circumstances?
Does he love God so much that he will do anything that God asks him to do, even it means to take the life of his cherished son he had waited for for so long. He reasons
though, based on Hebrews eleven, that because God had promised that he was going to have a multitude of descendants through Isaac, therefore God, who has always
been true to His Word, must be true to this word. Even if he killed Isaac God could bring him back to life, so that was what he thought God was going to do. So he
never gives it a second thought, he takes Isaac to Moriah, lays him out on the altar, comes to the point where he is going to kill Isaac. God stops him, and he has
demonstrated that he is trusting God no matter what. And God provided a substitute, a perfect picture of salvation, that Jesus Christ is our substitute.
 
Abraham passes these tests, according to Hebrews 11:10, because he had a future focus. The reality of God’s plan for him in the future was greater than his present
circumstances. And that is the challenge to us, to grow to that point where no matter what is going on in our life this is only temporary, it is only this world. It is a future
world that He has prepared for us that He is preparing us for, and we have to go through these tests just as Abraham did and every other believer does in order to have
the capacity to properly function in terms of the responsibility and the privileges that God is going to give us to reign as kings and priests in the Millennial kingdom.
Abraham pictures that.

The Doctrine of Adam’s Original Sin  Gen. 032

1)      The term “Adam’s original sin” refers to Adam’s first sin. It is not his whole life, it is the first sin he committed which was the sin of disobedience in eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was the issue. Throughout the Scriptures there is so much teaching about the impact of Adam’s sin, and it always treats Adam’s sin as a literal historical event. If that did not occur historically then it takes the foundation completely out from under what is taught in the New Testament regarding sin and salvation.

2)      Adam was the designated head of the human race, and that is called federal or representative headship. That means that is was Adam’s sin and not the woman’s sin that is determinative. 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” So in some sense her sin is not as significant as his, first because he is the head, and second because she is deceived. Her sin did not impact the creation, it did not impact their progeny. It was not her sin that was determinative, it was Adam’s sin.

3)      Federalism is the view that Adam is the representative of the entire human race. Therefore Adam’s decision would affect all of the human race. Adam’s decision was set up to be a representative decision so that whatever he decided, however he went, that would determine the course for the human race. If he passed the test and rejected the temptation and did not eat of the fruit if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then all of his descendents would be born with positive, confirmed righteousness. If he failed the test, then all of his descendents would be born in corruption, in a world of suffering and spiritual death as well as physical death. Therefore when Adam sinned as humanity’s representative head the entire race fell. There are many examples in the Scripture of representative headship at work, where God designates a certain person as the head of the family or as the head of a people group, and their decision has ramifications that go down throughout all of history. For example, in Genesis chapter nine there is a curse announced by Noah on his grandson Canaan. Actually, it is his son Ham who violates Noah’s privacy, but when Noah pronounces a blessing and a curse on his sons that curse fell on Canaan. Canaan wasn’t even the one directly involved in the sin and it is actually his descendents on whom the curse falls. We can also say that the blessing on Japheth was one that didn’t actually go to Japheth himself, but went to all of the descendants of Japheth. Another example is with Esau and Jacob. When Esau sold his birthright to Jacob all of his descendants from the consequences of that as they were excluded from the blessing of the promise to Abraham and to Isaac. And again, the promise to Abraham is a promise of blessing to a representative head. The promise to Abraham was to all of his descendants. The principle in the federal headship of Adam is that God in His omniscience knew that any human being put in that same situation with Adam under any set of circumstances would end up committing the same sin eventually.

4)      The other view, which has to do with the transmission of guilt, is called seminalism, which comes from the Latin word which means seed. The idea in seminalism, which was a view originally set forth by Augustine and also held by Calvin and Luther, is the view that all humanity participated physically in Adam’s sin, that the sin nature and the guilt of Adam’s sin was passed on physically through procreation. That is the idea of seminalism. It is not only the sin nature but also the guilt of Adam’s original sin were passed on physically through procreation. The biblical support for seminalism comes out of a passage in Hebrews—Hebrews 7:9, 10, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” Levi was one of the sons of Jacob who later became known as Israel. Levi was the great grandson of Abraham, so there was quite a distance of time between them. Levi was not physically present when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, but what the writer of Hebrews says is that he was there seminally “in the loins of his father.” Therefore you can say that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. So the argument is that this shows that there is a physical or genetic tie or connection that is passed down physically through procreation from one generation to the other. When the argument is looked at you have Romans 5:12 to support federalism and you have Hebrews 7:9, 10 to support seminalism. The fact is, there are elements of both that are true and so we have to refine our thinking a little bit. Remember that in federalism both the sin nature and Adam’s original sin are imputed on the basis of the representative principle. In seminalism the sin nature plus Adam’s original sin are passed on genetically. But the way both are true is that the sin nature is passed on genetically and Adam’s original sin on the basis of Adam’s federal headship, is then imputed to that sin nature. So there are elements on both that are true and this is how you put them together. Adam’s original sin is the result of the federal headship of Adam; seminalism is the result of the physical connection the sin nature is passed on genetically from father to the next generation.

5)      Understanding how the elements of both are true. In seminalism we see that the sin nature is passed on genetically through procreation. On the male side every sperm cell in the human body contains 46 chromosomes which give the blueprint of who you are. Those chromosomes pass on the genetic physical aspect to the sin nature. Wee know this because the sin nature is referred to in Scripture with such terms as “flesh,” “body of sin,” an other terms indicating a physical dimension to the sin nature. When these chromosomes that contain this genetic corruption of the sin nature are passed on they go down through the male. The cell splits into two cells that have 23 chromosomes each, and then those two cells mature into two mature sperm cells. This is an operation called meiosis. Then on the female side there is an egg that is produced, and it starts off with 46 chromosomes but in the process of meiosis it throws off 23 chromosomes in what is called polar bodies, a process of cell purification, so that when it is ready for fertilization the egg has only 23 chromosomes and has been purified. So on the female side is a purified egg but on the male side nothing is lost and so there is still a sin nature. When the sperm cell fertilizes the egg then the sin nature is passed on from one generation to the next. This shows one of the reasons for the virgin birth. When the male side is removed at the virgin conception and the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, then what happens in the virgin conception is the Holy Spirit causes the egg to have parthenogenesis without benefit of the sin nature so that the product is one hundred per cent true humanity, minus a sin nature and minus Adam’s original sin. Because there is no sin nature there is no home for the assignment/imputation of Adam’s original sin. Therefore Jesus in His humanity is born without a sin nature and without the imputation of Adam’s original sin. He is born sinless or impeccable. That explains the seminalism side of the issue. It just deals with the physical transmission of the sin nature.  On the federalism side where we see Adam as our designated head, his guilt is imputed to us, so that at the instant of birth we are born with a sin nature, and that sin nature is going to be the home to which God is going to impute Adam’s original sin—the legal (not emotional) guilt of Adam’s original sin.

Doctrine of Adam's original sin.   Heb. 090b

   1. Adam's original sin occurred when he violated God’s mandate in the Garden of Eden.  In Genesis 2:17 he was told …

NKJ Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

That Hebrew there isn’t “dying you will die”.  That doesn’t make sense if you think about it in English.  It doesn’t make sense in Hebrew.  You have a qal imperfect in conjunction with a qal infinitive absolute.  It is a Hebrew idiom meaning that something is certain.  It is boldface, italics, underlined in upper case.  It is a statement of absolute certainty that something is going to immediately happen.  

   2. This sin of disobedience resulted in Adam’s immediate spiritual death - not something that happens 930 years later, but something that happened immediately.  If you eat some spoiled shrimp, you will get immediately sick. Right?  You aren’t going to wait 20 years and then get sick from that shrimp.   That wouldn’t make sense. But people often make the mistake of saying that the penalty for sin in physical death.  Physical death is a consequence of spiritual death.  It is a consequence of the act of spiritual rebellion.  So the sin resulted in Adam’s immediate spiritual death and the formation of a sin nature.  When you go through seminary (and Ike is going to find this out if he hasn’t discovered it already) and you get in theology classes, everybody gets all wrapped around the axel over - what does nature mean?  Is this something you can put under a microscope and observe?  What does nature mean?  You go through all kinds of discussions.    It basically means a capacity for disobedience and autonomy from God and it is something that is inherited genetically.  There is certainly a corporeal dimension to it, to the sin nature, the capacity for disobedience and rebellion against God. 

   3. The sin nature is a corruption of the image of God.  Now let me just stop there.  That is the first clause in this point.    The third point is that the sin nature is a corruption of the image of God.  If we go back to Genesis 1:26-27 (and we have spent a lot of time in those verses so I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time there.), God says, “Let us create man in our image and in our likeness.”  Too often in evangelicalism and in Christianity “image” and “likeness” have been restricted to simply the soul, simply the immaterial part of man.  As I pointed out time and time again, we can’t do that.  You can’t limit it to only the immaterial part of man.  He is talking about “Let us make the human race in our image and after our likeness.”  It is a term that involves not only the incorporeal part of man, immaterial part of man but also the corporeal part of man.  It is the totality of man that represents this imageness.  The body is just as much important as the immaterial soul.  So there is a physical dimension to being in the image of God.  Not that God looks like man, but that man is to be the representative.  In that case he represents God as His image.  So if the sin nature corrupts the image of God, if the image of God is only immaterial, then the corruption is only immaterial.   But if the image is both material and immaterial, then the image is corrupted and there is a physical and an immaterial dimension to that corruption.  That is the point that I am making.  It is not that it means that all of a sudden man looked worse, but that physical aspect certainly began to impact things so that man lost health.  He physically died.  He was subject to illness.  Eventually he becomes subject to all kinds of physical diseases because of the physical corruption of the image of God.  So the third point is that the sin nature is the corruption of the image of God which distorts the individual’s orientation to God.  That is in the spiritual realm – in that non-material realm because in spiritual death the human spirit is lost.  The human spirit is that immaterial aspect of man’s makeup that enables his soul to be properly oriented to God to understand the things of God, to communicate with God, and to have relationship with God.  When that dimension – whatever you want to call it (We call it a human spirit.) is gone - then the human soul in its self consciousness, in its mentality, in its volition, in its consciousness tries to orient itself to what?  A material universe because it has no anchor, no knowledge, no connection to the true spiritual dimension which is God.  Jesus says is John 4,

NKJ John 4:24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

God is a spirit.  So in spiritual death man has no capacity to orient toward God.  So his thinking is automatically oriented and attracted to a material, physical universe.  There is an affinity there.  As a result he can’t understand the things of the spirit of God and many other factors.  So point number 3 is that the sin nature is a corruption of the image of God which distorts the individual’s orientation to God and supplies a capacity and orientation to rebellion toward God.  In Roman Catholic theology they use the term privation which means you lose something.  Something is no longer there.  They view sin as simply the loss of righteousness or holiness.  That is an anemic view of what happens in the fall because it is the loss of original righteousness.  It is not the acquisition of a nature that is corrupt and corrupting. So there is not a tangible gaining of that which is evil.  That is what the Scripture teaches.  We become corrupt.  You don’t just lose something.  We also acquire this orientation to God that is hostile.

   4. At the core of this sinful capacity we have two aspects.  I think whatever we do when we talk about the sin nature there are two poles around which all of the activities of the sin nature orient themselves.  The first is the autonomy of man.  I will use a little alliteration here so that we can remember this – autonomy and antagonism.  In autonomy man is arrogant toward God.  He is filled with himself.  Autonomy means self-law. Autos – nomos is self-law.  Man is going to be a law unto himself.  He is going to look to himself for absolutes.  He is going to determine what is right and wrong.  That is what Eve started to do when the serpent said, “Did God really say this?  Is that really true?”  He has put her in a position where she has to judge the veracity of God.  As soon as she began to judge whether or not God’s command was fair or not, then she was already flying down that slippery slope into failure.  So the first aspect of the sin nature is autonomy or independence, rebelliousness.  Man is going to rule things on his own apart from God.  The second is antagonism towards God. He wants to put himself first.  He is also hostile to God.  He is hostile to divine revelation.  He is hostile to divine truth.  Man’s basic orientation is to be hostile to the divine institutions and establishment truth.

   5. The sin nature renders the individual separated from God and depraved or corrupted in all aspects of his nature.  That is what the reformers meant when they used the phrase “total depravity”.  They didn’t mean that you were as bad as you could be.  They meant that every aspect of your being was affected and corrupted by sin.  Your consciousness, your mentality, your volition, your thought – everything is corrupted and affected by sin.  There is no element of man’s makeup that is free-floating like it was before Adam’s sin.  So the sin nature renders the individual separated from God and depraved and corrupted in all aspects of his nature.  Therefore man is unable to do anything that pleases God or gains God’s approval.  Now man can do relative-good things.  Jesus said to His disciples, “You being evil” - clear recognition of their depravity.  Modern man doesn’t like to think that we are evil - that those cute little babies that are born are evil.  They are just as evil.  All it is, is a sin nature wrapped up in flesh.  You know what the Bible says about the flesh.  That little baby is just as evil as he can be – just as evil as anybody else.  That little baby is as evil as Adolph Hitler.  He just hasn’t acted on it yet.  But, that is his capacity.  Man can’t do anything to please God. Jesus said to His disciples “You being evil know how to give good gifts to your children.”  See he is capable of relative good.  He is capable of all sorts of altruism.  He is capable of all kinds of helpfulness.  He is capable of all manner of kindnesses.  Man can do many wonderful, wonderful things as a fallen creature apart from the enablement of God.  But it is all tainted by a root that is corrupted by sin.  So man can’t do anything to merit God’s approval.  He is incapable of knowing God or responding in any way that includes something meritorious.  That leads us to the 6th point.

   6. The sin nature – this capacity, this corrupted aspect – can produce both sin in terms of active disobedience to God – active disobedience to revealed mandates.   That would be a definition of personal sin- direct disobedience of God and His character.   Sin can also produce that which is relative good.  It can produce morality.  Not long ago I was talking with a minister in a denomination.  I made the point that unbelievers can be incredibly moral, but that doesn’t mean that they are good in God’s eyes.  He didn’t know quite what to do with that.  What is typical today is morality is often used as a synonym for spirituality.  But Jesus recognizes that unbelievers can be moral.  The Pharisees were very moral.  We come at the text looking at it through the grid of the Holy Spirit’s interpretation and we see the Pharisees as the antagonists to Jesus, and therefore they are always bad.  But, until Jesus came on the scene the Jewish culture thought that the Pharisees were the epitome of moral rectitude and correctness and righteousness.  They were always going to the temple.  They were always praying.  They were always visible.  They were always studying.  They knew their Scriptures.  How could anybody be more righteous than they?  That is why Jesus came along in the Sermon on the Mount and said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you can’t see the kingdom of God.”  They are good.  He recognized right there that they produced a level, a superior level, of righteousness.  But, that wasn’t going to be good enough.  So the sin nature produces both active disobedience to God, but it also produces that which is moral and that which is relative good, but it has nothing in it that gains God’s approval.  So point 6 is that Adam thus corrupted the imago dei that is the Latin phrase for the image of God.    The original sin thus corrupted the Latin phrase for the image of God, but it doesn’t eradicate.  Some people come along and they say, “Well, the image of God was eradicated by sin.”  It wasn’t.  Man is still in the image of God.  Go to Genesis 9 when God is defining the reason for capital punishment.  It is because of the fact that someone has killed someone else in God’s image.  Even though it has been corrupted, that is the basis for capital punishment.  It is not because it is a deterrent.  It is not because you want to set an example.   It is not for any of those reasons.  It is because somebody has reached the point where their soul is so corrupt that they have so little respect for a divine image bearer.  Then to take the life of a divine image bearer is an act of blasphemy against God.  To kill one who bears His image is an act against the one whose image he bears.   The reason you are to take the life of anyone who commits certain crimes is because they are viewed as an act against God because it is an act against one who bears His image. So the image isn’t eradicated; it is corrupted.

   7. The question then is – does Adam’s sin affect only Adam or does Adam’s sin affect his descendents as well?  Now that is an important question.  Some of you may be aware that today when we usually talk about issues related to sovereignty and free will related to election related to the extent of the atonement and some of these other things the things we usually talk about in terms of a debate that came out of the Reformation known as the Calvinist-Arminian debate.  Calvinists are those who are in the tradition of John Calvin coming out of Geneva, Switzerland.  The Arminians being the followers generally of James Arminius who was a Dutch theologian who taught in Holland.  The fact is that where their followers were by 1615-1616 is not where either Calvin or Arminius were to begin with.  Those are the terms that we use.  This debate didn’t just pop up in the early 17th century or late16th century.  It was the same basic debate that had begun back in the 3rd century, 4th century between Augustine who was the bishop of Hippo and a British monk by the name of Pelagius.  Pelagius taught that every person was born as Adam was created - no corruption, no sin nature, perfectly free volition, each person made their own decision as to whether they were fallen.  So according to Pelagius people could live their entire life without ever sinning and they would automatically go to heaven.  That was known as Pelagianism.  So that created the initial debate.  This has been an ongoing debate for numerous years.  Point #7 is does Adam’s sin affect only Adam or his descendents?

   8. If it affects his descendents, how does it affect his descendents?  How is it passed from one generation to another?  That leads to the two terms that we briefly introduced - seminalism and federalism.

   9. Let’s get our definition.  In Seminalism the entire human race, body and soul, was genetically present in Adam.   The entire human race, body and soul, material and immaterial are present in Adam.  This view is usually connected to a Traducianist view of the transmission of the soul.  This is seminalism.  Everything is passed on through procreation, through secondary causes, both the soul and the body.  The second view is called Federalism. This is the view that Adam stood as the head and representative of the human race.  Adam’s decisions were on behalf of all humanity.  This view is most consistently linked to the creationist view of the origin and transmission of the soul.  So those are the two positions.  

  10. We are going to look at the biblical support for the seminalist position and that is our passage.  That is the one passage they always go to in Hebrews 7:9-10.

NKJ Hebrews 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,

Levi, not personally, but indirectly through his descendents….

We saw that the Greek there was really “in the manner of speaking.”

NKJ Hebrews 7:10 for he was still in the loins of his father when       Melchizedek met him.

We have done the exegesis of this verse.  This concept that he was in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him is a figure of speech.  That is what the Greek says.  But historically this was taken to mean that Levi personally, actually, truly, genuinely paid tithes to Melchizedek because he is seminally present - body and soul - in Abraham, three generation back.  That is the only verse, the primary verse that they go to.

  11. Point number 11 gives the biblical support for the federal position.  This is found in Romans 5:15-19 and I Corinthians 15:22.

NKJ Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

That is the free gift of salvation or justification.

NKJ Romans 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.

Now how did that judgment on Adam that came from one offense resulting in condemnation of the whole human race?  You see Paul is making this comparison between the way condemnation goes to the entire human race and the free gift of justification goes to the entire human race.  That is why I come back and say that both.  There is truth in both sides of this because Jesus Christ is our representative on the cross.  What qualifies Him in one sense to be there is because He is a true human and is genetically linked to the entire human race.  So there is truth on both sides.  You have to understand what elements apply to each side.

NKJ Romans 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

That is Adam's original sin.

It is talking about the offense and the judgment.

Now let me pause there a minute.  In fact I had the question-discussion with a pastor about this last week.  The question comes up – is physical death in the animal kingdom a result of man’s sin?  Why is that important?  Because some people will come along and say, “Well, there was death before Adam.  It is in the fossils.”  If you try to put any kind of life between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 then you can have (which is what the old Earth gap view did  and other views – progressive evolution view, threshold evolution view some of these other assimilationist views) will try to get an old earth position.  You will have millions or billions of years before Adam and then finally Adam pops up on the scene.  You just have spiritual death.  That is all that this is talking about – is spiritual death.  So you can have animals die.  Now there is a difference between animals and plants because the Hebrew word for animals’ life is nephesh hajah and that is not the same to apply to the life of plants.  So Adam could eat corn and he is not killing it.  I have read some people who tried to argue that.  “See those plant died when they ate it.  There was death.”  Different words!  You have to pay attention to the Hebrew text.  Death is a principle.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

We will look at that in a minute.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Death came by Adam.  Death there is talking about physical death.  It is an anarthrous noun indicating death as an entity – not just the physical death of man.  This is death as an entity comes into creation as a result Adam’s sin.  Then of course we see the other elements of the curse that apply to the animals as well.

NKJ Romans 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

See he is not talking about animals per se here because why?  It is not the subject.  His subject is talking about Christ’s death bringing salvation.  So he is talking about man.  But the death that he is probably talking about here is not physical; it is spiritual because he is talking about the penalty, the condemnation.  Now you have to be careful in some of the creationists’ literature.  I have read a lot from guys in ICR, guys in Answers in Genesis and they don’t get this straight on the difference between physical death and spiritual death.  They want to make physical death the penalty for sin.  So you have to be careful there and don’t get caught by that trap.

NKJ Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

That is Adam’s disobedience to God.

So our question is how did this happen?

NKJ Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

That is the verse for the federal position talking about Adam as our representative just as Christ is our representative.

12.     As with many theological positions, these are often presented as either –or when it may best be understood as a both-and.  There are elements of both that are true.  Some aspects of man are physically and seminally present in Adam.  There is a physical connection that links us to Adam, but is also a physical connection that connects links us to Christ.  If you breakdown that physical connection then you lose the physical connection to Christ and it messes up salvation.   But, there is also a spiritual dimension, an immaterial dimension that relates to imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness.

13.     So in other ways man is represented by both Adam and Christ.  So both are true.   

14.     This allows for Adam’s sin to be legally and actually our sin.  It means that a physical dimension related to sin is passed on genetically to every member of the human race except for Christ because of the virgin birth.

15.     It also allows for Christ’s death to be for the entire human race because He is related genetically to the entire human race.  It also allows for Him to represent us on the cross.  So both sides are true.  There is physical connection and a federal representation.

The Doctrine of Adoption   RD/Gal/031

(The word for adoption is not used here [huiothesia/u(ioqesia]; it is used in 4:5)

Background:

1.       The practice of adoption is used in the Bible as an illustration of the new position of the believer in reference to God. Adoption in the ancient world was very different from adoption today. Adoption in the ancient world, especially in Rome, related to adulthood and inheritance. Under the Roman concept of adoption Paul emphasises the authority and the preservation of the family lineage, and there is an emphasis on all of the property and position that comes to the adult son. Roman adoption could bring in a slave. By the time the child reaches his majority and he is going to be adopted as an adult son at age fourteen, if he is a loser in life and the father says I am not about to give my inheritance to him, the pedagogue is much better than him, so I am going to adopt the pedagogue and make him my son. Roman adoption emphasised inheritance, not blood relationship, and applied to both the blood son and an unrelated heir.

2.       During his youth the son would wear a toga of youth which indicated his position, that he was still a child and not an adult. On his fourteenth birthday there would be a formal ceremony where the child would be designated an adult son. At that time the father would reach out and undo the clasp on the shoulder of the toga of youth and release it. Then he would take off his toga which was the toga of manhood and he would wrap that around the shoulders of the young man to signify that he was now the official son and heir of the family. If that did not happen then someone else would be designated.

3.       At the time of the ceremony there is a ceremonial purchase or redemption. A price is paid for the son. If the new son, the adopted son, is a slave then the actual purchase price is paid for his freedom. He is therefore redeemed from the slave market. If the person to be adopted is a free man then a ceremonial or symbolic purchase is made to purchase him from the authority of his natural father. The analogy should be obvious, i.e. that we are all born slave in the slave market of sin, and therefore God has paid that purchase price to redeem us with the death of Christ on the cross. The second form of the analogy is that we are under the authority of our sin nature from birth on until regeneration. At regeneration we are freed from the authority (not the presence) of our sin nature. Only by learning Bible doctrine can we have principles to apply to control the power of the sin nature.

4.       Adoption means that the boy, who is now an adult son, has all the rights and privileges of adulthood. He has the right to enter military service, the right to manage his own finances, he can get married, and he can carry out his responsibilities in the Republic of Rome. The child is now no longer under slaves but now commands slaves.

Doctrinal significance

5.       In one analogy Paul uses the child’s pedagogue to illustrate the history of salvation relationship of Israel to the law. From the time of the Mosaic Law up to the cross Israel is compared to this child.  Israel is under a slave called the pedagogue [Mosaic Law] and once the child reaches adulthood then that pedagogue no longer has any power or authority whatsoever.

6.       At adulthood the child now has all the rights and privileges which God has given to the church age believer. We are in the adult stage of spiritual life and have all these privileges and responsibility that God has given us. We have true freedom in Christ. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy.

7.       Adoption is one of forty different spiritual blessings which God provides every single believer at the moment of salvation.

8.       Adoption is always related to the believer’s position in Christ and his identification with Christ the seed of Abraham and eternal security. In Roman adoption once a child was adopted as the official son or heir that could not be reversed; it was permanent. The same is true in the spiritual life.

9.       Baptism by means of the Holy Spirit enters the believer into union with Christ, and that is the mechanics of adoption. So the process by which the believer is identified with Christ at the moment of salvation is called the baptism by means of the Holy Spirit.

10.   When we enter into union with Christ at the moment of salvation we become adult sons positionally. We are in Christ. Christ is the Son of God, the adult Son. When we are in union with Him we, too, are adult sons.

11.   As such, because we are in union with Christ, we are huios with Him; we are joint heirs with Christ. We have access to all of His wealth and power.

12.   Simultaneously with our eternal relationship and position in Christ we have a temporal relationship with Him. This relates to joint heirship. Our temporal fellowship relates to our inheritance. This is what we do with what we have.

The Doctrine of Adversity and Sress   Gen. 072b

1)      There are two kinds of pressures in life: adversity and stress. Adversity is the inevitable outside daily pressures of life that attack and seek to penetrate the soul. All kinds of things can produce adversity. The other kind of pressure comes from inside our soul, and that is stress. Stress is defined as the optional inside pressure of the soul caused by reaction to the external pressures of adversity. This is the only way the unbeliever can react to adversity, by building up stress in the soul. When the believer who is negative to Bible doctrine allows adversity to penetrate his thinking he has succumbed to the arrogance skill. Once you rely on your own resources instead of God’s you have already succumbed to arrogance and the result of that is going to be fragmentation in the soul. Stress is what happens when the carnal believer or the unbeliever try to handle any level of adversity through their own resources apart from God. It converts that outside adversity to stress in the soul which leads to a fragmentation of the soul.

2)      Adversity or outside pressure on the soul has two categories: a) suffering from the law of volitional responsibility or divine discipline. This is that adversity that we bring on ourselves, self-induced misery. You make bad decisions and that compounds to more bad decisions and the consequences of that. We’ll see that with Abraham. Once he left the land and decided that he was going to solve the problem of the famine on his own by going to Egypt he is not trusting God. God didn’t tell him to leave the land, He told him (v.1) “Go to the land.” He didn’t say to leave it when times get touch. He gives the land to Abraham (v.7) and the test here is to stay in the land. You know that if you are in the place where God wants you to be, if you are in fellowship and alive, God is going to supply your logistical grace blessings. God has promised Abraham a seed and that he will be a great nation. All Abraham had to say was, “Well, there may be a famine in the land but God promised He was going to make a great nation our of me and it isn’t going to happen if I starve to death. Therefore I am going to stay here and wait on the Lord to solve the problem.” The famine probably would have ended. But because he is out of fellowship he is not going to be a blessing to anyone. It he had stayed in fellowship and trusted God he would have been a blessing and God would have ended the famine. Instead he heads down to Egypt and in a state of carnality he is going to make several decisions that are going to create cursing and discipline for others. Notice: Here is economic, health, and physical disaster taking place in Egypt. The cause of it is because of the carnality of Abraham. He is not only a blessing to anybody, he is the avenue of divine discipline on the nation of Egypt. b) The other side of adversity is suffering for blessing. We will see that there was suffering that could have been turned into blessing if Abraham had stayed in the land. So the famine wasn’t the result of his bad decision, it was just the fact of living in the devil’s fallen world. It is how he responded, and if he had responded positively it would have accelerated his spiritual growth.

3)      Adversity is what the external circumstances of life do to you. You have no control over that. Stress is what you do to yourself, it is the result of your own volition, your own decision whether to trust God or whether to rely on your own limited resources.

4)      Adversity is inevitable. As we live in the devil’s world there is always going to be different kinds of adversity. But stress is optional and it depends on our negative volition. Adversity is always there. Every single day there are going to be things that go wrong, there are going to be people who don’t respond, don’t perform, don’t do what you think they should do. Your wife is not going to be as beautiful as you think she should be; your husband is not going to be as thin and good-looking as he was when you first met him. Your kids are going to do stupid things and be disobedient. You are going to have all kinds of people-testing with those you work for and work with, etc. It is inevitable, but what makes the difference is how you respond. What is interesting is that when Abraham is headed south and he is leaving out of Haran to go south he takes people with him, and the people that he had acquired—bad translation. It says, “the souls he had made [asah, the word to create].” What was he doing with these souls? These are the people that he led to the Lord as he was living in Haran. He has been already a blessing to those around him. But when he gets down to Egypt where he can have a witness, what does he do? Because he is living in carnality he has absolutely blown his testimony and has no basis for communicating the gospel or the truth about God to the Egyptians due to his not living in according to what is consistent with what he believes. So when we get out of fellowship it destroys our testimony before man and before the angels and the angelic conflict. This is a result of our negative volition and what stress does to our life.

5)      Stress in the soul always results in sin nature control. When you are under the control of the sin nature you are going to make one bad decision after another. What happens is that your spiritual discernment is shut down, you are quenching the Holy Spirit, and so you can’t make good decisions from a position of strength. A good decision from a position of strength in the believer’s life is in fellowship and operating on Bible doctrine. When you are out of fellowship you are operating from a position of weakness which is your sin nature. The result is that stress begins to compound, increasing carnality, you begin to reverse your spiritual growth and you begin to slide in to moral and immoral degeneracy which eventually destroys capacity for life, for love, and for happiness. It produces instability and causes neurotic and psychotic Christians, which is a pretty good description of the modern evangelical church. We don’t know how to trust God, and Abraham didn’t know how to trust God.

6)      Stress perpetuated in the soul means a failure to glorify God and therefore spiritual failure. Abraham goes into spiritual failure here when he goes down to Egypt and tries to solve the problem on his own and begins by telling a lie.

7)      The only solution, then, is the divine solution. The human solution is no solution. This is seen in 2 Corinthians 12:8-10 when Paul had to deal with the thorn in the flesh demon. We don’t know what the exact problem was. The context suggests that it was all of the difficulty he dealt with. Abraham isn’t learning the sufficiency of grace here and as a result is falling apart. Instead of being a blessing there is going to be negative consequences.  

The Doctrine of Adversity and Stress   Heb. 078b

1)      There are two kinds of pressures in life: adversity is the inevitable outside daily pressure of life that attacks and seeks to penetrate the soul; stress is what happens inside the soul. God takes us from the instant of salvation through a series of tests in order to reveal the flaws and failures of our own carnal, sinful creatureliness, and we have to learn to be dependent upon God and His provision. We have to learn to utilize the ten problem-solving devices so that we can grow from spiritual infancy to spiritual maturity. So adversity is the outside pressure; stress is the inside pressure of the soul caused by reaction to the external pressures of adversity. When the believer who is negative to Bible doctrine allows adversity to penetrate his thinking he has succumbed to the arrogance skills.

2)      We have to remember that adversity or outside pressure has two categories. There is suffering from the law of volitional responsibility or divine discipline. Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” In other words, there is a certain amount of suffering we go through and we have to ask the question: Is this my own doing or is this just the result of living in a fallen world? Because we live in a fallen world we will encounter a certain amount of adversity that is not related to our own volition. This second type of suffering is that which is not related to our own volition. It is suffering that is the result of living in the cosmic system, suffering that God allows to come into our lives and is classified as suffering for blessing. Suffering for blessing is designed to accelerate spiritual growth. When we go through suffering for discipline we can convert it into suffering for blessing when we confess our sins, get back in fellowship, and then start applying the ten problem-solving devices to that particular adversity. Abraham is going to go through both classifications. He starts off in suffering for blessing. That is why the famine occurs. God is going to teach Abraham certain things about himself. Principle: Whenever we go through adversity the bottom line of the test is to learn to trust the character of God. It always has something to do with the character of God and learning to recognize that God is in control, learning that we must be dependent upon Him, learning that He is trustworthy in His righteousness, learning that He is fair in His justice, learning that He is more powerful than our circumstances in His omnipotence, learning that He is never surprised by any problem or heartache or difficulty that we face in His omniscience. As we learn these, our ability to trust Him strengthens and increases. This accelerates spiritual growth.

3)      Adversity is what the outside circumstances of life do to you; stress is what you do to yourself. Stress is always the result of our own volition. We react to that stress in some way where we are calling upon our own resources, our own ability, our own intellect to solve the problem in contrast to dependence upon God. So we just bring the stress upon ourselves. Every time we try to solve the problem on our own we have already made a negative decision toward Bible doctrine, and the sin nature is in control. Once the sin nature is in control then we are in trouble.

4)      Adversity is inevitable. Job says that man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward. We can’t avoid it. Stress is optional and the result of our own negative volition to doctrine. James 1:2 is a key verse for understanding this. “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter …” The word there for ‘encounter’ is the idea of falling into it. It just happens. For Abraham it is a famine.

Doctrine of  Adversity vs. Stress Gen. 144b

1)      Adversity is the outside pressure of either adversity or prosperity. Just about anything in life that we run into puts pressure on the soul, whether we realize it or not. So adversity is that outside pressure which comes from circumstances of life. Stress is inside pressure in the soul.

2)      Adversity is what the circumstances of life do to you. You live in a fallen world with fallen people. Those fallen people run fallen systems, everything is part of Satan’s cosmic system and you can count on it that there will be adversity. Stress is what you do to yourself, how you choose to respond to that external pressure that comes from situations in life.

3)      Adversity is inevitable. You can’t run away from it, hide from it, deny it or ignore it. Stress is optional and is your decision.

4)      Stress is always the result of the sin nature control of the soul. The fragmentation that takes place internally that as a result of the outside pressure is the result of sin nature control. The sin nature can produce some extremely attractive solutions to external adversity. The look, feel and sound good, and they work, but they only work on the short term. The short term can be a year, five years, ten years, but eventually it doesn’t work. The result is always stress and tnhat is a failure to handle adversity through the gracious provision of the ten stress-busters. When you don’t use the stress-busters you are using sin. You are relying upon yourself rather than God’s provision, God’s promises and God’s principles.

5)      The stress-busters allow the believer to face any situation in life and remain poised, stable and in control of the situation no matter how horrible or agonizing it might be, without giving into the sin nature. This is what we mean when we say that God’s Word is sufficient.

6)      Sin nature control means arrogance, always. It is either in overt arrogance or it is in pseudo-humility—both are manifestations of arrogance. This means there are the five arrogance skills: self-absorption where you just focus on yourself, always just thinking about your problems, your issues. That leads to and has produced self-indulgence, and that is part of the thinking of our generation. That leads to self-justification, then self-deception where you create your own concept of the world, your own little world, your own little norms and standards, your own value system, and then you start living like all the world should be that way. This leads to self-deification because it is ultimately rebellion against the authority of God, and you have taken God out of the picture and put yourself into the picture as the ultimate authority for everything in life.

Doctrine of Angelic Beginings

There are different views as to when God created the angels.

1) God creates the angels before Genesis 1:1;

 2) God created the angels between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2;

3) God created the angels on day 3, and this is usually argued for on the basis of the analogy that is found in the Scriptures where the angels are spoken of metaphorically as the stars of heaven, e.g. Job 38:7.

Then you would not have the angelic conflict or the fall of Satan until after Genesis 2:3. The first view, that the angels were created before Genesis 1:1, is preferable.

Summary of the Basic Doctrine of the Angelic Conflict

1)      What do we mean by angelic conflict? There are different terms that are used to refer to this: the angelic rebellion, spiritual warfare, spiritual conflict, etc., all of which refer to the fact that there is an ongoing war, and ongoing rebellion that occurs in the invisible heavenly sphere between two groups of creatures known as angels. They were all originally created by God holy and righteous and just but at some time in eternity past there was a rebellion that occurred and that this was the first introduction of sin and evil into God’s universe. So a definition of the angelic conflict is the invisible spiritual warfare between the forces of Satan and the forces of God. Ephesians 6:10-18.

2)      The course of the angelic conflict. It began at some time in the past when a creature name Lucifer rebelled against God, expressing the desire of his heart to be worshipped as God, to be elevated above all the other creatures because he thought that he could rule and reign the cosmos better than God could. He wanted all of the glory for himself. In that rebellion he recruited approximately one third of all the angels to his side and this revolt occurred some time prior to the creation of man in Genesis chapter one. On the basis on Matthew 25:41 because there is a past tense there, these angels were recruited and condemned to the lake of fire. At the time of Christ the lake of fire was already in existence and had been created and prepared for the devil and his angels. But for some reason they aren’t there. So the question is: Why not? What has lead to this postponement? By theological deduction and from a number of passages Satan accused God of injustice related to the sentence: something along the lines of how could a just God send His creatures to the lake of fire? Along the same lines Satan may have accused God of not allowing him to show that he could do just as good as God, that he could be God and run the universe. There may be a number of ways to articulate these ideas but it seems that when we go through the whole of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation there are certain themes that dominate in relationship to creatureliness and leadership. What God is demonstrating throughout all of history, and why He allows Satan to continue, is that the creature can never do that which only the creator can do, and that the creature doesn’t have those infinite capabilities—omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience—to do what he wants to do, and the only way there can be order, truth, stability and happiness in the creation is for the creatures to be oriented to the authority of God. 

Angelology                                            Heb. 020

   1. We learn that angels are incorporeal being.  They have immaterial bodies. They are spirit.  They can appear as light.  Their flames of fire are language that portrays the light essence of their bodies. 

   2. The flames of fire indicate a possibility that the bodies are made of light or related to light.  It is probably also related to the seraphim.   The seraphim were the angels that flew around the throne of God. The word seraph comes from the Hebrew word that means the burning ones.   Perhaps this is a reference to the seraphim as the burning ones in Isaiah 6.

   3. Angels do not have an inheritance with God as believers do.  That is what sets us apart.  We have an inheritance just as the Lord Jesus Christ through His advance.  When we follow Him and are co-sufferers with Him according to Romans 8, we will be co-heirs with Him.  So we have an inheritance that the angels do not have.

   4. Angels are not to be worshipped.  They are servants of God that carry out His commands.  They oversee I believe the operation of the universe, but they are not to be worshipped.  They are a higher being than we are at the moment but one day we will reign and rule and judge the angels according to I Corinthians 6.

   5. Angels are servants who perform the will of God and serve Him and His people.  That is the emphasis here.  They are servants and the Lord Jesus Christ is a sovereign ruler.

Doctrine of Observations here related to Angelology. Gen. 098b
 

a)      We have to recognize that angels are created as non-material beings. They are not physically material as we are, they don’t have to follow the same laws of biology, the same laws of physics.

b)      From several passages it appears that angels have bodies that are composed of light or something like light. For example, in Hebrews 1:7 they appear as flames of fire.

c)      Angels would have the ability to transform themselves into material creatures that possess all of the characteristics of material bodies. For all purpose, as far as Abraham can tell, they are material creatures. They eat they drink, they rest, they sleep. He is going to wash their feet. Later on we see that when they are trapped inside Lot’s home and the Sodomite perverts outside are trying to pull them out into the street their hands are outside the door and they have to pull them back in. These are physical terms. So these immaterial creatures of light are able to transform themselves to have some kind of material bodies.

d)      From this we must conclude that angels are able to take on all biological functions of the material human body. This gives us an indication of what went on in Genesis chapter three when the sons of God (always a reference to angels in the Old Testament) looked on the daughters of men and took them as wives. This is further indicated in Jude 6 & 7. When we do the proper exegesis of these verses it indicates that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha is imitating the immoral sexual sins of the angels of a previous time. “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

The Doctrine of Angels,   Rev. 096b

An Introductory Summation

1)      Both the Greek word AGGELOS [a)ggeloj] and the Hebrew word malak, translated “angel,” are terms that mean simply messenger. The English word that we have for angel is simply a transliteration of the Greek word. It is a word that means messenger and obviously this is a functional term that tells us something about their role and purpose to serve as heavenly emissaries.  

2)      The term describes a class of rational immaterial spirit beings created by God to fulfil a variety of functions. They are mediators of divine revelation (Galatians 3:19); they are messengers of God (Daniel 10:11); they are witnesses of God’s justice, and this is their role throughout the book of Revelation; they are attendant to the divine throne (Ezekiel 1:5; Isaiah 6:2-6; Revelation 4 & 5); they are overseers of the outworking of divine judgment. Again, this is seen throughout the book of Revelation. They were originally created higher than man but man in the resurrection will be over the angels. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 that we will judge the angels.

3)      Angels can appear in human form. They can apparently transform their immaterial bodies into material bodies that take on all of the attributes of flesh and blood (Genesis 18). Throughout the Scriptures they always appear as males. There are different categories of angels, so this indicates perhaps a ranking among the angels. Several angels are described as flying (Daniel 9:21; Luke 1:19), but not all angels appear with wings.

4)      Scripture reveals several classifications of angels. Cherubim are the highest class of angels. Lucifer, the pre-fall name we use to identify Satan, was of this class. He was the highest of the cherubs. Cherubs are identified in Scripture in association with the glory, the holiness, and the majesty of God. They are described in Ezekiel 1:5-14, and even though the name cherub is not used in chapter one, in Ezekiel 10:20 the connection is made: “These are the living beings that I saw beneath the God of Israel by the river Chebar; so I knew that they {were} cherubim.” They are distinct from a second category which is called seraph or seraphim. The term “seraph” is Scripture refers to burning, so these are the burning ones. They are viewed as white-hot flames almost, and whenever we see lamps or flames we not only think of the illumination we think of judgment and purification, and so they are also a associated with the holiness of God—Isaiah 6, the vision of Isaiah of the throne of God. Then we have the living beings. Even though that terms is used to describe the cherubs in Ezekiel it is also used of these four living beings in Revelation 4 and 14. We then have Michael who is identified as the archangel (Jude 9), the leader of the angels. The other angels that is identified in Scripture by name is Gabriel, and he is the messenger who announces significant events related to Israel. He announces the birth of the Messiah, he warns Joseph, he appears in the Old Testament with Daniel.

Doctrine of Angels as Pastors    Rev. 029

The first thing that we should note is that in the book of Revelation this word AGGELOS is used 67 times. It is used only 175 times in the whole New Testament. In Revelation, of those 67 uses 59 of them refer to supernatural beings. This weights the evidence in that direction. You really have to come up with sound evidence to make it a human messenger, and to demonstrate that it is not an angel. So word usage pushes us in the direction of a supernatural being. We just can’t get away from that, AGGELOS never, not one place in secular literature or the New Testament, refers to a pastor.

1)      The first line. What is a mystery? A mystery is previously unrevealed truth. So we have here an identification of the angels with the stars. The claim of the liberals is that the early church went to secular imagery to provide some sort of substance to Jesus’ birth, for example. You never see them come from the position that secular history is borrowing from Christianity and from the Bible, which is much more likely. The Bible often, with tongue-in-cheek, is poking at secular imagery and mythology. For example, at the time that John wrote this Domitian was the emperor. Domitian pictured himself with seven stars on a gold coin that was minted about 83 AD, about 8-10 years before Revelation was written. He pictured himself sitting on the globe of heaven playing with these seven stars, and it is a picture of him as the Caesar being in control; he is the sovereign and controller of the universe. This symbolism of seven stars or seven planets originated in Crete in the ancient world, which is where the mystical god Zeus was born, and on ancient Cretan coins Zeus is pictured on a heavenly globe with these seven stars in his hands. What the Scripture does is show God’s poking fun at this. It is not Zeus that controls, not Domitian, it is Jesus Christ who has the seven stars. The ext of the Bible itself tells us how to interpret the symbolism. The seven stars are the seven angels.

2)      We have a problem. If we want to take these stars as referring to pastors then we have to come up with some form of biblical corroboration for taking stars as pastors. If we go through the Bible stars are used in specific ways. The stars in most usage refer to literal light-bearing bodies that God created and scattered throughout the universe. This is first mention in Genesis 1:16. Other passages are Genesis 15:5; 22:17. The second way that builds off that literal meaning is that the stars were used to symbolize the innumerable descendants of Abraham. Genesis 22:17; 26:4; Exodus 32:13. A third way the word stars is used is to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. Genesis 37:9; Revelation 12:1. In three Old Testament passage, though, stars represent angels. Job 38:7; Isaiah 14:13; Daniel 8:10. In the New testament there are four passages that refer to angels as stars, and they are all in Revelation: 1:16, 20; 2:1; 12:4. Stars never represent human leaders anywhere in the Scriptures. So we see that there is a strong reason for sticking with an angelic interpretation of this word.

3)      There is another line of evidence that we need to follow, and that is how angels are represented in the book of Revelation. There are 67 uses of the word so that means that there is a heavy emphasis on angels in the book of Revelation. One of the major functions of angels in the book of Revelation is operating, as it were, as officers of the heavenly court, the Supreme Court of heaven, and as witnesses for the court of the execution of divine judgment and the execution of God’s judicial sentences in human history. This is important because the entire book of Revelation deals with this whole theme of judgment, that eventually every one of us is going to be held accountable. We are going to be standing before God in one of three basic judgments. We will stand before the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ, which is for believers only. The issue there is not whether or not your destiny is heaven, it is how well you did as a believer in terms of your advance. To guarantee that you are going to be at the judgment seat of Christ you need to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins. You trust in Christ as your savior. It is not about good works, morality, ritual, or what church you belong to, but about the Lord Jesus Christ. If you put your faith alone in Christ alone then you will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and you will be evaluated not on the basis of sin but on how obedient and how mature you became, and then there are rewards that are given out. The second judgment that is mentioned in the sheep and goat judgment that occurs at the end of the Tribulation which is the separation of believers and unbelievers in the Tribulation period. The third judgment is for unbelievers only. This occurs at the end of the Millennial kingdom, it is the great white throne judgment. The issue there is whether you trusted Christ as your savior. Once again, the issue there is not sin. Sin was paid for on the cross by Jesus Christ, totally.

Angels in Revelation                          Rev. 030

Revelation 1:20, “The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches.”

This study is important because the structure of the next two chapters is in some way based upon an understanding of who these angels are. As we go through the background of the role of angels in history and prophecy and we look at the role of angels in the book of Revelation what we are going to discover is that this enhances our understanding of the individual role of the believer in the angelic conflict. While it is not necessarily a major problem to identify these angels as pastors, because of course, the bottom line is the individual congregations receive the communication of this information in Revelation 2 & 3. But if we go beyond an understanding that this is pastors and recognize that the term “angel” (AGGELOS) actually refers to officers of the heavenly court, then what it does is it puts us and our Christian life within the framework of the congregation in a different perspective than one we have perhaps thought of before.

We saw last time that angels communicated judgment from the Supreme Court of heaven. The period of the Tribulation which is covered in Revelation chapters four through nineteen is a series of ongoing judgments, and it is these judgments that are announced by various angels. So they communicate the various judicial decisions that come forth from the throne of God. Second, they warn of impending judgments. They warn of these judicial pronouncements, so they function again in a role that is similar to an officer in a modern day courtroom. Third, they carry out of mediate these judgments. It is Supreme Court of heaven that pronounces the judgment but it is an angel that carries out the function, the actual operation of the judgment. Whether it has to do with some sort of geophysical disaster or whether it has to do with some sort of disease or sickness it is carried out by an angel.

If we look at analogy to a modern courtroom we see something that is parallel—not identical but a reflection of this heavenly function. It is my view that all law proceeds ultimately from heaven. It is God’s way of structuring His relationship with man from the very beginning. In the garden of Eden God had a legal structure. The verbiage and terminology that is used in Genesis 1:26-28 where God said, “Let us make make man in our image and according to our likeness,” was later adopted in human contracts so that in the human realm they were modeling there contracts, their legal relationships, on the way God had originally set things up with man. Once Adam sinned in the garden there was a restructuring of that initial covenant. We call the first covenant the creation covenant, the second covenant as the Adamic covenant, then later the Noahic covenant. But God uniquely restricts and defines His relationship with man according to these legal contracts. When you look at all the other religions of the world you don’t have a god who binds himself contractually to a certain standard of behavior operation. That tells us that ultimately all law flows from an absolute which is the character of God. This is one reason why there is this battle over whether you can have the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. The very presence of a plaque or poster or statue that has the Ten Commandments on it is an expression of the idea that law is based on something that goes beyond the Constitution, beyond society, and beyond culture. Law is based on an eternal absolute that is grounded in the character of God. To those in our society who have rejected the existence of God and rejected absolutes it is a tremendous insult for them to see the Ten Commandments. It is an affront to their desire to be independent and autonomous and to run their life according to their own arbitrary whim. So this is what motivates this move to remove the Ten Commandments.

When we look at Scripture we see that all of Scripture is structured in a kind of legal framework that supports this analogy of a courtroom. In modern courts the person who is responsible for communicating information from the judge to the jury and who is responsible for maintaining order in the courtroom is known as a bailiff. But in the Federal Court you have a US Marshall, and his responsibilities go far beyond that of a bailiff in a state court. A US Marshall serves as a body guard or honor guard for the federal judge. He serves warrants and carries out the official decrees of the judge and of the court. This is something that is analogous to the role that we see angels play throughout Scripture.

The first time that we see any angelic being in the Old Testament other than Satan are the cherubs that are assigned to the entry way to the garden of Eden at the end of Genesis chapter three. After Adam and the woman had sinned part of the judicial decree for their punishment was that they were barred from having access to the tree of life. So God places a sentry, a guard, a cherub with a flaming sword, and that sword throughout Scripture is a picture of having authority over life. This cherub has the authority to take the life of any human being who tries to enter Eden and to take of the fruit of the tree of life.

We then see a couple of angels accompanying the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ when He comes down to bring judgment on Sodom and Gommorah. The Lord stays behind with Abraham but it is the two angels who go to Sodom and bring Lot and his family out, and they are the ones responsible for executing judgment on Sodom and Gommorah. Then later on in the Old Testament there is a situation where David decides to conduct a census of the people in violation of the plan and the will of God and as a result of that God is going to bring judgment on the nation. He gives David the option as to how he would like this judgment carried out, and so there was an angel carrying out that judgment on the nation at that time. So throughout the Scriptures there are angels carrying out the judicial decisions from the Supreme Court of heaven. Of course, not to mention the angel of death that visits the tenth plague on the Egyptians during the time of the exodus.

The third line of evidence has to do with the role of angels in the angelic conflict. What is the role of the angels in the angelic conflict?

1)      We recognize that the term AGGELOS [a)ggeloj] or angel means a messenger. But the primary use of the term AGGELOS or its Hebrew counterpart refers to supernatural intelligent beings that God created to serve Him in the administration of the universe. We know from Job 38:4-7 that God first created the angels. The second thing we note is that is says all of the sons of God sang for joy. So we know that there wasn’t a break among the angels yet, they were still in a harmonious relationship, still united. It says then that he goes on to create the rest of the universe. Then comparing that Scripture with others, like Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, we know that the highest of the angels was known as Lucifer the son of the morning and that he sinned by becoming arrogant. He wanted to be the one to rule the angels.

2)      At some point after the creation of the universe Lucifer fell into arrogance, and he enticed a third of the angels to follow him in his rebellion against God.

3)      After some indeterminate period of time the angels were allowed a period of time either to follow Satan or to remain loyal to God. When this time finished God convened a trial and He sentenced these fallen angels and Satan to the lake of fire. Matthew 25:41—“was prepared,” past tense indicating it was already in existence.

4)      Why aren’t the angels in the lake of fire? If they were sentenced to the lake of fire before man was ever created, then why aren’t they there now? Why has that sentence been postponed?

5)      The Scripture does not directly answer the question. We can deduce the answer by looking at a number of different things that go on in the Scriptures. What we have first of all is a challenge to God’s authority. At the very root Satan’s sin is a desire to be like God, so he challenges God’s authority. He desires to demonstrate in this appeal of God’s decision that God is really some nasty old mean tyrant who just wants to do things His way, that God doesn’t really want to allow His creatures to really fulfill their potential and to really be able to do everything that given him the ability to do. So Satan is just accusing God of being a nasty old meany and not letting him do everything that Satan knows that he can do. What God wants to demonstrate in the process of human history is that the creature can’t ever be who he wants to be unless he is doing it under the complete authority of God. Satan’s claim is that the creature can autonomously find happiness and meaning in life by being everything that he wants to be. What God is going to demonstrate in history is that when the creature acts independently of God, no matter how innocuous the act may be, it will always culminate in crisis and catastrophe and judgment. There will be all kinds of negative consequences to that action. What God is demonstrating as well in this is that only genuine humility on the part of the creature can lead the creature to real happiness and stability in life. We see a picture of this in Jesus Christ. The character qualities that are emphasized in the Lord Jesus Christ are completely antithetical to the character qualities that are emphasized by human viewpoint and by Satan’s cosmic system. So what God is demonstrating through Christ foremost and through us secondarily as we reflect His character is that only when the creature acts in ways consistent with God’s character can there be real stability and real happiness. In Philippians 2:5-11 we are told that Jesus humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death. This is just the opposite in terms of character quality of what Satan exemplified. In the previous verse Paul writes that Christ Jesus, “who being in the form of God [being in the essence of God] did not consider it something to be grasped at.” This is what Satan did. He wanted to grasp at it; he wanted to be God. Jesus Christ who is God did not think holding on to or asserting His own deity was something to be held on to and He was willing to humble Himself to the point of becoming a creature so that He could demonstrate the kind of character that a creature should have in terms of humility. So what we see in terms of Satan’s challenge to God’s authority is answered in Jesus Christ’s obedience to God’s authority. A second way in which the angelic conflict is played out has to do with Satan’s challenge to God’s love. Satan challenges God’s love in the sense that he is asking how a loving God can send His creatures to eternity in the lake of fire. He is saying that he just wants to run thing the way he wants to run them, and what is so wrong with that? This is the same thing that is found in the disobedient human  heart. We just want to live our life the want to live it, so God should quit meddling with me! That is what we hear people say. They just want to be left alone, they don’t want God interfering. And what God is demonstrating in human history is that no matter what man tries to do—and in all of human history God will show every kind of creaturely independence—it always fails. Not only does it always fail but it always results in some sort of crisis, some sort of catastrophe; it always brings about unintended consequences of extreme suffering for the creature. In the garden it wasn’t the eating of the fruit that was inherently evil, it was the act of disobedience. But it was disobedience in a form that seemed trivial, and everything that we see in human history is the result of that simple act of eating a piece of fruit. So what God is demonstrating is that His focus is on the victim, that He is concerned about what happens to the human race, the creature, as a result of this sin. And what makes Satan’s sin so egregious I because of what it did to the other angels and because of what it does in terms of all the suffering in human history. It is all the result of a creature wanting to act independently of the creator. So God is using human history to demonstrate the flaws in Satan’s logic and to demonstrate that the creature can never ever act independently of the creator. Third, Satan is challenging God’s justice, His fairness. He is saying that God isn’t really fair to the creature, that He hasn’t really given him a chance to sow what he can do. Satan wants an opportunity to show that he can rule the universe. Dr Louis Sperry Chafer pointed out in his Systematic Theology that one of the greatest evidences of Satan’s failure is all of the suffering and disorder and war and calamity in human history. See, Satan wants to prove that he can be god, that he can run everything, that he can bring peace and prosperity, and order into the world, that he can rule it as well as God can rule it. But what he didn’t realize was that when he tempted Adam to sin and then Adam sinned and they began to procreate until eventually there are millions of sin natures running around who all want to be god, that he had created a whole bunch of competition. Everybody wants to be god and nobody wants to listen to Satan as their authority either. So now he has to bring order into this chaos that he created. So Satan has challenged God’s justice. He wanted to show what he could do in running the universe; he wanted to replace God. What God is demonstrating is that no one but Himself, no one but God can rule the universe. The creature, like Satan who is brilliant and has more knowledge than any human being could ever amass, is still finite in his knowledge and ability, and he can only be in one place at one time. So he can’t do what he is attempting to do. When the creature operates on the basis of arrogance the ultimate result is always self-destructive. Only when the creature is in complete submission and obedience to the creator can there be harmony and genuine love, and all of this flows through true humility.

6)      Human history provides evidence to support God’s case in a legal court of appeal. First of all we see that Satan’s guilt, his disobedience, brought about a judicial sentence from God. He was sentenced to the lake of fire some time in eternity past based on our understanding of Matthew 25:41. Furthermore, we also see that Adam’s guilt also invoked a judicial sentence. The structure of Genesis 3:14ff where God outlines the consequences to the serpent, to the woman and to the man, fits the concept of a judicial sentence. These are the consequences, the punishment for their actions. The issue at stake is God’s integrity—His righteousness and justice. Over and over again throughout Scripture we see this emphasis on God’s righteousness and His justice. Furthermore, we see this analogy to the courtroom played out in basic terminology that is used. For example, the new term that is used to refer to Lucifer is the Hebrew word satan, which means “the accuser.” So it is a legal term, it refers to someone who is bringing an accusation into a courtroom. We see this in Zechariah 3:1-7, “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD [Yahweh, the Lord Jesus Christ], and Satan [the accuser] standing at his right hand to oppose him. And the LORD [God the Father] said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke you, O Satan; even the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you: is not this [Joshua] a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spoke unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes [a picture of the imputation of righteousness, the removal of guilt]. And I said, Let them set a clean turban upon his head. So they set a clean turban upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, Thus says the LORD of hosts; If you will walk in my ways, and if you will keep my charge, then you shall also judge my house, and shall also keep my courts, and I will give you places to walk among these that stand by.” The picture is of a courtroom scene, standing before the Supreme Court of heaven with Satan as the accuser and the Lord Jesus Christ as the one who is defending Joshua. We see the same thing again in 1 John 2:1, “My little children, these things write I to you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Satan is the one who accuses us, but it is Jesus Christ who is our advocate, our defense attorney. We also have the idea of courtroom in the idea of covenants throughout the Bible. There is the initial Edenic covenant, not mentioned in Genesis 1:26-28 but is referred to later on in Scripture (Hosea). There is the Adamic covenant in Genesis 3, the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9, the Abrahamic covenant reiterated in various places in Genesis, the land or real estate covenant, the Davidic covenant, the New covenant. These are all contracts. Sometimes when we talk about the Bible we talk about the Old Testament and the New Testament. Testament is a legal term, a contract. So at the very root of all human relationship to God there is a contract. God has bound Himself to us contractually. This doesn’t happen in any other system of religion, so what we have is a unique setup. God is under girding all human relationships with a legal structure. That doesn’t remove it from being personal but it gives a basis for stability and structure to our relationship with God. We know that we can trust Him, He is not going to go off and do something different next year or next century, He is going to fulfill what He said in His covenants. He had bound Himself legally, and this is why we as Americans with a legal system based on a Judeo-Christian background have a respect for the law that is unique in history. So once again we see that the Bible is structured in terms of a legal framework. Furthermore, we have various scenes that are reminiscent of a courtroom. We have the scenes in Job chapter one when the angels, the sons of God, come before the Supreme Court of heaven. Then Satan the accuser comes in and accuses Job. Zechariah 3:1-7 also has that same imagery. When we look at salvation, salvation is couched in legal terms. The reason we need salvation is because of sin. The terms that we use for sin are terms that come out of a legal context. HAMARTIA [a(martia] means to miss the mark, it is the basic word for sin. It means to fall short of a standard and it would be used of a violation of law. We have in the Old Testament the word “transgression.” This is the Hebrew word pasha, which refers to a crime or criminal action, the violation of a law. The Greek counterpart to this word is PARAPTOMA [paraptwma] which indicates, again, the violation of a standard. Another word that is used of sin is ADIKOS [a)dikoj], not righteous. Terms for sin refer to a legal violation; words for salvation also refer to a legal satisfaction. Propitiation indicates that the law has been satisfied, and when it comes to the character of God what that means is that the character of God has been satisfied with the work of Christ on the cross. The word “imputation” is legally crediting something to someone’s account, so that when we trust Christ as our savior the perfect righteousness of Christ is legally credited to our account. Now there is a positive balance and when God looks at out character He looks at the character of Christ and declares us justified. We are righteous, that is what it means to be justified by faith. It means that when God looks at our record He is looking at the character of Christ, not ours, and he says we are justified. Terms like “forgiveness,” APHIEMI [a)fihmi], a concept we are familiar with in 1 John 1:9, is another legal term. All of this indicates that our relationship with God is couched in legal terminology, it is all governed by legal concepts. Then we get into other aspects of Scripture and we find that there is a word group that shows up a lot, especially in John’s writing, and it is based on the word MARTUREO [marturew] from which we get our English word “martyr.” It means “witness,” of one who provides a testimony. John 1:7, talking about John the Baptist. John writes, “These are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life through his name.” What is written? These “signs” are written, and there are basically seven signs that are given in the Gospel of John to indicate that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be. These are, as it were, seven witnesses that John is marshalling. In almost a legal sense he is going to trot them out one at a time to demonstrate that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be and that if we believe and accept the fact that he is the Messiah, the one who died on the cross for our sins, then we can have eternal life. So the Gospel of John is filled with this legal terminology. Cf. John 3:11, once again we see that it is this legal terminology of witness and testimony that we see in his vocabulary. Cf. also John 5:30-37 where we have 13 references in eight verses dealing with “witness, testimony, righteousness.” 1 John 5:9-12 is another example that our whole relationship with God is wrapped up in legal terminology. This gives us great confidence as believers that we can count on God. There is an absolute out there that is greater than us that is unshakeable, and it is grounded in the character of God. Furthermore, this means there is accountability. So we have judgments in the Scripture: like the judgment seat of Christ, and evaluation for believers; the judgment of the sheep and the goats at the end of the Tribulation; the great white throne judgment at the end of the Millennium. When we come to the bema seat and study concept of rewards and inheritance for believers there is terminology such as inheritance that is referred to again and again through legal terminology that we would find in a will or a testament at the time of death. Again and again and again God is using legal terminology to define that relationship. In conclusion, what we see is that in all of this God has wrapped up human history in this mantle of legal terminology and it must fit into some broader category, and this is the appeal trial of Satan.

7)      We see that angels observe human actions to learn about God’s character, especially His justice and His grace. These are the issues that are challenged by Satan. For example, 1 Corinthians 4:9, “For I think that God has displayed us the apostles last, as men condemned to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.” So our life is made evident to the angels; they are watching us. 1 Peter 1:12, “To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” The angels are curious about this. They are learning things about the character of God and about this whole legal structure from watching and observing. 1 Timothy 5:21, “I charge you before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that you observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” The angels are watching the local church, and in this case they are watching the pastors of the local congregation.

8)      Angels observe human history as confirming witnesses to God’s covenants and as agents for executing the judgments contained in those covenants. What is meant by this is that God sets up a contract with us and says that if we violate it there will be certain judgments. The angels are witnesses to the contract that God sets up and they are the ones who carry out the judgments contained in those contracts. What is our precedent for this? Galatians 3:19, “Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions … having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator.” No angels were mentioned in Exodus 19 & 20, but Galatians 3:19 and other passages tell us that angels were there, though not mentioned in that passage. The mediator here is Moses. “… until the seed would come {the Lord Jesus Christ] to whom the promise had been made.” The law was given because of sin on the part of the nation Israel and it is given through the angels. The Greek word here is DIATASSO [diatassw]. DIATAGMA [diatagma] is the noun form. The TASSO or TAGMA has to do with something that is ordered or structured. DIA is the preposition meaning “through.” So it is focusing on something that is organized, structured, and outlined. The other passage where we find the noun is in Acts 7:53, “Who have received the law by the direction of angels, and have not kept it.” The idea here is that the angels organized and ordered the law. What does that mean? Hebrews 2:2, “For if the word spoken by angels” – the angels spoke the word, the giving of the law. When did this happen? Deuteronomy 5:22, “These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more.” So God spoke verbally and audibly to the Jews when they were assembled below Mount Sinai. It is not something they heard internally. Deuteronomy 33:2, “And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints [a noun form of kadash, “holy ones,” angels]: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” When the Lord came at Sinai, Moses says, there were ten thousand angels with Him. When we put all of this together what we realize is that God gave the law to Moses and then apparently there were angels who communicated and exegeted the law to the Jews at the base of Mount Sinai. They made sure that they understood how the law was to be applied and understood. That is what Hebrews 2:2 is talking about. Three times in the New Testament there is reference to this. It is ignored in the Old Testament. What is going on here? It is that angels are serving as officers of the court to make sure that things are understood. The conclusion is that there is a legal operation taking place here. In the Old Testament when God gave the law to Moses He gave two copies. One copy went into the ark of the covenant and one copy went to the people. What is happening with the book of Revelation is that the Lord Jesus Christ is giving the revelation to John who is making seven copies of the whole book for each church. At the heavenly level the Lord Jesus Christ is giving an angelic witness a copy of the critique sheet for each congregation. That angelic witness is standing as a functionary of the heavenly court as a witness of God’s grace and integrity in each congregation. God is evaluating each congregation. These seven epistles are not like we have from Paul and Peter and John earlier in the New Testament which are talking about how to live the Christian life. These are evaluation statements. To the church us said that it still has time to change its mind in certain areas and to apply doctrine and move forward. To the angel is said that if these churches don’t straighten up and apply doctrine, then it is their job to execute judgment and take out the congregation. That is what happened historically to these seven congregations. They failed to apply doctrine and they went through the process of judgment. This is a cycle that we see again and again in human history. People become complaisant with what they have, complaisant with the doctrine that they have been taught, and eventually they begin to take it for granted, they begin to take God’s grace for granted, and before long the spiritual life isn’t significant for them and they become distracted by all the details of life. The next thing you know they are in reversionism, the churches begin to deteriorate, get into ritualism and legalism, deny the deity of Christ, the creatorship of God, deny creation, and before long they are under judgment and God takes out the congregation and eventually the nation.    

Doctrine of Angels in Revelation  Rev. 058b

In the book of Revelation the word AGGELOS is used 67 times, out of a total of 175 times in the whole New Testament. So a third of the usages of AGGELOS in the Bible are in the book of Revelation, and in all but eight of those 67 it refers to a supernatural being. The eight that are questioned refer to these angels of these seven churches. What we discover is that all of the other 59 are supernatural beings, so it would fit the usage in the book to say this refers to an angel, not a human messenger.

1)      AGGELOS means a messenger in its primary use as supernatural intelligent beings that are used by God to serve Him in the administration of the universe. One thing that stands out is that they are used by God in the administration of blessing and judgment toward mankind or to individual human beings.

2)      At some point after the creation of the universe Lucifer fell into arrogance. He lusted after the authority of God and wanted to be thought of as God. He wanted that control, he wanted to run the universe. That is described in Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-15.

3)      Somewhere after this God convened a trial and he sentenced these angels who followed Lucifer to a penalty of the lake of fire. Jesus refers to this is Matthew 25:41 where he says that the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. That verb “prepared” is a prefect active indicative, indicating that it currently is in existence. It is talking about the present reality of a completed past action. In other words, the lake of fire has already been fully established and completed in the past and it currently exists. What Jesus was saying here is that the penalty was set up and the lake of fire was established but for some reason the angels were not placed into the lake of fire. So this establishes the fact that something happened, some delay has occurred between the original guilty verdict on Satan and the angels and the final consummation of putting them in the lake of fire. We know that at the end of Revelation is when Satan and the angels are cast into the lake of fire, so why is there this delay? It is clear from various indications in Scripture that human history is directly related to this angelic rebellion that occurred in eternity past, that God has created the human race in order to demonstrate through us certain aspects of His character and His ability to rule the universe that can only be learned by experiment. The word “experiment” is used in the sense of something that demonstrates a known point. So what God is demonstrating in human history is His character, His love, His justice, His righteousness. It becomes clear from observing various texts throughout Scripture dealing with Satan and with Jesus and the virtues of the Christian life that what is at stake is first of all the attribute of love. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” So Satan apparently has challenged God’s character in the sense that, If you really loved us you couldn’t sentence us you couldn’t send us to eternity in the lake of fire. So another challenge that we infer from Scripture is that God’s justice has been questioned. How can a just God enact such a harsh penalty? What God is demonstrating is just why this is so harsh. Poverty, war, disease, suffering, are the result of human beings doing the same thing that Satan did: “I want to be like God.” We are all trying to be like God and there is such a fragmentation throughout history that has brought all of this chaos and disorder. So God is demonstrating in each generation, in each dispensation where he gives different amounts of information and different amounts of empowerment, that no matter how little or how much God gives to the human race, no matter what He does to help us, that unless there is total obedience to Him it all falls apart. In every dispensation the dispensation ends in chaos. No dispensation has ended on the ascendancy, it always ends in human failure. So God is demonstrating through this experiment of the human race that no creature can ever find peace, prosperity, happiness, apart from total dependence upon Him. So it is, as it were, a trial. When you go to trial lawyers come forth and present evidence, the data, case studies, in order to demonstrate their point. That is what God is doing in history. So the angels are involved, as it were, as witnesses in this enormous trial that God has set forth in human history. God is validating in a courtroom kind of setting His character and the fact that only He can rule the universe and Satan cannot.

      Within this appeal trial concept we see certain legal notions brought forward, one of which is this concept of being a witness. For example, in John chapter one John the Baptist came forth as a witness to bear witness to the light. The verb is MARTUREO [marturew], the noun is MARTUROS [marturoj]. These are terms that are used in a courtroom, just as we use them today. John 3:11, “I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.” 1 Corinthians 4:9, “For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.” In other words, we are a visual evidence for the angels. They are watching us, learning things from us. This is what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:12, “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.” Ephesians 3:10, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” This makes it clear to us that angels are watching us. We are a test case, as it were.

4)      Human history provides evidence in a legal court of appeal which establishes Satan’s guilt, Adam’s guilt, and God’s integrity.

5)      Angels observe human actions: 1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Peter 1:12; 1 Timothy 5:21.

6)      Angels observe as confirming witnesses to the giving of divine covenants. Whenever we enter into a contract we have to have a witness, as in the marriage contract. Witnesses give testimony to the validation of the covenant. The same thing happens with angels. Galatians 3:19. Angels were present at the giving of the Law as confirmatory witnesses. Cf. Deuteronomy 4:26. How does God use angels in the Bible? The first place we see angels is in Genesis chapter three: cherubs. After the fall God sets many cherubs with flaming swords to keep people away from Eden. Throughout the Scripture swords are used as an emblem of power over life and death. They are used by God to exercise judicial activity. The second time we see angels mentioned is in Genesis 19 when the two angels come with the pre-incarnate Christ to visit Abraham, and then they go to Sodom and Gomorrah to execute judgment. The next time they are seen in Genesis is on Jacob’s ladder, and that was a picture of angels descending and ascending on the staircase, being used by God in the distribution of blessing related to the Abrahamic covenant. These covenants are legal documents. They involve witnesses, so the angels are involved. There are angels again at Mount Sinai to be witnesses to this legal document. Then the next time we see angels appear is in 2 Samuel 24 and the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 21 where we read about the fact that an angel was sent by God to bring judgment on the Jews because David disobeyed God when he numbered the people. Then we get into Daniel where Daniel speaks about watchers, holy ones. Human history is being watch and in some sense guided by these angels—the decree of the watchers, Daniel 4:17, 23. In the New Testament in Acts 12:23 Herod Agrippa was struck by an angel of the Lord. What we see in all this is that the pattern throughout the Scripture from Genesis to revelation is that angels are used as witnesses of legal documents and they are used in the framework of executing judgment and blessing on human beings in general and on believers in specific.

The function of angels in the book of Revelation is to deliver God’s judgments on mankind. They are witnesses of God’s judicial enactments on the human race. What exactly are these seven letters to the seven churches? They are the judicial evaluations of these churches. So if we takes angels here as literal angels, and these are judicial documents evaluating the spiritual life of these congregations, then what we learn is that there is an angelic counterpart in this trial setting to each congregation that is keeping a record. They are angelic court recorders who are responsible for observing local congregations to write up evaluation reports. These evaluation reports are then utilized at the judgment seat of Christ in the future. So once we take this terms and understand it literally as true angels, then we explore what the Scripture says about the role of angels, it makes perfect sense to understand these as angels who are keeping a record that goes into the heavenly court documents on each congregation.

Doctrine of Angels in the Angelic Conflict   Rev.  030

1)      We recognize that the term AGGELOS [a)ggeloj] or angel means a messenger. But the primary use of the term AGGELOS or its Hebrew counterpart refers to supernatural intelligent beings that God created to serve Him in the administration of the universe. We know from Job 38:4-7 that God first created the angels. The second thing we note is that is says all of the sons of God sang for joy. So we know that there wasn’t a break among the angels yet, they were still in a harmonious relationship, still united. It says then that he goes on to create the rest of the universe. Then comparing that Scripture with others, like Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, we know that the highest of the angels was known as Lucifer the son of the morning and that he sinned by becoming arrogant. He wanted to be the one to rule the angels.

2)      At some point after the creation of the universe Lucifer fell into arrogance, and he enticed a third of the angels to follow him in his rebellion against God.

3)      After some indeterminate period of time the angels were allowed a period of time either to follow Satan or to remain loyal to God. When this time finished God convened a trial and He sentenced these fallen angels and Satan to the lake of fire. Matthew 25:41—“was prepared,” past tense indicating it was already in existence.

4)      Why aren’t the angels in the lake of fire? If they were sentenced to the lake of fire before man was ever created, then why aren’t they there now? Why has that sentence been postponed?

5)      The Scripture does not directly answer the question. We can deduce the answer by looking at a number of different things that go on in the Scriptures. What we have first of all is a challenge to God’s authority. At the very root Satan’s sin is a desire to be like God, so he challenges God’s authority. He desires to demonstrate in this appeal of God’s decision that God is really some nasty old mean tyrant who just wants to do things His way, that God doesn’t really want to allow His creatures to really fulfill their potential and to really be able to do everything that given him the ability to do. So Satan is just accusing God of being a nasty old meany and not letting him do everything that Satan knows that he can do. What God wants to demonstrate in the process of human history is that the creature can’t ever be who he wants to be unless he is doing it under the complete authority of God. Satan’s claim is that the creature can autonomously find happiness and meaning in life by being everything that he wants to be. What God is going to demonstrate in history is that when the creature acts independently of God, no matter how innocuous the act may be, it will always culminate in crisis and catastrophe and judgment. There will be all kinds of negative consequences to that action. What God is demonstrating as well in this is that only genuine humility on the part of the creature can lead the creature to real happiness and stability in life. We see a picture of this in Jesus Christ. The character qualities that are emphasized in the Lord Jesus Christ are completely antithetical to the character qualities that are emphasized by human viewpoint and by Satan’s cosmic system. So what God is demonstrating through Christ foremost and through us secondarily as we reflect His character is that only when the creature acts in ways consistent with God’s character can there be real stability and real happiness. In Philippians 2:5-11 we are told that Jesus humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death. This is just the opposite in terms of character quality of what Satan exemplified. In the previous verse Paul writes that Christ Jesus, “who being in the form of God [being in the essence of God] did not consider it something to be grasped at.” This is what Satan did. He wanted to grasp at it; he wanted to be God. Jesus Christ who is God did not think holding on to or asserting His own deity was something to be held on to and He was willing to humble Himself to the point of becoming a creature so that He could demonstrate the kind of character that a creature should have in terms of humility. So what we see in terms of Satan’s challenge to God’s authority is answered in Jesus Christ’s obedience to God’s authority. A second way in which the angelic conflict is played out has to do with Satan’s challenge to God’s love. Satan challenges God’s love in the sense that he is asking how a loving God can send His creatures to eternity in the lake of fire. He is saying that he just wants to run thing the way he wants to run them, and what is so wrong with that? This is the same thing that is found in the disobedient human  heart. We just want to live our life the want to live it, so God should quit meddling with me! That is what we hear people say. They just want to be left alone, they don’t want God interfering. And what God is demonstrating in human history is that no matter what man tries to do—and in all of human history God will show every kind of creaturely independence—it always fails. Not only does it always fail but it always results in some sort of crisis, some sort of catastrophe; it always brings about unintended consequences of extreme suffering for the creature. In the garden it wasn’t the eating of the fruit that was inherently evil, it was the act of disobedience. But it was disobedience in a form that seemed trivial, and everything that we see in human history is the result of that simple act of eating a piece of fruit. So what God is demonstrating is that His focus is on the victim, that He is concerned about what happens to the human race, the creature, as a result of this sin. And what makes Satan’s sin so egregious I because of what it did to the other angels and because of what it does in terms of all the suffering in human history. It is all the result of a creature wanting to act independently of the creator. So God is using human history to demonstrate the flaws in Satan’s logic and to demonstrate that the creature can never ever act independently of the creator. Third, Satan is challenging God’s justice, His fairness. He is saying that God isn’t really fair to the creature, that He hasn’t really given him a chance to sow what he can do. Satan wants an opportunity to show that he can rule the universe. Dr Louis Sperry Chafer pointed out in his Systematic Theology that one of the greatest evidences of Satan’s failure is all of the suffering and disorder and war and calamity in human history. See, Satan wants to prove that he can be god, that he can run everything, that he can bring peace and prosperity, and order into the world, that he can rule it as well as God can rule it. But what he didn’t realize was that when he tempted Adam to sin and then Adam sinned and they began to procreate until eventually there are millions of sin natures running around who all want to be god, that he had created a whole bunch of competition. Everybody wants to be god and nobody wants to listen to Satan as their authority either. So now he has to bring order into this chaos that he created. So Satan has challenged God’s justice. He wanted to show what he could do in running the universe; he wanted to replace God. What God is demonstrating is that no one but Himself, no one but God can rule the universe. The creature, like Satan who is brilliant and has more knowledge than any human being could ever amass, is still finite in his knowledge and ability, and he can only be in one place at one time. So he can’t do what he is attempting to do. When the creature operates on the basis of arrogance the ultimate result is always self-destructive. Only when the creature is in complete submission and obedience to the creator can there be harmony and genuine love, and all of this flows through true humility.

6)      Human history provides evidence to support God’s case in a legal court of appeal. First of all we see that Satan’s guilt, his disobedience, brought about a judicial sentence from God. He was sentenced to the lake of fire some time in eternity past based on our understanding of Matthew 25:41. Furthermore, we also see that Adam’s guilt also invoked a judicial sentence. The structure of Genesis 3:14ff where God outlines the consequences to the serpent, to the woman and to the man, fits the concept of a judicial sentence. These are the consequences, the punishment for their actions. The issue at stake is God’s integrity—His righteousness and justice. Over and over again throughout Scripture we see this emphasis on God’s righteousness and His justice. Furthermore, we see this analogy to the courtroom played out in basic terminology that is used. For example, the new term that is used to refer to Lucifer is the Hebrew word satan, which means “the accuser.” So it is a legal term, it refers to someone who is bringing an accusation into a courtroom. We see this in Zechariah 3:1-7, “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD [Yahweh, the Lord Jesus Christ], and Satan [the accuser] standing at his right hand to oppose him. And the LORD [God the Father] said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke you, O Satan; even the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you: is not this [Joshua] a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spoke unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes [a picture of the imputation of righteousness, the removal of guilt]. And I said, Let them set a clean turban upon his head. So they set a clean turban upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, Thus says the LORD of hosts; If you will walk in my ways, and if you will keep my charge, then you shall also judge my house, and shall also keep my courts, and I will give you places to walk among these that stand by.” The picture is of a courtroom scene, standing before the Supreme Court of heaven with Satan as the accuser and the Lord Jesus Christ as the one who is defending Joshua. We see the same thing again in 1 John 2:1, “My little children, these things write I to you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Satan is the one who accuses us, but it is Jesus Christ who is our advocate, our defense attorney. We also have the idea of courtroom in the idea of covenants throughout the Bible. There is the initial Edenic covenant, not mentioned in Genesis 1:26-28 but is referred to later on in Scripture (Hosea). There is the Adamic covenant in Genesis 3, the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9, the Abrahamic covenant reiterated in various places in Genesis, the land or real estate covenant, the Davidic covenant, the New covenant. These are all contracts. Sometimes when we talk about the Bible we talk about the Old Testament and the New Testament. Testament is a legal term, a contract. So at the very root of all human relationship to God there is a contract. God has bound Himself to us contractually. This doesn’t happen in any other system of religion, so what we have is a unique setup. God is under girding all human relationships with a legal structure. That doesn’t remove it from being personal but it gives a basis for stability and structure to our relationship with God. We know that we can trust Him, He is not going to go off and do something different next year or next century, He is going to fulfill what He said in His covenants. He had bound Himself legally, and this is why we as Americans with a legal system based on a Judeo-Christian background have a respect for the law that is unique in history. So once again we see that the Bible is structured in terms of a legal framework. Furthermore, we have various scenes that are reminiscent of a courtroom. We have the scenes in Job chapter one when the angels, the sons of God, come before the Supreme Court of heaven. Then Satan the accuser comes in and accuses Job. Zechariah 3:1-7 also has that same imagery. When we look at salvation, salvation is couched in legal terms. The reason we need salvation is because of sin. The terms that we use for sin are terms that come out of a legal context. HAMARTIA [a(martia] means to miss the mark, it is the basic word for sin. It means to fall short of a standard and it would be used of a violation of law. We have in the Old Testament the word “transgression.” This is the Hebrew word pasha, which refers to a crime or criminal action, the violation of a law. The Greek counterpart to this word is PARAPTOMA [paraptwma] which indicates, again, the violation of a standard. Another word that is used of sin is ADIKOS [a)dikoj], not righteous. Terms for sin refer to a legal violation; words for salvation also refer to a legal satisfaction. Propitiation indicates that the law has been satisfied, and when it comes to the character of God what that means is that the character of God has been satisfied with the work of Christ on the cross. The word “imputation” is legally crediting something to someone’s account, so that when we trust Christ as our savior the perfect righteousness of Christ is legally credited to our account. Now there is a positive balance and when God looks at out character He looks at the character of Christ and declares us justified. We are righteous, that is what it means to be justified by faith. It means that when God looks at our record He is looking at the character of Christ, not ours, and he says we are justified. Terms like “forgiveness,” APHIEMI [a)fihmi], a concept we are familiar with in 1 John 1:9, is another legal term. All of this indicates that our relationship with God is couched in legal terminology, it is all governed by legal concepts. Then we get into other aspects of Scripture and we find that there is a word group that shows up a lot, especially in John’s writing, and it is based on the word MARTUREO [marturew] from which we get our English word “martyr.” It means “witness,” of one who provides a testimony. John 1:7, talking about John the Baptist. John writes, “These are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life through his name.” What is written? These “signs” are written, and there are basically seven signs that are given in the Gospel of John to indicate that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be. These are, as it were, seven witnesses that John is marshalling. In almost a legal sense he is going to trot them out one at a time to demonstrate that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be and that if we believe and accept the fact that he is the Messiah, the one who died on the cross for our sins, then we can have eternal life. So the Gospel of John is filled with this legal terminology. Cf. John 3:11, once again we see that it is this legal terminology of witness and testimony that we see in his vocabulary. Cf. also John 5:30-37 where we have 13 references in eight verses dealing with “witness, testimony, righteousness.” 1 John 5:9-12 is another example that our whole relationship with God is wrapped up in legal terminology. This gives us great confidence as believers that we can count on God. There is an absolute out there that is greater than us that is unshakeable, and it is grounded in the character of God. Furthermore, this means there is accountability. So we have judgments in the Scripture: like the judgment seat of Christ, and evaluation for believers; the judgment of the sheep and the goats at the end of the Tribulation; the great white throne judgment at the end of the Millennium. When we come to the bema seat and study concept of rewards and inheritance for believers there is terminology such as inheritance that is referred to again and again through legal terminology that we would find in a will or a testament at the time of death. Again and again and again God is using legal terminology to define that relationship. In conclusion, what we see is that in all of this God has wrapped up human history in this mantle of legal terminology and it must fit into some broader category, and this is the appeal trial of Satan.

7)      We see that angels observe human actions to learn about God’s character, especially His justice and His grace. These are the issues that are challenged by Satan. For example, 1 Corinthians 4:9, “For I think that God has displayed us the apostles last, as men condemned to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.” So our life is made evident to the angels; they are watching us. 1 Peter 1:12, “To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” The angels are curious about this. They are learning things about the character of God and about this whole legal structure from watching and observing. 1 Timothy 5:21, “I charge you before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that you observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” The angels are watching the local church, and in this case they are watching the pastors of the local congregation.

8)      Angels observe human history as confirming witnesses to God’s covenants and as agents for executing the judgments contained in those covenants. What is meant by this is that God sets up a contract with us and says that if we violate it there will be certain judgments. The angels are witnesses to the contract that God sets up and they are the ones who carry out the judgments contained in those contracts. What is our precedent for this? Galatians 3:19, “Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions … having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator.” No angels were mentioned in Exodus 19 & 20, but Galatians 3:19 and other passages tell us that angels were there, though not mentioned in that passage. The mediator here is Moses. “… until the seed would come {the Lord Jesus Christ] to whom the promise had been made.” The law was given because of sin on the part of the nation Israel and it is given through the angels. The Greek word here is DIATASSO [diatassw]. DIATAGMA [diatagma] is the noun form. The TASSO or TAGMA has to do with something that is ordered or structured. DIA is the preposition meaning “through.” So it is focusing on something that is organized, structured, and outlined. The other passage where we find the noun is in Acts 7:53, “Who have received the law by the direction of angels, and have not kept it.” The idea here is that the angels organized and ordered the law. What does that mean? Hebrews 2:2, “For if the word spoken by angels” – the angels spoke the word, the giving of the law. When did this happen? Deuteronomy 5:22, “These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more.” So God spoke verbally and audibly to the Jews when they were assembled below Mount Sinai. It is not something they heard internally. Deuteronomy 33:2, “And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints [a noun form of kadash, “holy ones,” angels]: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” When the Lord came at Sinai, Moses says, there were ten thousand angels with Him. When we put all of this together what we realize is that God gave the law to Moses and then apparently there were angels who communicated and exegeted the law to the Jews at the base of Mount Sinai. They made sure that they understood how the law was to be applied and understood. That is what Hebrews 2:2 is talking about. Three times in the New Testament there is reference to this. It is ignored in the Old Testament. What is going on here? It is that angels are serving as officers of the court to make sure that things are understood. The conclusion is that there is a legal operation taking place here. In the Old Testament when God gave the law to Moses He gave two copies. One copy went into the ark of the covenant and one copy went to the people. What is happening with the book of Revelation is that the Lord Jesus Christ is giving the revelation to John who is making seven copies of the whole book for each church. At the heavenly level the Lord Jesus Christ is giving an angelic witness a copy of the critique sheet for each congregation. That angelic witness is standing as a functionary of the heavenly court as a witness of God’s grace and integrity in each congregation. God is evaluating each congregation. These seven epistles are not like we have from Paul and Peter and John earlier in the New Testament which are talking about how to live the Christian life. These are evaluation statements. To the church us said that it still has time to change its mind in certain areas and to apply doctrine and move forward. To the angel is said that if these churches don’t straighten up and apply doctrine, then it is their job to execute judgment and take out the congregation. That is what happened historically to these seven congregations. They failed to apply doctrine and they went through the process of judgment. This is a cycle that we see again and again in human history. People become complaisant with what they have, complaisant with the doctrine that they have been taught, and eventually they begin to take it for granted, they begin to take God’s grace for granted, and before long the spiritual life isn’t significant for them and they become distracted by all the details of life. The next thing you know they are in reversionism, the churches begin to deteriorate, get into ritualism and legalism, deny the deity of Christ, the creatorship of God, deny creation, and before long they are under judgment and God takes out the congregation and eventually the nation. 

Apostles Deaths

James   half brother of our Lord

   Beheaded in Jeruselum    AD 44

James the Less

    Throned from theTemple then beat to death

Plilip   

   Whipped then crusified

Andrew

   was crusifed on a cross for three days

Peter

   first beaten then crusified upsidedown

Thomas

   trused thur with a spear

Jude

   was crusified in AD 72

Bartholomew

   beaten to death with clubs

John

   sentenced to a pot of oil, then died of old age

Paul

  beheaded in Rome by Nero

Barnabus

  was stoned to death by Jews

Mark

  dragged thur the street by his feet burned the following day

Luke

  hanged on a olive tree in Greese

Mathisis

   stoned then beheaded

Doctrine of Apostleship  RD/1 Cor. 002

1)      Apostle comes from the Greek word APOSTOLOS [a)postoloj] which means someone who is commissioned and sent on a mission. It is a word that is not used very much in classical Greek literature. There are a few instances of it where it is used to described the mission of a military or naval commander, or a governor of a Greek colony, but outside of a few uses it is a rare noun. The verb APOSTELLO [a)postellw] which means to send is used much more frequently. But one of the things we always have to remember when we get into the New Testament and into New Testament vocabulary is that the background for understanding the terminology of these words is more often than not Hebrew and Old Testament concepts rather than fifth-century BC classical Greek. The precedent for the vocabulary is the Old Testament. An apostle was someone who was sent out as a personal envoy or representative and that was exactly the function of an apostle in the church, he was a personal envoy or representative of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2)      There were two categories of apostles in the New Testament. It is important to recognize that there is a common and a technical use of the word “apostle,” and it depends on who sends, who does the commissioning. In the technical use which refers to the twelve apostles Jesus Christ is the one who sends. In the common or everyday use which related to men who were commissioned by a local church they were sent out as missionaries or on some specific errand or mission. The common use refers to the local church sending out missionaries on to the field. For that reason some other men were called apostles, but they did not receive the commission from the Lord Jesus Christ, they received it from a local church. The unique spiritual gift was only given to twelve men, eleven of the original disciples outside of Judas Iscariot, and then Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:7-10. This was a temporary spiritual gift and it vanished from history with the death of the apostle John about 96 AD. The second use had to do with a pioneer missionary or someone who was specifically commissioned by a local church to fulfil a specific mission. Acts 14:14; Romans 16:7. The gift of apostleship was a spiritual gift. By definition, therefore, it could not be bestowed by man. All spiritual gifts are sovereignly bestowed at the instant of salvation by God the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:28, 29.

3)      Three qualifications for the gift of apostleship. First, they are appointed by God the Holy Spirit and commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ—1 Corinthians 12:8-11; 1 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1. Second, they were to be an eyewitness of the resurrection, or have seen the resurrected Christ—1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Acts 1:22. Acts 1:22 also seems to suggest that they observed the teaching of the Lord during His incarnation. What about Paul? If you lay Paul’s life over the chronology of the New Testament it becomes obvious that Paul must have been in Jerusalem at the same time the Lord Jesus Christ was in Jerusalem. Paul was probably at least 25 when we first see him at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 & 8. He would have been in Jerusalem for about 12 years because he came from Tarsus to Jerusalem at age 13 to study to be a rabbi, and he would have been in Jerusalem at least three years before our Lord started His public ministry, and he would have been attending a rabbinical school during the entire time of our Lord’s ministry. It seems that he would have been a witness of many events in the life of Christ. Third, they were imbued with miraculous powers. Along with the gift of apostleship they were given other spiritual gifts. Cf. Acts 5:15; 16:16-18.

4)      Apostleship came after the ascension of Christ (Matthew 10 precedes the church).

5)      Apostles were recipients of direct revelation from God and were the only authorized source for divine revelation.

6)      The apostolic gift died out in the first generation. There was no provision for successors. It is not passed on though the laying on of hands, there is no such thing as apostolic succession. That term was originally used in the next century, the second century; but at first it did not refer to a succession of individuals, that was the perversion of it as it came down into the Roman Catholic church. It wasn’t a succession of individuals but a succession of doctrine. You were a successor of the apostles if you taught the same doctrine the apostles taught.

Qualifications for an apostle. Remember, an apostle was a spiritual gift given to a few individuals and it was related to laying the foundation of the church—Ephesians 2:20. This was a gift that was limited to the church age and to only twelve individuals.   RD/1 Cor. 046

1)      They were appointed by the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:8-11. In Acts chapter one lots were drawn for a replacement for Judas Iscariot. So there were a body of men basically determining who has a spiritual gift. One argument against that is that the Holy Spirit refers to them as “the twelve” later on in Acts before Paul is saved, so the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be making a mistake, if Matthias is included in the number there would be twelve, if he is not then there would only be eleven. However, the counter argument to that is in 1 Corinthians 15:5 NASB “and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” That is talking about Jesus’ resurrection appearances between the resurrection and His ascension which is ten days before Pentecost, and it leaves two or three days before Peter gets his idea to pick a new apostle. But Paul says He appeared to the twelve during this period when there is only eleven. What had happened was that the disciples had become known as the twelve, it was the name of the group. They were called the twelve for three years and even when they lost one of them they still called them the twelve. So when they refer to the twelve in Acts chapters three and four it is not a term that recognizes the legitimacy of Matthias because the term was also used when there were only eleven.

2)      An apostle was an eye-witness of the resurrection or had seen the resurrected Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:8, 9; Acts 1:22. That means that there is nobody today who is an apostle.

3)      They were commissioned as an apostle directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 9:1. The Greek word for apostle is APOSTOLOS [a)postoloj] and it means someone who is commissioned, appointed, delegated a specific task and authority to fulfil that task. The important thing is to identify who does the commissioning and the task to which they are commissioned, because there are some other individuals in the New Testament to whom the word “apostle” is applied. But these are not apostles in the same sense that James and John and Paul were apostles. This is a secondary sense because the apostles, i.e. the twelve, were all commissioned by Jesus Christ and they received a spiritual gift of apostle. Others such as Barnabas and three or four others that are mentioned are commissioned by a local church to a particular task, usually in the realm of what we would call today missions. They were sent out and commissioned to take the gospel to a particular area. It is apostle in a non-technical sense.

4)      The apostles were also given the credentials of signs and wonders. Acts 5:15; 16:16-18; 2 Corinthians 12:12 NASB “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”

The Doctrine of Apostleship   RD/Gal/001

   1. The Greek word is apostolos [a)postoloj] which has a rich heritage in the Greek. We need to note that in this particular passage it is used without the article. In Greek if it does not have the definite article it can be for emphasis of quality, it can still be definite, or it can be indefinite. The definite article in Greek functions quite differently from the definite article in English. Here we have the use of the indefinite article because Paul is one apostle among many. He sais he is an apostle. But the in anarthrous emphasis of this Paul would also emphasise the highest quality of the noun, the high quality of apostleship. He is an apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostleship was the highest rank in the membership of the royal family of God in the church age.

   2. The word apostolos is a Greek word that was used originally in classical Greek for a high ranking admiral or general officer who was chosen to command either a naval fleet or an army. The root meaning of the word apostolos is the one who is sent, and then it takes on a technical meaning for the one who is commissioned with a task. The individual was commissioned to perform a task and given the authority and responsibility to carry out that task. That means that the word inherently connotes command and leadership responsibilities. It was also used to refer to a group of Greek colonies and then it developed over time to just refer to the leader of that group. It came to mean someone with authority, someone with leadership; it had both a military background and a colonial background. When we come to the New Testament we discover that this word is used to refer to a temporary spiritual gift.

   3. The gift of apostleship by way of definition in the New Testament had two categories. The first is the technical sense—a spiritual gift. As a spiritual gift we know that it was given by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. It is determined by the sovereign plan of God the Father. As we see here in the first verse of Galatians every member of the Trinity is involved in the process of determining the spiritual gift[s] of each believer. Spiritual gifts are give a) at salvation; b) they are determined by the sovereignty of God and distributed by the Holy Spirit; c) they are irrevocable; d) spiritual gifts are in some cases developed (e.g. pastor-teacher)—there needs to be time for training, there needs to be growth to a certain level of spiritual maturity, there needs to have been time to study the Word of God.

   4. An apostle is one who was commissioned by Christ Himself to the task of establishing the church in the church age. That is the technical use. Then there is the general use of the word that describes men who are commissioned by either a local church or by one of the apostles themselves as a missionary. The Bible uses the word apostle to refer to men like Barnabas, James the brother of the Lord, and two or three others. They do not have the spiritual gift of apostle, they do not meet the other qualifications of an apostle, and therefore they are not an apostle in the technical sense. There were only twelve apostles in that technical sense, the eleven plus Paul.

   5. When we look at the spiritual gift of apostle: a) it was the first and highest of all spiritual gifts ever given. This gift is listed first in terms of its priority in both 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11; b) the apostles had plenary [full] powers; c) the spiritual gift of apostleship carried the highest authority God has ever delegated in the church age. The apostle had authority over all the local churches, and in contrast the pastor has authority over only the one local church; d) the purpose for the spiritual gift of apostleship was twofold. First of all, the communication of the Word of God and the formation of the New Testament canon. All of the New Testament books were either written by an apostle or they were written under the authority of an apostle. Luke was not an apostle but he was the travelling companion of the apostle Paul and wrote under his authority. James wrote under the authority of John and Peter in Jerusalem; e) the gift of apostleship was given in the pre-canon period of the church age. While there was no written New Testament there needed to be leadership by those men who understood the doctrines related to the church age; f) it was also the responsibility of the apostles to train pastors, establish local churches, and to establish local church policy; g) apostles were not appointed until after the resurrection of Christ—there was a group of apostles mentioned in Matthew 10 but this is a different category who were sent to Israel. This was a temporary commissioning by the Lord Jesus Christ to witness to Israel and not what we are talking about with reference to the New Testament, church age spiritual gift of apostleship; h) the spiritual gift of apostleship was temporary and discontinued after the completion of the canon of Scripture. We know this because of the qualifications to be an apostle. An apostle needed to be a witness to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and he had to be commissioned as an apostle by the resurrected Lord. (Paul was in Jerusalem and would have been about 16 or 17 years of age when Jesus began His public ministry. It stands to reason that Paul was probably among the Pharisees who were antagonistic to Jesus in the Gospels)

   6. Who were those who had the gift of apostleship? Remember that there is a distinction between the two different categories of apostle. Who are the eleven men plus the apostle Paul? We find the list in Matthew 10:2-4—Simon Peter, his brother Andrew; the two sons of Zebedee—James who was murdered very early under Herod Agrippa and the apostle John who wrote the Gospel; Philip who was an evangelist and very concerned with evangelism; he used that gift in two places in Acts. Bartholomew who was also called Nathanael, Thomas, Matthew (Levi), Simon the Canaanite, James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus who was also called Jude. Twelfth would be the apostle Paul.

   7. In Acts chapter one Peter gets the great idea that there needs to be twelve disciples. So they are having a meeting where they have been in prayer as they wait in Jerusalem as the Lord instructed them for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Peter makes the suggestion that they choose from among  them someone to take the place of Judas. They cast lots and chose Matthias to be the twelfth disciple. The problem with this is that man does not choose people to have a spiritual gift. Men do not determine who has any spiritual gift. Spiritual gifts are determined under the sovereignty of God the Father and distributed by God the Holy Spirit. Man cannot elect what is sovereignly distributed by God. Paul makes this point in Galatians 1:1 because his authority had been questioned by the Judaisers. He uses the phrase “not from men.” The phrase in the Greek is apo plus the genitive plural of anthropos [a)po a)nqrwpoj], the generic term for humanity, mankind. apo plus the genitive emphasises source or origin. So the first thing Paul is saying here is that he is an apostle but not from the source of men, mankind. Secondly he says, “nor through the agency of man,” dia plus the genitive singular  anthropou [dia a)nqrwpou], which emphasises agency. The gift of apostleship is not passed on from man to man; it does not come from apostolic procession. Apostleship comes through the agency of Jesus Christ—dia [dia] plus the genitive singular—and God the Father. Paul then says, “who raised Him from the dead.” This is an aorist participle, egeiro [e)geirw], meaning to raise up. God the Father is the one who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. This is a subtle reminder that Paul has seen the resurrection of Christ. When Paul went on his first missionary journey he went to the area of what is now south central Turkey, the area that is known as Galatia. The people were very familiar with his testimony and how he had seen the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus.      

The Dctrine of Apostleship  RD/Gal/009

1.       The word apostle comes from the Greek word apostolos [a)postoloj]. There are two senses in which this word is used in the New Testament, a general sense and a specific sense. The root meaning of the word describes someone who has been commissioned by a group or an individual and given the authority to perform a task. The general usage would refer to those who are commissioned by a local church—like Barnabas and a number of other people who are mentioned in the New Testament. They don’t have the spiritual gift of apostle; they have been commissioned by a local church as a missionary. The specific use of the word apostle refers to those who have the spiritual gift of apostleship and who meet certain qualifications. This describes the eleven original disciples plus the apostle Paul.

2.       The six requirements for apostleship: a) An apostle of Jesus Christ must be Jewish. They were sent out originally to the house of Israel, Matthew 10:6, before the church age; this was the limited use of apostle. According to Deuteronomy 18:9 cf. Romans 3:1, 2; Matthew 10:1-5, the Scriptures were given to Israel. Israel was specifically given the custodianship of the revelation of God, so the apostles who would deliver more revelation had to be of the nation Israel. b) An apostle must have received a call and a commissioned to his office directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:1 cf. Acts 1:24-26. c) An apostle must have been an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus Christ in His teaching, John 15:27; Luke 22:28; Acts 1:21, 22. Paul made it clear that he met this requirement as an apostle, 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; Acts 22:6-21. d) An apostle must possess authority in communicating divine revelation. What he says is not up to a vote, it came directly from God. What he wrote under divine inspiration was indeed the voice of God and carries the authority of God. 1 Corinthians 2:10; Galatians 1:11, 12 cf. 2 Timothy 3:16. e) An apostle was required to furnish the signs of an apostle. He performed certain miracles which were his calling cards; they provided credentials for his claim to be an apostle. f) An apostle possessed complete authority among all the churches.

Six requirements to be an apostle  RD/Gal/002

1.       An apostle of Jesus Christ must be a Jew. He had to be from Messiah’s nation.

2.       An apostle must have received a specific call and commission to his office directly from Christ. The nature of his office: he had full plenary powers, full authority. This was the highest rank in the church age. The precedent was set by the Lord Himself in Luke 6:13 NASB “And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles.” Paul elaborates on this in 2 Corinthians, and especially here in Galatians 1:1.

3.       They must have been an eyewitness of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ and have heard His teaching. If they were to be foundational witnesses to Jesus Christ and what He taught then it was necessary for them to know a) what He taught, and b) to have seen His public ministry while He was alive on the earth. (Paul was probably among the Pharisees and scribes who were arguing with Jesus during Jesus’ time on the earth) Paul made is specifically clear that he was an apostle.1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; Acts 22:6-21.

4.       An apostle must possess authority in communicating divine revelation. When an apostle spoke it was “Thus saith the Lord.” He was the mouthpiece for God; he gave absolute truth. What he wrote from divine revelation was directly from the mind of God. 1 Corinthians 2:16.

5.       An apostle is required to furnish the signs of the Apostles. 2 Corinthians 12:12 NASB “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” All of these things authenticated their message. They demonstrated the veracity of their message.

6.       An apostle possessed plenary authority among all the churches. Peter, for example, judged Ananias and Sapphira on the basis of his authority as an apostle. Paul asserted his responsibilities over all of the churches, 2 Corinthians 11:28 NASB “Apart from {such} external things, there is the daily pressure on me {of} concern for all the churches. And he dictated to the different churches what they should do in various, e.g. disciplinary matters such as in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5:3. They had authority to tell every local church congregation how to conduct their business.

In summary, apostleship was a unique spiritual gift that was sovereignly delegated by the Lord Jesus Christ and distributed by the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:27, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Colossians 1:1. In the pre-canon period of the church age certain spiritual gifts such as apostleship were necessary in order to communicate the revelation about the church age and the unique spiritual life of the church age because they didn’t have it written down yet. Once it was all written down it was no longer necessary for these people to continue their function—apostleship, prophecies, healing and tongues, for example. Apostles were not appointed until after the resurrection of Christ and they did not really become operational until the day of Pentecost when the church age began. Galatians 1:1 NASB “Paul, an apostle (not {sent} from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead).” The reason he mentions resurrection here is because Paul himself was commissioned by the resurrected Christ, and he is reminding his readers of his testimony of how he came to know the Lord on the road to Damascus when Jesus Christ appeared to him.

3.       An apostle is a unique spiritual gift sovereignly delegated by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:27, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Colossians 1:1.

4.       Today all spiritual gifts are the permanent spiritual gifts. All spiritual gifts can be classified into two categories: permanent and temporary. The temporary gifts included miracles, knowledge and wisdom, prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues, healing—temporary gifts given during the transition period of the early church when the canon of the New Testament was not complete in order to communicate revelation in the early church age that was not accessible through a written canon of Scripture.

5.       In the pre-canon period of the church age (35-95 AD) certain temporary gifts were given for the church to carry on until the canon was completed.

6.       Certain gifts such as apostleship, prophecy, miracles, healing, tongues, interpretation of tongues, knowledge and wisdom, exhortation, discerning spirits, faith, ceased their function by 96 AD.

7.       Once the canon of the New Testament was completed and circulated all temporary spiritual gifts were withdrawn.

8.       The apostles to the church were not appointed until after the resurrection of Christ, according to Ephesians 4:8, 11. Christ distributed them.

9.       Apostles to the church therefore are not to be confused with the apostles to Israel in Matthew 10:2-4.

10.   The apostle John was the last of the apostles and died in approximately 96 AD.

11.   Any claim to be an apostle today is heresy, blasphemy, a complete violation of the Word of God.

Doctrine of Appearance of Jesus Christ  Rev. 019

There were a number of times that Jesus Revealed Himself in these post-resurrection appearances. It was not that He just had this one appearance to the disciples but He appeared to over 500 in 17 different post-resurrection appearances.

   1. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on the resurrection Sunday morning. Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-17. She was one of His most devoted followers and unlike the disciples she wasn’t hiding, she was concerned about taking care of the body in the tomb.
   2. He appeared to the other women. Matthew 28:9, 10. There were other women who came to the tomb. There is a tremendous contrast here between the courage of the women to go to the tomb and identify themselves with their savior, unlike the men who were hiding.
   3. Later that afternoon He appeared to Peter. Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5 where Peter is referred to by His Aramaic name, Cephas.
   4. Even later that afternoon He appears to two disciples who headed to Emmaus, a northern suburb of Jerusalem about 15 miles away. Luke 24:13-3.
   5. In the early evening He finally appeared to the ten but at this time Thomas wasn’t with them. Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23.
   6. To the eleven disciples a little later on that evening. He comes back and now Thomas in there.
   7. Several days later he appeared to seven of the disciples who were by the Sea of Galilee. They had been out fishing and when they came back to the shore for breakfast when He appeared to them. John 21:1-23. It is there that He gives His marching orders to the disciples, and specifically Peter, that their job is to feed the sheep.
   8. He then appeared to and taught 500 believers at one time. 1 Corinthians 15:6.
   9. He also appeared to members of His immediate family. Jesus had various brothers and sisters, the Scriptures say. None of them believed in Him, accepted Him as Messiah, before the resurrection.
  10. He appeared to eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:16-20. It is there that they are told to make disciples and baptize. Jesus is addressing the disciples, and through them the leaders of the church, that this is the mission of the church—to make students of the Word. Baptism simply reflects that which was soon to take place at the moment of conversion. So the emphasis is on two things: evangelism, indicated in the early church through baptism because baptism is a picture of our immediate identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. The physical act of baptism with water was a picture and a type of the spiritual act of baptism by the Holy Spirit, that at the instant of faith alone in Christ alone we are identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection by the Holy Spirit. This becomes the mission statement for the church in the church age, that this is our task, to take the gospel to the nations. This is the New Testament equivalent to the command to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 to be a blessing to all people. It is through the evangelistic ministry in the church age that the blessing mandate of the Abrahamic covenant is brought to fulfillment.
  11. The final appearance of the Lord during the intermediate period before Pentecost was at the time of His ascension. This is described in Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-9. Jesus appeared at that time to the eleven and He gives them their final marching orders that they are to take the gospel to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth. That is a reiteration of the great commission. It is the structural marker for the book of Acts. The remainder of the resurrection appearance are all post-ascension, and they involve a temporary departure from the right hand of the Father.
  12. His next appearance was to the first martyr of the church, Stephen, Acts 7:55, 56. It is as Stephen is being stoned that he is filled with the Spirit, gazes to heaven, and God pulls back the veil so that he sees the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Jesus is pictured here as standing because He is receiving Stephen into heaven. He is still “seated” as the technical aspect referring to His session but He is pictured as standing for the reception of Stephen.
  13. The most famous post-ascension of Jesus is to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. Once again, this is not just Paul having a vision, this is an objective appearance. His associates didn’t see Jesus but they saw the bright light and they heard the sound of His voice. This indicates it is an objective appearance but they weren’t supposed to hear the words and Jesus wasn’t appearing to them, so they didn’t see the specifics. But they saw something. If Paul had just been having a dream or a hallucination nobody else would see anything. Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11; 26:13-18.
  14. Jesus then appeared after this to Paul in Arabia. Acts 20:34; 26:17; Galatians 1:12, 17.
  15. He appeared to Paul a third time in the temple. Acts 22:17-21, where He is commissioning Paul as an apostle.
  16. He appeared to Paul a fourth time when Paul was in prison, Acts 23:11.
  17. The final appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ was to John on the island of Patmos where He commissions him to write the things that he sees. Revelation chapter one. This is the last time that Jesus Christ appeared in history. After the close of the canon there was no longer a reason for Him to appear. 

 

Doctrine of the Arrogant Skills

 

Self-absorption

Self-indulgement

Self-justification

Self-deseption

Self-dietification

 

Doctrine of the Ascension and Session   Heb. 015

   1. The Jews at the time of the First Advent expected a one-coming Messiah.  They didn’t anticipate a dual advent.  We talk about First Advent and Second Advent.  The first time He came in incarnation and was born in the manger in Bethlehem.  He will return a second time when He returns in glory to establish His kingdom at the end of the tribulation. We understand that.   But if you were a Jew living in 50 BC or 10 BC or 5 BC, you were thinking that the Messiah was coming to establish a glorious kingdom and somehow redeem the world in terms of sin.  But you just thought of one coming. That shaped their understanding.  When Jesus did start teaching that He was going to die and come back, they had a difficult time with that.  Even John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if He was the guy.  Think about that.   John the Baptist was a cousin.  He is miraculously born as well because his mother is one of the 6 barren women in the Scripture.  She gives birth to him as the result of an angelic visitation.  She is not impregnated by the angel but as a result of the announcement by the angel she is told that she will give birth to a child.  The father was told that he would father the child.  That would be John.  His mother Elizabeth is a cousin of Mary’s.  She is pregnant a few months before Mary is. So from the time of his birth he would have been told that he had a special role in the kingdom plan of God to announce the Messiah.   When Jesus his cousin comes down to the Jordan he says, “Behold the Lamb of God.”  He baptizes Jesus.  In that baptism the heavens open and he hears the voice of God.  He saw the literal physical three-dimensional dove that is the Holy Spirit appear and come and settle over Jesus.  He has seen all of this.  Then when Jesus starts talking about the fact that the kingdom isn’t going to come now (He has been rejected so it has been postponed) he is so confused.  He asks if he has made a mistake.  That is hard for us to factor, isn’t it?  But he gets really confused there.   Jesus eases his anxieties.  The Jews expected a one-coming Messiah.
   2. The Jews confused the cross and the crown.  They wanted the crown before the cross, the glorious Messiah before the suffering Messiah.  We can see clearly that He had to suffer before He could reign.  He couldn’t bypass the cross and go directly to the kingdom.  That is what Satan wanted Him to do. That is why that was a temptation in the wilderness. That is why after fasting for 40 days and He is in a state of physical weakness, He was tired and hungry.   He was fully aware of what He would go through in terms of the cross.  Satan comes along and says, “I will give it to you.  You don’t have to go through the suffering”.  Suffering is a key word that we are going to see in Hebrews.  Suffering doesn’t necessarily mean that you are beaten down.  It means that you are going through adversity, testing of some kind or another that you have to apply the Word.  Jesus is given the opportunity to bypass the cross.  But He does not do that.  He passes the test.

NKJ 1 Peter 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

The Old Testament taught that but the Jews didn’t appreciate it.   They saw that one coming and did not make that distinction.  If they had made that distinction, they might have wondered why.  That is one reason why the Church Age wasn’t revealed.  The Church Age wasn’t revealed in the Old Testament because the Jews would have had some indication of their own failure.  So this means that they had a legitimate choice to accept the Messiah when He came and the kingdom could have come in when Jesus Christ offered it to them.  We know that they didn’t.  God has real contingency in His plan.  So the kingdom was presented. You see this pattern in all the gospels, at least the synoptics – Mathew, Mark and Luke.  From the incarnation to the end of His second year, there is the offer of the kingdom.  Then there is this rejection of the king that crystallizes in the Pharisees accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

Jesus calls it the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  So the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not simply denial that Jesus Christ is your Savior.  You can’t blaspheme against the Holy Spirit today.  It was a historically conditioned sin.  I believe it was historically conditioned to that time only.  The Jews rejected him and that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  In Matthew 12, Jesus spells out that there were serious consequences and that is what happened in AD 70.  Israel goes out under the fifth cycle of discipline.  So He began the ministry with the offer of the kingdom.  There is a rejection of the King.  This leads to the crucifixion of the King.  It is foundational to understanding everything related to the session, your inheritance and your spiritual life. We just can’t escape it.   This is foundational.

I know that there are some people that when we get into this study it brings in so much that your head starts spinning.  That is why you have to hear it again and again.  I have taught this about 6 times.  Each time I can synthesize it a little better.  Each time I go through this it is like the Lord taking out a 2 x 4 and hitting me on the head with it to get my attention on a few things.  It opens up so much in terms of understanding the spiritual life today and what is going on. This is why prophecy is important.  Prophecy has to do with what the end goal is and what is going to happen tomorrow eschatologically speaking.  That is tomorrow in terms of the next age or dispensation.  When we get a clear fix of that in our head, then it begins to change the way that we live today.

This is an extremely mundane example for those of you who struggle with the extra pound or two.  If we had a clear vision of what we would look like if we stuck with a diet for a few months, it would be a lot easier to exercise that discipline in the mean time.  Once you get that set in your head, it makes it a lot easier.  That is the idea here.  As a believer if you get a solid mental picture of what is going to happen after you die and what your eternal destiny is; it focuses you on what you are doing now.  There are a lot of mundane issues in life that we get so bent out of shape over and spend so much time being distracted with that would disappear.   Then we see what has happened to Ulan and we realize that we spend a whole lot of time on things that are not essential.  We have to understand this kingdom issue.

   3. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples all proclaimed a message about the proximity of the kingdom.  “Repent for the kingdom is at hand.”   This isn’t a salvation message.  They had a salvation message.  This is related to Israel’s basic orientation towards life.  They were legalistic. They were told that they had to straighten up, change their minds, and be grace oriented or the kingdom wasn’t going to come.  The kingdom was being offered.   All of these guys had that message.

NKJ Matthew 3:2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

NKJ Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

The disciples were sent out to teach.

NKJ Matthew 10:6  "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Notice it’s not to the gentiles, but to Israel.  What do you think is going on?  The                 kingdom of heaven is the crucial message.

   4. Near the midpoint of His ministry the Jewish religious leaders rejected Jesus as Messiah leading to the postponement of the kingdom.

Now that sets up for understanding the ascension.  Jesus has to ascend.  The kingdom is being postponed.  What is happening now during the session has to do with the preparation of what is going to happen then.

Next time we will tie in Daniel 7 and Psalm 2.  Psalm 2 also sets us up for Hebrews 1:5.

This helps us understand what the Lord is doing now and I hope this has a great impact for you.

Doctrine of Ascension of Christ     Heb. 040a

1 Christ’s ascension is the basis for present encouragement and strength in difficult times.  His ascension becomes the foundation for the writer’s challenge to people to hang in there when things are difficult.  The ascension is not just a doctrine that talks about the fact that Jesus has gone to heaven and He is sitting there at the right hand until the Father says it is okay to come back.  There is a practical reality that He is at the right hand ready to come to our aid and strengthen us in difficult times.
1 Christ’s ascension is the culmination of His victory over sin and death on the cross.  He died on the cross and He paid the penalty for our sins.  Then He was buried.  He rose again on the third day.  It is the ascension that is the Father’s final approval and acceptance.  When He goes home to be with the Father is when He ascends to heaven.  Ephesians 4:8f  went back to Psalm 68:18 and picked up on that ascension imagery when the ark was taken up to the top of the temple mount as a picture of God’s victory over all of Israel’s enemies.  That imagery is used to communicate what happens at the ascension of Christ. He has had victory over all of the enemies.  If the enemy has been defeated, then that certainly encourages us that even though it may not feel like those enemies are defeated, the battle is over and the battle is won.   This is just the mopping up operation to give us an opportunity to grow and mature and to prepare us for our future ministry and service with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Millennial Kingdom.
3 This means the evil, the suffering, the horrors, the adversity that we face on a day to day basis in a fallen world is only temporary.  All this that we go through is just temporary.  The battle has been won.   We have a glorious future to anticipate.  All of this flows out of an understanding of the present session of the high priesthood Christ. 
4 This means that He is going to come back.  He is going to return.

Doctrine of Atonement           Rev. 011

“He washed us” is an idiom in the Scripture for the cleansing that comes by means of “his own blood.” There is rich imagery here. To understand this we need a quick review of salvation. The washing concept and the use of “by his blood” are terms that are consistently used in relation to the total doctrine of salvation. First of all we have to understand that the problem is sin. Sin is that which is contrary to the perfect righteousness and justice of God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God that plunged the human race into sin and created a variety of problems that had to be resolved in terms of their salvation. So a brick wall was set up between man and God, and that is the sin barrier.

The first element in the sin barrier is the problem of sin itself. The second problem is the penalty of sin. Because man is a sinner he violates the righteousness of God; because of the penalty of sin he is spiritually dead and can’t have a relationship with God. Each human being is born guilty of Adam’s original sin and bearing the penalty of sin in terms of spiritual death, incapable of having a relationship with God. The third problem in the barrier is God’s own character. Because God is perfectly righteous He can’t have a relationship with a sinful creature. The righteousness of God is His standard; the justice of God is the application of that standard. So before God can save a fallen creature His righteousness and justice have to be satisfied. Man has a problem because everything he does is –R; he lacks righteousness. Isaiah 65:6 says that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rages. That means that every good deed, the most righteous things man does don’t cut any ice with God. They are filthy rags. On top of that we are spiritually dead and there is no way that we can get into heaven when we are spiritually dead. Finally, there is our position in Adam. We are in Adam and the Scripture says that in Adam all die. These are the different dimensions of the sin problem.

The cross resolves all of these problems. It is at the cross that God deals with all of man’s problems. First of all the problem of sin, that every human being is born a sinner, is resolved by unlimited atonement. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for everyone’s sin. That doesn’t mean everyone is going to heaven but it means that the penalty has been resolved. It has been paid by Christ on the cross but it isn’t applied yet. The emphasis in the atonement is its unlimited dimension. It is for everyone. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and Christ paid the penalty for all. The penalty itself is paid in the aspect of salvation known as redemption. Redemption always has with it that idea of paying a price. Redemption is not for the elect; redemption is for all. What about those who don’t believe? Are they redeemed? Yes, but we will see what happens shortly.

The character of God is resolved through propitiation, justification and imputation. When Christ died on the cross he propitiated God’s character. Scriptures teaches in many passages that the atonement was for all, redemption was for all, and propitiation was for all. But it doesn’t teach that justification is for all or that imputation is for all, or that regeneration is for all. Unlimited atonement, redemption and propitiation have to do with the objective work of Christ on the cross. When He died on the cross His death was sufficient for all. He actually paid the penalty for all and God the Father’s justice and righteousness was satisfied for all. However, there is still a problem. Te problem is that the individual is still –R, he still lacks righteousness. He is still spiritually dead, and he is still in Adam. Christ’s death didn’t transfer us from any of that, it just paid the penalty and took care of the objective aspect of the cross but not the subjective application of the cross. So the issue for each individual is faith alone in Christ alone. The instant that one puts his faith alone in Christ alone God the Father imputes to that one the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. As a result of that God looks at us, sees that perfect righteousness and says, You are justified. It is a judicial declaration from the Supreme Court of heaven.

God solved the problem of the barrier. Remember this whole thing is resolved by “the blood of Christ,” the phrase is used to describe all of these different doctrines. Redemption, propitiation, justification and cleansing are all aspects that are resolved by the blood of Christ.

This concept of washing goes throughout the Scripture. Psalm 51:2, which has to do with David’s confession of his sin of adultery. “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.” There are two places in life where we get cleansing. When we trust Christ as savior we are cleansed positionally; when we confess our sins after salvation we are cleansed experientially. Psalm 51:2 is talking about a post-salvation cleansing. Psalm 51:7, David uses the same verbiage again, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” He is already saved but post-salvation sin gets a little dirt on us, so we have to be washed again. The positional aspect is indicated in Isaiah 1:16, 18, “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil…. Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. ” In the New Testament we have the same imagery used. Titus 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” How are we saved? Through the washing of regeneration. This also raises the terminology Jesus uses in John 13:10 in the episode of the foot washing of Peter. “Jesus said to him, He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and you are clean, but not all.” The background is that if we lived in that culture our bodies would already be clean. we would have taken a bath. This was the Passover, the highest holy day in all of the Jewish calendar, so before coming to dinner we would have taken a bath. This verse uses the Greek word NIPTO [niptw], not the word for washing. The word for washing is LUO [luw], the word we have in Revelation 1:5. Instead of using LUO, a complete bath, Jesus uses the word NIPTO, meaning a partial washing. He is simply washing the feet, not the whole body. Jesus was teaching a principle that Peter didn’t understand now, but would afterward.

John 13:8, “Peter said to him, You shall never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash you not, you have no part with me.” The word translated “part” is the Greek word MEROS [meroj]. The way we interpret the English word “part” is in the sense of a role, a part to play. That is not what MEROS means. MEROS was a technical, legal term in ancient Greek legal documents known as testaments and wills. If you were designating your inheritance to someone that portion that they received was the MEROS. What Jesus is saying to Peter is, If you don’t let me cleanse you, i.e. if you don’t go through life confessing your sins and being cleansed so that the production in your life is through the filling of the Spirit, the result is going to be your loss of inheritance. In our inheritance are two aspects: permanent inheritance and contingent inheritance. There are some things that every believer will receive in heaven—a new resurrection body, eternal life, great joy and happiness. But some of us will have things that others do not have. For example, in the letters to the seven churches we read that those who overcome will be allowed to eat from the tree of life which is in the paradise of God. Others who overcome will be given the crown of life. Others will be able to eat from the hidden manna. Others will receive a white stone with their name written on it, a name that no one else can read. So there are all of these various promise given to believers who over come, that is, those who advance to spiritual maturity. So when Jesus says this to Peter He is saying that if he doesn’t wash him in terms of periodic cleansing in the Christian life he won’t have an inheritance because he will live his whole Christian life in the power of the flesh and not by walking by the Spirit. “He that is bathed [LOUO] needs not save to wash his feet, but is completely clean: and you [Peter] are clean, but not all [the disciples].” Not all the disciples are cleansed. Judas is the unbeliever in the midst.

Washing is a major metaphor in the Scripture for salvation, but it is also used when it is talking about post-salvation cleansing from sin—1 John 1:9. This goes back to Exodus 29:4, “And Aaron and his sons you shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall wash them with water.” When a priest was initiated into the priesthood he was bathed from head to toe. Each time a priest went into the tabernacle the first piece of furniture that met him was the golden laver, and he would have to wash his hands and his feet. That was a symbol of the fact that he had done things and been places he shouldn’t have. In other words, he had committed sin. So he had already been washed from head to toe, indicating he was saved; now he had to go through periodic cleansing or washings before he could go and serve the Lord as a priest in the tabernacle and the temple. So now he has a partial washing, he is now in fellowship, he is cleansed. The real issue is cleansing. The sin must be dealt with.

We see how this fits with the flow and the context of John’s thoughts. Remember, John was there is John 13. He wrote John 13! He understood these principles, he wrote 1 John 1:9. “And has made us kings and priests to God and his Father.” This whole imagery of washing comes right out of the Old Testament imagery of priests, and that is what Jesus is talking about in terms of serving Him in John chapter thirteen.

The KJV and the NKJV then the verse reads “kings,” that “he has made us kings.” That is incorrect. Other versions will say, “he has made us a kingdom and priests.” Scratch out the word “and,” it is not in the original of any of the texts. It says literally, “he has made us a kingdom”—“he has made us a kingdom [a domain or a dominion], priests to his God and Father.” What characterizes this dominion is that every individual in the church age functions as a priest to God. There is a construction here in the grammar that is called a double accusative. The verb is the aorist active indicative of POIEO [poiew]. It is past tense, a constative aorist, it is  simply summarizing the whole process in one simple statement without reference to its beginning or end or its target—“he has made us.” Then the accusative direct object is “us,” but the word “kings” is also an accusative. The main verb “he hade” has two direct objects—“he made us kings.” This construction is called a double accusative, and verbs that take a double accusative are verbs like POIEO. In this type of construction usually one of the words is a person: that’s “us.” The other, a thing: that’s “a kingdom.” In most cases the person “us” receives the thing in the accusative case. So in this case we believers receive something: a position in this kingdom. “Kingdom” is the more remote of the two objects. The next word is “priests.” It is in apposition to “kingdom,” so it is describing the kind of kingdom that this is, or our role in that kingdom—we are priests.

This also takes us back to the Old Testament. In Exodus 19:6 the Jews were told, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” So Israel was set apart as a special kind of nation. As a nation they were going to be a priestly nation even though not every member was a priest. Only those who were from the tribe of Levi were priests. In the church age God calls out a new set of people. The Jews failed. They are not replaced by the church, God is still going to fulfill all of His promises to Israel in terms of the covenants. But what we have in the New Testament is that the writers take the Old Testament passages related to the nation of Israel and apply that same principle to the church. In the Old Testament Israel was called out to be a counter culture in the world. They were to represent God to the world. They failed, and because they failed God postponed His plan for them. The kingdom doesn’t come to them, it is postponed. There is a temporary shift from Israel to the church. What God is doing in the church is the same kind of thing He did with Israel, He sets us apart as a counter culture in the world. We are not of the world, we are in the world. We function as priests and this is the imagery that was picked up in a number of different verses related to our function as priests.

Hebrews 13:15, “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” That is part of our priesthood. We praise God, we give thanks to God, we are grateful to God; it is a part of the fruit of the Spirit in our priesthood as we live in the filling of the Spirit.

1 Peter 2:5, 9, “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ…..But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” We are a holy priesthood, a holy kingdom. This also has implications for the future. The word “priest,” interestingly enough is not used in either the Gospels or in the epistles in relationship to believers, but the concept is there in terms of our spiritual service until we get to the passage in 1 Peter 2:9. But the word is used in Revelation 5:10 and 20:6. “And has made us a kingdom, priests to our God: and we shall reign on the earth…. Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” So we will rule and reign with Him in the coming kingdom and fully function in our priesthood in that kingdom. How do we learn to do that? We learn to do it here and now. That is one of the reasons Revelation was written: to warn us that we are in a training camp right now, and there is a future ruling and reigning and priestly responsibility that we will fulfill in the coming kingdom. Our training is now, so whatever we get in this life, whatever level of maturity we reach, whatever doctrine you learn during this time on earth is preparatory for our future work in ruling and reigning with the Lord Jesus Christ.

So we come to the end of verse 6 where John expresses praise to Jesus Christ: “to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” This is because of who he is. John closes with the word “Amen” which is used some seven or eight times in Revelation. It is from the Greek word AMEN [a)mhn] based on a Hebrew word amen which means to be true. “So be it” is the idiom. It is derived from a word indicating stability. In fact the root meaning of the word had to do with the foundation of a pillar, something sunk down deep in the ground that was unshakeable. So it came to indicate faith and it also came to indicate a certainty or affirmation of certainty.

Doctrine of Atonement     RD/Heb 142b

So anyway, as Dr. Whitcomb was presenting this paper and going through this he also went through some of the same material on atonement that I presented and had come to the same conclusion that the idea of kaphar for atonement is the word that emphasizes more the idea of cleansing than it does the idea of covering.

So just to review, I pointed out that:

   1. The English word for atonement that we have in our Bibles and Old Testament (doesn’t occur in the New Testament) was coined in the English from the phrase at-one-ment which is a word that emphasizes reconciliation – bringing two disagreeing parties together as one.  So that emphasized reconciliation.
   2. If you look the word “atonement” up though in any English dictionary, what you will also discover is that it is often defined with the word “redemption” because there is a blood sacrifice that’s made.  There is the bull that is sacrificed, a goat that is sacrificed.  Their blood is brought in as a sin offering and put on the mercy seat and then sprinkled in front of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies.  It is that blood sacrifice and it’s the blood that pictures the payment price for sin.  That is redemption.  The word redemption means to pay a price.  That’s the core meaning in the word redemption.  But payment of a price is a very different idea than bringing people who are at odds with one another together in reconciliation.   So they’re not synonyms; but they speak of different facets of the work of Christ on the cross.
   3. Then there’s the whole imagery of the mercy seat itself the kaphoreth as it was called in the Hebrew which is hilasterion in the Greek – called the mercy seat.  This depicts the satisfaction of God’s righteousness and justice.  Before God can be truly reconciled to man, His righteous standard has to be satisfied and His justice has to be appeased.  If you look up the word kaphar in many dictionaries or even atonement in English; it will also use this word to appease justice or to appease someone’s wrath.  So that brings in this idea of propitiation that is also vital to understanding all of Christ’s work on the cross.
   4. Then another word that is used relates to the fourth point - that because God is propitiated and the penalty is paid, the debt of sin is then cancelled.  It’s that idea of canceling or wiping out the debt – just completely removing, eradicating, blotting out the debt as if it never existed that we have the idea of forgiveness.
   5. And also another word that’s used in theology is expiation.  Now forgiveness is a very important term.  That should be Colossians 2:12-14 down there on point 4 not Colossians 1:12-14.

Four key passages on the Unlimited Nature of the Atonement

1 Timothy 4:10 ^NASB “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of believers.” Whenever we read that word “hope,” the Greek word elpis [e)lpij], it has a future orientation. It is looking forward to something that we expect, something we anticipate, and it has the idea of a confident expectation. The “living God” here is God the Son. The Greek says exactly what the English says here: “who is the Saviour of all men [without exception], especially of believers.” Every human being who has drawn breath throughout the centuries has had his sins paid for. Christ is the Saviour of all men but in a unique way, a special way, in an applied way only to believers. He has paid the sin penalty for all but only believers reap its benefit because only believers receive the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and only believers are regenerate. So 1 Timothy 4:10 is a key passage for demonstrating that there are two levels of orientation through the saving work of Christ: one for all, and another for only those who believe.

2 Peter 2:1 ^NASB “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought [agorazo] them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” The false teachers in this chapter are not saved. The false prophets relate to the Old Testament under Israel; the false teachers are present in the church age. The “destructive heresies” are so because they take the believer’s attention off the Lord Jesus Christ, they take attention from off the sufficiency of God’s grace, of God’s Word, they put the focus on human ability and human works and not on the sufficient and completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross. The reason why Peter uses the word “secret” here is because there heresies are always encased in Scripture. The words “even denying the Mater who bought them” is the key phrase for the extent of the atonement. A lot of people down through history have denied Jesus Christ, they did not have a substitutionary view of the atonement.

1 John 2:2 ^NASB “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.” Propitiation refers to the fact that He satisfied God’s righteousness and justice. In propitiation there are a couple of key words: kapporeth is the Old Testament word that related to the mercy seat, that area on the ark of the covenant between the two cherubs. The cherubs represented the righteousness and justice of God, and once a year on the day of atonement the high priest would bring the blood of the sacrifice, the lamb that was without spot or blemish, and place it upon the mercy seat. Inside the box were emblems of Israel’s sin. So it was a visual image of how God’s justice and righteousness were satisfied by sin being covered by the blood of Christ. That is the principle that is in the Greek word hilasmos [i(lasmoj] and hilasterion [i(lasthrion] which are the words for propitiation. The idea is that God’s righteousness and justice are satisfied, not just for our sins but for the whole world. Christ is the one who satisfies the Father, and so the doctrine of propitiation relates to the whole world; the doctrine of redemption relates to the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5:18 ^NASB “Now all {these} things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” What we see here is that it is man who is reconciled to God, not God to man. It is man who is the sinner, it is man who violated the standard in the garden, so man must be reconciled to God. So reconciles. God does the work, man simply accepts it. He performed this work of reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Not only did he perform the work of reconciliation through Jesus Christ but then to us who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ He has given the ministry of reconciliation—to every one of us. It is every believer’s job to announce and proclaim the message of reconciliation.

Doctrine of Atonement and the Cross

Rev. 173b   Heb 144b

1. Atonement comes from the English phrase:
at-one-ment, emphasizing reconciliation.

2. The blood sacrifice relates to the payment of a
price–redemption.

3. The mercy seat relates to the satisfaction of
God’s righteousness and justice–propitiation.

4. Because God is propitiated and the penalty
paid, the debt of sin is cancelled–expiation,
forgiveness (Col. 1:12–14).

The Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement

1)      Did Jesus die for all? Did He only die for the elect?

2)      A high Calvinist will hold to a five-point Calvinism but he will believe that you should make an offer of the gospel and evangelise those who are lost; a hyper-Calvinist is someone who doesn’t believe you should ever give the gospel to anybody, that if God wants them to be saved He will do it without any help from you or me.

3)      The problem that really under girds this whole subject is the question: In what sense did Christ die for you? Was it a substitution? The problem that high Calvinists come across is that if Christ really died for you then why aren’t you saved? He paid the penalty so you ought to be going to heaven. But it isn’t enough to have the sin penalty paid, there has to be an imputation of righteousness and regeneration. The limited atonement people would say that that it is a real substitution but they can’t get past the fact that it would indicate in their minds that everybody would be saved, so their solution is that was only a real substitute for those who are saved. Then there is the classic flour-point position unlimited position which holds that the payment for sin is unlimited but it was conditional or hypothetical. In other words, he paid for the sins of everybody but it is only theirs actually if they trust in Christ. That is how most people express unlimited atonement. But then there is a problem which the high Calvinists have pointed out which is that that renders the language of the Scripture a little bit nebulous because the language of Scripture has a real substitution—Christ paid for our sins; truly, not hypothetically. Our position is that it is an unlimited atonement but with a real substitution, that Christ paid for the sins of all so that sin is no longer the issue. John 3:18 ^NASB “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The issue isn’t sin anymore because Christ paid for the sin. The issue is belief in Christ.

4)      Scripture clearly teaches that the atonement of Christ was unlimited; it was for all. Isaiah 53:6 ^NASB “All [every human being] of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all [everyone] To fall on Him.” John Calvin, who did not believe in limited atonement, wrote: “I approve of the ordinary reading that he alone bore the punishment on many, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the epistle to the Romans that many sometimes denote all.” He died for all, for everyone without exception. In Isaiah 53: 6 the same group of people must be included in the all that begins the verse as the all the all ends the verse. This is the same meaning as we have when we come to the New Testament in 1 Timothy 2:4 ^NASB “who [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Jesus says the same kind of thing when He is weeping for Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 ^NASB “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” Jesus wants all those unbelieving rebellious Jews to be gathered to Him. He has a plan that is inclusive of all, but the reason not all are saved is not because He only died for some but because they are not willing to trust Him. They have rejected Him; they have not believed in Him. John 3:17 ^NASB “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”  

There are several different attributes of God that are emphasized in the book of Genesis.     Gen. 002

1)      The first is that God is a living God who is deeply involved in His creation. So that the laws of nature are really the laws of God, the laws that He set in motion and that He continues to watch over, and the laws that He continues to sustain. God is eternally existing and He is distinct from all creation: Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This statement stands in marked contrast to every other statement in the ancient world or even modern times about creation.

2)      We see God in Genesis as one who interacts with man. He comes and walks in the garden in the cool of the day and teaches Adam and the woman before the fall. He is the one who seeks out and takes the initiative to spend time with him, to find out what the problem was after they disobeyed Him. He is the one who takes the initiative to provide a solution to the problem that man has created. It is God who speaks, it is God who sees, it is God who hears the problems of man, it is God who rests at the end of the creation week. God is intimately involved with His creation. He interacts with mankind throughout creation. We see this in Genesis chapters 1, 2,3, 17, 18, and other chapters.

3)      He is the one who created mankind as a reflector of Himself. Man is created in the image and likeness of God. We are to reflect God’s character, His attributes, we represent God. We were originally created to represent God and to rule over creation—Genesis chapter one.

4)      God is the one who enters into the human arena with a human form and human acts—Genesis 12, 18, 32. This shows the divine initiative of grace.

5)      He reveals Himself. God is not hiding from man. He is not playing sort of a cosmic hide and seek game with man. He is continually giving testimony to Himself. The psalmist says the heaven declare the glory of God. Paul says in Romans 1 that the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the creation. If people don’t see God it is because they don’t want to see God. Yet He is the one who is continuously seeking man, saving man, disclosing Himself and revealing Himself to mankind.

We see the emphasis on the sovereignty of God in Genesis.

1)      God is the ruler of the heavens and the earth, the one who disposes as He wills. He is called the Most High God, as we have seen already. He is, as we see in Genesis 1, the creator of everything. There is nothing in the heavens or on the earth that does not owe its existence and its sustenance to God. He controls everything.

2)      We see His acts in Genesis 1 as a God who names some things and individuals. He names the light day and the darkness night. His naming of things indicates His control. He determines the limits, the animals will procreate after their kind. He determines the limits, the boundaries of the waters and the land, and He determines nature. It is God who determines that something that is what it is, it is not what it is because of chance. If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, if you believe the Scriptures, if you believe that Genesis one is a clear statement of a seven day creation and restoration, as we will see, then if you look at an oak tree you do not se the same tree that an unbeliever sees. You see leaves and acorns and branches, but what you see is something that was intricately created and designed by God, and what they see is something that is there by pure random chance. That means that whatever else is said about that tree believers do not see the same thing as unbelievers. The implication of that is profound because that means there is no neutral ground. We cannot go out there in the creation and say, Well let’s find some common ground in the creation we can agree on. We can’t agree on anything. The tree you see and believe in is not the tree they see. What they see is the product of time and chance and it just happens to be there. What you see is something that was purposely put there and designed that way by an omnipotent, sovereign God. And that makes all the difference in the world.

3)      God sets forth mandates and prohibitions for all things. After creating the animals in Genesis chapter one He says they are to multiply according to their kind, and He blesses them and gives an order to all living things to be fruitful and multiply. This indicates that He rules, nothing is there by chance.

4)      God brings about judgment in the curse. When He is disobeyed He judges that disobedience, and He outlines the consequences of that disobedience in the curse in Genesis chapter three. He brings about judgment on the evil of man at the time of the world-wide flood under Noah. He brings about another judgment on rebellious mankind at the tower of Babel. And He brings about judgment on Sodom and the cities of the plain.

5)      God is able to prophecy and predict the future, indicating His control of human history. God controls human history and brings about His purposes in history, and that is why He can prophecy the future—Genesis chapters 15 & 46.

6)      God disposes of people and property. He gives Canaan to His people. Notice that He gives Canaan the right to the land. He tells Abraham in Genesis 12 that their evil has not reached its fullness yet, so He does not take the land away from the Canaanites until the proper time, and then He takes it away and gives it to His people. This shows that God has the right to determine who will live where and who own what property.

7)      God promises kings to Sarah. He says, You will have kings that come forth from you. He is able to control who their descendants are and what their powers will be—Genesis 17.

8)      God controls people’s dreams. Abraham has dreams in Genesis 15; Jacob has dreams in Genesis 28, 31; Joseph interprets dreams in chapters 37, 40, 41. God controls people’s dreams and communicates through those dreams.

9)      God establishes and removes people in political power. He raises up some and He removes others. Genesis 41, God sustains Abimelech in his rule over the Philistines.

10)   He tests people—Genesis 22. He tests Abraham’s faith by ordering him to sacrifice his son, Isaac.

11)   God rules over nations, economies, and life—Genesis 40-41. Ultimately, economics are not determined by the market, they are determined by God.

12)   God chooses whom He will bless. He chose to call out Abraham; He chose to make a special people out of Abraham; He chose to bless him. The choosing of Abraham did not involve his eternal salvation, it involved God’s special plan for Abraham and his descendants, that God would bless them and use them to bring about His redemptive plan.

Then we see an emphasis that God is omnipotent throughout Genesis.

1)      He is the one who creates the heavens and the earth, and every detail within the earth. God is in control of all of the details of creation, and certainly God can oversee the details in our lives.

2)      He creates the human race, mankind, and sustains mankind. God is all-powerful.

3)      He prevents Enoch from dying in Genesis chapter five. Enoch walked with the Lord and he was not. He did not die, he just walked off into heaven with God one day.

4)      He controls the time and the duration and the extent of the world-wide flood at the time of Noah.

5)      He protects Abraham--Genesis 15—from the assaults of the four kings.

6)      God controls the womb. In many cases He closes the womb so that Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel could not give birth. This is not because God was mean-spirited, but God was teaching that He alone brings life where there is deadness. It is a picture of our spiritual life where there is spiritual death. Genesis 20, 21, 25, 30.

7)      God controls the fertility of the flock, so that when Jacob is raising his flock separate from Laban’s flock, and Laban sets up conditions, all of a sudden all then sheep are giving birth to spotted lambs. So Jacob is blessed. Whatever conditions Laban set up Jacob continued to prosper because God is the one who controls the fertility of the flocks.

8)      God is the one who can cripple a man. He cripples Jacob with simply the touch of His hand—Genesis 32.

Then we see that God is righteous and just in Genesis, that He is not a capricious God but a God who is righteous and just in contrast to the gods of the Gentiles.

1)      He punishes disobedience with death. Spiritual death is the punishment for the disobedience of Adam and the woman in the garden of Eden.

2)      God is the one who announces a just judgment on sin or disobedience to Him. So He applies His righteous standard to the affairs of mankind.

3)      He punishes Cain for murder, but because it is at such an early stage of the human race He does not take Cain’s life but puts a mark on him and protects him. That is a sign of God’s graciousness in Genesis.

4)      We see in Genesis 6 that God destroys the inhabitants of the earth because man is evil and the thoughts of his heart are evil continuously.

5)      God scatters the nations because of their rebellion—Genesis 11.

6)      He curses and blesses people due to how they treat Abraham’s seed. This is a major theme throughout the rest of Genesis. Blessing by association.

7)      God refuses to judge the innocent along with the guilty. He will not judge Lot and his family if they are righteous along with all the unrighteous in Sodom and Gomorah.

8)      Go treats the kings of the earth justly. When Abraham goes to Abimelech and says Sarah is his sister God warns Abimelech and instead of destroying him He protects him, He treats him justly, even though Abimelech is an unbeliever.

9)      God is the one who protects and vindicates His people. Rachel and Leah, the two daughters of Laban, are treated unjustly by their father Laban, yet God vindicates them and they finally leave and head back to the promised land. Jacob works for Laban and even though he is treated harshly and mistreated by Laban, God protects and ultimately vindicates Jacob.

10)   God made things right for Joseph, even though Joseph was unjustly charged and unjustly imprisoned. Eventually he was released and placed in the second highest position in Egypt. God exercised His righteousness toward Joseph and so the supreme court of heaven took care of the details. It was not up to Joseph to vindicate himself.

We see an emphasis in Genesis on the grace of God

1)      God provides everything for mankind in the perfect environment of the garden. There is nothing left to chance. God always supplies everything, His grace is sufficient.

2)      Then, after their disobedience, God provided a physical covering for them, the sinners, despite their disobedience, and He provides salvation and life for mankind. They do not deserve it or earn it but God graciously provides.

3)      He protected Cain from avengers and put a mark on him to warn off those who would avenge him, that they would suffer the justice of God if they avenged the death of Abel.

4)      He gave grace to Noah and the earth. It took Noah 120 years but it was a 120-year warning period to warn the earth about the coming judgment. It was during that time that Noah and his sons went throughout the world preaching the gospel and yet there was no one who responded.

5)      He remembered Noah in Genesis 8 and Abraham in Genesis 19, and God blessed them and protected them.

6)      God provided water and protection in the wilderness for Hagar in Genesis 16.

7)      God preserved the righteous in the covenant in chapter 19.

8)      God intervenes time and time again when people fail, chapters 12, 20, 26, and he always supplies what is needed.

9)      He freely established His covenant and blessed deceptive Jacob.

10)   It is God who graciously sent angels to watch over and protect Jacob in Genesis 28 32. He watches over and protects us even when we don’t deserve it, even when we are in rebellion.

11)   He gave prosperity to Jacob in chapter 33; He prospered him.

12)   He blesses Egypt with the future knowledge of a coming famine, and provided Joseph as someone to lead them through the crisis in chapters 39ff.

Doctrine of Authority   Kings 061b

The Bible speaks of different spheres of authority.

   1. We know that God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, even the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ from eternity past, was to submit to the authority of God the Father. Within the Godhead itself this authority relationship always existed. That means that authority is not something that God put into place in order to control creatures, it is not something He ordained or instituted in order to restrain sin, but that authority itself is something that is inherent in the very nature of the social structure of the Trinity.

   2. We see in Scripture that angels are to be subject to Christ. Angels also have an authority structure that is described in terms of principalities and powers and authorities, indicating that there is an authority structure and hierarchy within the angelic order itself; but all angels are to be subject or submitted to Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:22).

   3. We see that every church age believer is to be submitted to the authority of Jesus Christ. He is the head of the body—the term “head,” the Greek word kephale [kefalh] in Scripture means authority, the one who is the leader, the one who is in charge or in control. Christ is the head of the church. That doesn’t mean He is the source of the church, it means that He is the one in control, the leader.

   4. The Scriptures teach that servants are to submit to masters and slaves are to submit to their owners (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5). One of the interesting observations we have to make when we look at the Scriptural commands to be obedient to various authorities is that the Bible never puts conditions on them. It never says children are to obey their parents when they are right, it never says wives be submissive to their husbands when they are loving and understanding, it never says believers be obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ when you think it is a good idea. There aren’t any conditions placed on obedience to authority because authority is such a foundational issue in God’s creation.

   5. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22). Paul says, “as to the Lord,” indicating that the authority relationship between a wife and her husband will mirror her response to the Lord Jesus Christ’s authority in her own life. How anyone responds to authority says something about how they respond to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in their life.

   6. Children are to submit to their parents. How long for? As long as the parents are paying one cent for their upkeep, they are under parental authority.

   7. The young are to submit to their elders. That is, those who are more mature, wiser, and have been down the road a little longer (1 Peter 5:5).

   8. Church members are to submit to their leaders (Hebrews 13:7, 17).   

Doctrine of Authority in the Bible   RD/Kings-062b

1. God the Son is to submit to the authority of God the Father.    1 Cor 15:28; John 5:19–30

We know that God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, even the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ from eternity past, was to submit to the authority of God the Father. Within the Godhead itself this authority relationship always existed. That means that authority is not something that God put into place in order to control creatures, it is not something He ordained or instituted in order to restrain sin, but that authority itself is something that is inherent in the very nature of the social structure of the Trinity.

1 Cor. 15:28, “Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

2. Angels are to be subject to Christ. 1 Pet 3:22

We see in Scripture that angels are to be subject to Christ. Angels also have an authority structure that is described in terms of principalities and powers and authorities, indicating that there is an authority structure and hierarchy within the angelic order itself; but all angels are to be subject or submitted to Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:22).

1 Pet. 3:22, “who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made
subject to Him.

”3. Every church age believer is to submit to the authority of Christ. Eph 5:24

We see that every church age believer is to be submitted to the authority of Jesus Christ. He is the head of the body—the term “head,” the Greek word kephale [kefalh] in Scripture means authority, the one who is the leader, the one who is in charge or in control. Christ is the head of the church. That doesn’t mean He is the source of the church, it means that He is the one in control, the leader.

Eph. 5:24, “Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

 

4. Servants are to submit to their masters, slaves to their owners. 1 Pet. 2:18; Eph 6:5

The Scriptures teach that servants are to submit to masters and slaves are to submit to their owners (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5). One of the interesting observations we have to make when we look at the Scriptural commands to be obedient to various authorities is that the Bible never puts conditions on them. It never says children are to obey their parents when they are right, it never says wives be submissive to their husbands when they are loving and understanding, it never says believers be obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ when you think it is a good idea. There aren’t any conditions placed on obedience to authority because authority is such a foundational issue in God’s creation.

1 Pet. 2:18, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.”

5. Wives are to submit to their husbands. Col. 3:18; Eph 5:22

Wives are to submit to their husbands (Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22). Paul says, “as to the Lord,” indicating that the authority relationship between a wife and her husband will mirror her response to the Lord Jesus Christ’s authority in her own life. How anyone responds to authority says something about how they respond to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in their life.

Col. 3:18, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

 

6. Children are to submit to their parents. 1 Tim. 3:4; Eph 6:1

 Children are to submit to their parents. How long for? As long as the parents are paying one cent for their upkeep, they are under parental authority.

Eph. 6:1, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”

 

7. The young are to submit to their elders.
1 Pet 5:5

The young are to submit to their elders. That is, those who are more mature, wiser, and have been down the road a little longer (1 Peter 5:5).

1 Pet. 5:5, “Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble’.”

8. Church members are to submit to their
leaders. Heb 13:7, 17

Heb. 13:7, “Remember those who rule over you, who
have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith
follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
Heb. 13:17, “Obey those who rule over you, and be
submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as
those who must give account. Let them do so with
joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable
for you.”

 

 

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Authority is not part of the created order but part of the makeup of the Triune Godhead.

 

Authority is not simply a part of creation, it is part of the makeup of the creator. Therefore it is not something that is secondary; it is primary, and part of God’s very structure and part of how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit operate. So authority in and of itself is good. Ultimately every issue in life comes back to the Godhead, and that is why it is so important to think of things always in terms of who God is and His position as the creator separate and distinct from the creation

2. Authority is necessary for any social group, organization, or order to function.

 

Authority is necessary for any social group, organization or order to function. Without authority there is lawlessness, anarchy, no order. 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that God is a God of order. So the very act of rebelling against an established authority carries with it certain theological implications, certain statements about God, so that by violating authority in any way that is wrong is ultimately a statement of blasphemy against God.

3. At the very center of all authority is God who is the source of all authority.

 

At the very center of all authority is God who is the source of all authority. How we respond to any derivative authority says something about how we respond to God’s authority.

4. Authority was the ultimate issue in the angelic conflict, so authority becomes the ultimate issue in the believer’s spiritual life. Not just the authority of God, but response to other authorities which God has established.

 

This goes ultimately back to the angelic conflict. Violation of authority is ultimately arrogance, the arrogance of an individual who believes they know more or can do it better than the person who is in authority. It may, in fact, be true that someone can do something better than a person in authority, and it is true in many areas; but if there was no principle of authority nothing would ever get done and order would dissipate. All of this goes back to the fall of Satan. In Isaiah 14:13, 14 we read the indictment on Satan: “in your heart”: it is a mental attitude; “I will ascend to heaven, I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north… I will ascend about the heights of the clouds… will make myself like the Most High.” It was a statement, a thought, of rebellion that Lucifer knew more than God did, and that he could run the universe better than God can. And that is at the core of every single act of rebellion against authority in human history—the idea that I can do it better than the authority can. We see this working itself out in human history from the very beginning in Genesis chapter three.

 

So we see some principles in challenging authority.

 1) Be careful in picking your battle. Make sure the issue is the specific, stated Word of God;

 2) Be wise in the way you negotiate with the person in authority. Let your attitude be one of humility and construct an appeal that is attractive to the person you are negotiating with;

3) When you go into this realize that the answer yes and it maybe no. If it is no then you have to either submit to that authority or, if you are not going to submit to the authority you have to be willing personally to take the punishment;

4) Don’t become distracted; don’t get off on side points; don’t argue irrelevancies; 5) Be prayerful. 

 

The Doctrine of Authority Orientation   RD/Gal/005

One of the most important principles that we can have in our life is to be oriented to authority.

1.       Authority orientation is recognising that in every sphere of life God has established specific authority. Respecting those authorities primarily because of the position or office that that person holds, not necessarily because of the personal actions of that individual, because of their personal integrity or lack of it, or their personal character. The issue is not who the person is or what their character is like, but the office or position that they hold. There are all kinds of positions in life that come with inherent authority—the position of a king or a president, the position of an employer, a supervisor, a manager, a husband, a father, a parent. All of these are positions that come with inherent authority, even if the person in that authority may be doing something wrong, their character may not come up to the level that is expected of a person in that office. Authority orientation means that we respect the office and the authority of the office even if the person who is holding that office is unworthy of it at that particular time. To do otherwise means that you are setting yourself up as the final judge and arbiter and authority in every situation, and that is nothing more than pure arrogance.

2.       Authority is an ontological reality related to the essence of God, not a created reality. (Ontological = the essential being or essence of a thing or a person. For example, one of the arguments for the existence of God is the ontological argument.) The ontological reality of God is His essence. His one essence is shared equally and fully by each member of the Trinity; they are therefore co-equal, co-eternal and co-infinite. How does this relate to authority? Within the Trinity itself there is an authority structure. The whole concept of authority relationship is integral to the basic essence, an ontological reality in the nature of God. This is not an authority structure that violates their equality. Within the Trinity there are clear role distinctions and authority relationships. So that means that the principle is established that authority orientation is basic to orientation to life and reality, and if we are not oriented to authority and the authorities in our life; and we if are not oriented to reality we are divorced from reality, and to the degree that we are divorced from reality we are going to end up as a neurotic and psychotic believer, a failure in life and the spiritual life.  

3.       Therefore authority structures are not in themselves related to sin or tainted by sin but are intrinsically good. Authority is an intrinsically good concept.

4.       Orientation to authority is learned primarily during the first six to eight years in life. This puts a tremendous burden of responsibility on parents whose job is to instil authority orientation. But we mustn’t forget the fact that every child has volition.

5.       Failure to orient to the spheres of authority in your life will mean that you will be dominated by arrogance and your sin nature, and you will be a failure in life and in the spiritual life. You have to be oriented to authority. That doesn’t mean that that authority is always right; in fact that authority can be wrong most of the time. The issue is that that is the authority that God has established over you and so you have to be responsive to that in the correct manner. Two wrongs never make a right.

6.       God has established two spheres of authority. These are the secular sphere and the spiritual sphere.

7.       In terms of the secular sphere there are five divine institutions which represent establishment truth. Establishment truths are principles related to both believers and unbelievers. They are principles established by God for the stability and the success of the human race regardless of their spiritual status. This includes morality. The first divine institution is individual responsibility. This has as its authority the individual’s volition. The second is the divine institution of marriage, designed by God to be between one man and one woman. Marriage has its established authority structure where the husband is the authority. The third is the institution of the family. The authority is parents: “Honour your father and mother.” Fourth, human government. The ultimate authority there is whatever the legislative authorities are. The fifth is national division. This is very important. God established it at the tower of Babel. God is the authority there because when man starts to violate that authority structure with internationalism then God steps in and performs the corrective discipline. In the spiritual realm we have the authority of the Christian. The Word of God is our absolute and final authority. In the early church there was the apostolic authority where apostles were given a temporary spiritual gift for the purpose of leadership and communication of doctrine.

Doctrine of Baptism   Heb. 057b

Seven Baptism

Three Ritual baptisms

   1.  The first of the ritual baptisms is the baptism of Jesus.  This is a unique baptism.  It is identifying Jesus with the plan of God.  Jesus came down to the Jordan  in Matthew 3:13-17 to be baptized by John the Baptist.   This was the initiation into His public ministry and His identification with the Father’s plan of salvation.

   2. The second baptism which actually shows up first chronologically in the New Testament.  It is broader and it is different.    It is the baptism of John the Baptist.  This is not the same thing because Jesus wasn’t a sinner.  John the Baptist was calling sinners to repentance so that didn’t apply to Jesus.  The baptism of John the Baptist identified the person who was being baptized in the water with the kingdom of God.  It is interesting. I got into a funny argument with somebody not too long ago.  Dr. Chaffer had a lot of wonderful things to say but Dr. Chaffer was a Presbyterian.  Presbyterians believe in sprinkling.  If you have never read it in Chaffer’s Systematic Theology, he has a very detailed and wrong explanation of how John the Baptist’s baptism was sprinkling.     But he was a Presbyterian.  A lot of people don’t realize it, but a lot of the faculty at Dallas Theological Seminary in the early years and even up into the 70’s were ordained Presbyterians.  I had Dr. Ed  XXX for history.  He baptized (sprinkled) all of his children.  Ed Bloom who was one time the pastor of here also sprinkled.  Dr. Walvoord sprinkled his children.  Back in the 40’s he was the pastor of a Northwest Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth.  There were a lot of Presbyterian influences there.  He was wrong about that.  You can’t get sprinkling out of baptism.  This was John’s baptism.

   3. Then you have the third baptism in the New Testament – believer’s baptism.   This is indicated in Matthew 28:19-20 and other passages such as Acts 2:38, 41, 8:36-38.  You get into Acts 19 which is pretty late in Paul’s career.  He is in Ephesus and the disciples of John the Baptist show up.  Here are a lot of Old Testament believers who have been baptized with John’s baptism.  They show up in Ephesus and they have never heard anything about Jesus or the Holy Spirit or the cross.  They show up and what is Paul’s first question?   “Whose baptism were you baptized with?”  They said, “John.”  He said, “No.  We are going to go down and get baptized in the name of Jesus.”  That is done immediately.  Water baptism for the believer was a visual representation of what took place in terms of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Baptism of the Holy Spirit and positional truth (just the name positional truth) are such abstract terms that some people don’t understand them.  Just as communion gives us these two elements, the unleavened bread and grape juice or wine to picture the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we have a real simple training aid for sheep.  Remember that sheep are sheep not because they are warm and cute and cuddly.  They are dumb and stupid.  Being a sheep is not a compliment.  We have this simple little training aids so that we can come to understand these important complex things.  So believer’s baptism was pictured in water baptism.  It is a picture of what happens to every believer at the instant of salvation that they are identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection so that we are cleansed from sin positionally and enter into a newness of life.  Romans 6:3

There are 4 dry baptisms.

   1. First of all there is the baptism of fire which is judgment at the end of the tribulation.  Those are identified with fire and judged.

   2. There is in the life of Christ the baptism of the cross where He is identified with our sins.  There is the baptism of the cross.  He told Peter “Can you be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

   3. The third one is the baptism of Moses.  This is in I Corinthians 10:3.  Of course the only people that got wet then were the Egyptian soldiers.  The people who were dry were the ones who were saved.  All of those who were identified with Moses and his faith in God followed him through the Dead Sea, stayed dry, and were delivered.  It was the Egyptians that got wet.

   4. The baptism of Noah.  Then I Peter 3:20-21 talks about baptism. It doesn’t use that word specifically until you get to verse 21.

These three water baptisms involved four factors.

   1. The person who performs the baptism.  We will call that the agent of the baptism.  It is going to have a grammatical significance when we get there.  

   2. The element that is used provides the identification.  We see water.  We see fire.  We see the Holy Spirit.  That is the element that provides the identification.  In ritual baptism it is water in all three instances.

   3. The third factor is the person who is being identified with something.

   4. Fourth, there is a new status that the person is identified with.  The person going to John the Baptist is identified with the kingdom.  Jesus is identified with the Father’s plan.  The believer is now identified with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.  There is a connection between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism.  This is what isn’t taught and is rarely understood.  We have to take time to take each of these apart piece by piece so we can put it all together.  

Doctrine of Baptism    Heb. 058b

Definition:  It is always important to define our terms.  Baptism is one of those doctrines that is a continual source of confusion and distortion especially as it is related to both the believer’s baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit.  The streets have run with the blood of Christians over this doctrine of baptism.  For example during the period of the Reformation after Martin Luther began the Reformation by nailing the 95 disputations or thesis on the door of the church at Wittenberg,  he began a movement where there was a shift away from the legalistic teaching of Roman Catholicism.  But not everything that Rome  taught that was wrong got left behind.  Many of the reformers continued to hold to a certain amount of allegorical interpretation, especially when it was related to prophecy.  They also held to baptism by sprinkling and they held to infant baptism.  They still held to this idea of the merger of church and state.  That became a major issue.  Since the time of the emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, there had been this identification of Christianity with the political state.  As a result entry into the church, they became identified with entry into citizenship. They become one and the same thing.  How do you enter into the church?  You enter the church through infant baptism.  It is also the same time you enter into citizenship in the state.  Therefore to come along and say that infant baptism is not relevant or is invalid is to also make a political statement.  That is treason.  So this was taken very seriously.  In the Reformation you have the example of Swiss reformer Zwingli who had three of his students come to an understanding that the Bible taught that baptism should come only after a person had put their faith alone in Christ alone and that infant baptism meant nothing.   They were tried for heresy.  They were convicted and sentenced to death by drowning.  How ironic.  Zwingli had them held under.  They wanted to be baptized and held under so he had them held under until they died.  But that was how people felt about these things.  That was how they believed.  Theology mattered.  There were 100’s if not 1,000’s that were martyred for these convictions of baptism.  I often ask the question - what makes a Baptist a Baptist?   I have asked that question of Baptist friends of mine.  I did and internship at a Southern Baptist church when I was in seminary.  I asked the minister what made a Baptist a Baptist.  I don’t know what his answer was, but it was wrong.  In fact I have only met one man who knew what made a Baptist a Baptist.  He was not a believer.  He was a Jewish urologist.  He was the only one who knew the answer to this.  There are two things that make a Baptist a Baptist and neither one of them have anything to do with Jesus Christ.  Number one is the belief in separation of church and state.  Number two is a belief in baptism by immersion.  That’s it.  That is what makes a Baptist a Baptist.  You say, “Wait a minute.  All the Baptists I know believe that Jesus died for their sins.  They believe in the trinity and they think that you have to believe these things to be a Baptist.”  You have been fooled too.  Baptists will tell you right off the bat as soon as you try to pin them on a doctrine that they are a non-creedal people.  Do you know what that means?  That means that there is no doctrinal statement that you have to affirm in order to be a Baptist.  They will fight and die for that.  They have!  That is why the Southern Baptist Convention for the past 30 years has been fighting this battle over the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture.  They couldn’t appeal to a doctrinal statement that all Baptists had to affirm in order to be Baptists saying that you have to believe in the infallibility of Scripture.  So they had to fight it with awful political infighting and everything else within the denomination.  So that becomes an issue.  So baptism has been the source of quite a bit of contention and fighting over the years.  But, guess what.  The reason I am saying is because I heard one pastor say not long ago that he didn’t know what to teach about baptism because it has been so divisive - like the gospel of grace hasn’t been divisive, like the dispensations haven’t been divisive, like the pre-trib rapture hasn’t been divisive, like the trinity hasn’t divisive, like tongues hasn’t been divisive.  I mean everything is divisive.  We have to teach what the Word of God says.  Every doctrine at some point or other - you have one who takes one view and another takes another view.  Sadly they think that the other is the enemy and they start fighting each other instead of the real enemy.  So we have to pay attention to what the Word teaches.  The word baptism is from the Greek verb baptizo which means to dip, to plunge or to immerse.  It is an action that signified the identification of someone with an action, a person, an object or a new status in life.  Let’s talk about that a minute.  The literal meaning of the word meant to dip, plunge or immerse.  You would take a piece of clothe and you would immerse it in the dye and bring it out.  You would make sure that the dye permeated all of the fabric so that it would be of a solid color throughout.  That is one way in which the word was used.  It has its literal meaning of immersion, of dipping.  It was also used in a figurative sense.  The figurative sense indicated identification with someone just as the fabric when placed in the dye was identified with the color so when you took certain objects and dipped them or immersed them in something it identified them with whatever they were immersed in.  For example in the Greek army Xenophon in the 4th  century BC described how new recruits in the Spartan army dipped their spears into pig’s blood before they going into battle.  This identified the spear as having been changed from being a hunting spear to now being a warrior’s spear.  Euripides in the 5th century BC used the word to describe a sinking ship.  As the ship sank, its character or nature was changed.  The wood became identified with the water.  It no longer floated.  It sank.  That is the idea there.  There is a literal meaning to dip, plunge or immerse and a figurative sense – what it indicated which is identification with something.  That is primarily how the word is used in Scripture.  It emphasized identification with something.  There are as I said earlier 8 baptisms in the Scripture.  Three of them are ritual water baptisms.  I am going to mention them first but we will study them last.  The three ritual water baptisms are first of all the baptism of John the Baptist.  This is when John the Baptist identified the person going into the water with the kingdom  of God.  That was what he was doing.  He said to repent for the kingdom  of God is at hand.  He would take the person and immerse them in water.  This was an identification of that person with the kingdom  of God.  This baptism was unique to John and to his ministry.  We have to remember this because between the Apostle Paul’s Second and Third Missionary journeys which is a long way into his ministry (early 50’s, about the same time he is writing to the Corinthians) he was in Ephesus.  He spent two years in Ephesus.  And he had a Bible school in Ephesus.  They met at a rented space in the school.  They had a regular meeting there.  It was the school of one of the philosophers there.  He trained men to teach the Word and evangelize.  They went out all over the Roman province of Asia.  That is the map that we see every Sunday morning when we are studying the 7 letters to the 7 churches.  They started churches all over the Roman province of Asia.  Now while he was in Ephesus  there was a group of disciples of John the Baptist.  They hadn’t heard anything about Jesus, the Messiah, or the crucifixion.  They hadn’t heard any of that.  They just knew that they had been to Israel, probably to go to Passover one year.  There they heard John the Baptist and they were baptized with John’s baptism.  Then they left and they went back home to Greece.  They didn’t hear anything else after that. Then Paul comes along and he teaches about Jesus Christ.  So they come in Acts 19.   Let’s just turn to Acts 19 because I want to emphasize this.

Doctrine of Baptism    Heb. 059b

   1. Definition:  The English verb baptize comes from the Greek verb baptizo which means to dip, to plunge or to immerse.  As an action it signifies identification of someone with an action, with a person, with an object or with a new status in life.  Identification is its significance.

   2. Then I went to the second point to talk about the different baptisms.  There are three ritual baptisms which all involve water.  

         1. Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:13-17

         2. Baptism of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:1-11

         3. Baptism of Church Age believers in Acts 2:38, 2:41, Acts 8:36-38.  We will come back and talk about the significance especially of the believer’s baptism at the end.  I want to deal with the dry baptisms first.

   3. I pointed out that there are four elements in ritual baptism that are important to understand.

         1. There is a person who performs the baptism.  The word we are going to use here is the agent of the baptism.  The reason we do that is because we get into some interesting exegesis because in some passages you shift from an active voice verb to a passive voice verb where the subject performs the action to a passive voice verb where the subject receives the action.  So rather than becoming confused with this concept of who is the grammatical subject of the sentence, we want to talk about proper terminology.  The agent is the one who performs the action whether it is passive voice verb or an active voice verb.  So keep that in mind.  We may not get there tonight.  In the sentence, John hit the ball.  John is not only the grammatical subject of the verb hit, he is also the agent who performs the action of the verb.  If you make it a passive voice construction, the ball was hit by John.  John is no longer the subject of the verb.  The ball is now the subject of a passive voice verb, but John is still the agent who performs the action.  That is why we use this terminology.  That is going to become important because that has not always been clear in grammatical discussions of the baptism by means of the Holy Spirit.  So people have gotten confused over this.  You have actually ended up with two different baptisms by the Holy Spirit and you didn’t know it.

         2. The element that provides the identification.  So you have the agent who performs the action.  John performs the action.  The Holy Spirit is not the one who performs the action though.  So we have to understand that.  Then there is the element - water, Spirit, fire.  These are three instances,

         3. Then you have the person identified - that is who is being identified in the passage. In the baptism by Moses, the Jews in the Old Testament coming out of slavery in Egypt are the ones identified.  With John’s baptism it is the Jew who is repenting for the coming of the kingdom.  So we have to look at the person identified.

         4. Then there is a new status into which the person is entered.

Those are the elements.  We have to keep these elements in mind as we analyze the doctrine of baptism.  We always find these things present even in dry baptisms.  They are not only present in ritual baptism but also in wet baptism.  All of that we have covered in the past.

   4. The five real baptisms are all dry baptisms.  We will take them in chronological order.  We will list them and then come back and talk about each one.

         1. The baptism of Noah  I Peter 3:20-21
         2. The baptism of Moses  I Corinthians 10:2
         3. The baptism of fire mentioned in Matthew 3:11-12
         4. The baptism of the cross  
         5. The baptism of the Holy Spirit

Doctrine of Baptism   RD/1 Cor. 105

1)      Definition: It is from the Greek word baptizo [baptizw] from the root bapto [baptw] meaning to dip, plunge, or to immerse. That is what it means. We have to separate the meaning from what it signifies. What happened in the early church was that somewhere along the line they quit immersing and they started sprinkling. That changed the meaning. Then there was the identification with the state and the church that went through the Middle Ages. By the time of the Reformation they had the state church going where entry into citizenship in the state was identical to become a member of the church. To become a member of the universal church there was infant baptism by sprinkling. That also made a person a citizen of the country. So if you challenged the validity of infant baptism you were challenging a political structure and it was viewed as treasonous. That is why there was such hostility during the Reformation to the people who were called Anabaptists [ana = again]. They said infant baptism was no testimony at all and you had to be baptized again, it was for believers only. It is a post-salvation ritual that is designed to teach the principle of positional truth. Its significance was identification.

2)      There are three ritual baptisms which are all water baptisms. The first is the baptism of John the Baptist, Matthew 3:1-11,and this was a baptism involving repentance for the nation Israel because the kingdom of God was at hand. They were to change their mind about the Messiah. When Jesus came along and He was baptized by John, He wasn’t baptized with John’s baptism, because Jesus did not need to repent of anything, he was the Messiah, so the second ritual baptism is the baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3:13-17. The third ritual baptism is believer’s baptism where the believer is immersed in water, and this is a sign of death, and when he is brought out of the water that is a sign of his resurrection to new life in Christ. It is a picture of the fact that at salvation the believer is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

3)      But there are five real baptisms and they are all dry. The first is the baptism of Noah. 1 Peter 3:20 NASB “who once were disobedient [the angels], when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.” Water is involved but the people who got wet died. [21] “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” We have to understand that word “corresponding.” This is the Greek word antitupos [a)ntitupoj], and he is saying “Analogous to that.” So what we have in the Old Testament is an identification with Noah’s three sons and their wives, and they are all identified with Noah. They are saved, they are delivered through that judgment. So Peter says, analogous to that baptism now saves you. Two things in Scripture: a type, which is an example or shadow image, and what it represents, the antitype. The antitype, which is that word “corresponding to,” the baptism that now saves you, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit where we are placed in union with Christ. So the type which is going to teach something, the shadow image, that teaches something about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, has to be Noah’s ark. To have an antitype you have to have a type. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an antitype of Noah. So the implication is that Noah’s ark has to be a type of baptism. What we see there is that their identification with Noah brought about their salvation. Then to make sure we understand that it is not referring to water baptism Peter says: “not the removal of dirt from the flesh.” Water baptism doesn’t save us. “…  but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” It is faith alone in Christ alone, not water baptism that saves. Then the second real baptism is the baptism of Moses, the third is the baptism of fire where all unbelievers who survive the Tribulation are judged, Matthew 3:11, 12. The fourth real baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the fifth is the baptism of Christ’s death.

There is one other passage that people go to to try to prove that you have to be baptized to be saved, and that is in Acts 2:38 NASB “Peter {said} to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This is in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost and in English it looks like you have to repent and be baptized. The key here is understanding the Greek. The first command, repent, is an aorist active imperative, second person plural—You all repent! The word “baptize” is an aorist passive imperative but it is a third person singular. The words “of you” is also plural. To put this together, what Peter is saying is to repent, and that was the message to change their mind about who Jesus was. Change your thinking about Jesus Christ, all of you. It is a command to everyone, a general offer of salvation. Then he says, “Each of you.” Now he is individualising it: those who have repented, you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. It is a parenthesis. Then “the forgiveness of your sins” is plural, “and you will receive the Holy Spirit.” So repent, your sins, and receive, is all plural; he is talking to the group. Then “each of you be baptized” is talking to those who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. He is actually saying, “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and then let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

So in 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul is not validating baptism for the dead, he is simply saying that you have a practice, whatever it was, and the fact that you do it is a presupposition that there is resurrection.  Why even do that unless there is resurrection from the dead. So he is arguing from what they are practicing that they have an inherent belief in a future resurrection. Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the seal of God’s approval of His death on the cross. His death on the cross provided the salvation for us when He died spiritually on the cross, that he paid the penalty for our sins so that we could have salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. 

The Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit RD/Gal/031

1.       Definition: The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs once at the moment of salvation when every believer is identified with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, and is simultaneously created a new spiritual species capable of utilizing divine power. We have all of these assets, forty spiritual things—all of the assets for living the spiritual life. We are placed in permanent union with Jesus Christ; that is what the baptism with the Holy Spirit is all about. This ministry of the Holy Spirit is unique to the church age. It is not ecstatics, emotional, experiential, and is not signified by speaking ion tongues.

2.       The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment of salvation for every single believer. It is not an experience or an emotion. It is just like forgiveness, justification, reconciliation. These things all happened the moment we trusted Christ as our saviour. We only understood them later when someone taught us from the Scripture about those doctrines.

3.       Is there one baptism of the Holy Spirit or two?

4.       In the theology of Pentecostalism they say that there are two. Why? If we understand the history of Pentecostalism it grew out of back woods religion in America, out of two or three revivals in the early years where very few, if any, of the major teachers had any formal education, much less formal Bible education. In fact, the Pentecostal movement began on January 1st 1901. A Bible teacher who had very little training of his own had a little Bible college in Topeka, Kansas, and one of his students, Agnes Osmond, suddenly spoke in tongues. Everybody then expected it to be real legitimate languages but when it turned out that it wasn’t many people were disillusioned at that point. The Bible teacher then left Topeka and went to Houston, Texas, where he had a classroom. There was a one-eyed black preacher there with no education and no background by the name of William J. Seymore who had to sit out in the hallway to hear what was being taught. Then Seymore was called to a little black “holiness” church in a warehouse in Los Angeles. He started teaching this doctrine that the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes after salvation and that is was signified by speaking in tongues, and everything just broke loose and it spread like wildfire. That is its roots. As a result of that all of their teaching was based on the English text, not the Greek text. So when they read the passages in the English text related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit they saw two different phrases. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 we read: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Then they read the prophecy of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11 where John the Baptist said: “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” There’s only one problem, and that is that in Greek both phrases (by and with) are identical—en plus the dative of means plus the word for the Holy Spirit, pneumati [e)n pneumati]. It is a dative of means and should be accurately translated, “You will be baptised by means of the Holy Spirit and fire.” It is the same phrase in both passages. Because it is the same phrase it is talking about the same event. In the Gospels and Acts the baptism is future (until the day of Pentecost). In 1 Corinthians 12:13 it looks back. This is a common expectation now that every single believer is baptised. In Pentecostal theology 1 Corinthians 12:13 is said to refer to being baptized by the Spirit and that occurs at salvation (some people hold this) and then there is a second baptism which is with the Spirit. But we see from the Greek that they are identical. There is only one baptism by means of the Holy Spirit. Another problem is that in the debate over this there is commonly defined as the following: that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is that God the Holy Spirit places the believer into Christ. How is this played out in Matthew 3:11? The same is true for all the other baptism passages. This is the statement that John has made and is stated in Mark and Luke, and restated by Jesus in Acts 1:5. The last phrase is important: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” The subject is Jesus Christ; the verb is baptize. Notice is it still future tense. He will baptize you by means of…” “Means” here is expressed by the en clause, en plus the dative of means—“by means of the Holy Spirit.” The ultimate state, “into Christ,” is not mentioned. IN the baptism statement there is a subject, a verb, a direct object, an en clause; and then the final state which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is indicated by the Greek preposition eis [e)ij] plus the accusative, indicating direction or the final state of baptism. We see this in the first part of Matthew 3:11 where John says, “I baptize by means of water (en houdati /e)n o(oudati) for repentance (eis metanoia/ e)ij metanoia). eis indicates the state and in John’s baptism the state was repentance, moving from being non-repentant to being repentant. One other passage for illustration: 1 Corinthians 10:2 NASB “and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Here we have the subject “all,” the verb “baptized,” “into [eis /e)ij] Moses…” That is their new place of identification. The significance of baptism is always identification.  By means of what? “…the cloud and in the sea.”  They passed through. That is represented by the en clause, “by means of,” the parting of the waters of the Red Sea and following the cloud of the Shekinah glory leading them. That indicated their new identification with Moses.

The way that normally we find the baptism of the Holy Spirit defined is that God the Holy Spirit places the believer into the body of Christ. Who is performing the action in that sentence? The Holy Spirit. But what does Matthew say—and Luke and Mark and Acts? When it is prophesied Jesus Christ performs the action and He does it by means of the Holy Spirit. So to be technically correct, to form a definition of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ uses the Holy Spirit as the agent to identify the believer with Himself. It is what is called retroactive positional truth and is the topic of the first part of Romans chapter six. Positional truth has to do with our position “in Christ.” At the moment we are saved we are identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. As a result of that and part of that, simultaneously God the Father takes the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ and imputes that to the believer. That is the basis for our being declared perfect righteousness—justification.            

Galatians 3:26 NASB “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” They have clothed themselves in the perfect righteousness of Christ as an adult son. As a result of that, the old ethnic distinctions under the Mosaic Law don’t apply anymore. [28] “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” We all get the same spiritual assets. It doesn’t mean that these distinctions are eradicated in reality—men are still men and women are still women, etc. Spiritually it is not an issue because all have the same assets. Conclusion: [29] “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise”—the promise of the Spirit, the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant; “heirs according to the promise” which is justification by faith alone. It is by faith alone, not by the law; the law no longer applies.

The Baptism With the HS; Gal. 3:27-29 RD/Gal/032

The promise is ultimately made to Abraham and his seed (singular) who is identified in v.16 as the Lord Jesus Christ NASB “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” So we see that even though the plural word promises is talking about those promises encapsulated in the Abrahamic covenant they were spoken to Abraham and to his seed (singular). Verse 19 NASB “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.” There we see that the promise is made to Abraham and his seed, which is the Lord Jesus Christ.

If we are going to understand this passage we must understand what promise means. The promised blessing comes by faith alone in Christ alone, v. 22 “…so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” The promise in this passage is the promise of God the Holy Spirit, v. 14 NASB “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” But there are seven distinct ministries of God the Holy Spirit to the believer, so to which one is it referring? We see in vv. 27 & 28 that it is the baptism of God the Holy Spirit.

What exactly is the baptism of God the Holy Spirit? The reason that this is important is that it is critical for understanding the nature and the dynamics of the spiritual life in the church age. There is a tremendous amount of confusion that has entered into Christianity over the last 150 years over identifying what is the nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Remember there are seven distinct ministries of God the Holy Spirit: a) Efficacious grace, i.e. when God the Holy Spirit takes the faith of the spiritually dead unbeliever and makes it efficacious for salvation; b) Regeneration. God the Holy Spirit creates and simultaneously imparts to the believer a new human spirit; c) The filling of the Holy Spirit, which is temporary—the believer can lose it, and recover it through the use of 1 John 1:9; d) Sealing of the Holy Spirit; e) Baptizing of the Holy Spirit; e) Bestowal of spiritual gifts at the moment of salvation; f) Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13) occurs once at the moment of salvation. Every believer is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and is simultaneously created a new spiritual species capable of utilising divine power. At the moment of salvation the believer is placed into permanent union with Jesus Christ, positionally sanctified, which makes him a member of the body of Christ and positionally higher than the angels. This ministry of God the Holy Spirit is unique to the church age and is not ecstatics, emotional or experiential. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is occurs at the moment of salvation for every believer. It is not an experience, it is not an emotion, and it is not signified by speaking in tongues or any other phenomena. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, just like justification, is known to the believer only by subsequent study of the Word of God. Problem: Is there one baptism of the Holy Spirit or two? (Explained in the previous lesson).

Galatians 3:27 NASB “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” There we have an aorist passive participle. Who performs the action of the verb? It is not stated. 1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” baptizo [baptizw] is the main verb—ebaptisthemen [e)baptisqhmen] is an aorist passive indicative of baptizo. Passive means that the subject is acted upon by someone. In an active voice the subject performs the action; in a passive voice the subject receives the action. Who is the subject of the verb in this verse? It isn’t stated. We just have an agent, “by one spirit.” That is a dative clause. So we go back to the very first mention of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Mark 1:4 NASB “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins…. [8] I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” The first use of the word “baptize” here is an aorist active indicative. John is performing the action of the verb, but then “he will baptise you” is a future active indicative, and who is the subject of “will baptize you? The subject is “he.” Whoever “he” is performs the action of the verb—“he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit,” en pneumati [e)n pneumati], the same phrase is in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “by one spirit,” which doesn’t state the subject of the verb, it states the one through whom the action is performed but not the agent, not the one who performs the action. This may seem like a minor point but the implications are critical for understanding the dynamics of the spiritual life and everything that God has for us. What we see in this prophecy is that John the Baptist is saying that Jesus Christ is the one who performs the action of baptism by means of the God the Holy Spirit.

A statement of the baptism of the Holy Spirit: “This occurs at the point of salvation when the person believes in Christ as their personal saviour. The Holy Spirit brings each believer into union with Christ.” Who is the subject of that sentence? What is the verb? The verb is “brings into union.” That is the meaning of baptism, to identify us with Christ. The meaning of baptism is always identification. Who performs the action of the verb in that sentence? God the Holy Spirit. Is that what Mark 1:8 says? “He [Jesus Christ] will baptise you with the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 3:11 NASB “As for me, I baptize you with [by mean of] water for repentance…” John performs the action. John’s baptism was for repentance [e)ij plus the accusative of metanoia] to signify identification of the coming of the messianic kingdom. “… but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He [Jesus Christ] will baptize you [future active indicative] with [e)n pneumati] the Holy Spirit and fire.” The picture that John is presenting is that just as he takes somebody and plunges them into water to identify them with the new state of repentance, Jesus is going to take the new believer and metaphorically plunge them into the Holy Spirit—cleansing and identification with Christ—in order to identify them with Himself in terms of retroactive positional truth.

1 Corinthians 10:1, 2 NASB “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all [the people] were baptized (aorist passive indicative) into (e)ij—what they are identified with) Moses in the cloud and in [en/ e)n clause] the sea.” They are identified with by means of the cloud and the sea. This is a very technical formula in the Greek for stating baptism. There is a group who is baptized, someone who performs the action—subject of the active form of the verb—then there is the instrument used to perform the identification, indicated by an en clause, then the new state of identification indicated by an eis clause.

1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB “For by one Spirit [en pneumati—indicating the instrument used to perform baptism] we were all baptized [aorist passive indicative] into one body…” The one who performs the action is not mentioned in this verse at all because the emphasis isn’t on Christ doing it. The emphasis that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 12 is the unity of the body because the Corinthians were all divided and making a big issue out of their different spiritual gifts. “…whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Notice the similarity. There is no distinction between slave or free, Jew or Greek; we are all one, we have all partaken of the same thing.

Galatians 3:27 NASB “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The words “into Christ” is our eis clause. That is the new state into which we are identified. We are identified with Christ and we clothe ourselves with Christ. So how do we understand baptism? Just as John the Baptist would use water symbolically to indicate the identification of this person with the new state, so Jesus Christ uses the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5 NASB “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Here we see how regeneration is related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They are not the same thing but they are related. Jesus Christ takes the believer, uses the Holy Spirit in cleansing and in regeneration, and in that process is how He identifies the believer with His own death, burial and resurrection. The result of that is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.    

The result: Galatians 3:28 NASB “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In other words, you Galatians have been mislead by the Judaisers and are still making an issue out Judaism. But because of what has happened at the cross and at Pentecost, because of this unique ministry of God the Holy Spirit, there is no longer racial/ethnic distinctions according to the Mosaic Law in the present church age.

Galatians 3:29 NASB “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” If you are a believer, then there are two conclusions: you are Abraham’s offspring, and because you are Abraham’s offspring you are heirs according to the promise. What promise is this? Verse 14 NASB “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” So according to verse 29 if you belong to Christ you are a believer and an heir according to the promise, i.e. that you have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. If we go through Acts—1:5; 2 at Pentecost; 11:16; 19:46—we will see that some passages there is speaking in tongues but in others there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and no speaking in tongues. There is no set pattern in Acts. Acts is an historical book, a transitional book, and you never ever go through a historical or transitional book as the basis for doctrine. You can’t go to Acts to find a solution, which is what the Pentecostals say, you go to the epistles.      

The Doctrine of The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

RD/1 Cor. 080

1)        Baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur in the Old Testament. Baptism of the Holy Spirit has to do with being identified with Christ, therefore there was no baptism of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, it is unique to the church age.

2)         The baptism of the Holy Spirit was first prophesied by John the Baptist prior to the inception of Jesus’ ministry. In Acts 1:5 it was still future. Matthew 3:11 NASB “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance…He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”—en pneumati. The verb is baptize, present active indicative. The active voice means that the subject performs the action of the verb. When the active voice verb is used then the subject, then one who performs the action, is also referred to as the agent. So when John says, “I baptize you,” I is the subject, and that means that John the Baptist in that phrase is the agent of baptism; “with water,” the preposition en plus the dative case of hudor [u(dwr], indicating the means by which he accomplishes baptism. We know that the meaning of baptism was to dip, to submerge, and its significance was identification. John’s baptism was a wet baptism, he baptized or identified the individual by means of water. Then there is another clause: “for repentance.” Here there is the preposition eis [e)ij]. The three elements to focus on: the voice, where is the in clause? which indicates the means, the instrument used to perform the baptism, the identification, and where is the eis clause? which indicates the new state. If you are being initiated into something it is that new state that you are being initiated into that is indicated by the eis clause. So the way this should be translated is: “I baptize you by means by water into repentance.” Then there is a contrast indicating a parallelism: “but He who is coming after me [Jesus Christ] is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Here is the same verb baptizo [baptizw], now in the future active indicative. It is active voice so “He” performs the action of the verb. So in the parallel we see that Jesus is the subject of the active voice verb, so He is also the agent of the verb, the agent of the action of baptism. If we take the sentence, “Jesus will baptize by the Holy Spirit” where we have an active voice verb “will baptize” and Jesus is the subject or the agent, if we transfer that to a passive verb we indicate that somebody will be baptized. How do we express the agent now? In English we express the agent with that preposition “by”—by Jesus. See a problem? In the verse, Jesus will baptize by the Holy Spirit, John said. But when you transfer that into a passive form and you say X or the individual believer will be baptized by Jesus by the Holy Spirit you hear the redundancy. That is where we get into confusion. In English we will express the agent or the performer of the action in a passive voice verb with the preposition “by.” But that is also the same preposition that we use in English to express the means used to accomplish the action of the verb.

What this led to was the fact that among non-Charismatics they were inadvertently talking about two different baptisms. This was a problem in Charismatics because they recognized the difference and said 1 Corinthians 12:13 clearly takes place at salvation so you have a baptism by the Spirit that happens to everybody at salvation, but you get a second one that is done by Jesus in the Gospels and that is the one that comes after salvation. So in traditional Pentecostal theology they came up with two different baptisms. The answer for most non-Charismatics was that they’re the same baptism but there is only baptism, and the way it was normally taught was that the Spirit was the one who performed the baptism, and the Holy Spirit identifies you with Christ. See the problem? In that sentence the Holy Spirit identifies you with Christ, the Holy Sprit is now the subject of the verb and the agent. Will that fit? Because if you are going to call that personal agency you confuse the grammar term with the reality. That’s where it ended up inadvertently in a non-Charismatic position reaffirming two baptisms. But they are not, there is only one baptism.

Acts 1:5, Jesus says the same thing: “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” John performs the action, therefore he is the agent performing the action of the verb. John baptized with water: en hudati; “but you will be baptized,” future passive indicative, “with the Holy Spirit,” en pneumati, “by means of the Holy Spirit.” So once again, the Holy Spirit in both the Matthew passage and the Acts passage it is the Holy Spirit who is the means. 1 Corinthians 10:2, “and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Were baptized” is passive, which means the subject, “all,” receives the action of the verb. All the Jews were baptized “into (eis) Moses, by means of (en) the cloud and by means (en) of the sea.” In Greek, when you shift something from an active voice to a passive voice to express the subject, the agent, the one who performs the action, you use the preposition huper or dia, not en.

That means that the phrase “by the Spirit” in verse 13 should be understood not as indicating the one who performs the action or the agent of the action, but is indicating the means of the action. It should be translated: “We were all baptized by means of one Spirit.” It doesn’t mentioned the one who performs the action, we know that from Matthew 3:11. Jesus Christ is the one who performs the action; He is the agent; he is the one who is the subject of the verb; he is the one who is performing the action of baptism, and He does it  by using God the Holy Spirit to identify the believer with Himself in His death, burial and resurrection.

Titus 3:5 NASB “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Washing there  brings in this whole water imagery of washing and cleansing. What John did was take the individual and use water to symbolize cleaning and identification. He would plunge them into the water and he would bring them out into a new state of repentance. What happens in the parallelism is that he says Jesus is going to come along and instead of using water to put the believer into a new state he was going to use the Holy Spirit to put the believer into a new state. So Jesus is going to take the believer, as it were, and using the Holy Spirit is going to plunge the believer into the Holy Spirit and that affects washing and regeneration and all of the other Spirit-related ministries, and he identifies the believer with Himself.

What this shows is that there are not two different performers of action. You don’t have Jesus doing it in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit doing it in 1 Corinthians, and it is illegitimate to say that Jesus is the ultimate one who does it and the Holy Spirit is the immediate performer of the action. That doesn’t work grammatically. The only thing that works is to be consistent, that it is the Holy Spirit who is the means of effecting this identification. Technically we need to refer to it as the baptism by means of the Spirit. We are filled by means of the Spirit; we walk by means of the Spirit; we are baptized by means of the Spirit. It is the Spirit who is the means of effecting all of these different elements in the Christian life. 

The Doctrine of the Barren Woman   Gen. 066b

1)      The significance of barrenness is not some sin on the part of the woman. With the barren women in Scripture that are mentioned the barrenness is related to something significant that God is going to do in their life.

2)      Sarah, Genesis 11:30; Rebekah, Genesis 25:21; Rachel, Genesis 29:31; the mother of Samson, Judges 13; Hannah, the mother of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1; Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. The seventh woman whose womb gets introduced into Scripture is Mary. The empty dead womb or the barren women is all a type of then fact that God will bring a special life into the womb of Mary. With these barren women their wombs are incapable of producing a child, and of even carrying a child in the case of Sarah. It was just not physically possible. God is going to perform a miracle in bringing life where there is death.

3)      There was a spiritual significance to this. The absence of barren women was to indicate Israel’s spirituality and God’s blessing on them. The presence of barren women was to indicate that God was judging the nation. Exodus 23:26, “There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.” If they obeyed the law there wouldn’t be any miscarriages and there wouldn’t be any barren women. It was a sign. God would sovereignly control this situation depending on the spiritual status of the nation.

4)      Thus, the barren womb in these pictures portrays the emptiness and the lifelessness of spiritually dead mankind. The barren womb is a picture of man in spiritual death.

5)      In each of these cases God miraculously brings forth life where there is death. It is a picture of regeneration. Only God can solve the problem of spiritual death.

6)      Ultimately this is a picture of the virgin womb of Mary, that there a unique life would begin in the womb of Mary who would solve the problem of everyone’s spiritual death, and He would bring life where there was death and be the source of regeneration.

The Doctrine of the Barren Woman   Gen. 092b

1)      The significance of barrenness is not some sin on the part of the woman. None of the women in the Old Testament were barren because of sin in their life, it was because of something that God was teaching through their barrenness.

2)      These were the women that are said to be barren in Scripture: Sarai, the wife of Abram; Rebecca, the wife of Isaac; Rachel, the wife of Jacob—it is interesting that the wives of the three patriarchs of Israel are all barren women. That should be the first clue that there is something going on here related to God’s development of the nation Israel—; the mother of Samson; Hannah; Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist in Luke chapter one.

3)      Exodus 23:26 gives an insight. The absence of barren women would indicate that Israel was spiritual, indicating Israel’s positive spirituality and divine blessing. But the presence of barren women in Israel indicated Israel’s carnality and divine judgment. It was a sign. “There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.”

4)      Thus we see that the barren womb in these women picture the emptiness and lifelessness of mankind apart from God and apart from Jesus Christ. The fact that they were barren was a picture of spiritual barrenness. It was also a picture of spiritual death. What is it that distinguishes Abram from the culture around him? He is a Gentile, like everybody else, from Ur of the Chaldees but he is a believer in the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ and is regenerate. He is going to have a couple of boys, Ishmael and Isaac, and what distinguishes them is regeneration. God is illustrating this life from death in the womb of the matriarchs of Israel. That is what sets them apart, that the foundation of this nation of people is miraculous. There is a 90-year-old woman who is going to give birth. It is a picture of how God gives life where there is no life.

5)      In each case God miraculously brings forth life where there is death or there is no life. This is a picture of regeneration. The point is that only God can solve the problem of spiritual death by providing spiritual birth. And all of the six women are foreshadowing one individual: the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

6)      The barren womb is type of the virgin womb of Mary, and there the solution to the barren womb is the new life in the incarnation of the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Doctrine of the Barren Woman. Gen. 115b

1)      We have to recognize that the first three barren women of the Scripture are the three matriarchs of the new Hebrew people, the chosen race, called out by God. There is a theological emphasis here. They are the wives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is not a coincidence. Their barrenness is designed to teach that the nation Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, did not come into existence by chance. It wasn’t simply something that was the product of human will. The call and the choice of Abraham is not related to his salvation but to a new work that God is doing in history. He is calling out a new people through whom He is going to reveal His Word and bring the savior into history. 

 

2)      The significance of barrenness is not some sin on the part of any of these women. There were certainly many other barren women in the Scripture that are not mentioned, so we have to answer the question: Why these? And there are only six that are mentioned in all of Scripture. The first is Sarah in Genesis 11:30, the second is Rebekah in Genesis 25:21, the third Rachel is Genesis 29:31. Then we have the unnamed mother of Samson in Judges 13, then Hannah, the mother of Samuel in 1 Samuel 1. It is another 1000 years before there is a mention of a barren woman, and that will be Elizabeth who will be the mother of John the Baptist. Notice something significant about the children that each of these barren women have. They are foundational to something that God is doing in history. The first three are the mothers of the nation Israel. Then there is the mother of Samson, and Samson is the judge who doesn’t deliver the nation. He was a Nazirite from birth and from the time he was old enough to make decisions he violates that Nazirite vow again and again and again. He is a picture of the complete decadence of the nation, the paganization at the time of the Judges, and at the time of his death he is blinded and though he takes out a lot of Philistines he doesn’t deliver the nation. At almost the same time in history there is another barren woman, Hannah. Hannah and the mother of Samson are about the same age, and while God is working through one mother to bring about a judge who is a picture of the depravity of the nation He is working through another mother to bring about the man who will be the last judge and also a prophet in Israel. That is Samuel. It is through him that the nation will be judged and he is the one who will anoint Saul the first king, and then David the second king. It is through David that the Philistines are finally destroyed as a military power. So we have this theme running through these pregnancies that God is bringing life where there has been spiritual death and barrenness. Then we have Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and again there is a miraculous birth, and he is the forerunner who is to announce the arrival of the Messiah.

 

3)      The absence of barren women was also an indication of something about Israel’s spirituality, according to the Mosaic law in Exodus 23:26, that of they obeyed the law God promised that there would be no one miscarrying or barren in the land. There was also the warning that if there was disobedience there would be barren women and miscarriages in the land as an indication of their carnality. So the absence of barren women indicates Israel’s spirituality and divine blessing, the presence of barren women in the Mosaic period indicated Israel’s carnality and divine judgment. But that only applies to the time of the Mosaic law up to the time of Christ. It was not in effect at the time of the Patriarchs.

 

4)      Conclusion: The barren womb in these women pictures the spiritual emptiness and lifelessness of mankind, that mankind is spiritually dead. Only God can bring life where there is death.

 

5)      In each case God miraculously brings forth life where there is death. It is a picture of regeneration. Only God can solve the problem of spiritual death by spiritual birth. Ultimately each one of those women is in some way a type of what happens with Mary in the virgin conception and birth, because where there was no means of production God brought life into the world. Jesus Christ is the life and the light of the world.

 

6)      The barren womb is is a type of the virgin womb of Mary. There the solution to the barren womb was the new life in the incarnation of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

 

Doctrie of The Barrier RD/Gal/004

This barrier that is erected is comprised of several different ingredients which we will just call bricks.

The first brick is the problem of sin itself. Romans 3:23 NASB “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Every human being is a sinner and cannot measure up to God’s standard. Isaiah 64:6 NASB “…all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment.” Our sin prevents us from having any kind of relationship with God.

The second brick in the barrier has to do with the penalty of sin, which is spiritual death. Romans 6:23 NASB “For the wages of sin is death…” Spiritual death is eternal separation from God.

The third brick in the barrier has to do with our physical birth. We are born in Adam. Adam was both our federal head, i.e. he is a representative—“In Adam all die”—and our genetic head, so that we are physically, biologically related to Adam so that the consequences of sin which affected everything in nature make us all guilty of Adam’s sin, both federally and spiritually. Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:1, “being born dead in our trespasses and sins. So the problem is that in our physical birth we are born spiritually dead. Isaiah 64:6a; Romans 9:30-33; Romans 2—“there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

The fourth brick in the barrier is relative righteousness. As far as the Word of God is concerned there is not a single human being who can measure up to the perfect righteous standard of God. God is both perfect righteousness and perfect justice. The righteousness of God is His absolute standard; the justice of God is the application of that standard. Whatever the righteousness of God demands the justice of God provides. What the righteousness of God rejects the justice of God condemns, but the love of God provides a solution through the grace of God. What the righteousness of God approves the justice of God blesses through the love of God as expressed through the grace of God. So God’s righteousness is His perfect standard. Because man cannot come up with that perfect standard of God he stands condemned, so he has the problem of relative righteousness.

The fifth brick in the barrier has to do with the character of God, as just explained. Because God is perfect righteousness and perfect justice man cannot measure up to God and therefore stands condemned.

The sixth brick is our position in Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:22 NASB “For as in Adam all die…”

This is our problem, the sin barrier which is erected between God and man. God in His grace provided a perfect solution to every aspect of the sin problem. These are the doctrines related to salvation. The sin problem was taken care of by the doctrines of redemption and unlimited atonement. The basic idea of redemption is that a price is paid. Redemption means to pay a price. It translates the Greek word agorazo [a)gorazw] which has to do with buying something in the market place. The agora was the Greek name for the market place. Another word is exagorazo [e)cagorazw] which means to buy something out of the market place. Redemption passages: Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18, 19. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and he purchased us our of the slave market of sin. That is redemption.

Unlimited atonement means that the extent of that redemption applies to every single human being. Jesus Christ actually removed the problem of sin. Every sin is paid for, so the issue is no longer is: Are you going to pay for your sins? The issue is: Are you going to accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour? The issue at the great white throne judgment is not sin. God is never going to bring sins up to you or me again at the judgment seat of Christ; at the great white throne judgment the issue is not sin, it is human good, it is whether man’s good deeds have measured up to the perfect righteousness of God. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for every single sin that the human race will ever commit. 1 John 2:2 NASB “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.” 2 Corinthians 5:14 NASB “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.” 1 Timothy 4:10 NASB “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.”

The penalty of sin was taken care of by the doctrine of expiation. Expiation means to remove a debt. We have a debt against us because of our sin. Colossians 2:14 NASB “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”

The problem of physical birth is resolved by regeneration. John 3:1-18. We were born spiritually dead and at the moment of salvation God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit, it is simultaneously given to us, and at that moment God the Father imputes to that human spirit eternal life. So we have a new life in Christ.

The problem of our relative righteousness is dealt with by the doctrine of the imputation of perfect righteousness. Imputation means to credit or legally declare as one’s possession perfect righteousness. 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21. Because we now possess the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ God the Father declares us just, justified. Justification does not mean just as if I had never sinned; it means we are justified by God, declared righteous or just because we possess the perfect righteousness of God.

The character of God problem is resolved by the doctrine of propitiation. Propitiation means that God the Father is satisfied—His perfect righteousness and justice are satisfied. What the righteousness of God rejects the justice of God condemns. But when we possess the perfect righteousness of God—what righteousness of God approves now, because we have His perfect righteousness—the justice of God can bless with eternal life. Romans 3:22-26; 1 John 2:2. Verses for justification are Romans 4:1-5; Galatians 2:16.

The problem of our position in Adam is resolved by our new position in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:22b NASB “…so also in Christ all will be made alive.” At the moment we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ then through the baptism of the Holy Spirit we are placed in union with Jesus Christ.

All of this is part of the gospel. As we can see from this, so much was performed by Jesus Christ on the cross that to think that we could add anything to it is absolutely absurd. That is why Paul is so harsh with these Galatian believers, because if you add anything to faith alone it destroys salvation.

Genesis is the book of Beginnings, and there are 26 Beginnings in Genesis.        (Genesis 001)

1)      It is the beginning of the space-time continuum. Before Genesis 1:1 there is just God and the third heaven, there is no universe, no such thing as space or time.

2)      It is the beginning of the universe. He creates a space-time continuum, which is a special location for the universe.

3)      It is the beginning of our solar system.

4)      It is the beginning of vegetation and animal life on planet earth.

5)      It is the beginning of earth as the home for the human race, not necessarily the beginning of earth as a planet but the beginning as a home for the human race.

6)      It is the beginning of the human race.

7)      We see the beginning of the institution of marriage.

8)      We see the beginning of the institution of family.

9)      We the first sin and the beginning of sin.

10)   We see the first divine judgment on sin.

11)   We see the announcement of God’s plan of salvation.

12)   We see the beginning of law and the judicial system.

13)   We have the beginning of economics—buying and selling, and principles that should undergird all economic theory.

14)   We have the beginning of labor. Labor begins before the fall.

15)   We have the beginning of society and social structures.

16)   We have the beginning of language and learning.

17)   We have the beginning of cities and the first urban development.

18)   We have the beginning of God’s grace because man is no longer deserving and is fallen.

19)   We have the beginning of animal sacrifice as a picture of the future work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

20)   We have the beginning of music.

21)   We have the beginning of metallurgy.

22)   We have the beginning of demonism.

23)   We have the beginning of idolatry.

24)   We have the beginning of globalism and internationalism, and the first United Nations comes about in chapter eleven.

25)   We have the beginning of government and national distinctions.

26)   We have the beginning of Israel, the Jews as a distinct race.

Doctrine of Beginings     RD/Gen 006b

Genesis 1:1, the Bible speaks about four beginnings. The first, God, isn’t really a beginning. He is eternal, everlasting, not temporal, Psalm 90:2, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” God has no beginning and no ending, He always is. The phrase “In the beginning” is the phrase that John picks up at the beginning of his Gospel. John is writing from the Jewish perspective and that phrase would take a Jewish reader right back to Genesis one, and he would be thinking about that beginning of space-time history. “In the beginning was the Word [Jesus Christ].” The word “was” is a translation of the imperfect active indicative of the Greek word EIMI [e)imi] the word for existence, and it could be translated, “In the beginning the Word was continuously existing already.” In other words, it takes us to a point of time when time began, when space began, when matter began. He says, “At this point in time the LOGOS was,” imperfect tense, continual action in past time. The LOGOS was existing, emphasizing the eternality of the second person of the Trinity. So God has no beginning or ending, He is eternal.

Then we come to the second beginning in Scripture, the angels. The angels are not eternal, they are creatures. Psalm 148:2, “Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.” The term “hosts” is the Hebrew word which means armies. It is a synonymous parallelism where the angels are synonymous to armies. Then in v. 5 of that psalm, “Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.” This attributes the creation of the angels to Yahweh. This is a strong argument for the deity of Christ because in Colossians 1:16 where Christ is said to be the creator of all things, including angels, “in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers [terms related to angels]: all things were created by him, and for him.” So Paul in the New Testament says it was Jesus Christ who creates the thrones, dominions, authorities. In Psalm 148:5 it says it was Yahweh. Yahweh, then, equals Jesus Christ. Then in Job 38:4-7, a crucial passage for understanding some dynamics in Genesis chapter one. God is confronting Job with his finiteness. Job has been complaining and groaning about his suffering and questions whether God is really a just God. Why don’t you tell me why I suffer? God is not going to answer Job. He is not answerable to us for why He allows certain things into our lives. And in order to demonstrate to Job that Job is just a miserable little creature and has no right to question God as to His purposes or His actions, God begins to fire a number of rhetorical questions to Job, all of which reinforce the idea to Job that he really has no right to question God. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” The phrase “morning stars” is parallel to “sons of God,” and the term “sons of God” is a term that always refers to the angels. It is not talking about believers. Only when we get into the New Testament does becoming a son of God become a term for believers. The angels were present when God was creating and laying the foundations to the earth, and when He is doing that they are not divided. Notice it says, they sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. This would be before Lucifer fell, before the angelic conflict revolt.

Then we have a beginning for man, referenced in Matthew 19:4, “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning …”

The fourth beginning. John refers to the beginning of the Church, 1 John 2:7.

The Doctrine of Blessing by Association  

Gen.  083b-084b

1)      Definition: Blessing by association is the extension of benefits of divine blessing to those in the periphery of either a) a Jew, or b) a Christian. Therefore it is a consequence of divine grace. It is undeserved and unearned but nevertheless there are those who receive the overflow of blessing.

2)      Certain logistical blessings of God go to all Jews wherever they are on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant. The Jewish race is going to continue down throughout history because God has certain promises that He has made to Abraham that have never yet been fulfilled. The provisions of the Abrahamic covenant are still in effect.

3)      Blessing by association in relation to Christians is the result of God’s blessing provision or protection for believers which overflows to those in his periphery. So it is a different dynamic functioning for church age believers. So for the church age believer the basis for blessing differs because it is a different contract. We are not under the Abrahamic covenant, we are beneficiaries of the new covenant. The believer receives blessing from God on the basis of grace because he has the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. As we advance and mature then God distributes these blessings, and when God distributes these blessings to the maturing believer there is always going to be benefits to those around him.

4)      The biblical basis for understanding this is seen in two cases, both in Genesis: the provision of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12:2, and the episode on Genesis 18.

5)      Blessing by association may also extend to historical heritage. An example is in 1 Kings 11:12 after Solomon has been so disobedient to the Lord and is told that the kingdom will be torn away from him. “Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.” There is historical heritage blessing by association. The same kind of thing is seen in the history of western Europe. The Reformation heritage has extended from the early part of the sixteenth century down through the twentieth century in providing stable institutions. What we have to recognize is that divine blessing is based on grace, never on works, and the blessing is based upon the righteousness we possess from imputed righteousness. Blessing by association in the church age is an extension of John 13:34, 35—through the operation of impersonal love for all mankind. Romans 12:14, “Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.”

So what we see in these two episodes in Genesis 14 is that Abraham understands that he is to be a blessing to those around him. The principle is to love your neighbor as yourself.      

Doctrine of the Blood of Christ; John 19:28-30 

 RD/John 111 & 112

John 19:31 NASB “Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and {that} they might be taken away. [32] So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; [33] but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. [34] But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. [35] And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. [36] For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, ‘NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.’ And again another Scripture says, ‘THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED’.”

For the most part we will not look at those verses in detail until we look at the aftermath of the crucifixion: His removal from the cross and His burial. But there are two verses in the middle here that do relate to our subject, and that is verses 34, 35 when the soldiers pierced His side resulting in blood and water coming out. The reason this is an issue is that there has been a lot of confusion over the phrase “blood of Christ” in the Scriptures. The problem is whether or not the physical blood of Jesus Christ was unique, incorruptible, and the efficacious element of His saving work on the cross. There are many through church history who have taught that. This view can be traced as early as Chrysostom who lived from 347-407 AD. Luther and Calvin held this view, as well as many others, that somehow Christ’s body was drained physically of all the blood and that He bled to death on the cross. Among many Protestant fundamentalists there is a tendency to take the phrase “blood of Christ” in a very strict, literal fashion, and so it has become a sort of touchstone of controversy. The passage that many go to is Hebrews 9:12 NASB “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” But the phrase “through His blood” is dia + the genitive, indicating the basis for something and not the cause.

We need to understand that when we talk about “by His own blood” just exactly what it means when it refers to the blood of Christ. Is this to be taken as a literal statement or is it an idiom or figure of speech in the original languages. We find this phrase in several passages of Scripture, e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:16 NASB “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” Ephesians 2:13 NASB “But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Hebrews 9:14 NASB “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” 1 Peter 1:18, 19 NASB “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, {the blood} of Christ.” The point is that the coin of the realm that was used to purchase our salvation is the blood of Christ. But is this a phrase that should be understood literally, or is it a phrase that should be understood figuratively?

To understand this we have to look at some basic verses in Genesis to understand the nature of the penalty for sin as it was announced by God in the garden of Eden. Genesis 2:17 NASB “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” We have seen that the phrase “will surely die” was based on a Hebrew idiom which doubles the verb. It is a qal infinitive absolute plus the qal perfect of the verb. We saw that it doesn’t have the idea of two deaths there. Having two verbs doesn’t mean there are two deaths. The point is that it is not that we have two deaths in this verse but only one death and that is spiritual death, and it is immediate. The judicial penalty was spiritual death but the consequences have a physical dimension. Genesis 3:19 is the first mention of physical death. It is the outline of the curse that deals with the consequences of sin. That is the difference. We have to maintain that understanding that the judicial penalty was spiritual death but that there were physical consequences that related to the animal kingdom, the woman, the woman, their relationship with one another, and nature.

Then there is an interesting statement by God. Genesis 3:22 NASB “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’…” This is more than simply an implication that he would live forever, it is a clear statement that it was possible that fallen man who was spiritually dead could hypothetically avoid physical death by eating of the tree of life. So that would indicate that physical death wasn’t the penalty for sin or even part of the penalty for sin because it could be avoided by eating from the tree of life. That is why it is important to distinguish between penalty and consequence. The penalty had such universal impact that it reverberated throughout the entire universe.

So when Christ went to the cross His physical suffering related to the physical dimension of the curse of sin. But that did not pay the penalty for sin, it simply demonstrated that he could have victory over the physical consequences of sin. That is why He died physically; it was to show that He would through the resurrection have victory over physical death. So we see that from the very beginning that the penalty was spiritual death distinguished from the consequences of physical suffering and physical death.

What, then, was the solution? The solution is then indicated and applied in Genesis 3:21 NASB “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” In doing that there was the shedding of blood. That term is not used in the verse but it is clearly implied, and when we come to chapter four and see that Abel brought the firstlings of his flock in v. 4 it must be presumed that there has been some divine instruction on sacrifice. So in the Old Testament there was the provision of animal sacrifices and the Lord taught that to Adam and the woman in Genesis 3:21 so that there was the institution of the family sacrificial system from Genesis 4 and following through the Old Testament. Then there is another expansion of the idea of sacrifice in the Levitical system.

Another important passage in understanding this is Leviticus 17:10 NASB “‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. [11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’” First of all, this passage makes the statement that the life of the creature is in the blood. What exactly does that mean? It doesn’t mean that the soul indwells the blood, as some people have taken it. It is, again, a figure of speech that indicates that blood is inherently necessary to maintain life. It is the tangible, concrete, visible evidence that there is life in the creature. You can’t see the soul, it is intangible, immaterial. The other thing that indicates life is breathing. So the statement that the life of the creature is in the blood is simply a mention of tangible evidence of life in the creature. The second statement is that the blood makes atonement for one’s life, and the point that we need to observe here is that God has chosen the sacrificial blood to be the symbol of the redemption price for a person’s life. When God said “I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls” it doesn’t mean that it has an inherent value. It has value only because God says He has given it for atonement. The phrase in the Hebrew is the qal perfect of the word natan, the standard word for giving. Verse 11: “…it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement,” so it is not the inherent value of blood but what it represents, that the blood represents the life that is there.

For example in Genesis chapter nine when we look at the Noahic covenant there is a warning: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, {that is,} its blood.” In other words, don’t eat things that are still alive. Genesis 9:5 NASB “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from {every} man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. [6] Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” There we see that the phrase “man’s blood” is really an idiom for life—whoever takes a man’s life.

Leviticus 17:12 NASB “Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood. [13] So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. [14] For {as for the} life of all flesh, its blood is {identified} with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’” Because it represents life blood is to be drained from the body as a sign of respect for life. The conclusion from this is that blood is a tangible or symbolic representation of the intangible, imperceptible, immaterial presence of the soul which is the key to life.  

In the Old Testament salvation was based on the anticipated fulfilment of the promise of the Messiah. This is most clearly seen and evidenced in the Old Testament on the mercy seat. The ark of the covenant had a lid placed over it. Inside the ark were three objects: the Ten Commandments (Law), manna (sustenance), Aaron’s rod that budded (the authority of the Aaronic priesthood). Israel broke the Ten Commandments, they rejected God’s provision of manna, and they rebelled against Aaron’s leadership, so each of these represented sin in the nation. On top of the ark there was placed this lid which is the mercy seat, and on each side of the mercy seat was an angel, a cherub. The wings of the cherub touched over the middle so that they faced one another so that each looked down upon the mercy seat. The high priest would come in and place a bowl taken from the sacrificial blood of the unblemished lamb and would place that on the mercy seat. When the two cherubs faced that—they represented the righteousness and justice of God—it indicated that the righteousness and justice of God was satisfied by the shedding of blood, the taking of life. This in turn was a picture of what was to take place on the cross. It was not that the blood in and of itself was efficacious but that God had assigned it that value.

This is the basis, then, for understanding a verse like Romans 3:25 NASB “[Christ] whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.” The word “propitiation” is a translation of the Greek word hilasterion [i(lasthrion] and it refers to the mercy seat. It means satisfaction, that God’s justice and righteousness was satisfied by Christ’s death. Now we see that “blood” is not talking about physical blood but is a symbolic or tangible representation of death. So what this passage is really saying is that God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His death, through faith. [26] “for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” There was the anticipation which is pictured by the mercy seat and the sacrifice of the lamb that was without spot or blemish.

We must realise that the sacrifices in the Old Testament were not efficacious in and of themselves, they just had that temporarily assigned value. For example, Hebrews 10:1 NASB “For the Law, since it has {only} a shadow of the good things to come {and} not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near…. [4] For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” It was simply that God the Father designed a plan whereby people in the Old Testament prior to the coming of Christ could be saved by virtue of anticipation of the completion of that work. From this we see that the blood of the animals represented the presence of the animal soul and therefore the presence of life. The shedding of the blood represents the taking of life. So the physical sacrifices were a shadow or a type of a reality that was yet future. It was used in the Old Testament as a visual aid, a training aid, to demonstrate the horror of sin and the heinousness of spiritual death. Over and again God uses these very concrete images to continue to remind Israel of the extent of sin and the damage that sin has caused.

What we have in the Old Testament is physical animal sacrifice which is a physical representation of the physical human death of Jesus Christ on the cross. And, as in line with all of the previous teaching in the Old Testament, physical human death itself is a tangible, concrete expression of the spiritual death that has already taken place on the cross as payment for our sins. Christ’s death on the cross involved two categories of death. We know this from two passages in Scripture: Isaiah 53:9 where “deaths” is plural; Colossians 2:12 where “dead” is plural.

Just as there was a spiritual, judicial penalty for sin and physical consequences, the atonement of Christ on the cross shows victory over the physical consequences of sin because it pays the spiritual penalty for sin on the cross. Notice two verses in John. John 19:28 NASB “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, ‘I am thirsty’.” So before He died physically He knew that all things had already been accomplished; it was finished. So it was spiritual separation from God the Father. [30] “Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”    

Blood of Christ    RD/Heb/143b

In the New Testament, the expression “the blood of Christ” is the figure Metalepsis; because first the “blood” is put (by
Synecdoché) for blood-shedding: i.e., the death of Christ, as distinct from His life; and then His death is put for the perfect satisfaction made by it, for all the merits of the atonement
effected by it: i.e., it means not merely the actual blood corpuscles, neither does it mean His death as an act, but the merits of the atonement effected by it and associated with it.
                        (EB, Figures)

So, here, in Rev. 1:5, it must not be rendered “in his blood,” which is not only contrary to Old Testament type (where nothing was ever washed in blood, which would have defiled and
made unclean instead of cleansing!) but is contrary to the letter as well as the spirit of the Word. Rev. 1:5 means washed us or loosed us from our sins by, or in virtue of, through the merits of, His atonement. In Rev. 7:14, so that such expressions are to be avoided, as “washed in the blood of the Lamb”; and the
sentiment contained in the verse:—

Blood Of Christ    Rev. 010

The term “blood of Christ” is used again and again in Scripture, it is a legitimate way to talk about what Christ did no the cross.

Acts 20:28 ^NASB “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

Romans 5:9 ^NASB “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him.”

Romans 3:25 ^NASB “whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. 

Ephesians 1:7 ^NASB “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.”

Ephesians 2:13 ^NASB “But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

Colossians 1:20 ^NASB “and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say,} whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

Hebrews 9:14 ^NASB “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Hebrews 9:22 ^NASB “And according to the Law, {one may} almost {say,} all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

Hebrews 10:4 ^NASB “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” He takes away our sins.

Hebrews 13:12 ^NASB “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”

1 Peter 1:18, 19 ^NASB “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, {the blood} of Christ.”

But this imagery goes back to the Old Testament.

1)      The phrase “blood of Christ” or “His blood” or “the blood of the Lamb” is a common biblical phrase describing the death of Christ. Five times it is used in the book of Revelation, ten times in the book of Hebrews.

2)      Unfortunately this is often a misunderstood phrase and people who ought to know better take it as a literal description. We must understand that under the principles of literal interpretation, which means that we understand the Bible in terms of the plain, normal use of language, we clearly recognize the use of figures of speech. This includes metaphors and similes, personification, hyperbole, and other figures of speech. There are clearly understood idioms in the Bible and that is why we have to interpret the Bible by the time in which it was written.

3)      Following the basic rules of word study we see that throughout the Old Testament the phrase “shedding of blood” takes its meaning from the original murder of Abel by Cain. He sheds his blood. In that case there was a literal shedding of blood because he used a sacrificial knife in order to kill his brother Abel. But there is an extension of this to all kinds of wrongful death. Genesis 9:4 sows an extension of this where blood is related to life: ^NASB “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, {that is,} its blood.” Blood therefore stand for life. The shedding of blood is an idiom, then, that means the loss of life. Genesis 9:6 ^NASB “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” This is the foundational verse for capital punishment, and it has never been rescinded. It is part of the Noahic covenant which not only promised that God would not destroy the earth by water but that whoever shed man’s blood, by man would his blood be shed. The shedding of blood is talking about violent murder, not that it has to literally be bloodshed.

This is clearly recognized in the standard, scholarly Greek lexicons. The blood of Christ stands for the life of Christ that He gave for our atonement. This is a term picturing the violent loss of life, but the loss of physical life stands for His spiritual substitutionary death.

Doctrine of Capital Punishment, I; Gen. 9:1-17 Gen. 049b

Verse 6, “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” That has historically been understood as the verse which under girds the institution of human government, so this begins the next dispensation and it brings into focus the fourth divine institution. The first divine institution was the institution of human responsibility, that man is accountable for his actions. This implies volition: that man can choose to obey or disobey God; that man can be held responsible for his decisions and ultimately he is responsible to God. God is the authority in the first divine institution. The second divine institution was marriage, which is for believer and unbeliever alike. The laws of marriage is for one man and one woman. The third is the institution of family. This is what breaks down when you have Adam and Steve trying to get married, you have the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of the whole structure for raising children and teaching them how they should obey God and the whole concept of authority, because the very structure in such a home violates the authority of God. This is why marriage is a factor because if the sanctity of marriage as defined in the Bible is not maintained it breaks down families and it breaks down society. These first three divine institutions are for the human race, given before there was ever sin, and they are for the purpose of perpetuating the human race, for perpetuating values and teaching within the structure of a family; they provide stability in a culture. A fourth divine institution is introduced here in Genesis 9, and that is the institution of human government. And the most serious decision a governing body, whether it is within a small family, whether it is tribal, a clan, whatever the governing structure is, there is a basis for some form of authority that makes judicial decisions. The most extreme of these is the decision to take the life of a human being because he has committed some criminal act and has thereby forfeited his right to live. So in these two or three verses in Genesis 9 there is the basis in the Scriptures for the establishment of the judicial function in the human race, and that is the foundation for human government. There is one more divine institution established in Genesis 10, and that is the divine institution of nations and tribal distinctions of groups.

Capital punishment is first authorized and mandated in Genesis chapter nine and it becomes the foundation for the institution of human government. This is an issue that is controversial for some, and there are a lot of people who just don’t understand it. We will begin to look at this in terms of the problem it presents to us in the 21st century in our culture. Supreme Court Justice Marshall wrote that “the death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment. It is also evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant and the underprivileged members of society.” In that one quote we really crystallize what the anti-capital punishment is. First of all, that it is not a deterrent, and secondly that it is not applied evenly or fairly or judicially. The first statement presumes an argument that is often put forth in American discussions on capital punishment, and that is the fact that the reason for capital punishment is that it is a deterrent. But that is not the argument, the reason, the rationale for capital punishment that is given in the Scriptures. So if you are going to get into an argument or discussion on this, argue from a biblical basis, don’t get sucked into a non-biblical rationale in arguing. Second, he points out that there is a methodological flaw in its application. The conclusion from that is that if we are not doing it right, don’t do it. That is false reasoning, because there are many things in life that we don’t do right but that doesn’t mean we stop doing them. Just because a principle is not fairly applied doesn’t mean you do away with the principle. It means you have to revamp your application, but it doesn’t mean you go back and do away with the principle. But this quotation in a nutshell is the anti-capital punishment argument.

Just by way of introduction in terms of the history, the United States has executed over 800 people since 1976 when the legitimacy of the death penalty was reestablished. That is not very many people. That is as of December 2002 and at that time over 3700 men and women were on death rows in various states across the country. If only 800 people have been executed since 1976, think about that in terms of a deterrent argument. You don’t have much of a chance of being executed on that basis. So it can’t really operate as much of a deterrent if it is not applied very frequently.

The second thing in terms of the current situation is that the United Nations has passed a resolution calling for all nations that continue to execute to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, and to suspend executions with a view toward abolishing the death penalty. So there is international pressure on nations that still utilize the death penalty. We will see in Genesis 10 that the United Nations is just another attempt of man which has gone on since the tower of Babel to reverse the impact of the curse of the tower of Babel and to create an international organization that goes against the fifth divine institution. We see problems with this today. For example, after 9/11 when terrorists were identified in different countries such as Germany and France they would extradite them to the US because the US practices the death penalty. And there is a problem with this in the US, as when some murderer escapes to Canada the Canadian government won’t extradite him back to the US unless there are assurances that the murderer will not be executed. So there are other nations dictating policy to the US out of their arrogant rebellion against the Word of God.

In the US prior to 1972, 5707 had been legally executed for capital crimes in the 20th century. That does not seem a large number, and certainly not a deterrent. One wonders how many people were convicted of homicide during that same period of time. In 1972 the US Supreme Court handed down landmark decision by a five to four vote ruling that the death penalty statutes in Georgia and Texas violated the eighth amendment by involving cruel and unusual punishment. The key issue for some of the Justices was that among those eligible for the death penalty only a few were chosen and the standard was not consistent or clear. In other words, there was not a pair application principle. During the next three years 35 states rewrote their capital punishment laws to conform to the Supreme Court decision, and then on July 2, 1976, by a seven to two vote, the Supreme Court declared capital punishment acceptable and legitimate. In 1977 executions resumed and there was an expectation that there would be numerous executions, but there were not. As this developed in 1987 the Supreme Court handed down another five to four decision ruling that racial bias in imposing the death penalty was really insufficient grounds for challenging the constitutionality of capital punishment laws. Statistics do demonstrate that blacks are much more likely to be convicted and sentenced to death than whites, especially when the victim is white and the murderer is black. Those least likely to be convicted are blacks when the victims are blacks. But the Supreme Court ruled that despite the fact that there were disparities and an unequal application of the law, that did not change the nature of the law. That is the principle. Just because a law is not applied fairly or evenly doesn’t mean you throw out the law, it means you change the way it is applied.

There have been various forms of execution utilized in this country: hanging, public hanging, was a common form of execution through the 19th century. If there is going to be a penalty that is to act as a deterrent, people have to see it. We live in a society that is so distanced from life and death that most people can’t handle death and they can’t handle birth. Generations ago many were born and died in the same bed, and the whole family saw both. Now we have these sterilized injections that nobody witnesses, and it is a painless death, and this is supposed to be a punishment. The idea is that it is a penal death, it is a punishment, not something that is supposed to be easy or sanitized. Execution switched to electrocution, introduced in 1888, and then there was the gas chamber introduced in 1924. By 1983  nine states decided to use lethal injections and this has brought various mixed reactions. In 1981 the American Medical Association passed a resolution stating that a physician as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution. They viewed it as being inconsistent with their Hippocratic oath.

In England as recently as 1800 there were over 200 crimes that were considered capital offences. That is important historically because when the American Constitution was written in 1789 and the Bill of Rights was adopted, the eighth amendment prohibited the use of cruel and unusual punishment. Let’s look at that as a historical document. You have to interpret it in terms of the intent of the writers and in terms of the times in which it was written. It was not mean to be a “living document” despite what people say. If that kind of interpretive rationale to your taxes you’ll go to jail; or if to the Bible you’ll go to hell. You can’t come along and say something mean that to one generation but it means something else to this generation. It has to be what the authors intended, so you have to define cruel and unusual punishment in light of the times when the Constitution was written. In England at that time there were 200 crimes that were capital offences but by the 20th century Britain has outlawed the death penalty. Between 1970 and 1980 six western European countries outlawed the death penalty. By 1980 world-wide 20 countries had outlawed the death penalty for all crime, but since then many more have abolished the death penalty. By 1992 the number of countries and territories that retained the death penalty had been reduced to only 106. So it can be seen that the move is against the death penalty.

What are the arguments that are usually advanced against using the death penalty? First of all, there is the one we usually hear from our kids: everyone else is stopping it. Everyone else is stopping it; we should too. According to Amnesty International the reason it should be stopped is because governments all over the world are eliminating the death penalty. But governments all over the world do not have a Judeo-Christian foundation for their judicial system. We do. The answer to this objection is simple. Everyone isn’t stopping it, though many are. The ones who do are doing it because they bought into an anti-biblical world view.

A second argument that is used against capital punishment is that it neither deters violence nor makes society safer. This is really a form of a truism—something that is commonly accepted to be true but it is not—that violence can’t stop violence. We have to use violence to stop violence in a fallen world. Remember that when Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane in order to prevent being taken or assaulted prior to the time, knowing that He needed to go to the cross, He told the disciples to bring along a couple of swords. There is a time to fight and a time not to fight, and a time to protect yourself. He knew that if there was violence toward Him that would prevent Him from going to the cross that it needed to be stopped by violence. The rationale that is normally presented here comes from statistical evidence. For example, you will hear that records from 1967-68 states that states that did not have a death penalty had a lower first degree murder rate than states that did have a death penalty. Other studies from 1920 to 1955, Michigan, which was the first state to abolish the death penalty, had a lower homicide rate than either Ohio or Indiana, and they both had the death penalty. Others will point to a study where Missouri abolished the death penalty from 1917 to 1919. Prior to the abolition of the death penalty and after its reinstatement the number of homicides rose steadily, but during the period when there was no death penalty homicides steadily decreased. The problem with this is that you can’t really analyze an unknown. The unknown: how many people didn’t commit a murder because they didn’t want to die? There is no statistical way to measure that, so you cannot prove whether it is a deterrent or not because you never can measure how many people didn’t commit a murder. So the idea that it isn’t a deterrent isn’t a provable argument. Furthermore, you don’t know what other factors might be at play in the culture at that time. You can point to a lot of different periods in states histories and in US history where you have a rise in the homicide rate and a decline in the homicide rate, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not there is a change in the death penalty law. These things just fluctuate. It cannot be known what it would have been like in a state like Michigan if they had had the death penalty, you can’t prove the negative. Furthermore, in the US criminals know that they aren’t likely to be executed. That is one factor. Remember the number of people who have been executed is relatively small compared to the number of people charged or who have been found guilty of first degree murder.

A second reason you can’t go to the deterrent argument is that in murders of passion thought and reason aren’t the issue. In a murder of passion there is not thought of what the deterrent is, there is more concern about not getting caught as opposed to not having to pay the full penalty. And a third point, which has already been mentioned, is that there is no way to measure how many people do not commit a murder because of the possibility of the death penalty. So the conclusion is that it is impossible to demonstrate that the death penalty doesn’t deter.

Nevertheless, deterrent isn’t the biblical argument. The biblical argument is given in verse 6, and that is: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Why is there capital punishment, according to God? Because it is a theological statement: you have destroyed a person who is created in the image and likeness of God. This is so serious in God’s eyes that it means a murderer has forfeited the right to live. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a deterrent; it may be a deterrent, but that is not why God said to do it. It is not vengeance, it is simply that the person has forfeited the right to live.

Another argument that is used against capital punishment is that it is discriminatory. There is a presuppositional problem here, and that is that people in our society think that discrimination is wrong in and of itself. But we make a discrimination every time we make a decision for one thing or another. Discrimination in and of itself is not wrong, but they flash this idea that it is discriminatory so therefore it is wrong. It is not true. God is going to discriminate at the great white throne judgment. People who trust Christ get saved; people who don’t are going to the lake of fire. Every time a judge makes a decision in a courtroom he discriminates. But, of course, what they are saying is it is not equally applied, and there are some statistics that indicate that there are serious problems with the way the death penalty is applied. A recent study of death sentences in Philadelphia found that African-American defendants were almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than were people of other ethnic origins who committed similar crimes. Over 80% of people executed since 1976 were convicted of killing white victims, although people of color make up more than half of all homicide victims. That is not a fair or balanced application of the law. Furthermore, a defendant who can afford to pay his or her own attorney is much less likely to be sentenced to die. Ninety-five percent of all people on death row could not afford to pay their own attorneys. These are inequities in the system. Furthermore, from 1930-1957 in the US more than half of the executions for murder involved non-whites, and in the south more twice as many blacks as white were executed. That is an inequity in the system. Of all people legally executed in the US between 1930 and 1980 about 53.3% were black, even though US population during that period was only 10% black. So there are a lot of problems with the way in which the death penalty is applied, but it doesn’t mean you don’t apply it. Remember, God in His omniscience, when He established this principle in Genesis 6, knew that man would not apply it fairly. Nevertheless, He delegated that responsibility to the human race.

Another complaint is that it is used to silence political opposition. That would not apply to the US but it certainly would apply in some countries. Once again, this is a problem of methodology, it is not a problem of morality. 

There is the complaint that it is irreversible. Juries make mistakes. Sometimes the wrong evidence is brought forth. Sometimes more evidence is discovered down the line. Once again, God in His omniscience knew that man was fallible and would make wrong decisions. Nevertheless, he delegated the responsibility to man. It is not an option, it is a responsibility for man to govern well and to govern wisely, even though he will make mistakes.

Another objection is that the death penalty isn’t a solution. The argument is that it just creates more victims, it doesn’t really solve anything, it just perpetuates a cycle of violence, and “if we truly believe that killing is wrong we must abolish the death penalty.” That is a direct quote from the Amnesty International web site. What is wrong with that statement? Killing isn’t by definition wrong. In the ten commandments it doesn’t say “Thou shalt not kill,” it says, “Thou shalt not murder.” There are many times when the taking of human life is legitimate and authorized in Scripture. Don’t make an absolute of a wrong principle and then try to force everything to fit it. That is what is happening there, there is this presupposition that killing and violence is inherently and always wrong, therefore don’t keep perpetuating it. Furthermore, that argument says it just creates more victims. In this sense the victims are the family of those who are executed, the family of the criminal. He created them as victims as well as the person he murdered. It is not the punishment that is making them victims and, furthermore, it is questionable that the family should be called victims. They are simply not victims in the same sense that the person murdered is a victim. We have to put our emphasis on the victim of the crime, and their family, and not on the criminal and his family.

The objection that it is just vengeance. But it is not about vengeance, it is about justice. Vengeance has to do with an unauthorized individual settling a score; justice has to do with the legally established authorities dealing with a criminal act. We must realize that justice can be retributive without being vengeful; they are not the same thing. Then we must realize that because some victims are vengeance-motivated doesn’t mean the death penalty is vengeance based. In any society those who cannot keep the laws should be punished because they don’t obey the law.

The underlying issue goes back to the debate that has been going on for the last 150 years: Is incarceration for punishment or for rehabilitation? If you believe that man is inherently good, then you are going to want to rehabilitate because they are “rehabilitatable.” It’s not his fault, it is society’s fault! He grew up in poverty; he was abused when he was a child; it is not his fault he grew up to be a mass-murderer! But the Bible says that the heart is deceitful above all things.” We are corrupt sinners, and that it takes discipline to restrain the sin nature, and when any individual is at a point where they are no longer capable of restraining their sin nature to the point that it becomes destructive to society, then they need to be removed from society just as you would cut out a malignant cancer. That is what the death penalty is all about. It is looking to what is best for society and not what is best for the criminal.

A further objection that is raised against capital punishment is that it is cruel and unusual punishment. What is claimed here is that by definition the death punishment is cruel and unusual. But the founding fathers didn’t understand it that way, did they? They clearly authorized the death penalty, and they utilized means of execution that we no longer think are acceptable. What happens it that those who are against the capital punishment usually argue that any kind of punishment is cruel and unusual. They just don’t want any kind of punishment at all. They argue that “cruel” means deliberately causing pain or injury. Also they would say that the emotional grief caused by simply arresting this “poor” criminal is cruel. The problem is that we get into redefining what is cruel and unusual in terms of our culture. The answer to this is that the executions that are actually carried out in this country for capital crimes is not unusual, and since the criminal is not tortured the penalty is not cruel.

When we come to the Bible it doesn’t define what kind of death penalty, the methodology; it doesn’t set up a specific form of government, it just lays down the principle: that man has the prerogatives to police himself. That means that he has to adjudicate criminal actions and to deal with them in an appropriate manner. And because of the rationale that is given in Genesis chapter nine is that man is in the image of God we have to recognize that, in our first principle, capital punishment is first and foremost an issue of theology. If anything has to do with taking a life then ultimately it must be understood in terms of a theological framework. It has to do with the value of human life and why God created man, and so capital punishment, then, becomes an issue of theology. In fact, all ethics, all moral judgments, are ultimately determined by a person’s theology. So if you are a believer then you have to go back to the Bible and let the Bible define your understanding of any issue. You can’t let society define it; you can’t let the inappropriate or inequitable application of a principle define it. You have to start with an absolute and then you work your applications out from that absolute. It is a matter of theology because whoever determines what life is, when it begins and ends, what its parameters are, is the one who determines the basis for taking life in a just manner.

We have to recognize that capital punishment was not a part of the first two dispensations—of perfect environment between creation and the fall, or the dispensation of human conscience between the fall and the flood. But God sees fit to establish it here in Genesis 9.

Capital punishment is as much a part of the Noahic covenant as the promise to not flood the earth again and the authorization to eat meat. If any part of this contract is still in effect the whole contract is still in effect. This is going to be different when we get to the Mosaic law. The way that many Christians argue for capital punishment is to go to the Mosaic law, but the Mosaic law was a temporary law code and it was only for the nation Israel. The Noahic covenant is for every nation on the planet and it is still in effect. The Mosaic law code ended at the cross.

The authorization for capital punishment comes from God and not from man. This isn’t something that was generated by the creature. This authorization is a mandate, not an option; it is not based on pragmatics, such as a deterrent effect, but on an absolute: man is in the image of God. Thus the authorization for capital punishment provides the basis for human government. The Noahic covenant legitimizes capital punishment for only murder, but this does not restrict its application in other areas. It does imply certain things: that if there is going to be a system to adjudicate and determine guilt there needs to be a system for the objective evaluation of evidence.

The Mosaic law provides a divinely authored government constitution showing that capital punishment may be applied in other areas: Murder was a capital crime, Exodus 21:12; Numbers 25:26-31. Sabbath violation, Exodus 35:2. Cursing parents, because he had failed to learn authority orientation. That would lead to a breakdown of authority in society and lead to, criminality, Leviticus 20:9. Adultery, because it breaks down the second divine institution of marriage, and that would lead to the destruction of society, Leviticus 20:10. Incest, breaks down the family, Leviticus 20; Sodomy, Leviticus 20:13, 15, 16. False prophecy, idolatry, incorrigible juvenile rebellion, Deuteronomy 21:8-21. Rape, Deuteronomy 22:25. Kidnapping, Exodus 21:6.

Something that is crucial for this study is that the Mosaic covenant is viewed as a legal document. It is an integrated whole, you can’t separate it, you can’t go into it and take out certain provisions and apply them and not others. It is a whole document. Either the whole thing is in effect or it is not in effect. It was a legal constitution for the theocracy of Israel, a form of government where God functions as the executive branch. In the Mosaic law God serves as the King, and there is a bureaucracy which was the priests and the Levites who carried out the various functions of collecting taxes which were called tithes. Tithes were ten per cent taxes, and there were three different kinds of incomes taxes that were levied for the nation to provide for widows and orphans and various other facets such taking care of the livelihood for logistical needs of the priests and Levites. In the Mosaic law there were three different elements in the law code. Part of it was civil and criminal law. The other part of the law code had to do with ritual. They were all part of the same document. In the criminal law there were various crimes that demanded capital punishment—murder, Sabbath violation, cursing of parents, adultery, incest, sodomy, false prophecy, idolatry, incorrigible juvenile rebellion, rape, animals that killed humans, kidnapping, aliens of foreigners who intruded into a sacred place. All of these required the death penalty under the Mosaic law.

Who wrote the Mosaic law? God wrote the Mosaic law. Therefore what we must say is that as a law code it is perfect; it is not imperfect. It defines from God’s perspective what freedom is. We don’t define what freedom is by going out and looking at cultural institutions. We don’t start from the bottom up, we start from divine revelation and then deduct our ideas of freedom from our study of the Word of God. So the Mosaic law is a perfect law code, but that doesn’t mean that every nation needs to take the Mosaic law and make it their constitution. There are elements of the Mosaic law that are specifically oriented to Israel because Israel is God’s firstborn son in the Old Testament, God’s chosen nation. No other nation has the same relationship to God as the Jews had because they are God’s chosen people, so you can’t take the Mosaic law and then take that over as a constitution or governing document for some other country. But it does provide a model and a basis and shows where there is a legitimacy in crime and punishment. One of the fascinating aspects of the Mosaic law is that there was no incarceration for criminal activity. Criminal incarceration comes out of paganism, it didn’t come out of the Bible. Furthermore, there is not the dismemberment penalties such as there is in Islam. These are the barbarities from paganism. There was a system where there was forfeiture of life or of becoming a slave to pay off and give remuneration for a crime, one way or the other.

What we see here is that the death penalty applied to a number of different categories that we certainly in our “enlightened” society we would not use. We are so “enlightened,” but this is God’s light, and God’s light is superior to our light and in His light capital punishment applies to numerous areas that we would not apply it to. Probably part of this, involving cursing of parents, incest, sodomy, adultery, has to do with protecting the nation from losing the divine institutions of marriage and family. Once they are gone the nation is going to fragment and implode—which is what is happening in our nation today.

The Old Testament model was called lex talionis, the law of retaliation. This is a Latin term that was used in Roman law, but the concept of a law of retaliation goes back as far as the laws of Lipit Ishtar around 1850 B. C. and the code of Hammurabi around 1750 B. C. In the law of retaliation the idea was that the penalty should not exceed the crime, and it was designed to protect the guilty from the excessive vengeance of the innocent so that they would not be over penalized for the crime. The other aspect that is important to understand in the law of lex talionis is that it doesn’t necessarily mandate the harshest penalty allowed by law. It would leave it up to the judge because there may be ameliorating circumstances, some factors involved that would mean a lessening of the penalty. We see this in one example in the Old Testament when David commits adultery (a capital crime) with Bathsheba, and then conspires with Joab to have her husband Uriah the Hittite put in a position in battle so that he would be killed. So David is guilty of two capital crimes, yet God commutes the sentence. God can do that because He is the ultimate Judge and has the right to do that. But the implication is that there are circumstances where a human judge can do that as well under certain circumstances, but it should be used sparingly. God did commute the death penalty for David, but David had to go through a four-fold penalty of divine discipline: the baby born to Bathsheba died, then he had two of his children commit incest, Absalom then murdered his brother who committed incest with his sister, and then Absalom later led the nation in revolt against his father David. So the whole family implodes and it brought not only heartache to David because of what he saw take place in his own family but it also brought heartache to the nation because of the Absalom revolt. So the Old Testament model for lex talionis established the principle that the penalty must not exceed the crime.

There are three passages in the Old Testament that explain the principle of lex talionis. The first is in Exodus 21:24, 25. The context of this passage deals with the two men who are involved in a fight in the midst of which a woman is hurt so that she gives birth prematurely, yet, as the passage says, no harm follows. What this is saying is that as a result of the fight the child is born prematurely and then doesn’t die. The question is whether the woman suffers physical harm afterwards or physical harm to the child after it was born, in which case there would be punishment as well. Then the principle is laid down, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” This was never taken literally. It was taken literally in Islam so that there is this dismemberment factor in their laws, but this is not how Israel practiced or ever understood this. It is simply a metaphor for saying that remuneration would be made in kind. In the Mosaic law there are various financial figures that are assigned to different crimes. There was to be financial restitution for what was lost. It was never understood in a literal fashion other than the phrase life for life. The way that is interpreted is from clear passages that tell us that if someone committed a specific crime they were to die. That explains that one phrase in a literal way, but the other phrases were understood as simply a metaphor for a payment in kind and to the same degree.

The second passage that emphasizes lex talionis is Leviticus 24:20, “Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.” This is not talking about the fact that if you cause an accident and it is your fault, and somebody breaks their leg, that they get to come over and break your leg. It means that if you cause a certain damage to them there would be a financial cost assigned to that and there would be financial remuneration. There is the same terminology in Deuteronomy 19:19, “Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” So life for life was the only one that was taken literally and understood to be applied literally.

Summary

1)      So the law of lex talionis was designed to prevent excessive retaliation or vengeance from the offended party. The penalty must not exceed the crime.

2)      Life for life was the only part of the phrase that was ever taken or understood in a literal fashion. The other was just a metaphor to indicate that punishment must be to the same degree as the crime.

3)      In the Mosaic law some form of financial remuneration was set for all other injuries and criminal acts. There was no dismemberment or anything like that, it was never understood as such. The main idea was that repayment would be in terms of equal value.

What happens by the time we get into the New Testament period is the Pharisees had distorted the law. During the period of the Babylonian captivity the Jews realized that it was such a painful period in the nation’s history because had removed them from the land that when they came back to the land they sort of scratched their heads and said, “What can we do to prevent this kind of divine discipline again?” They had broken God’s law and that was the reason for them to be taken out of the land so they had to be sure they never broke God’s law. They said the way to do that was to look at the 613 commandments in the Mosaic law, and around each one of those commandments they created a series of commandments to build a fence around that commandment to make sure that if we break one of the other commandments then we certainly won’t break the main commandment. So they created these traditions and secondary laws. Then they came along after that and said they needed to make sure they didn’t break any of those laws and they built a fence around each one of those laws. What they had was a whole array of traditions and laws that were set up and ultimately designed to prevent people from breaking the Mosaic law. But they took on a legalistic, superficial aspect to them and they lost the spirit of the law and any concept or understanding of grace. So that when it comes to the law of retaliation the Pharisees had distorted that law to the idea that it required a corresponding punishment and that they were to seek the highest form of retaliation. This bred in the Pharisaic interpretation an atmosphere of personal vengeance and retaliation. By the time that Jesus came on the scene the Pharisees were using the Mosaic law as a justification for personal vengeance. As has been pointed out, capital punishment is not a matter of vengeance, it is a matter of justice.

Lex talionis represents the maximum punishment. This allows for grace on the part of the judiciary to lower the penalty. That grace should be used sparingly but it recognizes the validity of extenuating circumstances. That concept had been lost by the Pharisees.

Jesus did not change the standards in the sermon on the mount. There are those who believe that Matthew chapter five is a new ethic, a new standard for the Christian life; that the purpose of Matthew five is to replace the Mosaic with a new standard. However, we have to realize that in Matthew 5:17 Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.” He is not changing what the law says. We have to understand that whatever Jesus is saying it is not in contrast to the Mosaic law. If the Mosaic law teaches capital punishment then Jesus is not coming along and providing an ethic in the sermon on the mount that would do away with it. What He is dealing with in Matthew 5 & 6 is an interpretation of the law—His interpretation in contrast to the interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees. This is seen in Matthew 5:20 where Jesus says, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

What Jesus is doing in the sermon on the mount is answering the question: What kind of righteousness is required to enter the kingdom? The Pharisees through their system of laws that they had established through the Mishna and later the Talmud—the fences they had set up around the 613 commandments of the Torah—they were establishing their interpretation of righteousness in the Mosaic law. This was what was required to have salvation, what was required to get into the kingdom. But Jesus interprets the Mosaic law from God’s divine viewpoint in contrast to what the Pharisees have been saying all along. The Pharisees had perverted the law of Moses into a system of righteousness based on works and thus they had destroyed a system of freedom and substituted a system of slavery to a works oriented righteousness.

We have to remember that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, He came to fulfill the law; so whatever He is saying it is not a contrast to the law. Matthew 5:21, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not murder; and whosoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment.” That is what the Pharisees taught. Jesus gives His interpretation and He says that the righteousness isn’t just an external righteousness and don’t commit murder, it goes deeper than that and has to do with the underlying mental attitude. If you have a mental attitude sin of arrogance and hostility to somebody else, that is violating the law of loving your neighbor as yourself. It is a sin and you are just as guilty of violating the law. Matthew 5:38, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” That is what the Old Testament taught; now Jesus is going to apply it. Verse 39, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not an evil person: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” A lot of people quote that out of context. They use it to support pacifism, as an argument against capital punishment, and if they followed the argument out to its logical conclusion there wouldn’t be a judicial system. But look carefully at this verse. If someone is going to hit you on your right cheek he is going to have to back-hand you to hit you on your right cheek (most people are right-handed). They are not going to be hitting you with a left hook. The idiom for this indicates that this is a personal insult. When you slap somebody with the back of your hand it is an insult, an affront. So this is not talking about literally slapping somebody. It is an idiom for being offended, being insulted by somebody. What Jesus is saying here is that if someone insults you don’t take offence, don’t make an issue out of it; deal with them in grace and generosity. Just because they have done something wrong doesn’t justify you in prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

Then in verse 43, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” This is talking about personal relationships, it is not talking about what takes place at a national level, what takes place in terms of judicial penalties for criminal activity. It is dealing with how you exercise love for your neighbor.

Jesus did not negate capital punishment for the woman taken in adultery. The principle there is that the Pharisees are trying to trap Jesus, they are not going through the principle of correct legal action. They don’t have two witnesses, they have set the whole situation up, and the purpose is not to try to execute the law in a fair and judicious manner but they are attempting to trap Jesus and in the process they are going to trap this particular woman and they really have no concern for her whatsoever.

Romans 13:3, 4 establishes the legitimacy of capital punishment as well as the military in its establishment of judicial authority. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain [for nothing]: for he is the minister of God, a revenger [word based on dikh, for righteousness; it executes justice, not revenge] to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Paul is writing in the context of the worst emperor ever to rule in Rome. Nero is abusing authority left and right. Yet Paul establishes the principle that there is no authority except from God. Even bad authorities are appointed by God. Even if the person in office is not worthy of respect, even if they abuse respect, the office is established by God and is due respect because of the office. That has application in marriage. A husband may be a loser but he is in the office of being in authority over the family. Even if he is a failure the wife has to treat him with respect because of the office he holds in the family.

Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not murder.” This is the Hebrew word for premeditated murder, not the word for killing in self-defense, not the word for protecting one’s country or home, and it is not the word for killing in military service or in a judicial manner. So there is no basis in Scripture to argue against capital punishment. Capital punishment was established by God as a means of controlling criminality and protecting society from people who can no longer control their sin natures. And when they reach a certain level of instability and lack of control they forfeit their right to life.

Central Doctrines from Abraham

1.  Abrahamic Covenant (positional truth)

2.  Justification at phase one (Rom. 4)

3.  Justification at spiritual maturity (James 2)

4.  Spiritual advance by the faith rest drill (Heb 11)

5.  Election ( Rom. 9-11)

6.  Missions ("all nations will be blessed") 

Doctrine of Characteristics of a Healthy Church 

 Rev. 035b

The context of Acts chapter two is the beginning of the church, the very first day of the church age—Pentecost, approximately AD 33. Peter has just given his message and he challenges his hearers to be saved, verse 40. The response is given in v. 41: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” So after Peter’s message there were 3000 converts. So often what happens in churches is that that is what should characterize Christianity. But this is what characterized the birth. You never look at an adult and say their characteristics should be the same as when they were born. There are different stages in the life of the church in the church age, just as there are in the life of an individual. We don’t want to focus on some of those things. We can get into a real trap going to Acts and trying to call out various principles for healthy churches. We have to be very careful in what we examine and that we evaluate it in light of the mature reflections of the epistles and other things. So what we see here is that there is a response, but the thing that comes out of this is that there is an evangelistic emphasis in the early church and it goes throughout the New testament and continues. One mark of a healthy church is evangelism. There is a concern for the lost. There is a communication of the gospel, not simply in terms of the corporate evangelism from the pulpit, though even a pastor is challenged to “do the work of an evangelist.” But it is not just the pastor, it is the responsibility of individual believers to communicate the gospel to people in their periphery.

“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine.” The word there translated “continued steadfastly” is the Greek word PROSKATEREO [proskaterew], which means to be faithful to someone or to something, to busy one’s self with something, to be busily engaged in something, or to be devoted to something. In other words, it means making it a high priority, something that you have a passion about. We should have a passion about learning the Word. That is what this means. They were devoted continuously to the apostles’ doctrine and to fellowship. If we look at the English translation the way it is punctuated makes it look like a list of four things. It is not, it is a list of two things: apostles’ doctrine and fellowship. The last two things that are listed are an appositional phrase, a phrase that is inserted to explain the previous word. The word is “fellowship.” This passage defines fellowship as the breaking of bread (communion) and prayer. Who are we having fellowship in the Lord’s table and in prayer. It is with God. This was the priority of the early believers: doctrine and fellowship with God. That is the foundation of a healthy church. When there is a group of believers that is truly devoted to doctrine and to fellowship with God personal evangelism is going to be a natural outgrowth over the course of their spiritual growth. A desire for missions, which is part of evangelism, is also going to be a characteristic of a church that has doctrine at its heart, because they want to see the Word going out. A church should be known as a church that has a heart for missions.

So in Acts 2:42 we see that the emphasis is on doctrine and fellowship. Fellowship with God, then, becomes the environment for fellowship with other believers. This is seen in 1 John 1:3, “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you [doctrine], that you also may have fellowship with us”—there is the teaching of the Word/doctrine so that there cane be true, genuine biblical fellowship, i.e. partnership and even social life between fellow believers—“and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” That is the framework. If there is no true, genuine fellowship with God (based upon sound doctrine) there is no fellowship with other believers. If your doctrine is screwed up there is no fellowship with God and there is no fellowship with other believers, no mater how much rapport you have with other believers. It is not biblical fellowship, it is just common every-day friendship, social life.

Fellowship with God always precedes true biblical fellowship with man. In the same way we can say that personal love for God precedes love for man. Before we can learn what it means to love other believers as Christ loved us we have to learn a lot of doctrine and a lot about God and His essence, His plan and His purposes. It is only within that environment that we can truly come to have the kind of love for others that Christ had for us. We have to remember that fellowship with God doesn’t replace fellowship with man, but fellowship with man operates only within that environment of true biblical fellowship with God.

One other thing that we see as we look at Acts chapter two is that because of their devotion to doctrine, because of their fellowship with God, it flowed out into true biblical fellowship, love, concern and care for one another in the body of Christ. They were involved with one another to a profound level. There was a willingness to share of who and what they were, the substance that God had provided for them, with other believers who had genuine needs because they were genuinely concerned about others in the body of Christ. This was just one evidence of many in a growing, healthy congregation—their concern for one another. It is a concern that is expressed by being friendly to one another, to pray for one another, a concern that is expressed through realizing that someone else has a significant problem or has a need in their life where you have the resources to help them, and that you are willing to do it. But these are not programs that are imposed on the congregation from the leadership.

Doctrine of Pagan Culture   Gen. 136b

1)      When you lie down with dogs you are going to get up with fleas. When you associate with certain kinds of people who always think the same way and have the same value system then you can’t help but be influenced by that kind of peer pressure and assimilate to that culture around us. Every believer in every culture is constantly exposed to the input of the pagan culture around it. When you live and operate in a pagan culture without the protection of Bible doctrine functioning as a filter to keep the pagan viewpoints, ideas, and values out, then what will inevitably happen is that you will begin to live and think like the people in the culture around you.

2)      In this chapter we see several characteristics that are typical of different types of paganism. First of all there is a lax attitude towards sex and sexual norms and standards which are designed by God to be restricted to marriage as a celebration between a man and a woman, which excludes polygamy and homosexuality. In paganism, sex is reduced to simple physical gratification, a physical need and nothing more. With that diminishing of the value of sex comes a diminishing of the value of men as men and women as women, as they are designed by the plan of God. The second characteristic which is typical of paganism is that the role of the sexes is perverted so that males as a class become tyrannical and oppressive toward women as a class. And women as a class seek to subvert the authority of the men.

3)      Justice is perverted into vengeance. The issue is not vengeance but justice. Vengeance is very different from justice, it takes place when we no longer have an objective external standard and we are concerned about righting a personal wrong from our own personal vantage point.

4)      We see here two different and wrong responses to evil and injustice. The first is passivity, and this is seen in Jacob when here his daughter gets raped by this man in Shechem and is more concerned about his social acceptance in the community, and the fact that people would accept them and they could live and operate in the community, than he is about the honor of his own daughter. He is conspicuously silent throughout the entire episode. After the brothers overreact at the end of the chapter he accuses them of overreacting and says he will have to move, the people wouldn’t accept him and let him live here any more, and look what you have done to my reputation. So one side of it is this passivity toward evil: that somehow we are going to appease evil and compromise with evil, and everything will be okay, just don’t rock the boat. Then we have the opposite, which is a harsh overreaction, demonstrated in the actions of the twelve sons of Jacob. An injustice, which is clearly an injustice and a crime, is used to justify an even greater injustice and crime, and it is committed almost in the name of religion. But in neither case is justice served or the victim honored. In both cases it is a self-centered, arrogant type of reaction to evil and injustice and there is little appeal for an external standard.

5)      The end justifies the means. This rationale is typically operative in paganism because there is no external objective. So the sin nature always seeks to justify itself in terms of its own carnality.

6)      This event in chapter thirty-four is part of a mosaic which gives us a picture of the spiritual and moral status of the twelve sons of Jacob. All of the sons of Jacob are morally and spiritually bankrupt, and yet God is still true to His promise that He is going to bless all the world through these individuals. The over-arching doctrine in this chapter is the importance of separation from the cosmic system. That is the real issue here. The reason God has to move the descendants of Jacob down to Egypt is because they are assimilating with paganism. The point of all these episodes is to show that as they have rejected doctrine they begin to act just like the pagans around them and if God doesn’t do something they are going to assimilate within a couple of generations around them into the Canaanite culture and they won’t be any different. They will be lost. So in order for God to achieve His purposes in history he is going to bring them through various means down to Egypt and isolate them so that they can grow to a substantive number and then go back to the land and defeat the Canaanites. This shouldn’t be taken as a physical separation per se. There are always legalists who come along and say we need to go off and live in a monastery, etc. Isolating from the world completely is not the right answer. There is a physical element of separation that will be necessary but it is first and foremost a mental separation based on the priority of Bible doctrine. We have to get our thinking aligned with the Word of God and then the consequence of that is that the more we think biblically the more we will be able to rightly discern where to bring about those other separations.

7)      Another key doctrine in this chapter is the grace of God. It is God’s grace that He brings about His plans and purposes, and they are not dependent on who we are and what we do. God’s plan is always dependent on His character, not our character.

8)      A negative theme which we see working itself out in the chapter is that of deception.

Doctrine of Characteristics of Paganism     Gen. 102b

1)      Sexual degradation and perversion becomes commonplace and socially acceptable in a pagan culture. The more a culture is divorced from the absolutes of the Scripture the more sexual deviancy becomes “normal” and accepted. The more it becomes normal and accepted, the more accustomed, even believers become. They may not be comfortable with it but they no longer experience the same level of shame and embarrassment when certain things are talked about than when they first came up. We hear about certain things on TV and in the news and we become desensitized to the shame of these acts and actions that are taking place in our culture. As a result of this there is an increase in violence.

2)      Women are no longer protected and valued.

3)      There is a total breakdown as a result of that over all distinctions. It is no coincidence that at the same time that we have the rise of radical feminism, which as as its core the idea there is total and complete interchangeability between men and women and the workplace and the rise of homosexuality among men and women, which says the same thing sexually, that men and women are completely interchangeable as sexual partners. The idea is: It doesn’t matter whether my sexual partner is a man or a woman just as long as I have my gratification. So there is a breakdown of role distinctions and there is evidence in women assuming male authority positions and a failure of male leadership in the culture. So women want to assume male authority positions such as a pastor, or they take male positions in terms of bi-sexuality. All of this reflects a breakdown in the culture because we no longer understand the role of men and women as image bearers as God created them. So women become sex objects and men become tyrannical and abusers, and it leads to a complete breakdown of marriage and of the family, and eventually society.       

The Doctrine of Christian Liberty  RD/Gal/039

   1. From what are we set free? Christ redeemed us—He bought us, paid a price for freedom—from the curse of the law in 3:13. We are all imprisoned by sin, that is the Greek verb sunkleio [sugkleiw] in 3:22 (poorly translated “shut up”) which means imprisoned. We are in bondage to the law, kept in custody by the law, 3:23. We are said to be enslaved to the law as a child to the pedagogue, 3:24. We are said to be a slave to religion in 4:8. There is the analogy of the slave woman Hagar in 4:22-31. So we are not free, we are born in slavery and we see two or three different categories of slavery in Galatians—to the law, to the sin nature, to religion. We are freed from the penalty of sin, freed from the power of sin in phase two, and we will be freed eventually from the presence of sin in a glorified state and will no longer struggle with sin. So we are freed from the penalty of sin in phase one, and in phase two which is the spiritual life we are to live out our freedom from the power of sin; to learn how not to be controlled in this life by the power of sin—i.e. sanctification, a life that is set apart to the service of God.
   2. Freedom was secured by Christ’s finished work on the cross. This is the significance of the clause in 5:1, “Christ set us free.” It is the aorist active indicative of eleutheroo. Christ performed the action and we received the action. He did all the work; we don’t do any of it. It has been accomplished in the past; Christ set us free through His death on the cross. A description of how this took place is found in Romans 6. There are a lot of similarities in what Paul says in Romans to what he says in Galatians. In Romans 5:21 he says: “so that, as sin reigned in [spiritual] death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” In other words, because there was sin God was able to display His grace. In 6:1 he says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? [2] May it never be! [mh genoito]...” No, that is a false application of the principle and it is not what Paul is trying to say. “… How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” This is what the rest of the chapter is going to explain. What does it mean to die to sin? [3] “…all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?” The main verb here is the aorist passive indicative of baptizo [baptizw]. The word means to dip, plunge or immerse. The significance of baptism is identification. When it says here we “have been baptized into Christ Jesus” we have an important phrase, eis plus the accusative of christon [e)ij Xriston]. The reason this is important is that it gives us a clue as to what kind of baptism Paul is talking about. Cf. Galatians 3:27 NASB “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The phrase “baptized into Christ” is the same phrase as in Romans 6:3, therefore a comparison of Scripture with Scripture tells us that the kind of baptism in view in Romans 6 is the baptism by means of God the Holy Spirit that takes place at the moment of salvation. The means by which we are placed into union with Christ is the baptism by means of the Holy Spirit. This is called positional truth—the doctrines that relate to our position in Jesus Christ. This is further sub-divided into two categories: retroactive positional truth and current positional truth. Romans 6:4 describes retroactive positional truth. NASB “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death…” Because of our identification with Christ on the cross—that is the thrust of baptism. By means of the Holy Spirit we are identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection—so that as a result of that, being identified with His death, the sin nature is crucified with Christ. This is what Paul is talking about in Romans 6. “… so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk [subjunctive mood: potential, dependent upon our volition] in newness of life.” What is this “newness of life”? It is freedom from enslavement to the sin nature. Before we were saved we had no option but to follow the dictates of the sin nature. Remember the sin nature not only produces sin, it also produces human good. Romans 6:5 NASB “For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection, [6] knowing this, that our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with…” Future tense. In other words, this is how we are going to learn how to do away with the power of sin in our daily life. “… so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.” Positionally we are free, but experientially we may still be living in bondage to the sin nature. To realise this freedom entails two things. First of all, our volition, and secondly, some knowledge upon which to act. We have to know what the options are so that we can activate our volition. [7] “for he who has died [to sin] is freed from sin.” The verb “freed” is perfect passive indicative of dikaioo [dikaiow], the word for justification, not the word for freedom. It is a perfect tense which indicates the present reality of a past action. Because we have been identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and action took place in the past (we were justified) with results that go on for all eternity. He who has died has been justified [declared righteous] from sin. In other words, sin is no longer an issue in the spiritual life because the penalty was paid completely by Jesus Christ. [8] The principle. “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, [9] knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. [9] For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. [10] Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” This is an analogy that Paul is using here and it is very simply. He says Christ died and was raised to a life with God. The analogy is that we as believers died with Christ; therefore we are to live a life for God. That is the thrust of the argument. We are able to do that because we are dead to sin. We still have a sin nature, we are still going to sin, we are still going to struggle with sin and temptation; but the point is that sin does not have to be a master over us. We are set free at salvation from sin and positionally we have freedom and we are slaves of righteousness.

           Romans 6:12-14 NASB “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin {as} instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members {as} instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace…. [17] But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin [as an unbeliever], you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, [18] and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.” What is the point? Positionally we are now a slave of righteousness and we need to start living like one.

3.       Our positional sanctification. We are eternally set apart. The root Greek word from which we translate the word “holiness” is hagios [a(gioj] and it means to be set apart. Unfortunately it has been

translated forever and ever as “holy,” and holy is one of those religious words that often loses its real meaning over time. It is used so frequently that it no longer has its impact. The root word for holiness, going back to the Hebrew word, has to do with being set apart for the service of God. It doesn’t have an inherently moral nuance to it. The root meaning doesn’t have the idea of being morally pure, it has the idea of being set apart for the service of God. So when we use the word “sanctification” it simply means to be set apart to the service of God. When we talk about our positional sanctification we are talking about our position in Christ, that at the moment of salvation we are united with Christ and we are set apart for the service of God. The whole spiritual life of phase two is the idea of growing to spiritual maturity so that as we grow spiritually our lives become more and more set apart to the service of God through spiritual growth. The point is, our positional sanctification provides freedom from slavery to, the sin nature.

Romans 6:15 NASB  What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” There are people who think that because we are under grace we can sin and get away with it; but nobody ever gets away with sin in the spiritual life. God will exercise the responsibility of disciplining every single believer under the law of divine discipline. God will continually do that to bring us back into line because God’s plan is to bring us to spiritual maturity, and when we get out on our own living in carnality God will decide whatever is necessary to bring us back into obedience to Him. Just because we are not under the Mosaic law it doesn’t mean there are no mandates for the spiritual life. The spiritual life still has absolutes. This is the plan of God for our life but it is under the umbrella of grace. Romans 6:16 NASB “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone {as} slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”

John 8:31 NASB “So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine; [32] and you will know the truth [Bible doctrine], and the truth will make you free.” Later when Jesus is praying the high-priestly prayer in John 17 He prays: “Sanctify them [set them apart] in the truth; Your word is truth.” The Word of God is the truth and we talk about that as the whole realm of Bible doctrine. So we have positional sanctification and then experiential sanctification and experiential freedom. The only basis for true freedom in life starts in the spiritual life, there is no true freedom anywhere else. As soon as Jesus said that [John 8:32] it immediately antagonised the Pharisees. [33] NASB “They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone…” In fact they were enslaved four different ways: to the Mosaic law, to their own interpretation of the Mosaic Law and the rigid system of legalism that we know as Pharisaism, to the Roman empire, and they were all in bondage to the sin nature. [34] “Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin’.” He is saying that when they choose to sin they are making the sin nature their master. That is the point Paul is making in Romans 6:16 NASB “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone {as} slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” But here Paul is talking to believers, so when he mentions death we have to define what kind of death this is.

Romans 6:17 NASB “But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin [as an unbeliever], you became obedient from the heart [mind] to that form of teaching to which you were committed…” That is, they believed in Jesus Christ and became positionally free. [18] “and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.” Positionally we are freed from the sain nature but we are positionally slaves of righteousness. The problem is that we want to go back under the old master experientially and make ourselves slaves to the sin nature, and that produces death—carnal death, when we are sepearated from God the Holy Spirit and the end result of this if we stay in extended carnality throughout our lives, then we go through intense suffering, intense divine discipline, we make ourselves miserable, have instability; and even of we have a measure of happiness in this life we ultimately will be miserable and will lose that marvellous inheritance that has been reserved for us in heaven that is related to our obedience to the Lord and joint suffering with Christ. We will forfeit that and will have shame at the judgment seat of Christ. [19] “I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh [sarx/ sarc = the sin nature]…” We still have a sin nature as believers and anything an unbeliever can do we can do as a believer, and we continually struggle with the fact that the sin nature wants to assert its authority over us and go back to that old system of slavery to the sin nature. “…For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in {further} lawlessness [as an unbeliever], so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.” This is a command. The implication is that we can choose to not do this; that we as believers can choose to live under the control of the sin nature and live a life of misery and temporal death. So the mandate is that as a believer we are to go on continuous action, continually presenting our members as slaves to righteousness. It is a moment by moment, step by step positional decision of submission to God the Holy Spirit, once we are restored to fellowship and filled with the Holy Spirit. It is a moment by moment forward movement of the spiritual life, not a one-shot decision. This is experiential sanctification; how we grow as a believer, to overcome the power of the sin nature in phase two.

Romans 6:20 NASB “For when you were slaves of sin [as an unbeliever], you were free in regard to righteousness.” That is, you could not produce righteousness under the continuous control of the sin nature as an unbeliever. [21] “Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.” In other words, you are going to make yourself, eventually, absolutely miserable in this life as long as you continue under the control of the sin nature and refuse to face the fact that God has called you for a purpose, and that is sanctification to overcome the power of the sin nature in your life through the filling of the Spirit and the application of doctrine. That means the highest priority in your life should be learning doctrine. Death is the opposite of spiritual freedom because we are putting ourselves back under the sin nature, the opposite of the spiritual freedom we have in Galatians 5.

4.       The new life we have in Christ is uniquely alike in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, which is the sphere of freedom. This is something that is often lost today. We are living in an age that is uniquely characterised by the ministry of God the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. But the spiritual life is a life that is empowered and energised by God the Holy Spirit and not by man. We have confused morality with spirituality so that we are trying to be spiritual simply by following a moral code of conduct, and yet the bible says that we are to live this life in them power of the Spirit Romans 8:2 NASB “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” This tells us that in this sphere, the filling of the Holy Spirit, is uniquely a life of freedom. Freedom is related to living in the power of the Holy Spirit under the filling of the Holy Spirit.

5.       This is further emphasised in 2 Corinthians 3:17, 18 NASB “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, {there} is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” The basis for living in freedom is the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. In v. 17 the “Lord” is the Greek word kurios [kurioj] and it is the word that was used to translate the Hebrew word for God, Yahweh, and it indicates deity. Another meaning was that it related to sovereignty, and this is where the Lordship crowd get mixed up. When we read “Jesus is Lord” it is in the sense of identifying Jesus with Yahweh. In this verse 17 it is identifying the Holy Spirit with the traditional name of God, Yahweh or kurios, and is a claim that the Holy Spirit is full deity. Where is the Spirit of the Lord in the believer’s life? It is when the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit. This sphere is the sphere of liberty. The Holy Spirit is the power of the spiritual life and that is why in Ephesians 5:18 we are commanded to be filled with God the Holy Spirit. Only when we have the filling of the Holy Spirit do we have spiritual freedom. The implication of v. 18 is that we have an unveiled face as we are confronted with the Shekinah glory in the Word of God. When we look into the completed canon of Scripture that is the mirror, and we behold the glory of the Lord. The word for “transformed into the same image” is metamorphoo [metamorfow] is the same word as used in Romans 12:2 NASB “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…” Transformed into what? Into the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. What is it that transforms the believer? Living in the sphere of freedom under God the Holy Spirit so that we are free from the power of the sin nature so that we can apply doctrine in our lives and advance to spiritual maturity. It is the filling of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God that are the power options in the spiritual life. So from this we learn that spiritual freedom is the environment of all believers under the filling of God the Holy Spirit and the believer can use this freedom to advance to spiritual maturity. This is the process of sanctification.

6.       The basis for this transformation is the completed canon of Scripture which is now called “the law of liberty” in James 1:25, in contrast to the Mosaic law which was characterised by bondage. The Word of God is called the law of liberty because it defines our freedom to serve God under the filling of God the Holy Spirit. See also James 2:12.

7.       The purpose for spiritual freedom is to advance spiritually as bond slaves to God and not to excuse, justify or rationalise our sin. 1 Peter 2:16 NASB “{Act} as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but {use it} as bondslaves of God.” Galatians 5:13 NASB “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only {do} not {turn} your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh [sin nature], but through love serve one another.” 

8.       The enemy of freedom and grace is legalism which promotes intrusion and superficial external codes of ethics and morality and focuses on failure—what you do wrong. Grace focuses on what you are doing right. What you have done wrong has already been paid for by Christ on the cross. Grace promotes freedom, privacy, internal transformation, and focuses on success. 

9.       Legalism seeks to enslave the believer and destroy spiritual liberty. Galatians 2:4 NASB “But {it was} because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.”

10.   True freedom always recognises legitimate spheres of authority. Freedom is not anti-authority. In the temporal realm this includes government (political); in marriage it is the husband who is the authority in the home; in the family it is the parents who are the authority in the home. Freedom without authority is anarchy; authority without freedom is tyranny.

11.   Freedom includes privacy. We have to give people a certain realm of privacy so that they can use the doctrine they have to succeed or fail, and we are all going to go through various levels of failure in the spiritual life. We live in an era today when the church wants to be very intrusive into people’s spiritual life. It is dominated by legalism; there is a lot of reaction—even mandating levels of accountability. We are not accountable really to anyone else but God in terms of our spiritual life.

12.   To the degree that we have the freedom to fail in the spiritual life we have the freedom to succeed. Legalism seeks to dominate and control people so that there is no freedom to fail, which destroys freedom to succeed. To the degree that we have the freedom to fail we have the freedom to succeed.

13.   Freedom guarantees inequality. Te greater the freedom the greater the inequality. Some people are going to use their freedom to pursue excellence and others to squander their spiritual assets and become failures in the spiritual life.

14.   True freedom only comes under the knowledge of the Word of God. John 8:31-34 NASB “So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’ They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?’  Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin’.” What is it that makes us free? Knowledge and application of Bible doctrine under the filling of God the Holy Spirit. Psalm 119:45 recognises this principle NASB “And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.” True freedom in this life comes only in the spiritual life and it is only experienced when we are applying doctrine under the filling of God the Holy Spirit and advancing to spiritual maturity.

Doctrine  of Christology  RD/2 John 007

  1. Attacks on the doctrine of Christology assault one of four areas: a) the virgin birth. This is typical of Protestant liberalism that submitted the Scriptures to the understanding of human reason. This occurred in the 19th century and one of the first things that they did was to attack the whole concept of the virgin birth; b) there is an assault on the incarnation [to be in flesh, that Jesus became true humanity] of Christ. In other words, this is an assault on the person of Christ; c) there is an attack on the substitutionary atonement, the work of Christ on the cross; d) there is an attack on His resurrection, i.e. He didn’t really rise from the dead bodily.
   2. There are two basic assaults on His person. The first is an attack on His deity, a rejection of His undiminished deity, and the second is an attack on His humanity. The hypostatic union talks about the union of two natures—undiminished deity and true, unfallen humanity—and that these were united together in one person.
   3. Among Christians in the early and medieval church (Christian in a general sense) the deity of Christ was never in doubt. They may not have known how to express it correctly but generally speaking there was not a problem with the full deity of Christ until about the time of the Reformation with the beginning of Unitarianism. It is not until Unitarianism in the 19th century and modern liberalism that there were so-called Christians rejecting the deity of Christ in toto. That is not to say that there weren’t problems with the deity of Christ, e.g. adoptionism, but they still understood Christ as God in some sense.
   4. Among non-Christians and some sects the attack was really on the humanity of Christ. This was clearly seen in a group known as the Docetists. This is taken from the Greek word dokeo [dokew] which has the idea of appearance—that Jesus just appeared to be a man. They were attacking His true humanity.
   5. What are some of the problems with this? A less than fully divine Jesus can’t provide salvation. First of all, He would lack perfect righteousness. 2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB “He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” So the righteousness that is imputed to us at salvation is God’s righteousness. If Jesus Christ is not God then we can’t acquire through imputation the perfect righteousness God demands in order to be saved. Second, a fully divine Jesus is infinite, even though His humanity is finite and His deity is infinite, and therefore whatever the person of Christ does has infinite value. Therefore He is able to pay the penalty for all sins for all mankind. The third reason Jesus must be fully divine is that He is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), and a mediator must partake of both sides of the conflict. He must be fully God and truly human in order to be a mediator. So Jesus must be fully divine, otherwise He can’t provide perfect righteousness, His sacrifice won’t have infinite value, and He can’t be a mediator.
   6. Jesus must be fully human in order to: a) be a substitute for mankind. In order to substitute for someone like must substitute for like. As God He could not substitute for man; He had to become true humanity; the penalty had to be paid by a human being; b) to be a mediator; c) to be Israel’s Messiah; d) to fulfil Old Testament prophecy where He would be a descendant of Abraham, the seed of Abraham. Genesis 12:1-3; 15; e) He had to be in the tribe of Judah, a descendant of David; f) in order to fulfil the Davidic covenant. In order to be the son of David and heir to the Davidic kingship he had to be true humanity, 2 Samuel 7:8-16; Psalm 89:20-37; g) in order to fulfil the office of prophet. Jesus is prophet, priest and king. The aspect of the Davidic covenant fulfils the kingship. To fulfil the office of prophet He had to be a man; h) to fulfil the office of priest, to be our high priest, 1 Peter 2:9. A priest represents man before God and in order to represent man before God Jesus Christ had to be true humanity, Hebrews 7:4, 5, 14, 28; i) in order to pioneer the spiritual life for the church age believer, a spiritual life based on the filling ministry of God the Holy Spirit. In order to handle temptation He relied upon the Holy Spirit because He was demonstrating the spiritual life for the church age, how believers can handle temptation through the problem-solving devices, relying upon the filling of the Holy Spirit and walking by means of the Spirit.
   7. Conclusion: Therefore the attack on the incarnation which was experienced in the early church, that Jesus Christ did not some in the flesh, undermines both salvation and sanctification. This is why John is making such a crucial issue out of those who were not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.
   8. The virgin birth, then, is the basis for the incarnation and the humanity of Christ. It is therefore the basis for understanding the person of Christ. Isaiah 7:14 predicted this and is quoted in Matthew 1:23 by Gabriel when he announces to Mary that she is going to become pregnant as a virgin. NASB “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” Luke 1:27 confirms this: NASB “to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” Mary gives birth to the humanity of Jesus Christ but He is preincarnate and His deity is eternal.
   9. In His humanity Jesus grew. Luke 2:52 NASB “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Jesus grew and developed in His mentality, “in wisdom.” He learned like every other baby learned. In His deity he knew everything but in His humanity he still went through the growth process.
  10. There is tremendous evidence of His humanity in the Gospels. He suffers physical pain on the cross; He grows weary and physically tired; He thirsted; He was hungry; he had physical pleasure; He rested; He died physically and He was resurrected physically.
  11. He has titles that indicate His humanity. He is called the Son of Man; He is called the man Christ Jesus; He is called the son of David, indicating His Davidic inheritance; He is called a man of sorrows. Furthermore, we are told that His body was composed of flesh and blood, Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 4:2, 3. 

The Doctrine of Church Leadership  RD/1 Cor. 064

1)      There are two categories of church leadership. The first is the pastor-teacher and the second is the deacons. We have to distinguish between the gift of pastor-teacher and the office of pastor teacher. Some men have the gift but don’t hold the office and therefore they have no authority in a local congregation; they do not have authority until they are promoted by God into that position. Deacons are church officers, they are not professionals, they are men in the local assembly who are deemed to be mature enough to handle the responsibilities for the local congregation.

2)      The pastor should be a man who is seminary or Bible college trained, or perhaps he has trained or apprenticed in a local church. But there has to be some sort of training, you don’t get training just listening to a tape recorder. It is in classroom discipline that the study skills and the discipline to study is gained, how to exegete the Scriptures in the original languages, plus the study of systematic theology and church history. And there should be the acquisition of some basic skills in the administration and leadership of a local assembly. The pastor-teacher must always be recognized, though, as the under-shepherd of the chief shepherd who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

3)      The difficult thing with deacons is that they exercise responsibility in two directions. That means they have to be flexible and you have to have good men who understand something about leadership and initiative when the time comes. The pastor is the final authority in the local church in respect to doctrine. The pastor is under the authority of the deacons insofar as he is to follow the guidelines of the church constitution and bylaws and the doctrinal statement. Those documents exist in order to take care of problems. The leadership of the deacons extends over the pastor only when the pastor-teacher violates the church constitution or doctrinal statement or fails to maintain the standards of behaviour outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Once the pastor-teacher is no longer able to feed the sheep then the deacons need to take some form of action.

4)      There are certain times when a church is prone to divisiveness and they split. This occurs when there is weak or no leadership either from the pastor-teacher or from the deacons. Another time when a church is prone to divisiveness or a split is when there is false teaching, or during a transition, for example when a pastor resigns, retires or dies and the deacons take over and they make mistakes. Another time of danger in a church is when they have a new pastor-teacher because they still have some loyalty to the former pastor and they have trouble shifting their loyalty to the new pastor. Another is a time if unprecedented growth.  

The Doctrine of Circumcision    Gen. 096b

1)      The first mention in Scripture of circumcision is here in Genesis 17.

2)      We have to recognize that historically the surgical removal of the foreskin was practiced in the ancient Near East before Abraham, but in Egypt and other cultures it was a rite performed at puberty. What made it distinct for the Jews was that it was performed at birth. There is a reason it was done on the eighth day and that was probably to give the blood time to develop its properties to properly coagulate.

3)      Why males only? Only males were involved because it was through the male that the sin nature was passed down. The symbolism here represents being set apart from sin.

4)      God revealed to Abraham that this act of shedding blood was to be a sign of the unilateral covenant between God and Abraham.

5)      The act at birth signifies the spiritual truth that at regeneration the believer is positionally separated from the flesh, i.e. the sin nature—not the presence of sin but the power of sin. Deuteronomy 10:16 recognizes this principle in the Old Testament, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.” In that passage the issue was that God was commanding them to be set apart to Him in reality, not just in ritual. Deuteronomy 30:6, “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live.” This is post-salvation experiential growth.

6)      Under legalism in Israel the significance became the symbol or the ritual itself, not the spiritual reality that it signified. This is something that was challenged by the latter prophets in the Old Testament.

7)      The patter prophets condemned Israel for this superficial legalism. Jeremiah 4:4, “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.” Also Jeremiah 9:25, 26 which indicates that just because one was a Jew and circumcised didn’t mean they were a part of the covenant. Regeneration has to be; there has to be that circumcision of the heart. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.”

8)      In Deuteronomy 30:6 there is a suggestion that there is both a positional and an experiential element to the symbolism. The believer is positionally separated from the flesh at the instant of salvation and he is experientially separated through spiritual growth.

9)      Therefore true circumcision was a spiritual reality, not physical surgery. The point wasn’t the physical surgery, the point was that it was to represent a spiritual reality.

10)   Circumcision is a sign of the Abrahamic covenant and has no spiritual value other than symbolic. It doesn’t mean that a person is saved or not saved, it doesn’t mean that a person is more spiritual or less spiritual. And it has no relevance to the church age believer.

11)   In the early church those who did not understand the distinction between Israel and the church insisted that Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved. Cf. Acts 15:1; Galatians 5:2, 3.

12)   For the church age believer, therefore, the reality is the spiritual significance, not the physical act. There is a spiritual circumcision today that is for every believer—Colossians 2:11, “In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” Thus in the church age the spiritual circumcision represents retroactive positional truth. What happened at the instant of salvation is you are identified with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ on the cross—Romans 6:1-7. Because of that the power of the sin nature is broken at the instant of salvation. When we come to Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant we realize that this is a picture of Israel’s positional sanctification in the Old Testament, something that can never be lost. They have a position is Abraham. That doesn’t mean every Jew is saved, it means the nation has a position in Abraham that can never be lost. Those promises given to Abraham will be fulfilled at some point in the future. 

Doctrine of Civilizations     Heb.  025b

   1. There are only four great periods of time related to the inhabited earth.  Three of them relate to the present earth and one relates to the future earth.  They are not dispensations and they are not ages.  This is perhaps the broadest time category that we can talk about. 

   2. Each of these periods of inhabitation begins a new civilization.  There is a complete beginning anew in each of these periods.

   3. Each period of civilization began with believers only.  This is what they have in common.  Three of them end with a cataclysmic judgment where the entire inhabited world is judged.  All that is left after that is a group of believers.  It is that group of believers that begins the next period of civilization.  So what you have is a period of blessing where God begins to fill the earth with people, for example at the very beginning with Adam and Eve.  He tells them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.  It begins with believers but by the time the end of that first period you have cataclysmic judgment on the earth.  All of the unbelievers are killed.  Only eight survive.

   4.  Each civilization may be subdivided into various ages or dispensations.  In that first civilization that began with Adam and goes to Noah, there are three dispensations indicated by covenants.  You see every dispensation has to be moved or ended and shifted to the next one by some sort of divine revelation.  It doesn’t just happen.  There is revelation from God. This is given in the form of a contract or covenant.  Each civilization usually covers a couple of ages and several dispensations. 

   5. Each civilization has its own characteristic related to the Adamic curse.  That is foundational.  Change happens.  That is always related to sin.  The elements that we look at have to do with climate.  God created Adam and Eve in perfect environment – perfect weather.  They didn’t have humidity.  They didn’t have that hot sun beating down on them.  They didn’t have hurricanes and ice storms or any of those things that destroy so much today.   In fact we didn’t have that kind of weather even in the antediluvian period.  During perfect environment there is perfect weather.  Then is a second element that we look at is man’s relationship to animals.  This changes in every one of these ages - how man relates to God’s other creatures specifically the animals.  The kinds of animal change. There are different kinds of animals in the civilizations.  There is a difference in how man relates to God in each of these civilizations.   So how do you look at these characteristics? 

   6. There are three periods of the current earth.  Those are the antediluvian which is the period prior to the Noahic flood.  Then there is the postdiluvian civilization that began at the end of the Noahic flood and extends into the Second Coming of Christ.  Then there is the third civilization that is the millennial civilization.  That ends with the judgment and begins the eternal state. That is the fourth civilization.  So the three on this earth are the antediluvian civilization, the postdiluvian civilization and the millennial civilization.  As I think about this I often think that the technology of each civilization is different.  Those of you who have hung with me through the early chapters of Genesis when I went through Genesis 1-11, I made the observation that the population of the earth at the time of the Noahic flood was at a minimum 2 ½ billion.  That is quite large.  That was the earth’s population about a 100 years ago or so.  Now we are close to about 6 billion. There could have been that many on the earth.  These were vastly intelligent people.  They had a technology of some value.  We know that after the flood that the early generations sailed the seas of the earth and mapped all the oceans.  You have a book that is still available today called “Charts of the Ancient Sea Kings”.  In that book there is a map of Antarctica underneath the icecap.  Now how did they know where all the rivers and valleys and mountains were under the icecap of Antarctica? They knew because there wasn’t an ice pack there.  They were able to go there and see it without the icecap and map everything.  It wasn’t until the 20th century when we had satellites with infrared camera capabilities that could take pictures through the ice so that we could map it out.  Low and behold we have these maps that are very ancient maps that are 100% accurate.  Who did that?  Well it was those descendents of Noah.  In order to map anything with that level of precision you have to be able to do both latitude and longitude.  With latitude and longitude you have to have a precise clock that isn’t going to have parts that expand and contract because of humility.  You have to have a clock that is stable despite the ups and downs in rough sea.  It has to be able to keep accurate time.  You have to have metal parts that are not going to rust and corrode over time. You have to have all of those things.  It wasn’t until the 1770’s that western civilization produced a time clock that was capable of allowing seamen to chart longitude.  So this is a tremendous advance.  Yet we have these ancient maps that are precise in both latitude and longitude.  That shows the tremendous technology that they had.  Noah and his sons brought this from the antediluvian civilization into the present civilization.  They probably had many other things.  It wasn’t a culture that is based on oil like we have today.  It was based on other things.  It is possible that they had flight capacity.  It is possible that they had all kinds of engineering capabilities.  Even now we don’t know how with the primitive tools that were available how the ancients built the pyramids.  They understood trigonometry and geometry and astronomy and knew how to do all of these advanced mathematical calculations in order to construct those pyramids.  Many of them were designed to worship the astro gods so they are all lined up in perfection.  Yet this is supposed to be primitive man who is not too bright.  He came out of the primordial ooze and is beginning to walk around without dragging his knuckles.  Yet we can’t duplicate their achievements on the basis of the technology that we understand that they had.  So you have these three periods.  You have the antediluvian period, the postdiluvian period and the millennial period with different climates, different animal relationships, different relationships to God, and different technology.

   7. The antediluvian period began with two believers, Adam and Eve.  They had perfect environment and perfect harmony with the animals.  All animals were grass eaters.  They are not eating one another.  That affects their teeth and their gastrointestinal system and affected everything.  They had the presence of God on earth.  As I pointed out when we went through Genesis and for those of you who weren’t around then or haven’t heard those messages, in Genesis 6 we are told that the Spirit would not strive with men anymore. That is how many people have understood that.  You had the sons of gods taking the daughters of men as their wives. God is tired of putting up with man and has this antagonism.  But the Hebrew word that is translated “strive” in that verse is what is called a hapoxlegomina.  Hapox means one time and one time only.  It is the one usage of that word in all of Hebrew literature.  That always presents a problem.  There are always about 1200 words in the Hebrew Old Testament that are hapoxs.  They are only used one time.  So in order to figure out what they mean you have to investigate the context that helps you limit the field of meaning. Then you have to go to related languages that are called cognate languages. Fortunately the Semitic language group is a very close-knit linguistic family.  So there are very close similarities between Arabic, Hebrew, Northwest Semitic or Canaanite, Acadian, Aramaic and these other languages.  They are all built on consonants only.  They didn’t have vowels to begin with.  They had vowels in their spoken language but not in their written language.  A lot of times the difference between an Arabic word and a Hebrew word is simply the vowels.  The consonants remain the same. I understand that if you speak Modern Hebrew you can somewhat understand what a modern Arabic speaker is saying simply because the languages are so close to each other.  So we go back into the documents that archeologists discovered in the various libraries and study these languages.  You find that the cognate words are related to Biblical Hebrew.  Then you go look in your Arabic dictionary and your Aramaic dictionary and your Ugaritic dictionary and look for these cognates.  You see that this word when it is used in Acadian and Ugaritic that the word has the idea of abiding, living or dwelling somewhere.  So in Genesis 6 God isn’t saying that He isn’t going to strive with men any more.  He is saying that He isn’t going to dwell with them any more.  What do you mean? There wasn’t a tabernacle. There wasn’t a temple.  Wait a minute.  Go back to Genesis 1.  It says that God was dwelling on the earth and that He built a garden to the east of Eden. He had a dwelling place.  Why is it that He posts a guard of cherubs outside the Garden of Eden with this flaming sword?  It’s to prevent fallen unrighteous man from having access to the tree of life as well as to God. This was a holy place that was the centerpiece of God’s activity on the earth.  I have often wondered why it was that God waited until after the flood before He delegates judicial authority to man.  Didn’t they need judges and judicial authority prior to the flood?  Sure they did.  Who did it?  God did it.  He was still on the earth.  So you see the antediluvian period in some ways mirrors, imitates or foreshadows what is going to happen during the Millennial Kingdom.  In the Millennial Kingdom you will once again have the presence of God upon the earth.  The Lord Jesus Christ will rule the earth.  There will be a dwelling place for Him in Israel at the temple.  All the nations will come to worship there.  Ultimately all adjudication will be handled by the Supreme Court of Heaven that is present on the earth.  There is a balance as it were between the antediluvian civilization and the future Millennial Kingdom.  It also parallels with the animals.  In the antediluvian kingdom there is perfect environment.  There was harmony with the animals.  You see harmony with the animals again when we come to the Millennial Kingdom.  In the future in the Millennial Kingdom the lion will lie down with the lamb.  A child will put his hand in the cobra’s den.  Isn’t that neat?  You wouldn’t have to worry about these poor folks over in Louisiana.  One of the most horrible stories that I saw was this family that after the storm they ran off the road.  They were just outside an alligator farm.  When they were rescued there were 15-20 alligators surrounding the car waiting. How would you like to be there?  Fortunately they were rescued and are doing fine.  There will be harmony with the animals.  We won’t have to worry about being eaten alive by alligators or lions or tigers or anything else.  The same thing was true in that early environment.  You have the presence of God on the earth.  It deteriorated some due to the fall.  Because of Adam’s sin there was a change in the animals and a change in man’s relationship with the animals but the real hostility doesn’t come about until after the flood.  In the Noahic Covenant God specifically said fear from man for the animals but man could now eat meat.  Man wasn’t a meat eater prior to the flood.  So you can’t come up with a religious reason for being a vegetarian.  Now you may be a vegetarian because it makes you feel better or you have digestive issues that it is better for but you can’t use a religious reason for being a vegetarian because the Noahic covenant specifically mandates eating meat for the human race.  That is one of the differences between the antediluvian civilization and the present civilization. 

   8. Postdiluvian civilization began after the flood with 8 believers. The first civilization began with two believers, Adam and Eve.  It goes for about 2,000 years and then there is cataclysmic judgment.  You have about 2 or 3 billion people on the planet and only 8 believers.  Those 8 believers survive and float their way into the next civilization.  There is a change now.  There is a change in the way man relates to the animals.  There are now different animals.  I believe the dinosaurs lived during the antediluvian civilization.  They lived along side of man.  People often ask how dinosaurs could live with men.  The same way lions and tigers and crocodiles live with men today.  They don’t live in the same place.  They share the same planet and they don’t have to locate in the same geographical area.  You also have so many legends that are so close in their details that indicate that you had dinosaur type creatures survive even into the early middle ages.  They were usually slaughtered by men who were later idolized and became great heroes.  The story of baal wolf is one of them.  If you read the story of the monster that he killed it sounds like a Tyrannosaurus Rex.  So you have some of these animals survive but couldn’t adapt to the present climate.  There is a climate shift.  Now you have extremes between hot and cold.  You have the development of ice caps and ice ages.  You have a rapid shift that takes place after the flood.  It is like the whole system got rattled.  It is as if you were to throw a boulder into a pool of water that would set off huge waves near the epicenter of the impact. The further you get away from the impact the lower the waves are and the further apart they become.  We see the same thing in the geophysical history of the planet and the meteorological history of the planet.  You have earthquakes and storms.  Ice ages and global warming and cooling have been going on since the flood.  It’s not because the human race decided to come along and started internal combustion engines.  The Vikings didn’t have internal combustion engines.  They weren’t polluting the atmosphere with a lot of hydro fluorocarbons. In the 9th and 10th centuries when they went to a little place called Greenland, they called it Greenland because it was green.  They had farms.  There is a period in the 8th, 9th, and 10th century when there was a tremendous warm up.  Meteorologists refer to it as a period of warming.  Then all of a sudden it got cold again and they had to leave. The colonies that they were trying to plant in Greenland collapsed.  It didn’t have anything to do with human technology; it had to do with different things going on in the atmosphere since the universal flood of Noah’s time and sunspots and how that interacts with the atmosphere.   The earth doesn’t have a canopy around it anymore.  There are a lot of different reasons.  If you start with evolutionary presuppositions you are going to end up making bad application because your science is flawed by taking the Bible out of the picture.  This is why it is so important to study creation.  This civilization is going to change.  It is going to end up in a tremendous cataclysm of judgments in the tribulation period.  We think that what happened in New Orleans last week is bad.  And it is horrible. We look at that devastation and that is one category 5 hurricane.  What you are going to see during the tribulation is super hurricanes.  You will see super hurricanes and earthquakes.  The earth is going to be impacted by massive asteroid of some kind that is going to set off a tsunami that is going to make the one that hit Southeast Asia last winter look like a small little ripple on the ocean.  You are going to have two or three different types of events that take out at one point a quarter of the earth’s population.  Then a couple of years later another event will take out a third of the population.  You lose well over half the people on the planet within a four or five year period of time during the tribulation.  Think about it.  We have 6 billion people on the planet. When this occurs within about 4 years about 3 billion people are going to die.  That is a lot of funerals.  When you start thinking about the disease impact as we are being told so much about what can happen with all of these bodies and cadavers floating around in the water in New Orleans and all of the diseases that can be bred.  Just think about that in the tribulation.  There is going to be a tremendous judgment.  The only ones that survive are going to be believers.  At the end of the tribulation period when the Lord returns there will be a separation of the wheat from the tares.  The unbelievers from the tribulation are going to be taken in judgment so that all that is going to be left is tribulation saints in mortal bodies.  They will marry. They will produce children.  This begins the millennial civilization.    

   9. The millennial civilization which begins with the survivors of the tribulation believers.  Once again there will be harmony between man and the animals.  There is going to be a restored climate that is going to be like period from Adam to Noah.  It will be a time that you don’t have the storms.  There will be a more universal temperature.  It will be a time of perfect environment.  There is still a deterioration during that period within the human race.  As these folks marry and have children, their children are going to have sin natures.  Some of them are going to exercise negative volition toward spiritual things and toward Jesus Christ even though they are living in perfect environment.  This is one of the reasons God has the millennium.  It is to show that it’s not the environment.  It’s not education.  It’s not the judicial system.  When you screw everything up, you’re not  going to be able to come along and say that FEMA should have been there or that the government should have been there.  Where is the mayor?  Where is the city council?  So many of the people in New Orleans are trying to blame the government.  They are asking for the government to rescue them.  What part of get the hell out of New Orleans didn’t they not understand?  You are always going to have these kinds of people that exercise negative volition.  They hate authority.  They rebel against authority and unite with Satan at the end of the Millennial Kingdom. They lead a rebellion against God that is called the Gog and Magog Rebellion at the end of the millennium.  That will end the history of the planet.

  10. The fourth civilization is eternal in the New Heavens and New Earth.  It begins with believers only.   It extends forever.  There will be no change.  It will be a time of absolute perfection.  It is so far beyond our comprehension that the Lord doesn’t tell us much.  We wouldn’t understand it if He did tell us.

The Doctrine of Civilizations      Gen. 038

1)      We can use the word “civilization” in two ways. We can talk about it with a capital C, or with a lower case c, as in western or eastern civilization, etc. We are talking about it with a capital C in a much broader sense in terms of the panorama of Scripture, so we will define a civilization as an advanced state of human society in which a level of art, science, industry and government have been reached. For our purposes we are talking about civilization in terms of a broad spectrum of time in human history. So a civilization will be defined as an advanced state of human society, that is, when man advances in his state of knowledge. This, of course, took place in the antediluvian [ante = before; diluvian = related to the English word “flood,” “deluge,” and means the flood] period. The civilization prior to the flood was a very advanced civilization.

2)      The civilizations as we are using it begins with believers only. Each civilization in human history begins with believers only and terminates with a cataclysmic judgment which removes all the unbelievers from the planet. Then things start over again. There is a divine judgment in order to protect the human race and to preserve the human race from self-destruction.

3)      Each civilization has its own characteristics related to the Adamic curse. There is a difference in environment which affects plant life and animal life and human beings.

4)      There are three great civilizations and three cataclysmic judgments. The first civilization is the antediluvian civilization which began with two believers, Adam and Eve, and terminated with the flood. So the flood is the cataclysmic judgment that ended the first great civilization on planet earth. Then we have the postdiluvian civilization, the one in which we live, which began with eight believers who came off the ark, and will be terminated by the baptism of fire at the second advent when Jesus Christ returns. Only the believers survive the baptism of fire at the end of the Tribulation. The Millennial civilization begins with only believers, and once again there is a gradual deterioration and degeneracy until the end of the Millennial kingdom when there is the release of Satan who leads a revolt against God, the Gog and Magog revolution, and there is fire and brimstone from heaven that wipes out all of those unbelievers. The surviving believers go into the eternal state. These three civilizations emphasize the self-destructive tendency of mankind, and each one comes to a crisis point where the Supreme Court of heaven has to interfere in order to protect the human race from total self-destruction.

5)      There is a pattern in each of these civilizations. This pattern is seen historically in Romans chapter one. Each civilization begins with believers only, and then as the civilization continues a degeneracy sets in. Romans 1:18ff. There is a gradual removal of common grace during this time and man goes through cycles of judgment as God gives man over to various degrees of degeneracy. As that degeneracy develops various human viewpoint thought forms kick in. So human viewpoint continues to build on its redefinition of reality. It starts off with the reduction of responsibility for sin. We saw that from Cain’s response: I am not my brother’s keeper. That is an assault of divine institution #1. All of this takes place as a result of self-absorption. There is a redefinition of reality and a reduction of responsibility. Once you reduce responsibility—I am not accountable to God. God is not in the picture—then the next stage is the arrogance skill of self-indulgence. If I am not accountable to anyone, if there is not a God to whom I am responsible, then I can begin to indulge in whatever my fantasies allow. Once reality is re-defined it leads to living in a fantasy world. There are no longer any absolutes. This leads to rationalizations and self-justifications. More and more sophisticated and complex stories are erected about origins, about ethics, about the source of law the source of absolutes, in order to justify living in this fantasy world, in order to justify the rejection of absolutes, in order to justify the degeneracy that is now becoming normal. That leads to the point where man begins to call bad good and good bad. There is a complete reversal of norms and standards. This is the arrogance skill of self-deception. Man at this point is doing exactly what is described in Romans 1:23, “And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” This leads to idolatry, worshipping elements of the creation, including self, and this is self-idolatry/self-deification. That takes place not only individually, but as it operates within a culture it takes place across the board.

Genesis 5:1 begins the next toledot, the history of the generations of Adam, and it runs through to 6:8 with, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” This section begins with “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” And then there is a reminder which relates to creation,  “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” So we are told that when God created man He created him in God’s likeness. Here we have the phrase bidmuth. The bi is the preposition and it should be translated “as”—“as his image.” The word dmuth means likeness. There is a shift that takes place here. V. 2, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them” is a direct reference back to Genesis 1:26-28. There the prepositions and nouns shift around. All we want to say at this point is that this is a reminder by God the Holy Spirit through Moses that it started off with perfect environment; “and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Adam there means mankind. So Genesis 5:1, 2 looks back to perfect environment. Then we are going to see what happened. Remember that there was the penalty of death, and so the key phrase that we are going to see in this chapter is “and he died,” over and over and over again.

Verse 3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, according to his image; and called his name Seth.” Likeness is the word dmuth and image the word tselem. The first word that we find in Genesis 1:26 is that man is created, God says, “in our image,” be preposition bi plus the noun tselem, and it should be translated “as out image.” Man was to be created as God’s representative. He isn’t in the image of God, he is the image of God. Then the next phrase that is used is a word which comes from the word “likeness,” and it has the preposition ki which means according to, so we have “as out image and according to our likeness.” That is the phraseology and this is foundational to understanding the distinctiveness of mankind. Man has nephesh, which is roughly translated soul or breath, and the animals also are said to have nephesh. What makes the difference between the animals and man is that mankind is created as the image of God, according to His likeness. Then in Genesis 5:3 there is a slight reversal of these words. First, instead of “as our image” the preposition bi is now with dmuth. What happens is the prepositions switch on the nouns, so instead of “as out image” it is now “as his own likeness.” It is that Adam begot a son “as his own likeness” and “according to his image.” So we see this reversal of the prepositions with those nouns. The main emphasis here is simply that a change has taken place. It is ever so slight. Man is still created as God’s image and this is the reason given in Genesis chapter nine for capital punishment. The reason God delegates the right to capital punishment to the human race is because when somebody kills someone they have destroyed someone who is the image of God. Even though it may be distorted and corrupted because of sin man is still the image of God. The shift of the prepositions with the nouns here indicates that there has been a change, that instead of being identical to Adam as he was created his son is now as his likeness and according to his image. It is still in the image of God but it is distorted by sin and the sin nature.

From verse 3 down through the end of the chapter we are in a genealogy. Seth is born when Adam is 130 years old. He gives birth to Enos when he is 105 and was 912 years at his death, which is the year 1042. Then Enos was born in the year 235. His child is born when he is 90 years of age. He lives another 815 years for a total of 905 years, and he dies in the year 1140. Cainan is the fourth, he is born in the year 325. So we see that the generations of Adam, Seth, Enos and Cainan are all still alive. He gives birth to his son at seventy, lives another 840 years for a total of 910 years, dying in the year 1245. Then his son is Mahalaleel, one of the youngest. He is born in the year 395. He has his son at 65, he lives another 830 years until death and dies at 895 in the year 1290. There is only one son mentioned by name in each of these generations, but the text says that they had many other sons and daughters. Jared was born in the year 460. He gives birth to the son mentioned in the genealogy at 162. One would assume that by the year 162 he would have had a lot of children. So when Enoch is born to Jared at age 162, Enoch is probably not the first one. Jarod lives another 800 years until he dies in the year 1422 and he is 962.

Enoch is the special case here. He is born in the year 622, he gives birth to his son, Methuselah who is the oldest man in the Bible. But the oldest man in the Bible died before his father did because Enoch did not die. He lived another three hundred years and at the age of 365 the text says that he walked with God and he was not for God took him. God took him and they walked right on into Eden and into Paradise. The walking with God there is different from another phrase that is found in the Old Testament, “walking before God,” which has to do with a lifestyle. That is certainly present here. The idea of walking with God certainly indicated that he was following a super lifestyle as a believer in that dispensation, but it implies an intimacy with God that was far beyond the intimacy that anybody else had with God. Noah is the only other person mentioned. In Genesis 9:6 it is mentioned that Noah also walked with God and he found grace in God’s eyes. So Enoch stands out as a special believer. He was a prophet and during this time he prophesied about the second coming. One of the things that is always noticed throughout the Bible is that Noah and the flood of Noah always referred to in the New Testament in a context that is talking about the second coming. Enoch prophesied about the second coming and he goes to be with the Lord. It is believed that this time God is still physically on the earth with His headquarters in Eden. That hasn’t been destroyed yet and it is not destroyed until the flood.  

Methuselah is born in 687. He has a son, Lamech, when he is 187 years of age. He lived another 782 years after the birth of Lamech and died at the age of 969 in the year 1656. Think about this. Adam lived into the life of Enoch. Adam didn’t die until the year 930; Enoch is born in 632, and is taken in 987, which is approximately 50 years after Adam died. Lamech is born in 874. At the age 182 his child, Noah, is mentioned. He lives another 595 years and dies at the age of 777 in the year 1651. Notice that Methuselah died in 1656, five years after his son Lamech. Methuselah dies in the same year as the flood. Noah is born in the year 1056. At the age of 500 he has had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. He does not die until about 2006.

It has already been pointed out that Adam lived until Lamech. The father of Noah was 56 years of age when Adam finally died. That was just a few years before Noah was born. These same names are mentioned again in two other genealogies in the Bible—1 Chronicles 1:1-4; Luke 3:36-38—which attest to the legitimacy of these names in this particular genealogy. In Noah’s 600th year the flood comes, i.e. 1656, right after Methuselah dies. In most of the Bible we don’t have many references to Enoch, but there are a couple of passages that are mentioned. For example, Jude 14, 15, “And Enoch also, the seventh [generation] from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” That is a prophecy about the second coming. It is interesting that the first person in the Bible to get raptured was known for prophesying about the second coming. The quote in Jude is from the apocryphal book of Enoch, but remember the Holy Spirit can quote from anything. When he quotes from it it makes that section of the book inerrant, but it doesn’t mean the book of Enoch is itself inerrant or Scriptural. Hebrews 11:5 also mentions Enoch: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” This is parallel to the taking of Elijah. In 2 Kings chapter two we have the Hebrew verb laqach, meaning to take or to remove. “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” Elijah and Enoch are the only two individuals in the Old Testament that do not die physically. Therefore it is often thought that it is those two individuals who will be the two witnesses who come back during the Tribulation period. Zechariah 4:14 mentions these two, “Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” Revelation 11:7-12 mentions these two witnesses. Since Elijah and Enoch never died many people think that this refers to them. The Bible never specifies it as such but it is probably a likely conclusion to identify them as such.     

Comparisons made between Melchizedek and Jesus  Heb. 080b

 1. They are both king-priests.  They are both royal high priests.  Melchizedek is referred to as a king-priest.  That is the point related to Jesus.  They were king-priests as opposed to the Levitical priests.
   2. They both blessed Abraham. When Abraham returned from the victory, Melchizedek went out.  He took bread and wine.  That doesn’t have anything to do with communion.  It was just a standard Middle Eastern meal.  He went out to have fellowship, to have communion – to have that time together with Abraham and to bless him, to commend him to God for his victory.  God also, the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ also had blessed him with the Abrahamic Covenant.
   3. Both of them had superior authority with their priesthood.  Abraham was one of the wealthiest men of the ancient world.  He recognized the authority and superiority of the gentile priest-king and brought him a tribute after his victory.  Jesus Christ is seen here as having the superior priesthood because He is the proto-type for the Melchizedekean priesthood.  It is not the other way around.  The word that is used here in the Greek aphomoioo – to be made like or to resemble.  Look at the end of verse 3

NKJ Hebrews 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually..

Who was made like the Son of God?  Melchizedek was made like the Son of God.   That is one of the reasons that Melchizedek is not the pre-incarnate Christ.  He is said to have been made like, to resemble the Lord Jesus Christ.  So who is the proto-type?  The proto-type is the Lord Jesus Christ.  Melchizedek was just a finite representation that was designed historically and within the context of revelation to portray and symbolize certain aspects of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ.  So, both had a superior priesthood and authority.

   4. Both were independent high priests.  By that I mean that there was no tribal or genealogical connection.  They were independent of any other structure.  Both Melchizedek and the Lord Jesus Christ are independent high priests.  The Levitical priesthood was based on descent from the tribe of Levi and the high priest had to be a descendent from Aaron according to Numbers 16.
   5. Both priesthoods were timeless.   They were not bound by time whereas the Levitical priest served only from the time they were 25.  When they were 50 they had to step down according to Numbers 8:24-25.  So both the Melchizedekean priesthood and the priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ are unlimited.  They are not bound by any time qualifications.
   6. Both priesthoods serve Gentiles and Jews. They were universal priesthoods whereas the Levitical priesthood was only directed to Jews.

This is the point that the writer of Hebrews is making in these first three verses.  There is a comparison between the king-priest Melchizedek and the king-priest, the royal High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.  It was Melchizedek who is the finite representation of the priesthood that would be that of the Lord Jesus Christ.  So Melchizedek was designed to give us a finite picture that would represent the kind of priesthood that Jesus Christ had.

The Contrasts:      Gen. 014

1)      The Bible claims that God is the creator of all things in Genesis one. Evolution claims that random events and chance processes, plus no information or person accounts for the existence of all things.

2)      The Bible claims that the present world was recreated in six literal 24-hour days. Evolution says that the world evolved over eons of time.

3)      The Bible claims that creation is completed. Whatever laws were in effect, whatever processes were in effect between day one and day six, ceased at the end of the sixth day. Evolution claims that those processes and laws, physical and biological, are still continuing the same today as forever.

4)      The Bible says the ocean was created before the land. Evolution says that land came before the oceans.
5)      The Bible says that there is an atmosphere between the two hydrospheres. Evolution says that there was one continuous atmosphere and hydrosphere in the early earth.

6)      The Bible claims the first life was on land. Evolution claims that life began in the oceans.

7)      The Bible claims that the first life was land plants. Evolution claims that the first life were marine organisms.

8)      The Bible says that the earth was created before the sun and the stars. Evolution says that the sun and the starts came into being before the earth.

9)      The Bible says that fruit trees were created before the fish. Evolution says fish came into being before fruit trees.

10)   The Bible says that all stars were made on the fourth day. Evolution says that stars evolved at various times down through the ages.

11)   The Bible says that birds and fish were created on day five. Evolution says that fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.

12)   The Bible says that birds were created before the crawling things, including insects. Evolution says that insects came before birds.

13)   The Bible says that whales were created before the reptiles. Evolution says that reptiles were created before whales.

14)   The Bible says that birds were created before reptiles. Evolution says that reptiles were created before birds.

15)   The Bible says that man was created before there was rain. Evolution says there was rain before man came into being.

16)   The Bible says that man came before woman. Evolution says that woman came before man.

17)   The Bible says that light was in existence before the stars and the sun were created. Evolution says that the stars and the sun existed before there was any light.

18)   The Bible says that plants were created before the sun. Evolution says that the sun was in existence before there were any plants.

19)   The Bible says there was an abundance and variety of marine life all at once. Evolution says that marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.

20)   The Bible says that man’s body was created from the chemicals of the soil. Evolution claims that man evolved from ape-like ancestors.

21)   The Bible claims that man exercised dominion over all organisms. Evolution says that most organisms were extinct before man ever existed.

22)   In the Bible man was originally a vegetarian. In evolution man was originally a meat eater, therefore vegetarianism is considered to be a higher thing.

23)   In the Bible there are fixed and distinct kinds. In evolution life forms are in a continuous state of flux.

24)   In the Bible man’s sin is the cause of physical death in the universe. In evolution, struggle and death were existent long before the evolution of man.

25)   In the Bible suffering, death and pain are viewed as abnormal and the result of sin, and were not God’s original creative intent. But according to evolution suffering, death and pain, and therefore evil, are normal.

Doctrine of Contrast between the Levitical Priesthood and Melchizedekean Priesthood

Heb. 097b

1 The basic contrast here is between the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedekean priesthood.  The Levitical priesthood is going to be shown to be temporary. 

2 The writer is going to show that the Levitical priesthood was intended to be temporary, but the Melchizedekean priesthood is permanent. Now when we think about the Melchizedekean priesthood, it seems to be one that is appointed or one that we really don’t know where it began or where it ended.  It seems to continue as some sort of voluntary thing.  There is a certain mystery to what is going on in the Old Testament related to that.  When David talks about it in Psalm 110 that was the first time in about 400 years that there was any reference to Melchizedek.  You have a reference in Genesis 14 in relationship to Abraham.  Of course historically that occurred about 2000 BC.  It’s written in 1400.  The next writing related to it is David when he writes Psalm 110 which is approximately 1000 BC.  So that’s all we really know about it.  When David brings the ark into Jerusalem and he is dancing in front of the ark and he is dressed in an ephod, he seems to be functioning as a priest; yet he is not from the Levitical tribe, but he is in Jerusalem the same city as Melchizedek.  He is functioning as a royal priest so there seems to be a legitimacy to a parallel priesthood in the Old Testament. But what the writer of Hebrews is showing is that the Levitical priesthood was intended to be temporary and therefore it is inferior to this older Melchizedekean priesthood. 

3 The third thing we saw that even in the Old Testament when everything was going well with the Levitical priests (They were functioning well.  There was nothing negative said about the Levitical priests,) is a change that was indicated some 400 years after its inception.  When David wrote Psalm 110, he is prophesying about a future event that in relationship to the Messiah.  The Messiah will be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.  So that indicated that there was this temporary aspect to the Levitical priesthood.  All of this is designed (think in terms of where we are going) to show that the high priestly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ is far superior to that of the high priestly ministry according to the Mosaic Law.  This leads eventually to a discussion in chapter 8 where again based on Psalm 110 which is alluded to in 8:1, there will be a superior covenant. All of these ideas work together.  

Doctrine of Corporate Unity      Heb. 094c

Let me take the rest of class to go back and show an Old Testament illustration of this corporate unity - how the whole becomes guilty of a decision made by one person.  That seems to run so counter to a lot of things we understand, but this is fundamental to much of the Old Testament.   

I could go (just for prep school teachers who want to have another illustration) to the episode at the end of II Samuel when David takes the census.  It is David’s sin.  He takes a census of the people in violation of God’s law.  What happens?  God is going to judge the nation and he is given three options as to how God is going to judge them.  He picks the option of a plague.  So the angel of death comes and there is this plague that goes through the nation for about three days and thousands are killed because of David’s sin.  It is viewed as a corporate entity where David is viewed as the representative of the people.  So this idea of one person representing the whole flows through all the Old Testament.

But, I think a good example is in Joshua 7.  So turn back with me to the book of Joshua.

Now let me set this up because you can’t understand chapter 7 without understanding chapter 6.  Chapter 6 is the Battle of Jericho. We all know Joshua fi’t the Battle at Jericho but that is not exactly the point that I want to focus on here.  It is the mandate that he was given.  God gave a specific mandate as to how Joshua was going to defeat and conquer the city of Jericho and just exactly what the people were to do and what they were not to do.  So look at verse 17.

NKJ Joshua 6:17 "Now the city shall be doomed by the LORD to destruction, it and all who are in it. Only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

Notice even in that you have a representative volitional decision.  Rehab made the decision to hide the two spies, not her family.  But her family gets blessed by association because of this concept of corporate unity and one person making a decision as a representative for a group.  So Rahab’s decision means that the family is going to live.

Then in verse 18 the instructions go on to say:

NKJ Joshua 6:18 "And you, by all means abstain from the accursed things,

The accursed things that are referred to are the things that were under the ban that they were not supposed to take.  They were supposed to destroy everything.

lest you become accursed when you take of the accursed things, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.

That word for accursed things doesn’t mean things are cursed and some kind of black magic concept.  But they are banned.  They are not to be taken by the people.  They were supposed to be destroyed.  All of the riches, the gold and silver, were to be taken to the temple and everything else was supposed to be killed.  The people were not to profit from the destruction of Jericho.

So we read in verse 19.

NKJ Joshua 6:19 "But all the silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are consecrated

That word consecrated is the Hebrew word qodesh meaning set apart to the Lord.

to the LORD; they shall come into the treasury of the LORD."

So the mandate was to destroy everything in the city.

NKJ Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.

Everything living was supposed to be killed.  That was the mandate.  But not everybody followed the law.

Look at chapter 7.

NKJ Joshua 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass regarding the accursed things

Notice the children of Israel.  There is a corporate phrase.  The whole nation – everybody else in that nation – there are approximately 2 millions Jews - 1,999,999 of them did exactly what God said; but one did not.  But because one did not, what does the text say?  The children of Israel committed a trespass just because one person disobeyed God.  See, that is that principle of corporate unity and one person representing the whole and his sin being imputed to the whole.

for Achan the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed things;

I often wondered why it gives us all of that genealogical data.  The reason it does is because it locates him as being genetically related to the whole of the tribe of Judah.  It goes back to Judah. He is in the tribe of Judah and Judah is part of the 12 tribes of Israel.  So he is making the point that he is an Israelite and he can represent the whole nation.

He saw some of the gold and silver and decided, “While no one is watching I am going to stash this inside my rucksack and take it back to my tent and I will have a little extra wealth.”

But God saw his sins.

so the anger of the LORD burned against the children of Israel.

That phrase does not mean that God - because God knew in eternity past that this would take place, but it is an idiom indicating the harshness and the severity of God’s judgment on Israel. 

So Achan sins, but the whole nation is going to be judged as a result of this.  That sin of Achan is imputed to the rest of the nation.  He is that federal representative.

So the next event is they have to go up the road a little further northwest to the next city which is Ai.  They are going to conquer it.  But, there is a different strategy from God.

NKJ Joshua 7:2 Now Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven, on the east side of Bethel, and spoke to them, saying, "Go up and spy out the country." So the men went up and spied out Ai.

He sent out his reconnaissance team and they spied out Ai.

NKJ Joshua 7:3 And they returned to Joshua and said to him, "Do not let all the people go up, but let about two or three thousand men go up and attack Ai. Do not weary all the people there, for the people of Ai are few."

“It is a smaller, less well-defended city.  We can do this with two or three thousand people.”

We haven’t noticed a reference to God or direction from God at this point.  The pre-incarnate Christ is the general. He is the head of the army of Israel as depicted back in chapter 5, verses 12-15.  But, they are not going to the Commander-in-Chief for directions here for their strategy.  So they decided that they can do it with 2000 – 3000 men and they go out.  So they send 3,000 men and they get routed.  They attack Ai and Ai soundly and roundly defeats them.

NKJ Joshua 7:5 And the men of Ai struck down about thirty-six men, for they chased them from before the gate as far as Shebarim, and struck them down on the descent; therefore the hearts of the people melted and became like water.

Now let’s stop a minute and talk about this.  Thirty six people got killed, lost their lives because of Achan’s sin.  Does that fit your preconceived notion of justice? Probably not.  So we need to change our understanding of God or change our understanding of justice?  We need to change our understanding of justice because there is this corporate thing.  Because of one sin that was a secret sin and nobody else in Israel knew what Aiken did, but because he is part of that corporate unity the nation has lost their spiritual power.  They are out of fellowship.  The whole nation is in carnality and they are under divine discipline and they are not going to succeed at anything until they take care of the sin that is part of the corporate whole.  So there are these 36 men and it probably didn’t appear too just to them that they lost their lives.  But, this is how divine justice works.  Then Joshua didn’t appear to be too just to him.  He has his own little pity party.

NKJ Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the LORD until evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads.

He blames God.  Look at verse 7.

NKJ Joshua 7:7 And Joshua said, "Alas, Lord GOD, why have You brought this people over the Jordan at all -- to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Oh, that we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan!

“Why did this happen?  It is all your fault God.  If you hadn’t brought us in here this wouldn’t have happened.  We shouldn’t have suffered this defeat.”

See even Joshua has to have his concept of divine justice adjusted by revelation.  So God comes to him in verse 10.

NKJ Joshua 7:10 So the LORD said to Joshua: "Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face?

NKJ Joshua 7:11 "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. For they have even taken some of the accursed things, and have both stolen and deceived; and they have also put it among their own stuff.

Notice the corporate unity sinned. Joshua doesn’t even know about Achan’s sin.  Nobody does.  It was a sin that was in secret.  But it is a sin that was imputed to the whole.  It is one person’s sin.  He stands as a representative for the whole and his sin becomes the sin of the whole nation and the whole nation suffers the consequences for his sin.  As a result of that the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies.

What is the solution?  The solution is that this is a great Old Testament story to emphasize the whole doctrine of confession and forgiveness.  They have to be sanctified.  God gives them the instructions.

NKJ Joshua 7:13 "Get up, sanctify the people,

That is what confession is.  Confession is practical, experiential sanctification.  You have become unsanctified experientially when you sinned because you are in carnality.  At confession when we are cleansed from all unrighteousness we become sanctified experientially.  We are back in fellowship.  That is what has to happen corporately.

and say, 'Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because thus says the LORD God of Israel: "There is an accursed thing in your midst, O Israel; you cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the accursed thing from among you."

So the whole point is that until they deal with the sin in their midst, they will never experience victory in the plan of God.  That is the same thing that is true for believers.  Unless you deal with the sin that is in your life through the application of the Word, not because you are going around self-absorbed, contemplating your navel trying to figure out every little sin that is going on in your life which is how most Baptists would preach this. The issue is unless you understand God’s principle for sanctification which is confession of sin so that you are back in fellowship, you can’t go forward.  So they have to go through the process.  For them the details are a little bit different.  So there is going to be a penalty.  They are going to go through this process to identify the tribe, then the clan, then the family and finally the individual who committed this offence.  Then there is a penalty.  

NKJ Joshua 7:15 'Then it shall be that he who is taken with the accursed thing shall be burned with fire,

Why is he burned with fire and not stoned?  That is the general penalty that you have in the Mosaic Law.  What is burning with fire there?  Purification - purification of sin.  That is the problem - sin is in the camp and there needs to be purification.

he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.' "

So the next morning they get up and in verses 16f describe the whole process where they identify the tribe of Judah and the family and then eventually they come down to the family of Zabdi and identify Achan.  Achan is identified.  In verse 19 Joshua confronts him.

NKJ Joshua 7:19 Now Joshua said to Achan, "My son, I beg you, give glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to Him, and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me."

NKJ Joshua 7:20 And Achan answered Joshua and said, "Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and this is what I have done:

This is a great example of confession prayer.

“I have sinned against the Lord.  This is what I did.  I took this in violation of the commandment.”

 I am sure he felt very badly about this because he knew he was about to die.  But, that wasn’t the point of his confession.  That was how he felt.  He admits that he took the beautiful Babylonian garment.

NKJ Joshua 7:21 "When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them

Mental attitude sin

and took them.

Overt sin.

And there they are, hidden in the earth in the midst of my tent, with the silver under it."

NKJ Joshua 7:22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and there it was, hidden in his tent, with the silver under it.

NKJ Joshua 7:24 Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters,

Do you think this is fair to his sons and daughters?  I hope this challenges your American concept – western European concept of justice.  We have this thing of corporate unity here.  

his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought them to the Valley of Achor.

NKJ Joshua 7:25 And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.

That is the purification after they had stoned him with stones.

NKJ Joshua 7:25 And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.

Not to this day (today) but to the day the writer wrote Joshua.  It was still there.  In other words this is an object lesson.

How many times in the Old Testament did they set up these stone cairn monuments so that later on 150 – 200 years later you would go by and your little boy would say, “Well, Daddy, what is that pile of rocks over there?”

Then there would be an object lesson to teach doctrine. That is what that was all about.  The point I am making here is that in the Old Testament here, you have it with David’s sin at the end of II Samuel; you have it in other passages in the Old Testament.  There is this corporate unity.  So this demonstrates not only is there physical unity because he is Jewish that is the point of the genealogy.  It takes him back and shows him that there is also a physical unity with Israel, but there is also this representative aspect as well.  He is a representative of the nation because he sinned - all sinned.  So you have the same principle there that you have in Romans 5 that when Adam sinned; all sinned immediately, directly.  Everyone is immediately guilty of Adam’s sin the instant he sinned just as everyone in the nation Israel was immediately guilty of Achan’s sin when he did it even though they didn’t know anything about it.  So this is a solid biblical principle that extends throughout Scripture.

The next time we will come back and get into the issue that comes up in verses 13 and 14 that shows the importance of understanding this as Adam’s sin and that people don’t have their own personal sins imputed to them.  That is not the cause of our condemnation.  It is Adam’s original which we are guilty of both seminally and federally.

Covenant Theology        Heb. 100b

The basic definition of covenant theology is that it is a system of theology based on two sometimes three covenants which are governing categories for understanding the Bible.

They are first of all the Covenant of Works.  The Covenant of Works was an agreement (according to them) between God and Adam in which God promises life to Adam for perfect obedience, but if he is disobedient then the penalty is going to be death.  It is called a Covenant of Works because Adam would have achieved eternal life if he had just obeyed God.  If he had done what God wanted him to do, then he would have earned as it were eternal life.  So that is called a Covenant of Works.  Adam broke the covenant when he ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil so that nullified the covenant and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with us today.  It was only in effect during the time of the Garden of Eden.

Louis Burkoff, a reformed theologian, said that it is perfectly true that there is no such covenant recorded in Scripture and that the Scripture contains no explicit promise of eternal life for Adam.

Now the second covenant is called the Covenant of Redemption.  But not all covenant theologians believe in a Covenant of Redemption.  This is a covenant that those who hold to it say it is a covenant between God the Father and God the Son.  It is not with man.  God the Father and God the Son enter into this covenant and the Father promises the Son that He will become the head of the elect and the Son agrees to die for the elect.

Again I will quote from Louis Burkoff.  He said that “this is the agreement between God the Father and the Son giving the Son the headship and being the redeemer of the elect and the Son voluntarily taking the place of those the Father had given Him.”  

But as I said not all covenant theologians hold to this.

The third covenant they call the Covenant of Grace.  This is the major covenant in their system.  Everything from the fall of Adam to the end of history is under the Covenant of Grace.

Burkoff say:

This is the gracious agreement between the authentic God and the offending but elect sinner in which God promises salvation by faith in Christ and the sinner accepts by believing a life and promising a life of faith and obedience.

See that is where you are going to get lordship salvation eek out of this because if you don’t have a life of faith and obedience, then you didn’t have genuine faith to begin with and you aren’t really saved.

Now what is interesting about all this is that within covenant theology even though we don’t have any revelation to this effect, they believe that everybody in the Old Testament is saved the same way as everybody in the New Testament is saved.  By that I don’t mean by faith alone in a promise of deliverance by God, but that they actually have revelation they were believing in Jesus Christ.  Nothing changes.

Burkoff says:

In determining the degree of knowledge of God that the ancient peoples of God had, we are not to be governed by our own capacity of discovering from the Old Testament scriptures the doctrines of grace.  What amount of supplementary knowledge they received from the prophets are in direct revelation we don’t know.

In other words they knew he was going to be named Jesus of Nazareth, but the Old Testament just doesn’t tell us that.  Just because you can’t find it there doesn’t mean that it’s not true.  So that is part of covenant theology.  So they emphasized the Covenant of Grace.  Again I remind you that their concept of covenants isn’t what we are talking about biblical covenants.  

So covenant theology assumes those covenants and interprets everything in the Bible on the basis of those theological covenants.  That’s called a top-down or theologically driven exegesis of Scripture.

So you have three problems.

   1. First of all this system merely projects a general idea of covenant then tries to squeeze the biblical covenants into that theological covenant framework.  They don’t fit.  Their system won’t allow for separate distinct covenants.  Like I pointed out in the past – I don’t have the slide on here for tonight but I pointed out in the past that the Creation Covenant is modified in the Adamic Covenant.  The Adamic Covenant is further modified in the Noahic Covenant.  But that continues today in the signs of the rainbow.   When God steps back and He calls out Abraham, that follows  a totally different track.  It is not a modification of the Creation, Adamic, and Noahic Covenants.  Right?  It is completely different.  He is going to call out Abraham for a specific purpose and the promises are going and the blessings are going to go to Israel.  For them, all the covenants have to be squeezed together and it doesn’t work.

   2. The second problem is that they either do not produce Scripture to substantiate or justify the existence of these covenants or when they do give verses the verses don’t back up what they say it does.
   3.  The third problem is that the Bible nowhere speaks of a

Covenant of Works, a Covenant of Redemption, or a Covenant of race; but it does speak of the 8 covenants that I’ve talked about the last couple of weeks which are described in the Bible.

Doctrine of the Creaton of the Soul   Heb. 084b

How is the soul passed from one generation to another?  Is it done by procreation?  Or, is it passed on directly and immediately by God as He so created at the instant of birth and simultaneously imparted to a newborn baby at the time of birth.

Two important terms that you have to understand in this discussion are mediate and immediate.  Immediate means directly – that God directly creates the soul at the point of birth and passes it on simultaneously.  The word mediate involves secondary causes - that God does it; but He does it through secondary causes. 

For example we can say, “God creates everybody’s human body.” 

David does that in Psalm 139.  But, it is done mediately or through secondary causes of procreation and through the process of sex creates human bodies as they go from generation to generation. 

So we have to understand the difference between mediate and immediate.  Mediate involves secondary causes; immediate is God’s direct creation.  So we have to go through this.

Now the second thing that is important is understanding the terminology and its historical background.  History is important because it brings a lot of perspective to what is going on today. One of the reasons we have problems in the current debate is because there hasn’t been enough attention paid in my opinion to the historical background.

So history is important because as Hegel pointed out, “If we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.”

Of course that frequently happens.

There are two positions (actually there is a third position that I am going to briefly identify) that have been a part of Christian thinking.  The first view comes directly out of Platonism and it involved the pre-existence of the soul.  Everybody’s soul is up in heaven for a long time and it is not until God creates a body that He pushes the soul down into the body and that just came out of paganism.  So nobody who has ever been serious about the Bible other than allegory held that view so we are just going to pass by it.

The two views that have really dominated through church history are Traducianism and creationism.  Those are the terms.  Traducianism comes from the Latin word traducere meaning to transfer.  That is where it derives.  This view teaches that both the material body and the immaterial soul are transmitted through physical procreation.  Now what is important about this is that the first person to really articulate this (once again the context of neo-Platonism which tended to overemphasize the spiritual in the early part of the church) was Tertullian.  Now Tertullian is kind of a mixed bag.  Most of you haven’t spent a whole lot of time reading Tertullian.  He is not in your top 10 list.   You haven’t gone down to catch him on the latest paperback rack at Barnes and Noble.  But Tertullian was important because you use a word that he coined all the time.  That is the word trinity.  He coined the word trinitos in Latin to refer to the fact that God is one is essence and three in person.  Prior to that time they didn’t have that word.  So see when you can think about the trinity and use the word trinity, you can think about God in ways that Paul could never think about God.  Isn’t that interesting?  When you think the word hypostatic union, you are using concepts that were worked out in church history and you are using technical vocabulary that is much more precise than anything the Apostle Paul had available to him.  Isn’t that interesting?  It gives you something to kind of chew on for awhile.

God wants us in the process of studying His word to do that – to understand that to develop it, to coin vocabulary to express the concepts of His Word so that we can build a systematic theology and understand all of the relationships that are going on within His Word.  So there is nothing wrong with coining words to represent biblical concepts because the church has been doing that from the very beginning.  Words like trinity and rapture are not words that are found in the original text, but are coined to accurately represent and identify concepts that are in the text.

But Tertullian was a mixed bag.  Tertullian was a Montanist.  Now you all know what a Montanist were, don’t you?  In the early church you had the same basic problems that you had all through Scripture all through church history.  You always had in the middle your biblicists, such as they are from generation to generation.  Then there is one group that always wants to take away from the Bible.

This is the group that takes out their razor blade and says, “Well, Jesus didn’t say this.  This really isn’t the truth.  That really isn’t the truth.”

They want to chop everything up.  We would call those the liberals of the day.  This is the original Jesus Seminar.  In the second century that was represented by a guy named Marcion.  Marcion was a rabid ant-Semite.  So he thought that anything in the Bible in the New Testament that spoke positively about Jews couldn’t be a part of the New Testament.  So he got rid of Matthew and Mark and about a third of Luke and got rid of John and all but 11 of Paul’s epistles and everything else.  So he was the first to really come up with a canon.  You see the church always forms theology in the context of false teaching.

Once somebody said, “This is it.  This is all there is to the Bible.”

Everybody else stood around and said, “You are wrong. But, wait a minute.  You have a good question there.  What is the New Testament?”

So they finally began to work through the issue of canonicity.  It is always in the context of error.

So Marcion came along and he said, “Nah.  We got to get the razor blade out and we just have a few little books here.”

He is the proto-liberal.

Then on the other extreme we have those who want to add to the canon.  Those want to add new revelation.  We call those today charismatics.

“God spoke to me.”

We have got tongues and revelation and prophecy and all of this other stuff going on.  So we always have the Montanists who were proto(that means early, primitive) -charismatics.  They were following a guy who came out of what we now call Turkey or Anatolia who was the son or formerly he had been a priest of Cybele.  This was the Cybele or mother-child cult that dominated in the area of Western Turkey.  Of course the priests and priestesses of the Cybele Addis cult spoke in gibberish.  It was a very mystical, mystery  religion.  So he came out of that so not unlike a lot of charismatics today he had his two priestesses with him.  He talked about how God is continuing to give him revelation.  So you see you always have a problem with those who want to take away from Scripture and those who want to add to Scripture.

Tertullian was a mild Montanist.  So he had his problems in the area of understanding a number of important doctrines.  This is very early in the church.  We are talking about dates from 155 to 220.  So positively he contributes the terminology for the trinity; negatively he provides the problems with Montanists and some other things.  He wrote a lot and he has some other issues.  That ought to give you a little idea of who he was.  Just because he said something doesn’t make it so.  He was the first to say that the soul was transmitted through procreation.  Guess what!  It is because his view was that the soul was material – not immaterial. I didn’t slur that.  He thought the soul was just as material as your big toe or your thumb or your left arm or your right arm.  His view that the soul is transmitted through sexual activity and procreation was an outgrowth of his understanding that there really isn’t anything immaterial.  That was part of his reaction to neo-Platonism.  That is very important to understand and a lot of people don’t understand that.  You never find people emphasizing that even those who are proponents of traducianism.

Now the other view is called creationism.  This isn’t scientific creationism or biblical creationism in opposition to evolutionism. This is a term that has been used for centuries that teaches the view that only the body is generated physically or through procreation, but the soul is directly and immediately created by God and imparted to the infant at birth.  It is an ancient view.  It was the dominant view.  This is what most people don’t understand today.

If you a traducianist even today, you are in the minority in terms of church history.  Up until the middle of the 19th century William G. T. Shedd who was very well-known and respected conservative Presbyterian theologian wrote that he was a traducianist.  He said that this was a minority position.

 “Everybody else is a creationist.”

But he was a traducianist.  Now if you listen most of the Moral Majority you read an article Israel My Glory that came out in this month’s issue written by Reynold Showers who is a well respected theologian who is with the Friends of Israel wrote a whole article taking the traducianist view.   So this is very popular today.  It became the politically correct evangelical position after Roe v. Wade. 

You come along and say you are a creationist and people say, “How can you hold that position?”

Well, let’s see.  In all of church history probably 90% of theologians – Catholic, most Lutherans up until the 18th century, Presbyterians, - almost everybody was creationists.   They didn’t have the political pressure of the abortion debate.  They were just dealing with the text.  As you can see, my argument is going to be that the popularity of the traducianist position has been forged in the context of the politics of the day apart from exegesis.

So for creationists, the body is created indirectly by God and the soul is created directly by God and imparted at the time of birth.

Now let’s see the historical background here.  Tertullian was the first to coin the word for Traducianism.  Luther held to a traducianist position.  Later he shifted to creationism.  In the Lutheran Concord of the 16th century, they held to a creationist position.  They later changed it and went back.  William G. T.  Shedd held to a traducianist position.  Louis Sperry Chafer held to a traducianist position.

Chafer gets through with his whole traducianism versus creationism and says, “The evidence in pretty equal, but I am going to say that it tips very slightly towards traducianism.”

A lot of more contemporary systematic theologies that have come out in recent years don’t even discuss the issue. I was pulling books off my shelf by systematic theologies that have been written in recent years and thumbing through the index and they don’t even have a reference to this debate in their index.

In creationism,  Jerome who was the early church father who translated the Bible (the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament) into Latin (the Vulgate) was a creationist.  He believed that life began at birth.

Who really honors Saint Jerome?  He translated the Vulgate.  He is one of the major fathers for the Roman Catholic Church, isn’t he?  So is Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor.

Thomas Aquinas said in his Summa Theologica, “It is heresy to think that the soul is transmitted through the semen.”

This is the doctor of theology.  They call him for the Roman Catholic Church.  He said that traducianism was heresy. 

John Calvin was a creationist.

Charles Hodge a very famous 19th century theologian and many others were creationists as well as I pointed out.  Shedd recognized that nearly every theologian up to his time was a creationist.  It was unusual to be a traducianist.  Augustine was a creationist most of his life.  When he got into some arguments with Pelagius he began to waffle a little bit, but he never could convince himself that traducianism had a case.  He started becoming uncertain on his creationist views, but he could never convince himself that the traducianist view could be supported.  That gives you the historical background to this debate.

One of the reasons I bring that out is because many people who hold to a creationist view today think that somehow this is an odd view.

They hear this taught and they say, “Well, I have never heard that.  Every evangelical that I have ever heard said that the soul was present from conception.”

That is not a recent view, but its popularity among biblical students is very recent.  It is a 20th century phenomenon.  I point out this history so that people realize that there is significance to this historical debate.  If you take a creationist position, you are not some wild-eyed liberal weirdo that never heard of.

I talked to seminary guys when I was in seminary that had never heard anybody who took this position.   It was an eye opening thing for them.

Hebrews 85b

Well, we have used the two key terms – traducianism and creationism.  We will review them again for you.  

Traducianism is from the Latin word traducere which means to transfer.  It is the view in theology that teaches that both the material body and the immaterial soul are transmitted through physical procreation.  Actually I shouldn’t have immaterial soul there even though later theologians up into the Reformation period up into the present would try to treat the soul immaterially. The reality is that this view was originated by Tertullian in the second to third century (AD).  Tertullian understood the soul to be material.  So one of the major weaknesses with the traducianist view which has not been explained is how the immaterial get transmitted by the material.  That is not particularly dealt with along with another number of important scriptural exegetical issues which we will deal with.

The other view that goes back equally as far (in fact it is the view that was there when Tertullian introduced the traducianist theory) and that was the creationist view that taught that the body was generated physically through the physical act of procreation but the soul of each person is created directly by God and is imparted simultaneous at the birth of each baby as indicated by taking a breath.  This is held by numerous people - Jerome who translated the Vulgate, Thomas Aquinas who is considered the angelic doctor (He is the theologian for the Roman Catholic Church coming out of the Middle Ages), John Calvin, Charles Hodge, contemporary theologian was Louis Burkhoff all held to a creationist view.  These are not intellectual lightweights by the way or theological lightweights.    They are very adept in what they presented.

Aquinas in fact said, “Traducianism is heresy – to think that the soul was transmitted through the semen.”

So how do we understand this?  We have to build our case slowly, gradually from Scripture and not jump to conclusions that aren’t in evidence at the beginning.  So let’s take it very cautiously and slowly as we go through this.

First off we have to start with the creation of man in original formation which takes place in Genesis 2:7.  There we read…

NKJ Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

This would be the chemicals in the soil.  He takes the earth and he begins to form man from the earth.

That always reminds me of one of my favorite little stories about some evolutionists who finally got to the point where they could create life in the laboratory. 

So they said, “Well, we don’t need God anymore.  We have proof that God is unnecessary so we are going to tell God that He is unnecessary and He is worthless.  We can do it all ourselves and we don’t need Him.”

So they challenged God and God came out and said, “Okay.  I will take up your challenge.  We will see what you can do.  We will have a contest and you can go first.  I will be a gentleman and you can go first.  You create life.”

So the scientist said, “Okay.  That sounds fine.  I appreciate the opportunity.”

So he leaned over and picked up some dirt.

God said, “No, no, no.  You have to create your own dirt.”

God originally created the chemicals of the soil.  Remember that?  So it is from the chemicals of the soil now that God is going to form the physical body of man.  Now this is why this whole issue of Platonism comes into play.  The problem that you have that comes out of the influence of Platonism is this issue between matter and the immaterial or as Plato put it – between the ideas and the forms.

He had a great cave illustration that everybody is in a cave.  You remember when you were kids and you would have real bright light or somebody would hold up a flashlight and turn the lights off in your bedroom and you would hold up your fingers and you would make a shadow image of a dog or a rabbit or something like that.  That would go up in the wall.  Well, Plato’s view of knowledge was that all you and I ever see are the shadows on the wall.  That’s it.  We don’t see the thing that actually makes the image.  That is what he would call the form – the form or the ideal.  That’s not in the physical creation.  Down here in a lower story - he has this dichotomy in the way he views reality.  Down below what you have is matter.  The form or the ideal is pure and it is good, but matter is inherently evil.  Everything that is of real value has to do with the pure, the good, the form, the ideal. This is where you have the realm of spirit.   Down here of course is where you have the realm of body.

Form/Ideal

Pure     Good

Spirit

matter/nature

evil         body

Only the philosophers ever got enough information to come up out of the cave and see ultimate reality – the ideas, the forms.

This came over into the early church.  Up here, this was changed to grace.  This is the realm where God operates.  Down below it is matter or nature.  As Christians they knew that creation itself wasn’t evil.  But, it wasn’t important.  When you get into the affect of neo-Platonism on Christianity, they dump the ideas that it is evil; but it is just not important.  What is really important is what goes on up here in the realm of spirit and soul.

Now I am not going to embarrass anybody here because I think everybody would answer the question the same way.

But, most of us have heard people teach about the soul and say, “The soul is the real you.”

Right?  The soul is the real you.  How platonic!  The body isn’t important.  Do you hear that?  If the soul is the real you, the body is irrelevant.  It is just dirt, dust and chemicals.  It is not significant.  That is purely a neo-platonic idea of life.

Here is a principle- the body is just as important as the soul.

We studied this earlier in Hebrews when Jesus Christ says to the Father, “A body you have prepared for Me.”

Now think about this a little bit.  God the Father is sitting there – let’s say a day or two before Genesis 2:7.  He is sitting there up on His throne and He has got His head down in His hand like The Thinker.  I am being a little anthropocentric here (or a little anthropomorphic).  He is thinking about this.

He says, “Hum.  One day I am going to have to take My essence (that is spirit in terms of the Second Person of the Trinity) and I am going to have to get all scrunched down and put Myself into this body, this creature I am about to create.  So I have to design a physical body that is the best expression possible that I can have to express all that I am in My infinite being and as a spirit.”

So He doesn’t just come up with some idea and say, “Oh. Bipedal humanoid. What a great idea.  Let’s give that a shot.”

This is well thought out.

God is saying, “Of all the possible ways in which we can create this body.”

Just think about some of the different ideas that human have come up with.  Think about that famous bar scene in the first Star Wars movie that had all those different creatures in there or some of the Star Trek shows where they have all the different Cleons, and Romulans and all these different creatures -  trivets or whatever they were.  You had all these different bodies, all these different options and God in His infinite omniscience would know all of the variables.

So He says, “I am going to pick a finite physical body that is going to be the home for the Second Person of the Trinity whose job it is to reveal Me and to display who I am within this physical body.”

So this physical body is not an afterthought.  It is not something that is just a home for the soul.  It is as important and as significant as the soul.  There is no time your soul doesn’t operate without a body.  You have got a physical body now.  Based on Luke 16 there is going to be some sort of interim body between now and the future.  Otherwise how is the soul going to see?  How is the soul going to hear?  At physical death when the soul is separated from the physical body, how is the soul going to hear, see, experience anything?  The soul has to have a physical body in order to receive any sensory data – seeing, hearing, tasting, anything.   It has to come through a physical body.  So a physical body is just as important.

That is what was missing from a tremendous amount of theology in the Middle Ages because they tended to denigrate the significance of anything physical due to this influence of neo-platonic thought.  It denigrated marriage.  It denigrated sex.  It denigrates food and pleasure and all of these other things.  That is why the people who were the real spiritual people were the monks (the monastics) who were operating up here where they are living off in their monastic community where all the emphasis is on the spirit and soul development.  We are not going to eat a whole lot.  We are not going to drink a whole lot although they did develop some very fine beers in the Middle Ages in the monasteries.  In fact the current issue of Christian History is devoted to monastic spirituality which is another whole rabbit trail that I could go down.  It is coming in gang busters.

Let me just get off on this a minute.  If you haven’t noticed this, the trend for the last 20 years among evangelicals has been to go back to a Middle Ages, Roman Catholic contemplative form of spirituality.  Asceticism, monasticism, going back - in fact they don’t call them initiates because that would have to be someone who was becoming a Benedictine monk.  But they have according to this issue in Christian History the lay people who can associate themselves with a monastery.  A large number of people who are associating (I don’t mean 1 or 2%, probably 10-15%) with monasteries today are protestants.  We are on our way back to Rome folks.  In fact this morning (I haven’t had time to go back and investigate the whole thing) I got an email from Charlie Clough.  It was a forward from an email from Tommie Ice.  We all spend a lot of time together.

Tommie was writing this email to Charlie saying, “I know you like to read Charles Colson.”

Many of you have heard Charlie reference Charles Colson.  Chuck Colson was a lawyer.  He was in the Nixon White House. He was guilty of various crimes of Watergate.  He was sent to prison.  He trusted Christ as a Savior and since then developed this huge national prison ministry. He has written a number of books and he has a number of valuable insights.  It also has a number of flaws.  It turns out that Chuck Colson has been promoting the writings of a man named Henry Nouwen.  He is one of these contemporary contemplative mystic types.  He (Henry Nouwen does) also promotes the works of an earlier writer named Thomas Merton who was into all this New Age type of mystical spirituality.  This is coming on big time today.

Now let me connect some of these dots for you.   There is another big name today that is promoting these same two people – Henry Nouwen and Thomas Merton.  That’s Rick Warren of the Purpose Driven Life and the Purpose Driven Church.  We are going to have a mystic driven spiritual life.

That connects to the core things we were studying the last several weeks on Sunday morning on worship in evaluating the claims of contemporary Christian music and contemporary Christian worship movement. Their core understanding of worship is subjectivity.  It is a certain mindset.  The music and the words are designed to get you into a certain mindset.  So we have to have these little praise courses because that helps get you into this particular mindset.  That mindset is one that has affinity with the kind of mindset that is defined as worshipful and spiritual in this contemplative spirituality movement that goes back to the medieval mystics and ascetics and the pillar saints and all these other thingstuffs that went on in the Middle Ages.   We are going back to Rome folks in a big way.  So you need to be aware of how these things connect.

Worship is not defined by a subjective mental attitude or mental state of some sort of ethereal lightweight happy mentality.  When Jesus was angry at the moneychangers in the temple and threw them out, He was worshipping God.  When they can factor that into their definition of Sunday morning worship, they might be getting somewhere biblically.   Most of them don’t do that – that jars, that violates their whole concept of love and feel good, and let’s just be all emotional here.  All of this goes back to these horrible ideas that came into the early church through platonic thought.  It deemphasizes the physical, the material and nature.  We saw that all the way through the Middle Ages how it impacted their art and how it impacted music.  In art it was two dimensional.  It tended to present people in an ideal manner.  Pictures of people didn’t look like people.  You couldn’t identify them as individuals.  Once you had a shift towards the later Middle Ages and that wasn’t due to getting back to the Bible.  It was due to getting back to Aristotle.  When they got back to Aristotle, Aristotle emphasized the particulars.  It was Plato that emphasized the universals or the ideals.

How does this affect us?  Well, the way it affected the whole idea of the origin of the soul and our understanding of the soul and the formation of the body is it puts the formation of the body of man from the dust of the ground…

“Well, that is kind of secondary.  God is just doing that to get to the really important part of creating the soul.”

What I am telling you is they are both important.  You never have human souls function without some kind of body.

What about Creation through the process of Evolution?

Gen. 010

There are five views that have been set forth as accommodationist positions to evolution. What happened in the 19th century was that science began to cut itself loose from the Bible. Up until the early 1700s every self-respecting scientist and geologist believed in a literal universal Noahic flood, and they built their science assuming the Bible to be true. Starting with the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, early 1700s, scientists began to reject the Bible, and as they ignored what the Bible said they were coming up with conclusions that were much different from earlier science at that time. As they came up with conclusions Christians decided that in some way they had to accommodate themselves to these conclusions.

The first view is the view that is called theistic evolution, the one that is most removed from taking the Bible literally. It is simply the idea that God works behind the process of evolution. The creative activity of God is indirect, He is just out there in the cosmos somewhere and He uses all the mechanisms of evolution, the mechanism of the survival of the fittest, in order to bring about and advance through the various times until eventually man evolves. So theistic evolution assumes the validity of everything that science teaches and then just kind of sticks God in there as a suave to their religious conscience.

The second view is called progressive creationism. This is where you have long periods of time which begin with a day. So there would be a 24-hour day followed by a long period of time when evolution takes place. After this long period of thousands or even millions of years there is the second 24-hour day, and so on. So the creation days are actually 24-hours but there are thousands or millions of years in between these creative days.

The third view is called threshold evolution. That is very similar to progressive creationism, and instead of having 24-hour days God just comes in an interferes at each stage breaking through these barriers between species.

The fourth view is the day-age view. It looks at each of these days as not 24-hour days but days of extended periods of time—millions of years. But that doesn’t fit the language of the text and there are also other internal problems.

The fifth view is one that many people thought solved the problem. It was a view put forth by Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish Presbyterian, and was later popularized by a man name Pember: the Chalmers-Pember gap view. They took a very ancient view that there is a time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Up until the early 19th century when Chalmers hi-jacked the view this gap was understood to be the time period when the angels were created and fell, and the beginning of the angelic conflict and the beginning of spiritual warfare in the universe. And it was during that time that Satan was put on trial and sentenced to the lake of fire, but then he challenges God and challenges the veracity of God, the justice of God, the fairness of God, and claims He never really has given His creatures a chance to prove that they can be God and run things just as well as He can. So God establishes a test case right on Satan’s very own territory of planet earth to demonstrate through volitional creatures, man, exactly why a creature cannot function independently of his creator. So the Chalmers-Pember gap view tried to solve the problem by inserting all the geologic ages in between

The Doctrine of Crowns RD/1 Cor. 050

1)      There are two types of crowns in the New Testament. The first is called a STEPHANOS crown; it is a victor’s crown. This is a crown that is earned and only believers receive this crown. It is a term that was used to describe the crown of thorns that was placed on Jesus’ head, and that was to indicate the victory that He would have over sin. Mark 15:17 NASB “They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him.” This is also stated in Matthew 27:29; John 19:2. Other passages also suggest this, e.g. Revelation 3:11 related to believers: NASB “I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.” Again, the idea of perseverance is encouraged here. It is very possible for believers to lose their rewards. Cf. Revelation 4:4; 14:14. 

2)      The second crown that is mentioned in the DIADEMA [diadhma] crown. This is where we get our English word diadem. It is a crown of royalty, one that is not necessarily earned but one that is bestowed upon a king that is his right of inheritance, his right of aristocracy. Revelation 12:3—diadems indicating political power; 13:1; 19:12.

3)      Each STEPHANOS crown that was won by the athlete also included a monetary reward. He received a certain amount of money as part of the prize. He was also given freedom from all taxes for the rest of his life. His children were all educated at public expense and a statue of the person would be erected in the town square. So this kind of crown is used by analogy for the greatest kind of honor that God can give to believers.

4)      To understand the nature of crowns we must understand the cultural imagery of the Games which lies behind this metaphor. It is in this metaphor that the believer is compared not only to the athlete but also to the soldier. 2 Timothy 2:4 NASB “No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.” The point is learning to prioritise, learning to decide what you are after, what your goal in life is, and then excluding from your life all those things that distract you from achieving that end. [5] “Also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” We have to operate according to the protocol mandates of the spiritual life in order to advance to spiritual maturity.

5)      The Games in the ancient world were well known and they developed early in Greece during the sixth century BC. Under Rome they never gained the original glory they had during the golden years of Greece but they had been restored and they had become more and more popular. The Games focused primarily on track events such as racing, throwing the javelin, and discuss throwing, as well as more physical events such as wrestling and boxing. Only free-born Greeks were eligible to participate and their ten months of training was called the AGONIZOMAI [a)gonizomai], emphasizing the strict discipline that was necessary in order for them to advance.

6)      Paul goes on to say that as believers we are not to live our Christian lives aimlessly but for the goal of winning the prize. 1 Corinthians 9:26 NASB “Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air.” In the ancient world they didn’t box as we do today, they punched with what was more like a round-house punch and their punching was done by swinging their arm like a windmill, so if there wasn’t anything there for them to connect to it had the idea of someone just standing there flailing their arms in the air. This is the image that Paul is using here.

7)      There are four crowns that are mentioned in the New Testament.

The first is the crown of righteousness—2 Timothy 4:6-8 NASB “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. [7]  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; [8] in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.” Those who love His appearing is not simply someone who is looking forward to the Lord coming back, but someone who is motivated by the fact that Jesus Christ is going to come back at any particular moment. This is the idea that John has in 1 John 2:28 that we should not be ashamed at His coming, His appearance. We are motivated by His appearance. This is the believer who is motivated by the fact that Jesus Christ could come back tomorrow and, are we ready? Are we prepared to stand before the judgment seat of Christ, have we been keeping our spiritual growth our number one priority. When we grown and mature as a believer God the Holy Spirit is going to produce righteousness in our life. The crown of righteousness does not refer to positional righteousness but to the practical or experiential righteousness that is developed in the believer’s life through the application of doctrine and spiritual growth. This is the divine good produced in the believer’s life which develops capacity for life and capacity for happiness, both now and in eternity. As the believer advances toward spiritual maturity he is going to spend more and more time in fellowship, he is going to be applying doctrine. As a result of this the Holy Spirit produces in the believer production righteousness. This is what is stated in Ephesians 5:9 NASB “(for the fruit of the Light [“Spirit” in the Majority Text) {consists} in all goodness and righteousness and truth).” The result of this, if you reach spiritual maturity, is you receive the crown of righteousness. 

The second crown is the crown of life. This is described in Revelation 2:10 NASB “Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” James 1:12 NASB “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved [dokimoj], he will receive the crown of life which {the Lord} has promised to those who love Him.” Once again, love for God the Father is characteristic of the mature believer. You don’t learn to love the Lord until you have a certain amount of doctrine in your soul. This is related to eternal life. There is a quality of life associated with the believer who stays in fellowship. The quality of life that we are promised, this extra capacity for life that will be ours in the eternal state, comes as a result of spiritual growth based on abiding in Christ. This crown of life is related to the believer’s success in enduring adversity and testing without yielding to temptation. In some cases this may involve physical persecution and even martyrdom.

The third crown is the crown of glory. This crown is awarded to pastors who faithfully study and communicate Bible doctrine to their congregation. The pastor must be faithful in his preparation for the ministry. He must be faithful in his own spiritual growth and his own spiritual advance, his congregation will never advance beyond his own spiritual growth and life. Finally, a pastor-teacher must be faithful to feed his congregation and to give them solid food so that they may grow from that. 1 Peter 5:1 NASB “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as {your} fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, [2] shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to {the will of} God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; [3] nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. [4] And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

The fourth crown is the crown that is the subject of 1 Corinthians chapter nine is the winner’s crown, for the person who has mastered himself (the crown of self-mastery or the crown of self-discipline), for the winner who faithfully runs the race. 

The Doctrine of the Dance   RD/1 Cor. 034

1)      Dancing involves teamwork with clearly-defined rules and roles for each member of the team. The man is the leader in dancing and the woman is the responder—she follows his lead. When the rules are followed and each person fulfils his role the result is a fluid movement of grace and beauty. The goal of marriage is for the two to move as one. It doesn’t happen over night, it doesn’t happen intuitively, it happens because there is a lot of work involved but each one understands what their particular roles are within the team and they work to master it. Christian marriage also involves teamwork with clearly defined rules and roles. Ephesians 5:22, 23; Colossians 3:18-4:1; 1 Peter 3:1-7. Teamwork is defined as a relationship between two individuals that is characterized by mutual cooperation and defined areas of responsibility directed to the achievement of a specified common goal.

2)      Two people cannot dance together without a common goal. In the same way, two believers cannot achieve a Christian marriage without a common goal. The goal of marriage between believers is to produce a union of two lives which brings glory to God and is a testimony of divine grace. This means that the highest priority in your life in terms of marriage is first your own spiritual life. You have to realize that in marriage you are not going to be any better than what you are as an individual. It takes two to make a successful marriage but one can destroy that option. Amos 3:3 KJV “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” When the common goal is a successful Christian marriage, as defined in bringing glory to God through the marriage team, then whenever conflict erupts the final determiner is what is best for the marriage in terms of the Word of God—not what best promotes my life, what is going to make me happy, what is going to bring about my goals, but what is best for the marriage in terms of biblical priorities.

3)      Like any team, dancing has specifically defined roles for the two participants. In dancing the male is the leader and the woman is the follower. This means the man initiates, plans and directs the movements of the woman. The woman is the follower, she has to respond to the leadership of the male, and she has to do everything the man does but she has to do it backward, she can’t even see where she is going. In Christian marriage, by analogy, the husband is the leader, the one with final authority, and he is the one who is held accountable by God for the spiritual welfare of the family. The role of spiritual leadership in the home involves teaching the children, praying together, setting priorities, making sure everyone gets to Bible class on time, and modelling the application of doctrine in his own life by setting an example. In Christian marriage the wife is the responder, and she is responding to God first and her husband second. If she starts putting her husband first then she is going to set herself up to be continuously reacting or responding to him and she will become an emotional yoyo.

4)      In the dance the leader and follower positions are not related to the skill level of the dancers. Many times the woman may be a much better dancer than the man. The same thing happens in marriage. Many times the husband is not as bright, is not as skilful, not as adept in relationships as the woman is. The role doesn’t have anything to do with the skill level involved, it has to do with God’s design and intention for men and women inside of the marriage.

5)      In dancing each person has specific footwork that must be learned and practiced in order to develop grace and fluidity. This demands thought and concentration. When emotion takes over mistakes occur. It is the same with marriage. You have to practice your role, you have to study, you have to think about it; it doesn’t just happen, it is not the result of intuition.

6)      In dancing the male through good leads can make his partner look graceful and keep her from making mistakes. However, if his leads are too strong they can cause problems. On the other hand, if his lead is too weak and he doesn’t communicate anything to the woman for response she is left in the very frustrating position of trying to guess how to follow the man. The same thing is true about Christian marriage. The man who leads too strongly is a tyrant and bully, doesn’t understand grace and destroys the gracefulness in the marriage. A man who is weak and doesn’t lead well, always deferring to the wife, also creates problems because she is going to react to that and there will be role reversals in the marriage which are eventually self-defeating.

7)      The male as the leader plans and initiates the various moves. That means he has to be thinking ahead. He sees other people on the dance floor, he sees obstacles, he has to know how to avoid them and maintain control. This implies that as part of the leadership role the husband must understand Christian marriage and where the couple is headed spiritually. He has to look forward.

8)      In the dance the leader must know and study his partner to know how to lead her effectively. The same thing in the home. The husband must know and understand his wife, and this involves listening to her and communicating. A mark of good leadership is humility and teachability.

9)      The man must learn to listen to his partner because only the person you are dancing with knows how you are doing. Grace orientation is a prerequisite for good communication and demands humility.

10)   The woman, in contrast, must learn to communicate to the man without challenging his tender male ego. She is going to have to study her husband to know how to communicate to him, to make suggestions to him, so that he is more responsive and will be more willing to listen. Don’t create a conflict.

11)   The woman must learn to let the man lead. This doesn’t come naturally, she has to let the man lead. That puts her in a position of vulnerability because he is going to make mistakes, and those mistakes can hurt and have lasting consequences. Scripture doesn’t say, “Children obey your parents when they are right.” It doesn’t say, “Slaves obey your masters when they have your best interests at heart.” Neither does it say, “Wives submit to your husbands when they are on the right track.” It doesn’t say, “Husbands love your wives when they are responding to you the way you think they should.” There aren’t conditions on those things.

12)   The woman is sometimes unaware of where the man is going on the dance floor and of his plan, so she must be constantly ready to respond and shift with his leads. One of the most difficult things about being a woman is being flexible.

13)   The woman must continue to follow as best she can, no matter how faulty his leadership. If a man is a failure in his leadership role you can still be successful as a follower.

14)   Trouble starts when you quit thinking and start emoting.

15)   Success ultimately is based on consistency and practice. Many mistakes are made but as long as the goal is kept by the two it can be accomplished. As long as you stop, rebound, confess your sins, apologize to one another, forgive one another, then you can always recover and go forward. As the two work together, mutual respect and admiration develops and confidence increases.  

The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ   RD/John 041

1)        Divine names are given to Jesus. He is called God in John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8,9; John 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13. He is called the Son of God. The term Son of God indicates identity with something, and is an indication of the essence of something. This title is applied more than 40 times to Jesus: Matthew16:16, 17; 8:29; John 5:25. The only begotten Son of God: John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18. He is called Lord, which does not relate to sovereignty or to His being a master, but it relates to the Old Testament Hebrew designation of God as Yahweh. Romans 14:9; 1 Timothy 6:15. The interesting thing is that Yahweh in the Old Testament most people think of as referring to the Father. Although it is sometimes used of the Father and rarely of the Holy Spirit, mostly it indicates the Son. Psalm 23:1, Yahweh is the Shepherd. What does John 10:11 says? “I am the good Shepherd.” 1 Peter 5:4 NASB “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” Hebrews 13:20 NASB “Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, {even} Jesus our Lord.” This tells us that the New Testament identifies the Shepherd as the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ten examples of how the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as Yahweh exclusively in the Old Testament: a) He is called the Shepherd in Psalm 23:1 cf. John 10:11; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 5:4; b) In the Old Testament Yahweh is called the saviour in Isaiah 45:15, 21, 22 cf. Luke 2:11; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42; c) Yahweh restores sight to the blind in Psalm 146:8 cf. Matthew 9:29, 30; d) Yahweh’s name alone is exalted in Psalm 148:13; 8:1, 9 cf. Philippians 2:9-11, the Lord Jesus Christ; e) Yahweh means “I AM,” derived from the root verb hayah which means to be, and is translated as I AM that I AM. Exodus 3:14 cf. John 8:24, 58; Mark 6:50; 14:2. Jesus uses this a number of times to indicate His deity. John 4:42; 6:41, 48, 51; 8:12, 24; 9:9; 10:7, 9, 11; 11:25, 13:9; 14:6; f) The highest knowledge of man is to know Yahweh. Jeremiah 9:23, 24. In the New Testament the highest knowledge is to know Jesus. 1 Corinthians 1:31; 2 Peter 3:18; John 17:3; g) In the Old Testament Yahweh is the Rock, Psalm 18:31. In the New Testament Jesus is the Rock, 1 Corinthians 10:4; 3:11; h) In the Old Testament Yahweh will be a stumbling stone. Isaiah 8:14. In the New Testament Jesus is the stumbling stone. 1 Peter 2:6-9; i) Yahweh is the object of faith for justification. Genesis 15:6; Isaiah 45:25, cf. Romans 3:25, 26; Galatians 2:16 where Jesus Christ is to be the object of faith for justification. In Isaiah 43 it is prophesied that one will come who will prepare the way of Yahweh. Cf. Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23, John the Baptist comes to prepare the way of the Lord. The way of Yahweh is the way of the Lord Jesus. 

2)        Divine worship is given to Christ. Scripture emphasises that only God is to be worshipped. Any time an angel appears in and a man tried to worship the angel, they stopped him. But Jesus never stopped people from worshipping Him or paying Him homage. Matthew 4:10; John 20:28; Matthew 14:23. Worship is to be paid only to God but Jesus accepts worship. In 2 Thessalonians 2:16, 17 God the Father and God the Son are invoked to comfort believers: NASB “Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.” The subject there is the Father and the Son, which is two. But the verb is the third person singular of parakaleo [parakalew], so there is a plural subject and a singular verb which indicates the identity, once in essence, of the Father and the Son in prayer and worship.

3)        Divine attributes are ascribed to Christ. Life and the power to give life, John 1:4; 5:21, 26; 10:10. Eternity, John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5. Immutability, Hebrews 13:8. When comparing Matthew 18:20; 28:20 and Colossians 1:20, we see that Jesus has to be a number of different places, and the only way He can be all of these places is in He is omnipresent. He is omniscient, John 16:30; 21:17; 2:24, 25.

4)        In summary: Jesus claimed to be God, and is God.   

John 5:24 NASB “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”

The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ  RD/John 093

   1. The Scripture ascribes certain titles of deity to Jesus, titles that are exclusive to deity. He is clearly called God in numerous passages. Titus 2:13 NASB “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Granville-Sharp rule: In Greek when there is a construction where there is an article and then a noun and then the conjunction kai [kai], and then another noun, that this one article causes the two nouns to be linked together as synonyms. That is the construction that Paul uses in Titus 2:13. There is an article before “God” but not before “Savior,” they are linked by the word kai which is “and,” so that God and Savior are linked together as synonyms. This shows that Jesus is called God by Paul. Another passage is Isaiah 9:6 NASB “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” That indicates that there will be a human child born through natural processes. The second thing we notice there is that He is called a son. That indicates that not only in His humanity He will be male but that the implication here is that Jesus is a son before He is given—a son is given. Then it says the government will rest on His shoulders. This indicates His messianic rule. Then certain things will be applied to Him, and we have to remember that in A Jewish context a name reflects character, the essence of who someone is. So this son that will be born emphasises His humanity, but this human person is called Mighty God. The next phrase is “eternal Father,” which is “Father of eternity” in the Hebrew which means that He is eternal. This is another ascription of deity: only God is eternal. “A son is born” emphasises the beginnings of His humanity but, on the other hand, He is called “Father of eternity” so we see that there is an aspect to this child that is eternal. 1 John 5:20 NASB “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”
   2. Jesus Christ is inseparably identified with God in many passages: a) Scripture says that to know Jesus Christ is to know God: John 14:8, 9; 1:18; b) To see Jesus Christ is to see God: John 14:9; c) He is called the image—an image is a representation—of the invisible God, which would imply that all of the attributes of God apply to Jesus as well: Colossians 1:15; d) He alone reveals God and is the highest possible revelation of God: John 1:14; e) He is called the flashing forth of the glory of God in Hebrews 1:3. In that verse the “radiance” is the Greek word apaugasma [a)paugasma]. The ‘ma’ suffix indicates the fullest and final expression of something, the ultimate goal, and this would relate to the glory of God. The word “express image” or “exact representation” is the Greek word charakter [xapakthr]. Then “of his nature” is hupostasis [u(postasij], the essence of God; f) In Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness [plhrwma] of the Godhead bodily, Colossians 2:9. There is nothing left out, there is no sense that He is anything less than true, undiminished deity; g) Christ existed in then very essence of God in Philippians 2:6; h) Jesus Christ is to receive equal honour as God: John 5:25; Philippians 2:10, 11.
   3. Jesus Christ is clearly called God in the Scriptures: John 20:28; Acts 7:59; 8:37; Galatians 2:20; Colossians 1:15-17; 2:9; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 25; 1 John 5:20.
   4. He is give n the attributes of God: Holy, Luke 1:35; righteous, 2 Timothy 4:8; love, John 15:9; the epitome of grace, John 1:14; eternal, Micah 5:2 and John 8:58; faithfulness, 2 Thessalonians 3:3; good, John 10:11; immutable, Hebrews 13:5; omniscient, Matthew 11:27; John 2:24, 25; He is omnipresent, John 3:13; omnipotent, Isaiah 9:6; John 11:4. All of these are attributes that only God can have, yet all of these attributes are ascribed to Jesus Christ.
   5. He is worshipped as God: by the angels, Hebrews 1:6; in Bethlehem by the shepherds, Luke 2:15; by a leper, Matthew 8:2; by a ruler in Matthew 9:18; by the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:25; by a mother in Matthew 20:20; by the blind man in John 9:38; by a group of Greeks who came to seek Him out in John 12:20, 21; by the apostles in Matthew 14.
   6. Personally He claimed to be God. John 8:58; 10:30.
   7. He performed the works which only God can perform. He is the creator of everything. John 1:3; Colossians 1:16. He forgives sin, Mark 2:1-12. He gives life to whomever He wishes, John 5:21. He raises the dead, John 11:43. He answers prayer, John 14:14. He is the judge of men, John 5:22-27. He possesses the glory of God, cf. Isaiah 42:8 with John 17:5. He performed miracles that attested to His role as the Messiah, John 5:36; 15:24; Matthew 11:4-6.

Doctrine of Demon Power and how this fits into Scripture.         RD/John 060

1)      God originally created an innumerable army of rational spirit beings which were called angels. The Greek word is aggelos [a)ggeloj] and it means messenger. He created them instantaneously and simultaneously, and there are different orders of angels—cherubs, seraphs, and various ministering angels including guardian angels and others that have different responsibilities.

2)      Then according to Job 38, He created the universe, their habitation.

3)      The highest of all the angels was Lucifer, and when he sinned he became the adversary of God and challenged God’s authority to rule the universe. Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:11-19.

4)      At the point the universe goes under judgment. When Lucifer fell that was decision-making time for the angels. The issue was whether they would follow Satan or not. If they chose to follow Lucifer in his fall then that would seal their doom for all eternity, and we know from Revelation that one third of the angels followed Satan in his revolt against God.

5)      This one third is referred to as demons, also as fallen angels. These can further be classified into two groups: those that are imprisoned in Tartarus and those that are operational. The imprisoned demons are those that cohabited with the daughters of men in Genesis 6:3. Those who left their first estate, according to 1 Peter 3, are imprisoned in Tartarus and are not released until part way into the Tribulation. Then there is another group that are operational which we call demons, and there are times when they can possess human bodies. The ones who are operational today are Satan’s henchmen who carry out his desire to control the earth. They function as his messengers because Satan is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. In fact, Satan spends most of his time before the throne of God accusing believers and relying upon his chain of command to carry out his wishes in human history and to try to influence human history.

6)      Demons are involved in blinding the minds of unbelievers to the truth of the gospel, according to 2 Corinthians 4:4. They are involved in influencing mankind through false doctrine, 1 Timothy 4:1; and they are involved in counterfeiting the truth, 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15, and there we learn that they masquerade as angels or ministers of righteousness. This whole process of influencing man through false doctrine is what is called demon influence.

7)      Demon influence is distinct from demon possession. Demon influence means that demons are influencing the thinking of mankind through various counterfeit doctrines. It means demons are seeking to influence the thinking of man from an external vantage point—from outside. Demon possession, on the other hand, means that a demon takes up residence within the body of a person, influencing the soul from within the body. So demon possession is an internal vantage point.

The controversy that tends to rage today: The Greek word that is normally translated demon possession is the present passive participle daimonizomai [daimonizomai]. Because it is passive it means that the subject is acted upon or the subject receives the action. So what has happened is that people are looking at this word and defining it etymologically, i.e. breaking it down according to its root, its basic parts of speech, but not defining it by usage. Every word means what it means by usage, not just by etymology. So it will be translated as to be acted upon by a demon. But then there is always somebody who somewhat self-righteously says the Bible never talks about demon possession, it never uses that terminology anywhere in the Greek, it only talks about being acted upon by a demon. We need to know why that is false because this is the root of a lot of misinformation today.

Luke 4:33 NASB “In the synagogue there was a man possessed by the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice.” The Greek here uses a different phrase than daimonizomai. Here we have the phrase echon daimonion [e)xwn daimonion]. This is the same phrase that the Pharisees used in their accusation of Jesus in John 8: “You have a demon.” It means to be demon possessed and it is accurately translated as such in this verse. [34] “Let us alone! What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” [35] But Jesus rebuked him, saying, ‘Be quiet and come out of him!’ And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst {of the people,} he came out of him without doing him any harm.” It is important to look at the verb here. In the Greek it is exerchomai [e)cerxomai], a compound word. erchomai means to come; ex means to come out of. With the preposition eis it means to go into. These are the words that are used over and over again in these demon possession stories. So if you are to come out then that implies that you must be in.

Luke 8:27 NASB “And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons [daimonizomai, the verb form]; and who had not put on any clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tombs. [28] Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, ‘What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.’” This is the demon controlling the vocal cords of the person being possessed and is speaking to Jesus. [29] “For He [Jesus] had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man [e)cerxomai]. For it had seized him many times; and he was bound with chains and shackles and kept under guard, and {yet} he would break his bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert. [30] And Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Legion’; for many demons had entered him [e)iserxomai]. [31] They were imploring Him not to command them to go away into the abyss. [32] Now there was a herd of many swine feeding there on the mountain; and {the demons} implored Him to permit them to enter the swine. And He gave them permission. [33] And the demons came out of the man [e)cerxomai]and entered [e)iserxomai] the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.”

The command used by Jesus in the New Testament when it says He cast out a demon is the verb e)kballw. The word that is used for this activity by most people is the word e)xorkizw from which we get our word “exorcist.” But Jesus never ever performed an exorcism. The only time the Greek New Testament uses the word “exorcist” is when some pagan is trying to cast out a demon with magic. This word is never used of Jesus or the disciples when they are casting out a demon by the power of God. Exorcism is the pagan concept of casting out a demon through magical incantations. But Jesus just casts out demons; it is a command, and they must submit to His authority. 

When we look at all of this what we realise is that demons are very real, their influence is very real and people can indeed be demon possessed. But Christians cannot be demon possessed for a number of reasons, the strongest argument of which is that because a person is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ he was regenerated mat the moment of believing. Along with regeneration there were 38 other irrevocable things that God did for the believer at the moment of salvation, including the fact that God the Holy Spirit took up residence in the believer’s body. He has the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit who converts his body into a temple for the indwelling of the Lord Jesus Christ. So we have not only the indwelling of the Lord Jesus Christ but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of God the Father. All three members of the Trinity take up residence in the body of the believer which is a temple unto God. So the demons cannot come in and take up residence in the body of believers.

Some people have said that that is just an argument from silence. The claim of the New Testament is that God has given us everything we need for life and godliness, 2 Peter 1:3. That would at least mean that if demon possession were a problem for believers we would be told how to solve the problem; yet, demon possession is never, never, never mentioned in the New Testament epistles. If demon possession is an accepted problem for believers, then why isn’t it mentioned? The epistles were written to address believers on how to handle every issue in the spiritual life, so if something is left out it is not a problem. We are not told to take Satan captive, we are not told to rebuke Satan, we are not told to kick the devil out of church, we are not told to take any aggressive action against the devil at all in the New Testament. In fact, the word that is used over and over again in relation to Satan and demons is the Greek word anthistemi [a)nqisthmi] which means to take a stand. We are to take a stand against the devil, resist the devil. We are to take up a defensive posture; it is not a position of aggression or going on the offence. It is a militarily word for taking a defensive position. The reason is that we have no idea what is going on in the angelic realm. We are to take a defensive position and hold our ground by relying upon the Word of God. The offence is taken by the Lord Jesus Christ.

We are to take up the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. How do we use that? The model for that is given by the Lord Jesus Christ in His temptations in the wilderness. Every time Satan tempted the Lord with something how did the Lord respond? He said: “Thus says the Lord … Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Satan would thrust and the Lord would parry with the Word of God. That is a defensive move.

John 8:49 NASB “Jesus answered, ‘I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me’.” Notice how Jesus comes right back to looking at their life. The contrast is that their desire to murder Him dishonours God and He is about His Father’s work and it is honouring the Father. [50] “But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges.” Here He is referring to God the Father and the fact that eventually there will be judgment.

John 8:51 NASB “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” The Pharisees are very confused at this point. They want to translate death as physical death but Jesus is not talking about physical death, he is talking about the second death which is eternal condemnation in the lake of fire. What is His word? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” If anyone obeys His command and accepts Him as saviour then they will not see the second death.

John 8:52 NASB “The Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets {also;} and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’” Notice how they changed His words. Jesus said: “If anyone keeps my word he shall never see death.” They said “taste of death.” In rabbinical writings and in the idiom of the day “taste of death” was a Jewish term for physical death. [53] “Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out {to be?}” They are so caught up in thinking physical death that they miss the point. They cannot understand the things that He is saying. John is giving us all of these illustrations from the Pharisees to show how they are continually walking in darkness.

John 8:54 NASB “Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’.” His argument is that they are claiming to follow and honour God, but if they honour God they would honour Jesus. He is not here to glorify Himself, He is there to glorify God. But they do not glorify God, they are glorifying themselves. They don’t even know who God is. Notice the crescendo in this confrontation in the next four verses.

John 8:55 NASB “and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word.” They may know the Mosaic law backwards and forwards but they are ignorant of God. Emphasis here: they are liars; they don’t keep His Word. [56] “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw {it} and was glad.” Abraham, because of the revelation of God to him, anticipated the coming of the Messiah and rejoiced to see that fulfilled. Now the Jews react. [57] “So the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’” Then Jesus really punches them right between the eyes. [58] “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’.”

Their response tells us what Jesus said. John 8:59 NASB “Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.” Why were they going to stone Him? They understood that He claimed to be God. Why did they know that? When He says, “before Abraham was, He uses the Greek verb ginomai [ginomai] which means to come into existence; eimi [e)imi] indicates continuous existence. This is why the name of God was translated Yahweh [YHWH], I AM THAT I AM. It was translated and brought over into Greek as ego eimi [e)gw e)imi], I AM. So Jesus said: “Before Abraham came into existence, I continually existed.” He is claiming eternal life which only God has. He is claiming to have been a live with Abraham, to be the God of Abraham, and so they picked up stones to stone Him.

Jesus doesn’t leave us, as He didn’t leave them, with any options. You cannot claim that Jesus was just a good man, moral teacher, or religious innovator. Jesus made incredible claims, and we have seen in almost every chapter that He claims to be full deity. He claims to be the one that the Old Testament prophesied and the fulfilment of all those prophesies, and he claimed to go to the cross to die as our substitute.

Dichotomy or Trichotomy.   Gen. 022

These are traditional theological terms that have been used for centuries. There is one view in church history that said that man is trichotomous—in three parts. The other view is that he is dichotomous—two parts. In trichotomy, which is the view of the early church, man is comprised of three parts: body, soul and spirit. In dichotomy, man is composed of two parts: the material and the immaterial, not body and soul. In trichtomoy the view is that man is comprised of the body, the soul, and the spirit; that the soul has different components to it, and that would include self-consciousness, mentality, volition, and conscience where the norms and standards are stored in the soul. The spirit is that immaterial element which makes it possible for the elements of the soul to relate to God and to understand the things of God. I trichotomy we recognize that when Adam sinned he died spiritually. That means something wasn’t active or present once he sinned that was there before he sinned. In dichotomy the belief is that all the terms you find in Scripture—soul, spirit, heart, mind—are all virtually synonymous and interchangeable terms, and that you can’t go into the Scripture and make distinctions between these terms, because the dichotomist would argue that there are many places where the terms are used in an overlapping manner. The argument for trichotomy: 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The two key words that must be understood from this verse are “natural man” and “spiritually.” In the Greek the terminology that is used for “natural man” is not a term that would normally be translated “nature.” It is the word PSUCHIKOS [yuxikoj] which has to do with the soul; it means soulish—“the soulish man.” The “spiritual man” is the Greek word PNEUMATIKOS [pneumatikoj]. So there is a contrast here between the two men. Jude 19, “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the [being devoid of] Spirit,” uses this same word PSUCHIKOS.  The context of Jude 19 is a contrast between believers and unbelievers. The phrase “devoid of the spirit” is correctly translated, “not having spirit.” There is no capital S in the word “spirit” in the Greek text. It is a decision of the translator whether the word should have an upper case or lower case S. Since the context is believer vs. unbeliever it is not talking simply about “devoid of the spirit,” it should be understood in contrast to PSUCHIKOS and not having lower case spirit. The reason for saying that is if we look at 1 Corinthians 2:9ff there is a quote from the Old Testament in Isaiah. Paul goes on to talk about the special revelation given through the Holy Spirit. So whatever Paul says about soulish men and spiritual men in the context of 1 Corinthians 2 must also be true of Old Testament believers. Now Old Testament believers were never filled with the Holy Spirit. They weren’t indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that is unique to Church Age believers. The point is that if we are going to take a quote from the Old Testament and make application to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, whatever is said has to be true as well for the Old Testament believers. Therefore this can’t be a discussion between having the Holy Spirit and not having the Holy Spirit, but must be the human spirit vs. not having the human spirit. God creates man with a human body and then a human soul. The human soul is comprised of self-consciousness, mentality, conscience and volition. Then there is another immaterial part, the human spirit, and they are so interconnected that you can speak of one as the whole unity by talking about one. You can use either word to describe the whole. What we have in the Old Testament is a presentation of man being created with a physical body and an immaterial part, and that immaterial part has components. One component is the human spirit which allows the self-consciousness to relate to God in terms of God-consciousness, the mentality to think God’s thoughts after Him, the conscience to appreciate and understand the absolute norms and standards revealed by God, and the volition to choose to follow God in terms of positive volition. But when Adam sinned that immaterial part of man’s nature was lost. It died; it disappeared. So that the self-conscious, the mentality, the conscience and the volition could not longer relate to God. They no longer had the capacity to relate to God so they are left out to figure life on their own, apart from divine input. When someone puts their faith alone in Christ alone then they are born again and God the Holy Spirit creates and simultaneously imparts to them that human spirit. So that they go from being spiritually dead to spiritually alive. That new human spirit acquired at regeneration is what enables them to learn the Word of God again and to grow and advance in both the Old and New Testaments. However, in the New Testament we have the Holy Spirit who is the one who teaches when we are in fellowship with Him. That explains the difference between trichotomy and dichotomy. Problem passages: Luke 10:27, “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind.” The dichotomist says there are different elements there, they are all treated differently. But that is not true. There is a progression in that verse: “all you heart” has to do with the inner core of the soul. The problem with most dichotomists is that they fail to realize that when you have different terms such as these—heart, mind, conscience—that they all relate to components of the soul. The same thing can be said of the Old Testament. Ecclesiastes 3:21, “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” There the word “spirit” [ruach] is used in just a general sense to refer to the immaterial part of man. This is where people get into trouble. That is, when they say the soul and the spirit, and they learn there is these three parts and then try to go into every passage and make every time they see the word “spirit” equal the human spirit. You can’t do it. In the Old Testament there is a much more generic use of these terms than in the New Testament. The New Testament gives us precision so that we can understand this tripartite make-up of man. Same thing in Luke 1:46, 47 when Mary is praising God. This is Hebrew synonymous parallelism and you don’t want to go in and try to make a distinction between the soul and the human spirit in that passage. They are just used in very generic terms. Remember there are eight different ways these words are used and they don’t always mean the same thing in every single context. How do we know that there are distinctions? Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.” Here the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that there are times when there is a distinction between the soul and the spirit; they are not synonymous terms. Paul says in 1  Thessalonians 5:23, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He sees that there is a distinction there between spirit, soul, and body. The conclusion is that the Bible makes it very clear that man is made up of three parts. The other immaterial components comprise the elements in the soul—the nature and make-up of the soul.
1 Corinthians 15:44, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. We have seen that the word “natural” is not the word THUSIS [qusij] which is the word related more to nature, but it is the word PSUXIKOS [yuxikoj], from the root word PSUCHE [yuxh] meaning soul. So when Paul says it (the physical body that we are born with) is sown a natural body he is saying it is sown a soulish body. That means that this physical body that we have is particularly designed to express the soul. We also know from 1 Corinthians 2:14 that we are born a natural man, and that natural man is, again, a PSUCHIKOS person or a soulish person. A soulish person is a person who does not have a human spirit. We are born without a human spirit and there needs to be an act of God called regeneration where we are made spiritually alive at the instant of salvation. We are told that we have a physical or natural body that is sown a soulish body but the natural body is raised in resurrection a spiritual body. The body that we are born with in time has an affinity primarily to the soul, but the resurrection body has an affinity to the human spirit and to the new position that we will have in heaven in relationship to God. The Scriptures are clear that there is this distinction. However, as L.S. Chafer in his Systematic Theology points out, “In many case the term soul and spirit can be used interchangeably because the writer of Scripture is not emphasizing the distinction between the two. However, in some passages when the writer does have a distinction in mind, then he will use them in a technical sense where the soul refers to one part of man and the human spirit refers to another.”

 Doctrine of Differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming   Rev. 077b-

1)      At the Rapture there is a translation of all believers, and instantaneous translation that takes place in the twinkling of an eye. At the Second Coming of Christ to the earth there is no translation of saints. There is no event that takes place at that point where the Tribulation believers receive their resurrection bodies. Those who die during the Tribulation receive their resurrection bodies but those who are alive at the end of the Tribulation go right on into the Millennial kingdom to repopulate the earth in their mortal bodies.

2)      At the Rapture translated saints go with Jesus to heaven. John 14:1-3. But at the Second Coming translated saints are returning with Jesus to the earth.

3)      At the Rapture earth is not judged, but at the Second Coming the earth is judged and righteousness is established. This is the separation of the sheep and the goats.

4)      The Rapture is an imminent, any moment event. Nothing has to happen before the Rapture occurs. The Second Coming follows definite specifically predicted signs indicated in passages such as Matthew 24, and it can only come after a seven-year period of the Tribulation.

5)      The Rapture is not predicted in the Old Testament but the Second Coming of Christ to the earth to establish His kingdom is predicted in numerous passages on the Old Testament.

6)      The Rapture is for believers only, those who are in Christ, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18; but the Second Coming will affect all mankind.

7)      The Rapture occurs before the day of wrath, whereas the Second Coming concludes the day of wrath.

8)      At the Rapture there is no reference to Satan whatsoever. At the Second Coming we are told that Satan will be bound for 1000 years. He will not be able to influence history at all during the Millennial kingdom.

9)      At the Rapture Jesus Christ comes for His own; at the Second coming He comes with His own.

10)   Christ comes in the clouds at the Rapture; he comes to the earth at the Second Coming.

11)   Christ claims His bride at the Rapture but he comes with His bride at the Second Coming. The wedding feast has taken place in heaven, there has to be time for that.

12)   Only His own see Him at the Rapture but every eye will see Him at the Second Coming.

13)   After the Rapture the Tribulation begins, but after the Second Coming the Messianic kingdom begins.

Another reason there must be a distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming is because certain things have to happen during that interval. The Rapture can’t happen right up against the Second Coming because there are a number of things that transpire between these two events. 

1)      The worship of God in the heavens by the 24 elders who represent the church during this period of the Tribulation. Revelation chapters 4 & 5.

2)      At the same time there is the judgment seat of Christ, the judgment of all church age believers.

3)      The marriage supper of the Lamb takes place in the heavenlies prior to the return of Christ.

So there has to be a time gap here to allow all of these things to take place.

We are to eagerly wait for Him. Hebrews 9:28: NASB “so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without {reference to} sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” The word “eagerly await” pictures an eager expectation indicated by the head bent forward to catch the first glance of an advancing procession. Frederick Godet, a French theologian, wrote: “It is one of those admirable words that the Greek language easily forms. It means to wait with the head raised and the eye fixed on that point of the horizon from which the expected object is to come.” We anticipate the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  

Doctrine of Dispensations      Heb. 011
 
Four different words are used that are related to the time concept of the ages. The place to  start is in Acts 1:6-7.

NKJ Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

The disciples were gathered together around the Lord Jesus Christ immediately prior to the ascension and waited for their marching orders and Jesus final commands to them before He departs to heaven. They came together and asked Him if the kingdom was going to be established now.  This is a crucial question to understand.  Even 40 days after the resurrection they expected a literal physical kingdom where Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning on the throne of David to be initiated at any moment.

When they use the phrase “to Israel” that indicates that they are not talking about some spiritual ethereal kingdom.  This is not a kingdom that is in your heart.  This is not an allegorical kingdom.   This is a literal, physical kingdom.  The reason we know that because we have all of the Old Testament to understand.  They understood the concept of the kingdom in Israel just as they did under Solomon and under David and under the kings of the Old Testament.  They are expecting a geo-political kingdom that is restored to Israel because that is exactly what was promised in the Old Testament from the covenants to the prophets all through the ages. But Jesus Christ doesn’t correct them in terms of their understanding of a future literal kingdom.  He didn’t say that they had the concept wrong.  He didn’t tell them that they had missed the concept.  He didn’t tell them that they shouldn’t use a literal hermeneutic.  He doesn’t tell them that they should spiritualize it and use allegory.  He doesn’t say that.  Jesus said that it is not for them to know the times.  They wanted to know when.  He doesn’t stay that it isn’t going to happen.  He says that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons.  I think the King James translates it epochs.

The two key words used here are the Greek words chronos and chairos.  Now these are important to understand.  The first word chronos emphasizes the events in succession.  You have one event after another in terms of history.  It implies that things are moving in a certain direction.  Thus history has purpose and meaning.  This isn’t a lot of random stuff that fell out of space and landed in this order.  That is what evolution teaches.  It indicates that time is moving in a direction.

NKJ Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

It was the fullness (pleroma, that which is brought to completion) of time (chronos).

This indicates something.  Before Jesus Christ could be born in approximately 4 BC, God had to set the stage.  It couldn’t just happen.   In order for it to have the kind of efficacy that was necessary for mankind to be ready to accept and to receive the Messiah, the stage had to be set. This is the purpose of everything that occurred in the Old Testament.  The Age of the Gentiles from Adam to Abraham and the Age of the Jews from Abraham to Christ (and there were sub periods of time we will see) each had a divine purpose and it all moved in a direction to prepare the human race for the coming of the Messiah.  So chronos refers to events in succession.

The second word that is used there is the word chairos.  It is a word that indicates a broader expanse of time that has certain definable characteristics.  We would perhaps use the word ages, the same as we do with aionos.  There is an overlap between the two words that we see here - aionos and chairos.  This has to do with the concept of age.  As we think about this, I want to pull together a couple of different things on dispensations so that we understand terminology.  Age has to do with a long periods of time that have certain definable characteristics.  They have certain things in common.  We are going to say that there is one age that relates to the Gentiles and that is from Adam to the call of Abraham.  Then there is another lengthy period of time in the Old Testament, the Age of the Jews.  It begins with Abram’s circumcision in Genesis 17 and goes up to the cross.  Then we have the Church Age and then we will have the Millennial Age or the Kingdom Age.  The tribulation is the last 7 years related to the Age of the Jews.  That is age looking at it in terms of broad expanses of time.  We haven’t gotten to dispensations yet.  We are starting big and working our way down.

The other word we are used to is dispensation.  The word dispensation is derived from the Greek word oikonomos.  This is the word that is usually translated dispensation.  This word has the idea of an administration.  It is not a time factor.  The way we use the word we think of it in terms of time.  But, the word itself doesn’t have anything to do with time.  It has to do with the characteristics of how a period of time is managed or administered.  It doesn’t focus on time factors.  Aionos focuses on time factors. Oikonomia indicates the characteristics of how a steward or manager governs or runs that period of time.  The time factor goes into the background. 

In Acts 1:6 the disciples in approximately 33 AD asked when the kingdom would come.  Jesus says it is not for them to know the times and the seasons.  He tells them that they aren’t supposed to know this information.  But then in 51 AD, almost 20 years later, Paul writes at the end of his second missionary journey.   He sends a letter back to the believers at Thessalonica.

NKJ 1 Thessalonians 5:1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you.

These are the same word as used in Acts 1.  Times is chronos.  Seasons is chairos.

They have no reason to know this.  Why?  Because I taught you all about the times and the seasons when I was with you face to face. In 31 AD He told them that it wasn’t for them to know.  At that point in time that information had not yet been given to the apostles.  But by 51 AD that information had been given to the apostles, primarily through the apostle Paul.  It was being communicated by the Apostle Paul to Church Age believers in preparing them for an understanding of the Church Age.  When you juxtapose Acts 1:6 and I Thess 5:1 we realize that there is a divine revelation regarding the time and the seasons.  This is what we call a study of dispensations.

So we have the word “age” meaning a period of time in human history.   Then we have the word dispensation that translates the word oikonomos that is translated stewardship or administration.  You have those parables in Luke where Jesus talks about the landowner who leaves and puts his steward in charge. He is an oikonomos.  He is a steward.  He is the one who oversees and administers the landowner’s property and all of his possessions.  So the word oikonomos emphasizes the responsibility delegated by God to the human race during a period of time.  It emphasizes responsibility.  It emphasizes the fact that at different periods of time God manages or administers human history in different ways.

There are certain things that are held in common throughout all the ages.  Salvation is always by grace through faith. The purpose of the Mosaic Law was never to provide a way for salvation. The law was never the means that a Jew gained salvation.  The law was designed for sanctification purposes – that is the ritual part.  If you look at it in terms of overall history of Israel in the Old Testament, their salvation or redemption took place first when they went through the Red Sea and then they had the giving of the law.  So the giving of the law was given to the nation as a redeemed nation.

Dispensation then is understood as a distinct and identifiable administration in the development of God’s plan and purposes for human history.  That is a nutshell definition of dispensation.

A few years ago we were being visited by a friend who grew up in a fairly conservative denomination.  It is known for teaching the gospel and the Bible.  This individual came from a family that produced a number of missionaries and preachers.  I used this word dispensation and it was like a blank stare.  I could have been talking about accounting principles.  He just went blank.  He had no idea what a dispensation was.  Those of us who are older and grayer and started with the KJV, the King James translated this word group with the word oikonomos with the word dispensation.  That dropped out in the more modern versions.  The NAS and NKJ prefer to use a word like administration rather than dispensation.  So the word dispensation refers to this management issue.  There are administration differences between the Old Testament and New Testament.  We know that in one sense, anybody who isn’t going to Jerusalem to sacrifice a lamb on Passover is a dispensationalist in one sense. If they don’t believe in dispensations they are inconsistent dispensationalist and they haven’t figured it out yet.   Jesus Christ was the end of the law.

This is our basic working definition of a dispensation.  It is a distinct and identifiable administration in the development of God’s plan and purposes for human history.

Note that God has a plan and purpose to history. It is not a random.  Things were done in a certain way between Adam and Noah in order to teach that man cold not function independently of the creator.  They didn’t have a written canon of Scripture.  God was present on the planet.  Other characteristics I noted as we studied through that.  Man failed.  Then you have another change after the Noahic covenant is given.  Again man fails at the Tower of Babel.  There are identifiable characteristics in each of these dispensations.

It is clear from all of this that God has a plan and God is working it out.  The apostles understood that distinct things happen in distinct periods of time.  Paul develops that.  It affects not only history but also our understanding of the spiritual life. There are different characteristics related to the spiritual life. The principle of grace through faith still operates but you don’t have the Holy Spirit given to each believer in the Old Testament.  You do have the Holy Spirit given to each believer in the New Testament. There is no baptism of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.  You do have the baptism of the Holy Spirit for every believer in the New Testament.  You don’t have the filling of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.  You do have the filling of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.  The Holy Spirit is the means of living the Christian life in the New Testament and not in the Old Testament.  Doctrine related to God’s plan was clearly revealed in this dispensation.  It had not been revealed in earlier dispensations.

So Paul writes.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

Let’s think about the English word a minute.  The English word comes from the Latin dispensatio.  It translates a Greek word meaning to weigh out or dispense.   The main idea is to deal out or dispense or distribute something.  It comes to refer to the distribution of goods.  The Greek word oikonomia sounds like our word economy.  Hear the similarity?  It is where we get our word economy.  It is the distribution of goods and services.  That is economy.  It has the same root as dispensation.

According to Webster’s dictionary the word dispensation means a divine ordering and administration of worldly affairs.  Notice that it is the first meaning listed in the dictionary.  Covenant theologians wake up!  Most covenant theologians believe in dispensations but they don’t believe in dispensationalism.  The core issue in dispensationalism is the distinction between God’s plan for Israel and God’s plan for the church.  That is how we are using this word.  It is the divine ordering and administration of worldly affairs.   It is where we get our word ecumenical and economy.  It is the idea of management, regulation, administration and planning.

C. I. Scofield, a decorated Confederate Civil War veteran, became an alcoholic after the war.  He was a lawyer.  Then he was saved and came under the ministry of a Presbyterian minister in St. Louis who taught him about dispensations.  Later on he became a well-known Bible teacher.  He was personally responsible for mentoring Louis Sperry Chaffer who founded Dallas Seminary.  But CI Scofield put dispensationalism on the map when he published his study Bible.  He defined a dispensation.

A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.

I think that it is a very strong addition that he made.  There is in each of these dispensations revelation from God with a correlative test.  Man always fails the test.  He demonstrates again that man can’t have any measure of success without being consistently dependent on God the creator.

Graham Scroggy defines it as follows:

The word oikonomia bears one significance and it means an administration whether of a house or property of a state or a nation or as in the present study, the administration of the human race or any part of it at any time.  Just as a parent would govern his household in different ways, according to a varying necessity, yet ever for one good end; so God has at different times dealt with man in different ways according to the necessity of the case, but throughout for one great, grand end.

Oikonomos is a compound word of oikos (house) plus nomos (law).  When you were a kid growing up in the house, you had one set of laws in the house.  When you were three years old, you had another set.  You had another set when you were eight.  You had another set when you were thirteen and another set at 18 and another set at 25.  As you went through different stages how your parents dealt with your responsibilities and responsibilities differed from one stage to another.

Charles Ryrie wrote a well-known book that I recommend called “Dispensationalism”.  He revised it in the 90’s to deal with the changes since it was originally published.  He defined a dispensation as a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purposes.

So you see there is a certain pattern that runs throughout these definitions.

Here is my definition as written for Tim LaHaye’s Prophecy Study Bible.  I merged things together and sought a little clarification.

A dispensation therefore is a distinct and identifiable administration (each has certain characteristics that distinguish it from others) in the development of God’s plan and purposes for human history. Eph 3:2, Col 1:25-26 A closely connected but not interchangeable word is age which introduces the time element.  God manages the entirety of human history as a household, moving humanity through sequential stages of His administration determined by the level of revelation He has provided up to that time in history.  (There is progressive revelation. Abraham knew more than Noah.  Moses knew more than Abraham.  Elijah knew more than Moses.  Isaiah knew more than Elijah.  John the Baptist and the apostles knew more than Isaiah did.  John the Apostle knew more than John the Baptist.  So there is progressive revelation.)  Each administrative period is characterized by revelation that specifies responsibilities, a test in relation to those responsibilities, failure to pass the test (in other words man always fails), and God’s gracious provision of a solution when failure occurs.

God’s grace always solves the problem.

Doctrine of Dispensations        Heb. 098b-99b

So we need to answer the question, what is a dispensation.   Many people get confused at this point.  Let me try to clarify this.  Most of us think of dispensation in terms of a timeframe.  Actually the term dispensation doesn’t have a time aspect to it.  That comes from other words.   So just keep that in mind as I go through this explanation.

The first word that we want to look at is the term seasons.  This is the translation of the Greek word kairos.  Sometimes it is translated ages or times.  Different English translations use different words.  It indicates broad expanses of time.  It is synonymous with ages.  But these seasons, these times have definable characteristics.  It is very easy to look at the period before the cross and say that it is clearly different from the period after the cross.  The period of the Millennial Kingdom is clearly different from the present age.  There are measurable quantifiable definable differences in these ages.  So at the very least we have three ages. We have the Age of the Mosaic Law.  We have the Church Age and we have the future kingdom.  Those are clearly spelled out in Scripture.  That is why I have used those three examples.

We also have the word “age” which comes from the Greek word aion which relates to a period of time.  These two words focus on the temporal aspect of God’s plan, that there are different times and seasons.

The third word that is used is this word, oikonomos.  See that is where we get our word economy.  Oikonomos – economy - you can hear the similarity.  Now we think of economy as having to do with money, but the root meaning in the Greek has to do with stewardship or how you handle money or financial affairs or things that you are responsible for.  It comes to refer to an administration.  That’s the idea in a dispensation.  God is going to administer human history in different ways in different eras.

There are some things that are going to be the same in all the ages.  Whether you are in the Old Testament or New Testament, salvation is always by grace through faith.  The object of faith is going to differ.  Whether you are living in the Old Testament or in the New Testament there are certain principles related to the spiritual life and faith rest living that are similar. 

But, there are also differences. In the Old Testament, believers did not have the Holy Spirit living within them.  In the New Testament we have the Holy Spirit living inside every believer.  In the Old Testament there is a term related to the filling of the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with the filling of the Spirit in the New Testament era.  In the Old Testament the Spirit came upon certain key individuals who had responsibility in administering the kingdom of Israel.  You had the Holy Spirit coming upon the craftsmen who were constructing the tabernacle – the goldsmith, the jewelers, the carpenters.  The chief men were Bezalel and Aholiab.  The Holy Spirit came upon them and filled them with skill to do what they were doing in constructing the tabernacle.  Later on you had the judges.  Some of the judges have the Holy Spirit come upon them to give them military skill, but it doesn’t have anything to do with inspiration.  It doesn’t have anything to do with holy living.  You have examples of:

   1. Gideon Just as the Holy Spirit comes on him he does certain things that are disobedient to the Lord.

   2. The Holy Spirit comes on Jephthah and Jephthah swears to God that he’ll sacrifice the first thing that comes out of the house to greet him if God will give him victory.  He is bargaining with God.  He ends up sacrificing his daughter.

   3. You have Samson.  The Spirit of God comes upon Samson and he is a womanizer. 

The Holy Spirit’s ministry in their lives is not related to their spiritual life, their spiritual growth; but to give them the ability to do what God wants them to do in relationship to the administration of the kingdom.

   4. Later on the Holy Spirit comes upon the kings – Saul and leaves Saul.

   5. The Holy Spirit comes upon David.

   6. The Holy Spirit inspires the writers of Scripture, the prophets.

But the role of the Holy Spirit is very different in the Old Testament.

You get in the New Testament and every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  Then when we are in fellowship the Holy Spirit is active in a special way related to our spiritual growth but is referred to as the filling of the Spirit.  So these words indicate different aspects of God’s plan and the outworking of that plan historically.

The terms for times and seasons (aionos and kairos and chronos) have to do with the temporal aspect.  There are different time periods.  Then oikonomos has to do with how God is administering human history during those time periods.

That leads us to the word dispensation. Perhaps the simplest term or the simplest definition for dispensation is simply to say that it is a distinct and identifiable administration in the development of God’s plan and purposes for human history.

Now I am going to stop there with that bit of a definition.  When we take this word and apply it consistently as a theological system or as a system of interpretation, then it becomes known as dispensationalism. Now dispensationalism is unique.  It is completely different from all other theological systems.

You have a number of different overall theological systems. The one that is most often contrasted with dispensationalism is covenant theology.  Covenant theology is usually associated with reformed theology, Presbyterian theology – associated with Calvinism.  Covenant theology emphasizes two theological covenants – not biblical covenants.  See we all believe in biblical covenants – the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant.  Everybody believes in those.  But when you talk about covenant theology, the covenants they are referring to are not the biblical covenants.  They are talking about extrapolated theological covenants – that when Adam was fist placed in the garden, there was a condition placed upon him that if he was going to have eternal life - he would not eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  So it was a covenant of works as they would say.  Then after Adam ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and sinned, then God established a covenant of grace.  So in covenant theology, you primarily have these two covenants – the covenant of works until Adam sinned and then the rest of human history is the covenant of grace.

There are some within the reformed camp who will say there is a third covenant, a covenant of redemption.  But for them there is one covenant of grace that began with Adam and extends all the way through history.  Now that fits in their understanding of Scripture because they see that the primary purpose of the Bible and God’s plan in history as redemption.  It’s redemption.  Redemption of whom?  Redemption of the human race.  What about angels?

“Oh well, they are not included.”

See that’s a limitation in covenant theology.  It really doesn’t deal well with the angels because the purpose of the Bible is redemptive.  Angels don’t get redeemed so they are sort of left out.

I remember several years ago I was going to Russia to teach on spiritual warfare.  Joe Wall had asked me to come over and teach.

He said, “Well, you have done a lot of work on spiritual warfare.  Why is it that within the reformed camp, very little has ever been written on spiritual warfare until the 20th century?”

I get forced into some things because that is what other people are talking about.  I thought that was interesting.  I hadn’t thought about that.  But this why, within the reformed camp they haven’t given enough emphasis to the Holy Spirit or to angles or to some of these things.  They don’t give enough attention to the Holy Spirit.  

You talk to anybody who has gone to seminary and you ask, “What are the two most important books ever written on the Holy Spirit” and they will tell you it is John Owen’s book on the Holy Spirit (John Owens was Oliver Cromwell’s chaplain.  It was written in the 1600’s around 1640 or 1650.) and Abraham Kyper’s work on the Holy Spirit written in the 1890’s.    

Neither one of them even mentions the indwelling, filling or the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  This is reformed theology.  Everything is basically the same.  That is why they end up saying there is one people of God. There is Israel up until they reject Christ as Messiah, and then they are replaced with the church.  But the church now becomes the heir to all of the promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The land is no longer going to be a physical land.  It is now spiritualized to heaven.  That is what happens in reformed theology.  It is one form of replacement theology.

Now you have to be careful.  I have watched a couple of specials on TV in the last year looking at A&E or one of the other channels.  They’ll talk about replacement theology and they will talk to a Roman Catholic priest.

“Oh, we don’t believe in replacement theology.”

What they are doing is they are loading the term with anti-Semitism.  So they want to make it an extreme form of replacement theology.  But replacement theology is the view that the church replaces Israel in God’s plan and so genetic Israel is no longer significant. The fact that the Jews are back in the land is no longer significant because God is through with the Israel.  He is through with the Jews.  The only way a Jew can have any significance is to become a Christian and forget the fact that he is a Jew.  So there is an element to replacement theology that can breed anti-Semitism.  But just because somebody has a form of replacement theology doesn’t mean that they will breed anti-Semitism.

Now I mentioned covenant theology.  That’s one form of replacement theology.  You also have Lutheran theology.  You have Eastern Orthodox theology.  You have various other smaller categories of theology - Church of Christ, other schools of thought.  But they all have one thing in common.  They all buy into replacement theology in one way or another.  Only dispensationalism draws a consistent distinction between God’s plan and purposes for Israel on the one hand and God’s plan and purposes for the church on the other hand.  That flows out of the fact that dispensational theology –  isn’t developed abstractly.

Like I said, covenant theology starts off with two covenants.  Where do you find those two covenants in the Bible?  You don’t. They are abstract.  They are abstractly developed theologically and then you impose that on the text.

But even though you may hear people say, “Well, I am a dispensationalist so I think that is what this verse means.”

Don’t take it that way. That is not what a dispensationalist is saying.  He is a dispensationalist because that is what the Bible says.

I remember (I think it was about 10 years ago now.) I went up to Dallas Seminary and I had a meeting with John Walvoord.  We were talking about various aspects of sanctification.  He had written a very good article in the early ‘80’s called The Augustinian Dispensational View of the Spiritual Life.   I am not going to try to explain that to you, but the point was that Walvoord clearly understood that there was a view of the spiritual life that was unique to dispensationalism that was distinct from all the other systems of theology, that there was a dispensational view of the Holy Spirit.

I would make the mistake of saying, “Well, if we look at this as a dispensational view…”

“No, no, no, Robby.  It’s biblical.  We are dispensationalists because that is what the Bible says.  We don’t think the Bible says that because we are dispensationalists.  We are dispensationalists because that is what the Bible says.”

He would correct me every time I would say that.  It was very good emphasis.  We are dispensationalists because that is what the Bible says, not because we developed a nice tight integrated theological system that we then read back into the text.  That’s what reformed theology has done and what other systems have done.  But dispensationalism begins with a consistent, literal, plain interpretation of Scripture.

In fact, Dr. Ryrie who was the chairman of the Systematic Theology Department at Dallas Seminary for many years wrote an excellent book on dispensationalism that came out in the ‘60’s.  It was originally called Dispensationalism Today and he revised it in the ‘90’s.  Now it is called Dispensationalism.   But Ryrie tried to boil down dispensational theology to its essential core.  He came up with three things that are the key to dispensationalism.

   1. Dispensationalists believe in a consistent, literal, plain interpretation of Scripture. It doesn’t mean that they reject figures of speech or idioms or any of these kinds of things, but that language should be taken as how it is normally used in everyday speech unless there is something within the context that would cause you to understand that it should be taken in a more figurative sense.  So the literal meaning should be the primary meaning unless something else comes along

   2. Because you have a consistent literal interpretation of Scripture that leads you to understand that when God promised Abraham a piece of real estate that was bordered by the river of Egypt and the River Euphrates and the Mediterranean that that piece of real estate doesn’t suddenly have its meaning changed to heaven just because the Jews reject Christ as their Savior.  You can’t shift the meaning of terms which is how covenant theology and other systems do it.  That land is now the land across the river Jordan and how when we die what happens?  What did Stonewall Jackson – he was a good Presbyterian.  What did Stonewall Jackson say? Some of you know it.

“Pick me up and take me and go across the river.  Strike the tent.”

He is talking about going across the river.  That was the idea.  That imagery is embedded in his Presbyterian theology that we are crossing the River Jordan to get into heaven.  So the land of Israel is now allegorized to heaven.  The River Jordan is now allegorized to that transition point from physical life to eternal life.  That is what happens when you get away from a literal interpretation.  So dispensationalism starts with a literal hermeneutic (literal interpretation of Scripture) that leads to a consistent distinction between Israel and the church.

   3. The third point is that the overriding, overarching theme of all of Scripture is the glory of God. It is broad enough to include God’s plan for the angels and God’s plan for man.  It is not limited to redemption which is what covenant theology does.  It is for the glory of God so it can include God’s plan for the angels, God’s plan for man, and God’s plan for all of creation.

So these are the three key elements that Dr. Ryrie emphasized and that is still understood by traditional dispensationalists to be the key to dispensationalism today.

Now where did we get this term dispensation?

   1. The English word dispensation comes from the Latin dispensatio which translated the Greek word oikonomos which has the idea of weighing something out or dispensing something.  The main idea is to deal something out, to dispense it, or to distribute it.  The idea is that – it fits into the idea of progressive revelation.  God didn’t dump everything in the Bible on Adam right there in Genesis 3.  There is a progression to revelation.  He reveals a little more to Noah, little more to Abraham, a little more to David, a little more to Isaiah, a little more to Malachi, a little more to Paul, a little more to John.  There is a progression to revelation.  So in each era there is a dispensing of that information so that at the core of this idea is the idea of revelation.  The fact that you have a certain amount of revelation information implies a certain amount of accountability to that information.   So that brings in the idea of human responsibility. 

   2. The idea in dispensations is the action of administering or ordering something so that there is an order to history.  God is doing something.  It is not just random events, but that God is working something out and also the idea of administering or dispensing some requirement.  The reason I say that is it brings in this idea as I mentioned a minute ago of accountability or responsibility of either obedience or failure in each one of these dispensations.

   3. The English dictionary (Webster’s Third International Dictionary) lists the first primary meaning as a divine ordering and administration of worldly affairs.  Pretty good.  Secondly a system of principles, promises and rules divinely ordained and administered.  That brings in that idea of accountability, that there is one set of rules and principles laid out in the period before Noah.  There is another set.  There is modification that occurs with the Noahic Covenant.  There is a modification that occurs at the Abrahamic Covenant.  There is more modification that occurs in the Mosaic Covenant and then there is modification that occurs at the cross.

The word dispensation is used (oikonomos) in several key passages in the New Testament.  We will get to those in just a minute.

Let me give you 6 features, 6 characteristics of a dispensation.

   1. First of all in every dispensation, God is the one to whom men are responsible in discharging their responsibility.  God is the one in charge so that in each dispensation man is accountable to God for something. 

   2. Faithfulness is required of those to whom a dispensational responsibility is committed.  In I Corinthians 4:2 Paul says it is required of a steward (that is the same word, different form of the word for oikonomos or  oikonomia) that faithfulness is required of a steward.  That is a great passage for pastors.  Faithfulness is what God is going to evaluate a pastor on - not the size of the congregation, not how big the choir was, not the building program size or any of those things.  It is faithfulness to the Word.

That leads me to the quote of the week.  This is from a Southern Baptist pastor here in town.  When he was talking with an assistant pastor of his who has been meeting with me for some time, they got into a discussion over a passage in Proverbs.

So the young man who has been meeting with me said, “I wonder what the Hebrew says.”

To which the Southern Baptist pastor replied (something to the effect that) “Only an idiot goes to the Hebrew to find out what the Bible says.”

That’s the quote of the week.

So pastors are to be faithful to the Word – faithful to the Word.

   3. Dispensations are connected to mysteries in the New Testament.  Mysteries are new revelation.  So revelation is essential to understanding a dispensation. It’s not just a time thing.  It is that God is giving additional information.  That additional information implies new responsibilities or accountability.  Therefore the administration is changing. 

   
   4. The term dispensation and age are connected ideas, but they are not the same and they are not interchangeable. 

   5. So sometimes we talk about the Age of Israel, but the Age of Israel is really composed of two different dispensations.  There is a revelation shift that occurs with the giving of the Mosaic Law.  At the time of Abraham (the call of Abraham), the giving of the Abrahamic Covenant is a dispensational shift from God working through Gentiles to God working through Jews.  He is never going to work through Gentiles again after Genesis 12.  So there is a major shift that occurs there.  Then you have the Mosaic Covenant and there is another shift that takes place.  So when God begins to call out Israel in Genesis 12, the Age of Israel goes from Genesis 12 to the cross, but it is really divided into two dispensations based on revelation. So a dispensation occurs within an age.  But, sometimes age and dispensation can be identical.  We live in the Church Age.  It is also a dispensation.  It begins and ends at the same time.  They can overlap or a dispensation can be a smaller part of an age.
   6. God has clearly demarcated certain chronological divisions in human history.  Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Ephesians 1:10 With a view toward an administration or dispensation suitable to the fullness of times.

NKJ Ephesians 1:10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him.

That is the summing up of all things in Christ.  There is an administration or dispensation called the fullness of times.  When is that?  That is the Millennial Kingdom. So that is clearly demarcated in Scripture as a separate time period.

Then you have Ephesians 3:8-9.  Paul says:

NKJ Ephesians 3:8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,

NKJ Ephesians 3:9 and to make all see what is

Present tense is.

the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

It clearly states a present administration and implies a previous administration where this information was hidden.  So just looking at those two verses we see three dispensations - the future Millennial Kingdom, the present Church Age and the period before the present Church Age.

Paul mentions these three dispensations.  Ephesians 1:10 we just mentioned.  Ephesians 3:2 is the administration or the stewardship of God’s grace, which was given to me.  That would be the present Church Age.  And Colossians 1:25-26:

NKJ Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,

Colossians 1:26 is where we see the previous dispensation.

NKJ Colossians 1:26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.

That’s the previous dispensation.

It is interesting that the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary only defines these three dispensations. Some people get the idea that a dispensationalist depends on how many dispensations you believe in.  But, that’s not true.  Dallas Seminary just has these three in their doctrinal statement.  So it is not a matter of how many dispensations you have.  It’s a matter of primarily I believe of consistent distinction between Israel and the church.

Well, we will get back to dispensations next time.  We need to get through this introduction because we will go into covenants, the role of covenants in history. That will help us understand and set things up for chapter 8 in Hebrews.

The Doctrine of Dispensations  RD/Gal/0112

1.       Acts 1:7 NASB “He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.” The word for “times” in the Greek is chronos [xronoj]; epoch is kairos [xairoj]. The first word refers to a succession of events, one following the other, the order of those events. The second relates to the breakdown within those time frames, the relationship of events one to another. What this tells us is that in terms of God’s plan for human history He has certain chronological distinctions. There are different ages related to different purposes. Jesus is saying that the Father is not going to give that revelation at this point in time. Some years later when Paul wrote his first epistle to the Thessalonians he says to them (5:1): NASB “Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you.” Implication: I gave you complete instructions about times and epochs when I was with you. So information about these chronological distinctions in history were revealed by the apostle Paul. Jesus didn’t tell the apostles before the day of Pentecost because the timing wasn’t right. He had reserved that information to be revealed through the apostle Paul a few decades later.

2.       Ephesians 1:9, 10 NASB “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, {that is,} the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” The phrase, “with a view to an administration,” contains the Greek word oikonomos [o)ikoomoj]. The first part, oikos, is the standard word for “house”; the second is nomos, the standard word for “law” or “rule.” The basic etymological meaning is house law or house rule. It came to refer to the steward or administrator in a large household, or what we would call the manager. In the KJV this word was translated “dispensation” with a view to the dispensations suitable to the fullness of times. The second word we need to notice here is the word “fullness.” In the Greek it is the word pleroma [plhrwma]. This is a very critical word for understanding the role of Christ as the precedent for the spiritual life of the church age. Colossians 2:9 NASB “For in Him all the fullness [plhrwma] of Deity dwells in bodily form.” Then in Ephesians 3:19 NASB “and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness [plhrwma] of God.” So what this relates to is that we have the fullness of God in Christ and this same fullness is to be displayed in the life of the believer. Therefore pleroma becomes a technical term to the spiritually mature believer. To get there we have to do it through the unique spiritual life of the church age which is based on God the Holy Spirit. The role of the Holy Spirit makes this a unique age, a unique dispensation, so that this same word is used to relate to that; it is the dispensation of pleroma. It is the dispensation of pleroma because the believers are going to be able to achieve completion in the spiritual life and maturity, which means that they participate in the pleroma of God in terms of the full character of Christ. What the Holy Spirit produces in our life reflects the character of Christ.

3.       Our basic word meaning of oikonomos is steward or administrator, which refers to a house. A house has a certain set of rules and regulations. House laws and administrations change. Sometimes a corporation will be bought out by another corporation and the management changes. Certain rules stay the same; other rules change. The house law shifts as you go from one administration to another administration. A dispensation refers to God’s management of human history through various periods of time. In these periods of time some things stay the same—salvation is always the same, faith alone in Christ alone; but some things are different. In the Old Testament, especially in the age of Israel, there is an emphasis on ritual. The emphasis was on what the priesthood was teaching externally. In the New Testament we have a different priesthood; it is not based upon one’s tribal heritage but upon regeneration. If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ then you are a royal priest to God.

4.       Definition: A dispensation is a period of human history expressed in terms of divine revelation. That means that God demarcates the beginning and the ending of that time period by revelation. There is going to be some word from God to indicate the beginning and the end; that something has changed. History is a sequence of divine administration divided into eras or ages, each having a unique characteristic, as well as certain functions in common with other ages. These consecutive eras reflect the unfolding of God’s plan for mankind and constitute the divine viewpoint of human history and the theological interpretation of history. So if we do not have an understanding of dispensations to that degree we will misunderstand and misinterpret all of human history.

5.       What is it that demarcates these dispensational shifts? This brings in another important concept throughout the Bible and that is the entire subject of covenants. What is a covenant? A covenant, very simply put, is a contract between two parties. There are two kinds of contracts/covenants. There are unconditional covenants and there are conditional covenants. In an unconditional covenant God who is the party of the first part makes a sovereign decision to obligate Himself in grace to man, who the party of the second part, and nothing is dependent upon the party of the second part. It is a free gift, in other words. A conditional covenant is a covenant wherein God as party of the first part promises to bless the party of the second part on the basis of certain conditions fulfilled by the party of the second part. There is only one conditional covenant in the Bible: the Mosaic covenant. And the Mosaic covenant was only temporal. It was given for a specified period of time from Mount Sinai down through the death of Christ.

6.       What is the vehicle that God has used in communicating the change in His plans and procedures within human history? It is called a covenant. It is from the Hebrew word berith which means a contract. A covenant is like a contract, it is like a legal document. There are seven different covenants and classifications of divine covenants in the Scriptures. There are covenants that relate to the Gentiles, covenants that relate to the Jews—unconditional and permanent and conditional or temporary. A conditional or temporary covenant means that it was in effect for a certain amount of time and there were conditions attached to it.

7.       Genesis 1:27-29 NASB “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you.’” God is in heaven, He has created the earth and He sets man up to rule creation in God’s place. Man is God’s representative on earth; he is to rule. Genesis 2:15 NASB “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” This is the Edenic covenant. The Hebrew word for “keep” means to guard it. So God has given man a responsibility. Man is placed in the garden and is given two responsibilities. One is to multiply and fill the earth, the other is that man has responsibility. Even in perfect environment where there was no sin there is still responsibility. Human responsibility was established from the very beginning and even in the eternal future we are going to have responsibility.

8.       The Edenic covenant is going to be modified in the Adamic covenant, and that is basically what happened in Genesis 3:14 following in relationship to God’s curse on the human race and on creation. Genesis 3:14 NASB “The LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; [15]  And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.’” Here we have the first reference to the gospel. Seed refers to Jesus Christ. This is God’s grace provision. [16] “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.’” Why is God talking about child birth? The first requirement of the Edenic covenant was “be fruitful and multiply.” Now because of sin it would be more difficult to fulfil the requirements of the covenant. There is no longer the status of perfect environment anymore, there is sin and there are consequences for sin. “Desire for the husband” is a reference to how man was created. The man’s soul and the woman are different.” The male soul was designed to be the initiator, the leader; the woman’s soul was made to be the responder. She is created to be his helper, the man is the one given the responsibility to be the leader over creation. The word used here is teshukah, a word used only three times in the Hebrew. To understand what this means we need to look at Genesis 4:7 NASB “If you do well, will not {your countenance} be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” This is a situation where Cain and Abel are in conflict. Cain is very jealous of Abel because of God’s blessing on him and the Lord confronts him: “Sin is crouching at the door.” The sin nature is waiting to gain control of your life. “…and its desire.” What kind of desire is that? It is the desire to dominate, to control, to over power. That is what the word means in Genesis 3:16. The woman has become part of the curse and she now wants to wear the pants in the family and rule the husband. That is the broad sexual trait of women—to be in control. What we see here is that in a fallen world, apart from regeneration, apart from the Scriptures there is going to be warfare between the sexes. Genesis 3:17 NASB “Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.’” Adam was originally given responsibility before but now it is going to be very difficult to fulfil that responsibility; it now becomes toil, something you really don’t want to do.

9.       The Noahic covenant which establishes human government. The human race operated under the Adamic covenant for about 16-1700 years until the flood. During that time Satan instigates a plan in order to destroy the human race and prevent God from fulfilling His promise of the seed of the woman. The saviour of the world had to be true humanity in order to die as a substitute for the human race. So Satan attempts to destroy the purity of the human race, Genesis 6:2ff. The phrase “sons of God” is a technical reference in the Old Testament for angels, both fallen and unfallen. After Noah and his family leave the ark God establishes a new covenant with the human race and its sign is the rainbow. Genesis 9, now there is fear and terror of the human race placed into the animal kingdom. Now man can eat meat. Now there is capital punishment, which tells us that God is now delegating to the human race judicial authority. So we have the Noahic covenant.

10.   The Abrahamic covenant. There are three categories spoken of in Genesis 12:1-3. Land, a people, and blessing. This covenant is expanded upon by three more covenants in the Old Testament—the land covenant in Deuteronomy 30, the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7, and the New covenant in Jeremiah 31. These three covenants just expand the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant.     

Doctrine of Distinctions in the Inheritance   Gen. 044

1)      What is the problem? The problem is that there are some passages which speak of inheritance as a permanent possession based on faith alone in Christ alone, but there are other passages which clearly speak of inheritance as an acquisition or a reward. If inheritance means eternity in heaven then in these passages it is clear that some people can never be saved and other would lose their salvation. We see this in two passages. Ephesians 5:5, “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” If inheritance there is talking about what we all possess and is equivalent to the idea of eternal life and salvation, then it is making the statement that an immoral person or someone who is covetous doesn’t have an inheritance. Colossians 3:24, “Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance,” That verse states clearly that it is a reward, not a gift. 

2)      The only way to deal with this is to recognize that there are two categories of inheritance. The first category is inheritance of salvation, Ephesians 1:14, and those are all the blessings related to being a member of the royal family of God, adoption in the family of God. That is the inheritance that comes from sonship. Category two of inheritance is the inheritance of the kingdom, Ephesians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Galatians 4:18-20. Romans 8:17, “If children heirs also of God,” the first category; “fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with him, in order that we also may be glorified with him,” the second category. Galatians 4:7, “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a [mature] son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

3)      Just as Christ inherits the kingdom, Psalm 2:8,9, due to His loyalty and faithful obedience to God the Father (along with Hebrews 1:8), so will the joint heirs with Christ. That is the pattern. Jesus inherits as a result of His faithful obedience to God; so will the joint heirs with Christ because of their faithful obedience to God.

4)      Thus the kingdom has been promised to those who love God, and not all believers love God. A lot of believers emote, they have sentimental feelings, but that is not how the Bible expresses love. Love to God is expressed in the Bible as obedience to God—John 14:21-24, “ … Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings …” So the kingdom is promised top those who love God.  Loving God is related to learning His Word, making that a priority, following it consistently, following the pattern of the Lord Jesus Christ in His spiritual growth. The negative illustration is Esau. Esau is the physical son, the firstborn in terms of chronology, the firstborn of the twins born to Isaac. Esau sells his birthright—Hebrews 12:16, “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Esau is a picture of the failure believer, the believer who has all of this potential in Christ and gives it up for the pleasures of the world, gives it up to feed the lust of his sin nature. This is a commentary on that fact that he did not have any sense of his spiritual destiny. He sold his own birthright for a single meal.

A believer can follow the pattern of Esau and be a failure in the Christian life. This comes by negative volition, and negative volition is not defined as hostility to the truth; negative volition is defined as apathy to the truth. Apathy to the truth is demonstrated by not making it a priority, by letting other things in life invade the believer’s time to take in doctrine. No matter what it is, no matter how important it may be when you look around at how much time you spent in the last week studying the Word and letting the Word dominate your thinking, and you realize you were just overwhelmed by all the pressures of work, family life and everything else, then you are following the path of Esau. Negative volition doesn’t mean you are hostile, it means that you are putting your emphasis on something other than the Word, and other than the message. Many, many people have gone to sound, doctrinal churches for years and years and have deluded themselves into thinking they are positive. Then a major crisis comes along in their life and all of a sudden they put the emphasis on the man rather than the message, they put their emphasis on their emotions, they put their emphasis on how they feel, on their family or their friends, and what that demonstrates is that for years there has been a spiritual erosion in their life because they became complacent and apathetic.

The Doctrine of the Divine Call  RD/Gal/008

1.       The word “call” comes from the Greek word kaleo [kalew] which means to call, to summon, to invite. Theologically the concept of the divine call has been broken down (not Scripturally but theologically) into two sub-categories: a general call, when we talk about the public proclamation of Scripture, when God through the Scriptures invites everyone to accept the free gift of Jesus Christ as their saviour—but that is not the subject we are talking about here; the more technical meaning of the divine call has to do with the ministry of God the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation in making the gospel clear to the unbeliever so that they will respond by faith alone in Christ alone.

2.       Definition: This is the work of God the Holy Spirit toward believers only—unbelievers are never recipients of this call; He never performs this to anyone who stays an unbeliever—prior to their to their salvation to make the gospel clear so that they will believe in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Calling always refers to those who do believe and God the Holy Spirit will never call an unbeliever who does not believe. Romans 8:29, 30 NASB “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” This is the “chain of predestination.” What we find in these two verses is a complete chain of events that culminate in the believer’s glorification. It begins with foreknowledge, then moves to predestination, to calling, justification and then glorification. Foreknowledge and predestination take place in eternity past. Calling and justification take place in time, during the believer’s life. Glorification takes place in eternity future. The final goal is that there is a group of people who are glorified. Who does God glorify? Those whom He justified—previous phrase. So God glorifies every single person He justifies; they will all receive a resurrection body in heaven. Who does God justify? Whom He called. In justification he justifies everyone He calls. So that means there are people He does not call; those people are not justified. So the group that is justified is everybody who is called; the same group that is called are those that are predestined. So this refers to a set group of people back in eternity past—these are called. He never calls those who are not predestined. Those He predestined are those whom He foreknew. This is the chain. He predestines a group of x-number of people. That same group of people in time He is going to call; no more, no less. That means that God the Holy Spirit is going to work specifically in the lives of this group to make sure they understand the gospel, so that at gospel hearing they will respond by faith alone in Christ alone.

3.       This means that the divine call is the work of God the Holy Spirit in applying the elective decree of God to the individual at the moment of salvation.

4.       Calling is not some independent doctrine that you can divorce from everything else in Scripture teaches about human volition, divine sovereignty and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Calling in itself does not limit the application of the gospel. That is done by God the Father on the basis of three things: omniscience, foreknowledge and foreordination. Remember that the council of divine decrees—time began at point x, at the creation of the universe—took place in eternity past, and at that point one of the decrees was that divine sovereignty and human volition would co-exist together in human history. God’s sovereignty is not going to violate human volition but neither does human volition dictate divine sovereignty. Human volition is never autonomous or independent from divine sovereignty but divine sovereignty will never dictate or arbitrarily control or violate human volition. We always have to maintain that principle. (If we don’t we will get into problems) Omniscience describes all of God’s knowledge; the word means all-knowing. It literally means that God knows all the knowable; He has complete, simultaneous and eternal knowledge of all things. There never was a time when God did not know all the knowable simultaneously. All the knowable includes all the actual and all the possible. Foreknowledge is a sub-category of God’s omniscience, so we are narrowing the focus. Omniscience covers all the actuals and all the possibles, everything that could, everything that would, everything that will happen. In foreknowledge we see that this is a specialised sub-category of God’s omniscience related to His eternal knowledge about the thoughts, motives, decisions and actions of believers. So foreknowledge has as its object the thoughts, motives, actions of believers—so it is restricted. Divine omniscience knows all things actual and potential. If we set up a time line—there is no time with God, this just describes the logical relation between these things—there is first the omniscience of God, then there is the eternal decree of God related to human history, then there is His foreknowledge, then His election, then predestination. This is the logical relationship of these terms. Foreknowledge only confirms what has been decreed, it does not predetermine those events in human history or violate human volition. In His omniscience God knows the actual and the possible and he decrees that course of actuals that will bring Him the highest and greatest glory in relation to the angelic conflict. That decree includes the principle that divine sovereignty co-exists in human history with human volition. Foreknowledge, then, confirms what has been decreed and does not predetermine those events or violate human volition. Election is then the expression of God’s selection of different groups for different purposes throughout the course of human history. There are three elections given in the Scriptures. Israel is elected under the Old Testament plan of God. Christ is elect under the plan of God in relation to salvation. The church is elected by God in relationship to His plan in fulfilling the angelic conflict. Basically what we are saying is that God elects and chooses believers, not in violation of their volition, on the basis of understanding what will actually happen in human history, in other words, understanding that you at the point of gospel hearing will respond positively to the gospel and that others will never under any circumstance respond positively to the gospel. God decrees that those who respond positively to the gospel will be saved; they are elect.

5.       Calling is therefore related to God’s election based on His foreordination. Those who are foreordained are those the Holy Spirit calls. Because of His omniscience God knows that all others would reject Christ at gospel hearing. So that means God just doesn’t waste effort—it’s called economy of force in terms of military principle.

6.       Calling is therefore related to the operation of efficacious grace. At the point of gospel hearing the individual expresses faith alone in Christ alone, yet that is the faith of a spiritually dead unbeliever and God the Holy Spirit makes that faith count because the object is Christ alone. Christ did all the work, we do nothing; not ever our faith is a work. It is not because of faith, it is through faith.

7.       All of this is consistent with the principle that God decreed in eternity past that divine sovereignty and human volition would co-exist in human history, and the divine call always operates through two means. God the Holy Spirit isn’t going to call somebody unless everything happens together. The two things that are always there: a) the grace of God, Galatians 1:15; b) the gospel of faith alone in Christ alone, 2 Thessalonians 2:14. They are not separated. Nobody will ever express faith alone in Christ alone without God the Holy Spirit calling them personally.

8.       The divine call is the third step in the order that we find in Romans 8:28-30. This happens in time, in the believer’s life. At the time of gospel hearing God the Holy Spirit makes the gospel clear to them, then they believe and are justified for eternity.

9.       There are six purposes to the divine call:  a) We are called into fellowship with God, 1 Corinthians 1:9. We are to have personal rapport with Him. That is what we need to be thinking about every day; b) He calls us for freedom; c) Eternal life. Eternal life is not simply eternal existence; it is a quality, a significance to life, a depth of life. It comes only from learning doctrine. We learn it so that we can develop capacity for life. Jesus said He came to give us life, and to give it abundantly. That doesn’t just happen by being saved; that is only the starting point, 1 Timothy 6:12; c) Spiritual growth. God saved us to grow spiritually, Ephesians 4:1—calling is to walk worthy, that is our spiritual life; e) To suffer, 1 Peter 2:20; f) WE are called to glorify God in the angelic conflict, Ephesians 4:1.

So what we have seen is that our salvation was no accident. There is a plan and a purpose there. God has a plan and a purpose for our life and that is why we have been brought into this remarkable, incredible relationship with Him. It is to go forward, to grow, to reach spiritual maturity so that we can have this rich relationship with Him. Only then can we have the capacity to enjoy all that God gives us. God is not going to bless us beyond our capacity because that would destroy us. God will only bless us to the degree that we have the capacity to enjoy it, appreciate it, and not let it destroy us and destroy our relationship with Him.        

Divine Guidance and the Doctrine of the Will of God

Gen. 126b

   1. First we have to define our terms.  The term will of God is used to describe three different aspects of divine volition in relation to His creation.  There are three different ways in which we use this.  So when somebody says, “What is God’s will for my life in this situation?” what do they mean? Let’s think a little more clearly about exactly what you are saying when you use the term “the will of God.  The first way in which the word is used in the Scripture has to do with God’s sovereign volition with regard to His creation where He brings to pass what He wills and what He has decreed.  This is sometimes called the decretive will of God.   Sometimes it is the sovereign will of God.  Sometimes it is called the secret will of God.  It is called the secret will of God because it is a secret.  We don’t know what it is.  We don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow.  But whatever happens tomorrow is what God decreed in eternity past.  But we come to that and within that decree there is the flexibility to handle human volition and human decision.  The decree doesn’t destroy human volition, but it includes that framework.  The best illustration I ever heard to help me understand this goes back to the fall.  When God created all of the structures and systems in creation - He created all of the biological systems.  He created all of the astronomical and meteorological systems, all the ecological systems on the planet; but when Adam sinned it sent shock waves through everything.  It changed everything.  It changed animals.  It changed man.  It changed the way our internal organs function.  It changed dental structures.  It changed the way the world functioned meteorologically.  It changed things ecologically.  All of a sudden plants that were nice and wonderful are producing thorns and thistles.  Animals that ate grass are now eating meat.  That affects their gastrointestinal system and their dental system - everything.  What happened?  God built into every system enough flexibility to handle the chaos that human volition could bring.  When we think about it that way we realize that God’s sovereign will is broad enough that He can control and bring about that which He intends to bring about.  His omniscience is so profound and so detailed that the divine computer factors in all of the variables from human volition so that He can bring about His will without violating human volition.  It includes the chaos that can come in from whatever decisions we make.  But God’s sovereign will is His will.  He will bring about in human history what He intends to bring about.  We will see some verses on this in just a minute.  So we talk about God’s sovereign will.  The problem is if you say, “What is God’s will for my life?”  If you are talking about God’s sovereign will, you don’t know.  It is undiscoverable.  It is His secret will.  You don’t know what that is.  What we usually mean when we ask that question has more to do with how to make decisions.  But there is another category of will that we talk about.  That is His moral will or His revealed will.  God says, “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not.”  This is the specific revealed will of God.  He wants us not to do certain things and He wants us to do certain things.  He wants us to make the study of doctrine the highest priority in our lives.  He wants us to walk by means of the filling of the Holy Spirit.  He wants us to know the Word.  He wants us to pray without ceasing.  All of these things are God’s revealed will.  We know that this is what God wants us to do.  This is also called God’s desired will.  There is a third category.  That is God’s overriding will.  Many times He allows us the freedom to make certain decisions.  We make those decision and pass the decision making test.  But then He says, “Okay.  I am not going to let you bring to fruition the decision that you just made.”  Somebody may go through a whole process for example where they think through the issues and they decide that “I really want to use to the financial resources that God has given me to support a particular missionary.”  But then God takes our job away from us.  We passed the test but we are not going to be able to do what we thought about because God has other things going on in the plan.  We passed that part of the test.  Paul for example wanted to go to Rome many times and it wasn’t possible.  God’s overrode his volition.  He made a good decision.  He wanted to do the right thing for the right reason.  But God said, “No.  That is not what My sovereign will wants.”   So God’s overriding will is a subcategory of His sovereign will.  The circle describes the bounds of God’s sovereign will. Everything within the circle would be what God has decreed to take place in human history. There are many things that are outside the circle.  Those are the what-if’s.   Like, what if they had won at the Alamo?  What if they had won at Bull Run?  There you go!  What if the Japanese had decided to send another wave of bombers against Pearl Harbor instead of just being satisfied with what they did in the first attack?  What would have happened in history in all of these many different things?  At the Battle of Antietem what would have happened if the Yankees had not discovered that Lee’s battle plan that was rolled up and hidden inside of a currier’s cigar?  The South would have won the war and possibly threatened DC.  All of the what-if’s are outside the circle because that wasn’t what God decreed to happen in history.  Then we have God’s moral and revealed will.  These are the things that we know God wants us to do or has told us that He doesn’t want us to do. That describes another area of boundary.  The circle on the right overlaps because within God’s sovereign will there are areas of obedience where we are obedient to God’s Word that coincides with His sovereign will. But there are areas outside of His sovereign will where we are disobedient to His revealed will.   So there is sort of an area in between where there is an overlap between God’s revealed will and God’s sovereign will.  That introduces us to the basic terminology.

   2. Some people have problems with God’s sovereignty because they can’t quite mesh God’s sovereignty with human individual responsibility.  It has to do ultimately with causality.  If God is sovereign then He must bring about what He wants to bring about which has to do with causation.  But remember we have to think of this in terms of the creator-creature distinction that when you and I as creatures with finite minds and finite reference points think about causation, we only think of causation in the creaturely realm.  But you see when you start thinking about God as the creator; God can bring about causation in other ways that are outside the purview of our frame of reference.  I think this is a fundamental problem with Calvinism.  In Calvinism the way they deal with election and the sovereignty of God is that they are trying to make the causation at the creaturely level the same as at the creator level.

NKJ Daniel 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”

Daniel is talking.  God is the boss.  He holds in His hands the heart of the king proverbs says.  He accomplishes what He wants.  We just don’t know what that is.

NKJ Proverbs 21:1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.

He does it in such a way as to not violate the volitional responsibility of the individual ruler.  God is not using him as a robot.  He is not reaching in there and tweaking his volition.  

NKJ Revelation 4:1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.”

The bottom line is the important part.  Not what might take place, what ought to take place, what could take place but what must take place.  If God is able to accurately predict and foretell what happens in the future that means that He must be able to control all the data- all of what appears to us as insignificant details. I have often thought it would be an interesting thing to write a book of history of how the major events of history hinged on some minor insignificant detail like at the Battle of Antietem where a confederate courier was captured and it was discovered that he had the battle plan rolled up inside that cigar.  I mentioned it a minute ago.  What an insignificant thing.  It changed the course of the battle and changed the course of the War of Northern Aggression.   Come on now.  Y’all can lighten up a little bit.  These things must take place.  God is in control but not in such a way that it overrides our responsibility. 

NKJ Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Again the sovereignty of God.

NKJ Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

NKJ Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

God is in control ultimately.

   3. The specifics of God’s decreed will are secret.  Don’t try to figure it out. Don’t get yourself all wrapped up in over thinking trying to figure out what God has decreed for tomorrow.  The sun will come up.  We know that much.  Whether we see it or not will only be determined tomorrow.  Don’t pay attention to the meteorologist on channel 2, 11 or 13 because they could very well be wrong.  How many times have we seen that?  So the specifics of God’s decreed will are secret, unrevealed, unknown and unknowable.  They can’t be known until after the fact.  Whatever happened is what God decreed to happen.  That doesn’t absolve us of responsibility in those decisions.  That is the important thing to remember.  The first divine institution God establishes in the garden is responsibility and accountability.  So just because God’s decrees it as part of His permissive will; it doesn’t allow us to come back and say, “That is what God wanted.” as if that absolves people of responsibility.  How many times do we see people do that?  It drives me nuts.  Something happens.  There may be injustice involved.  There may be maltreatment involved or people make a stupid decision and someone says, “That is what God wanted.”  No, God wanted a responsible good decision.  He didn’t want stupidity.  He allowed stupidity.   He allows bad decisions, but that doesn’t absolve us of responsibility. That’s the problem with the other view of decision making.  If God has a specific thing for you to do at every point in life, then all you have to do is get in touch with that inner mystical liver quiver directive vibration or whatever it is that directs you.  As soon as you get that and you know God wants me to do this instead of that if something bad happens then you can blame God.  You didn’t make the decision.  God told you what to do.  So now you say, “It’s God’s fault.”  That is really what happens. People blame God for everything when they are operating on some sort of mystical concept of how to know the will of God.

   4. We can only know the specifics of God’s revealed or moral will.  This brings to bear the whole concept that God gives two kinds of revelation.  We have to remember this especially as a backdrop to what we are going to get into in Genesis 31.  We see that once again God speaks and gives direction to Jacob – special revelation.  The interesting thing is that He just tells Jacob to go back to the land, but He doesn’t tell him how to go back to the land - what the conditions are, whether or not to talk to his father-in-law and explain what he is going to do.   We have this whole strange episode with Rachel stealing the household idols and hiding them on her saddle.  There are both good and bad decisions made in the process of going back to the land.  So we have to come back to some of these categories in order to understand decision making.  We can only know the specifics of God’s revealed or moral will.  Almost 100% of the time (I will leave room for the possibility of missing something.) whenever you read theologians or writers who are talking about this and they give you some idea that you can pray and God will give your direction.  In fact I have a quote that we will deal with on Thursday night in Hebrews on divine guidance that you pray to the Holy Spirit and He will give you an answer. You will be surprise who said this.  All the Scriptures that are used come out of the book of Acts.   In every one of those examples, it is special revelation during the pre-canon period.  It is the Holy Spirit giving specific direction.  There is no problem with that in that environment.  Just as God is speaking to Jacob in Genesis and giving him specific revelation.  He said, “Jonah I don’t want you to go to Nineveh.” Jonah said, “No.  I am going to Spain.  I am going to go in the opposite direction.”  Nevertheless God got him where he wanted.  We can only know the specifics of God’s moral or revealed will.  All of this has impact on our understanding of revelation and God’s communication and the limitations of the Bible in terms of the fact that the canon is completed and there is no more revelation today. 

NKJ Romans 2:18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,

Just look at that verse a minute.  The first phrase says we are to know His will.  But how are we to know His will according to this verse?  It is based on the instructions coming out of the law.  It is not just knowing His will in relation to anything in life.  It’s foundation is that which has been revealed in the law.  That is the Old Testament.

NKJ 1 Thessalonians 5:18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

When you come to a really hard time difficult time in life health test, death, crisis and you say, “What does God want me to do?”  Well, He told you.  Give thanks.  Not just verbally but be thankful in your soul because you know that God is in control and He is working all things together for good.  Romans 8:28  We can claim that promise.  We know that we can be thankful even though we may never understand all of the things that went into that situation.

NKJ 1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

These are specific mandates that describe the boundary for God’s moral will.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

 Specifically don’t marry an unbeliever.  Should I marry this person or that person? Don’t marry an unbeliever.  There are hundreds and hundreds of statements in the Scripture telling us what God’s will is for us. Walk by means of the Spirit.  Put to death the deeds of the flesh.  Don’t lie.  Tell the truth.  All of these are part of the boundaries for what God wants us to do.  As long as we are within those boundaries then whatever we do is the will of God.  Think about that.  As long as you are not stepping outside the boundaries of God’s revealed will then you are doing the will of God.  As long as you are in fellowship, walking by means of the Spirit, applying doctrine, putting doctrine first and fulfilling all of those other mandates then decision you make.  Let me be almost factious about it.  Whether you put your right shoe on first or your left shoe on first, it’s a non moral decision and it’s good.   How you drive to work.  The idea of the center of God’s will in every decision that you make ultimately means that every minor decision – whether you get up at 6:30 or 6:40 – what does God want me to do?  You have to drive it down that narrow because if you have that extra 10 minutes, what are you going to do with it?  Are you going to leave 10 minutes later or 10 minutes earlier?  If it is later you get caught in traffic.  You have that traffic and take a shortcut and have a fatal accident.  Oops.  If you had left 10 minutes earlier and went the other route and miss the traffic then that accident wouldn’t have occurred.  Big things happen on the basis of minor decisions.  So you decide to wear this instead of that and some opportunity comes up at work and you dressed casual instead of dressed up so you can’t go to that luncheon because you aren’t dressed to go to a fancy restaurant. You see minor decisions that we don’t think about impact major events in our lives.  If we are going to follow that logic out then you have to pray about every single decision.  “I am going to have chicken or beef tonight?  Well, what are the long term consequences going to be?  Well you know my cholesterol will go up and I will have a heart attack and die 10 years earlier.”  I am being a little factious here but I am driving home the point that if we are going to try to find the center of God’s will on every decision in life or are we going to make wisdom decisions from the framework of the doctrine in our souls?

   5. Therefore God’s sovereign will includes His moral will, but His moral will is not always His decree.   God has permissive will.  He allows creatures to violate that moral will.  That is included within the sovereign will.  When the creature does what God has prohibited then His revealed will is outside the decreed will.  This is what I was picturing with the overlapping circles in the chart earlier. 

   8. Since we can only know the specifics of God’s revealed or moral ill before the fact, (You know doctrine.  You know what the Word of God says – the thou shalt’s and the thou shalt not’s) questions about the will of God relate only to revealed information.  You can’t ask, “God what do you want me to do tomorrow?  If I have a choice between this job or that job, tell me what the answer is.”  No.  You look at your life, your talents and abilities and what you want to do.  If it is an issue related to geography and you have a family you need to decide, “Am I going to be able to get maximum Bible teaching for me and my family so I can grow spiritually in Houston or San Francisco?  I can make more money in San Francisco.   I have greater job advancement in San Francisco. There are many things that I would love to do in that particular job in San Francisco.  There is no doctrine in San Francisco.   Am I willing to compromise spiritual growth and involvement in a good local church for advancement in a temporal job or career?”  Now it depends on what you are involved in.  If you are in the military a lot of times you may not have the option.  But if you are not in the military, you do.   I can’t tell you how many times I have seen families make this decision, where they really have a great job opportunity to go to “X” location but there is no solid church and there no doctrine being taught there.  They end up tubing it in their spiritual lives.  They think, “I can do tapes.  I can listen to the internet.”  That is great and fine and wonderful, but very few people in the final analysis especially if you have been under face to face teaching for years, very few people have the ability and the discipline to stick with it in a non face to face situation.  Non face to face learning is great in have-to situations.  The ideal situation is if you can get away from where you are and go where you can learn the Word and you are going to grow spiritually.  When you die God is not going to look at a resume and say, “Well isn’t it great how well you did in your career.  You punched this clock and you made this step and you did that seminar and this seminar.  You fulfilled that responsibility here and that responsibility there.”   He is going to look at one resume, your spiritual resume related to the doctrine in your soul in spiritual growth.  So the most important issue is not in terms of where I am going to go in terms of advancement in my career.  But is this decision going to put me in a place where I can advance spiritually and serve the Lord the best?  That’s the most important question to ask in any of these other areas.  That is why we have promises like Proverbs 3:5-6.  God directs.  We can’t at all factor in all of the data.  We look at the situation and we say, “That looks like the right decision.  I weigh all the facts. I list out all of the pros and cons.  I talked to my pastor.  I talked to spiritually mature believers that know me and whom I trust.  I have done all of the investigation.  Finally I just have to put it in the Lord’s hands.”

NKJ Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;

NKJ Proverbs 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.

I taught this last week when I was in Preston.  One of the men there who is a retired Navy chief came up and said, “You know that is exactly what happened in my life.  I was convinced I had the gift of pastor teacher.  I got accepted to a Bible college.  I got out of the Navy.  I went to the Bible college.  Everything I tried to do with in a week, God closed every door and my only option was to go back to the Navy.”  He ended up making that his career. God made it clear and made those paths straight for him.  We might make a bad decision but if we are trusting the Lord in the midst of it, it is not going to end up in a collapse.   He is going to direct covertly through the circumstances and situations.  We are not going to get there tonight but we see that with Jonah.  Jonah made a decision to go elsewhere than God directed him.  He ended up exactly where He wanted him.  If God does want you in a place you can’t run away from it.  God will make it clear.  Your goal is to study, learn the Word and apply to Word. Even if you make a decision that God doesn’t want you to make, guess what?  You are not going to bring it to fruition.  God will make your paths straight.  He will bring about that which He desires in your life.  So we don’t have to get involved in a whole lot of inner anxiety and concern about what to do. 

   9. So the question that I have been addressing – is there just one will of God for every decision or is it the idea of wisdom coming from doctrine for living so that as long as we stay within the boundaries of God’s moral revealed will whatever we do (This will be hard for some of you.) – whether you decide to go to UT and live in Austin where you can grow spiritually or you can go to Texas A&M where there are a couple of good churches,  you can learn the Word of God and grow spiritually and you can satisfy your spiritual priorities in either location, either one can be okay.  I know that this is tough for some of you, especially some of you Aggies.

Next time we will come back and look at some specific biblical examples of decision making – those that involve direction, specific revelation and those that don’t.  We will see some telling examples of how a couple of times when the apostles made tough decisions and there is no guidance by the Holy Spirit.  There is no direct revelation.  It is interesting how they articulate their decision making.  It kind of goes against what is popularly thought of as how God directs and guides.  We see the same kind of thing going on in the background with Jacob.  Whether Jacob is trusting God or not, God has a sovereign will and God moves Jacob through the pattern of his life.  Even when Jacob is disobedient and even when he is obedient, God is still working things out, blessing him to bring about His ultimate purpose.  We can’t frustrate the will of God.  We can either be in cooperation where we can experience the reality of the blessing because we are obedient or we miss out on that privilege and that blessing.

Divine Guidence and the Will of God, Part 2

Gen. 127 

NKJ Isaiah 40:31 But those who wait on the LORD Shall renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint.

We are studying how to know the will of God. We started this last time as sort of an interlude in our study of Jacob because we see specific guidance from God taking place in the life of Jacob.  People get all kinds of funny ideas about how to know God’s will and divine guidance. Over the process of time people have developed different views.  As we go forward in church history, different doctrines come to be understood with greater  clarity in certain words and verbiage that sometimes have been used probably ought not to be used because of the nature of our culture, because of things that are going on in the world around us.  Other times we come to the realization that perhaps some of the words we have used aren’t the best words and biblically they aren’t used that way.  One of those is “the leading of the Holy Spirit”.  The leading of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:14 and Galatians 5:18 doesn’t refer to divine guidance.  We will study that on Thursday night.  You see great little hook to get everyone back on Thursday night. 

We will get into that on Thursday night and that dovetails with what we have been addressing there in terms of the pressures on the individual believer from both the rationalistic empirical world view on the one hand and a mystical type of world view on the other hand.  When people are coming out of either one of those kinds of world views and they come to the Scriptures and they interpret it within that grid, then it leads to slight misinterpretations one way or the other.  This has always happened down through church history.

I was reading to today doing some study on the whole issue of Calvinism and Arminianism and free will and the soul.   Most people want to articulate those debates on the will of man and the sovereignty of God in terms of historic Calvinism or Arminianism.  Most folks don’t know that it goes back to an earlier debate that occurred between Augustine who was the bishop of Hippo in about the 4th or 5th century AD and  a British monk by he name of Pelages.  That grew out of certain influences that took place in the early church in the late second and early third century as Platonism and then later neo-Platonism began to influence the thinking of the major theologians.  Specifically a man named Origen as well as several others.  Clement of Alexander was another one.  It also influenced Augustine later on.  Those were such major thinkers and they were so influential in the early church that it literally took 1,000 years or more to begin to divest the church of the garbage that they brought into theological thinking in Christianity.  The vestiges of that are still with us.  You can go to some churches in town.  You have amillennialists and covenant theologians.  They can trace their heritage and the way they think about certain passages using an allegorical or a non-literal interpretation of prophecy back to Origen.  So we still deal with these problems today.  There are always these misunderstandings.

One area that I started last week is on the issue of divine guidance.   How do we know God’s will?  How does God direct us?  How do we face the issues of life and say, “What is God’s will for my life?”

So last time I started off with some introduction. We had 9 points last time.  I am not going to review the 9 points tonight.   If you want to get all nine of them listen to the tape from last week.  I will just summarize them.

Often the way that the will of God and knowledge of the will of God and divine guidance are presented in many, many cases is that you need to learn to live in the center of God’s will - God has a specific will and plan for your life – a geographic will, His will professionally, His will in terms of only one particular person that is right for you to marry, one right job for you.   Dare I even say one right pastor or one right church?  All of this boils down to the idea that there is only one specific will of God for you in all of these different areas and if you miss it or if you make the wrong decision or if that other person makes the wrong decision, then you are toast.  You will miss out on God’s best for your life and you will never experience it because that woman married some loser or that guy married some girl friend of his from high school instead of waiting until college.  Or that man who was supposed to be your right pastor decided to leave his wife and chase some sweet young thing.  Whatever it is, now you are hung out to dry.  So you see there are basic problems with all these different views.

I remember years ago talking to Charlie Clough and he had a guy in his church who was getting his PhD at Texas Tech in early 20th century literature.  He pointed out that one of the things that dominated fictional literature at the end of the 19th century and two or three decades into the 20th century was this Platonic idea that there was one ideal mate.  As soon as I use that word ideal if you know anything about philosophy, what ought to come to your mind?  What ought to come to your mind is Platonism.   It has plagued us down through the centuries.  We even talk about certain kinds of relationships as platonic.  That is just a platonic relationship.  We even talk about ideal woman or the ideal man or the ideal marriage.   That dominated the thinking in America and it was a part of a return to romanticism that occurred in reaction to industrialism and liberalism that was dominating things at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century.  So all of this entered into and had an effect in Christianity.  There are all kinds of people who at times have at times taught these kinds of things down through church history.

The question is, does the Bible teach it?  The question that people need to ask is, where in the world in the Bible do you get this particular doctrine? Give me some verses.  It may not say it specifically like the trinity, but at least you can give me five verses that if I put them together so I can see the conclusion.   So we have to address this.  What is the way the Bible presents these facts to us in making decisions?  Is there just one and only dot that we have to live on? X marks the spot and you’ve got to find it.  If you take that out to its logical conclusion you have a right job, you have a right house, and you have a right dog.  You have a right cat.  You have a right kid.  Ooops!  Some of us didn’t get the right kid.

The contrasting view is the view that teaches that God has given us doctrine and we make choices on the basis of the doctrine in our soul.  That emphasizes personal responsibility for making decisions. In the other view what you end up doing often is blaming God for the decision.  I have to wait for God to tell me exactly what person or what job or what school or what car to buy.  Should I put on my Nikes or my Adidas this morning?  You have to take it all the way out to its logical conclusion.  What is the right thing for me to do today?  Then when you get that liver quiver and God tells you it is this one or it is that one and if there is a problem and it doesn’t work out, whose fault is it?  It’s not my fault.  I didn’t make a bad decision.  It’s God’s fault.  It was God’s will.  So we wrap it up in this holier than thou terminology.  We sanctify the bad decisions by saying it was God’s will.  So God gets blamed for our poor decisions.

I am not saying that God doesn’t direct or lead us. But it is covert rather than overt.   For those of you who don’t understand computers this is going to go right passed you.  The Holy Spirit’s and God’s direction in our lives is often like some of those programs that are running in the background on our computers.  Those of you who are computer guys understand what I am talking about.  When you start up your computer, there are various things running in the background.  You don’t have any idea what is going on and you don’t see it, but they are directing the decision making that is going on in the processor in your computer.  You are making decisions and choices, but there are things in the background that are guiding, directing, and overseeing the process.  That is how God’s will operates.

So we began last time by trying to define some terms.  The first term was God’s sovereign will.  God has a sovereign will.  This also known as His decretive will.  This also includes His permissive will.  His sovereign will is His decision of what will take place in human history.  We don’t know what that is.  We don’t know what His sovereign will includes or what it excludes until events happen.

Then we have a second category called God’s moral or revealed will.  In God’s moral or revealed will we have the mandates in the Scriptures (the “thou shalt’s) and the prohibitions (the “thou shalt not’s). We have the emphasis on studying the Scripture, praying without ceasing, giving thanks in all things.  All of this describes the boundaries of God’s revealed will so that if you are walking by the Spirit, you are filled with Spirit, you are speaking all things in love, you are loving one another as Christ loved the church, you are making a priority out of the knowledge of God’s Word, you are giving thanks for all things; then whatever decisions you make within that circle is God’s will.

When you get out of fellowship and you are walking according to the sin nature nothing you do is God’s will because everything you do no matter how good, no matter how wonderful it is whether that includes getting up in the morning and praying for 30 minutes, memorizing Scripture, reading your Bible, witnessing to people; but if you are out of fellowship it is what?  It is all works of the flesh.  That is not God’s will.

The issue is walking by means of the Spirit within the framework of the clear statements in Scripture describing God’s moral and revealed will and then it is okay.  Then you evaluate your decisions and you look at the resources that God gives you.  You look how the most responsible ways are that you utilize the resources that God gives you – your money, your time, your energy, and your gifts.  Whatever you do as long as you are in fellowship, walking by the Spirit, giving thanks for all things, all those other commandments (loving your wife, being submissive to your husband, and all of those things), then you are in God’s will.  It makes it real simple.  You don’t have to always be concerned about finding that “X” marks the spot and hoping that God will reveal it to you.  So we have God’s sovereign will which includes both the existence of sin and evil and the permissive will to allow free creatures to make bad decisions.

Then we have God’s moral will that describes what He has revealed.  The circles overlap because there is some area where God’s sovereign will includes His moral will.   But there are areas in God’s sovereign will that are outside of His revealed will.  That is permissive will.  He allows sin to take place. He allows you to disobey the “thou shalt’s” or the “thou shalt not’s”.   We concluded by saying that the specifics of God’s decreed will are secret, unrevealed, and unknown.  You can’t know them.  You can’t figure it out.  Whatever happens is what was in God’s decreed will.  They can’t be known until after the fact.  You can’t outguess God.  You can’t try to play games.

When you were a kid, you said, “Maybe God wanted me to do this.”

I remember doing silly thing like that when I was a kid.  Then you realize that whatever you do is what God decreed so you can’t outguess Him.

Human history is the outworking of God’s sovereign decree.   We can only know the specifics of His revealed or moral will.  If revelation has ceased, then there is no more revelation of His will.  You have to rely upon the Scriptures and make those decisions that are consistent with the precepts, mandates and prohibitions of the Word of God. Since we can only know the specifics of God’s revealed or moral will before the fact, questions about the will of God relate only to revealed information.  So when people start asking questions - should I go to college, should I not go to college, should I go to tech school, should I major in this or major in that, should I go to Texas A&M, Texas Tech, or University of Texas - as long as they are in a place where they can learn the Word of God, where there is a local church they can be involved in, where they can be part of the body of Christ, where they can grow and mature as a believer and where they are not going to put their spiritual life in jeopardy because of a decision that they make as to where they go.  For example if they go to the University of Utah they might have a problem.  Where are they going to get their spiritual food?  Where are they going to grow?  If they dare I say go to Harvard or Yale or Brown…  Brown is the most liberal school in the whole country if you didn’t know that.  That is located in Providence, Rhode Island.  There is not one registered Republican on the entire faculty of Brown.  Probably not one Christian on the whole faculty either if the truth was known.

In this class what I want to look at examples from the Scripture.  How did people go about making their decisions?  How did God reveal His will?  What are the dynamics of decision making that we get from biblical situations and biblical examples?  So the first example I want to go to is one of the most obvious ones.  That is in Judges 6.

I remember when I was floating around and listening to different teachers that I went to a Bible class over at Spring Branch Community Church.  They were looking for a new assistant pastor so they were interviewing a guy from Dallas Seminary.  He came in and gave a message on how to know the will of God.  I think I was more confused when he got through than when I started.  I was at that age of 22 or 23 and I was saying, “How do I know if God wants me to go to seminary or not?  How do I know what God wants me to do?”  So I was really interested in what he said.  Of course, he took Jonah as his paradigm for how to know the will of God.  As I look back on it, he needed to spend a couple of more years in seminary.

This is Gideon.  Gideon is often misused in teaching on how to know the will of God.  People go to the later part of the episode that begins in verse 36 and they use the putting out of the fleece as a way of trying to determine what God’s will was.

NKJ Judges 6:36 So Gideon said to God, “If You will save Israel by my hand as You have said --

The key interpretive phrase there if you haven’t taken the time to look at the context and studied the first 35 verses of the chapter which would keep you from misinterpreting this is that one little phrase that Gideon said, “As You have said.”  This indicates that God has already revealed to Gideon what He wants him to do.  The putting out of the fleece isn’t to discover what God wants him to do because he has already been told by God not only by direct revelation but by a theophany of the Angel of Yahweh who had appeared to him and given him instructions.

NKJ Judges 6:37 “look, I shall put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that You will save Israel by my hand, as You have said.”

That is the second time we have seen that phrase.

NKJ Judges 6:38 And it was so. When he rose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece together, he wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowlful of water.

Notice he has twice made the statement “as You have said.”  So what was it that God said?  Turn back earlier in the chapter to verse 11.

NKJ Judges 6:11 Now the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon threshed wheat in the winepress, in order to hide it from the Midianites.

The situation here is that the Israelites continue to disobey God.  They go through these cycles of disobedience and then divine discipline.  Finally they get so miserable from the divine discipline of foreign conquers coming in and stealing all of their produce and all of their goods.  They finally turn to God and cry out to God to send them a deliverer.   They have cried out for a deliver. God sent them a prophet back in verse 8 to remind them of what the issues are. 

They need to obey God’s voice which they have not done.  Nevertheless, despite the fact, they continue their compromise to live in moral relativism which is the theme of the book of Judges that everyone did what was right in their own eyes.  How contemporary.

If you haven’t listened to the Judges series (Let me give a little commercial here.), you need to go listen to the Judges series.  I still think it is one of the most important books that need to be studied in this day age because it is all about moral relativism and what happens to a culture that gets into moral relativism and spiritual relativism and goes into cultural decline.  It is a tremendous book for a lot of implications for politics, for leadership, for what happens in local churches.  I encourage you to listen to that series if you haven’t listened to it.

God is going to be gracious despite the fact that they have not turned to Him.  They have just cried out for deliverance sort of like a spanked child who is sorry that he got caught but not sorry that he did it.  They are ready to turn to God only because they are tired of getting run over by the Midianites at every harvest.

This was a small clan in the tribe of Benjamin.

NKJ Judges 6:12 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him, and said to him, “The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor!”

Now the picture is that the Midianite confederacy keeps sweeping in every harvest and stealing everything.  So here you have Gideon who is hiding out in the wine press to see if he can thresh out a few things.   He is not the picture of a valiant warrior.  He is the picture of a coward who isn’t trusting God who is hiding out hoping that he can get away with keeping a little bit of his produce instead of losing it to the enemy.

NKJ Judges 6:13 Gideon said to Him, “O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the LORD has forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.”

He is the skeptic. If God is really there, why isn’t He delivering us like He did back at the Exodus? Why isn’t He giving us victory over the enemy like He did with Joshua at Jericho and later at Ai and defeating all of these other enemies?  If there really is a God, why isn’t He protecting us any more?  That is his question.  He is not the picture of faith.  I will come back to that in a minute because there is tremendous encouragement for us in all of this.  He is complaining about the fact that God doesn’t care anymore.

NKJ Judges 6:14 Then the LORD turned to him and said, “Go in this might of yours, and you shall save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have I not sent you?”

The first rule in Bible study is observation.  What you should observe at this point is that the personage who has been talking to Gideon up to this point has been referred to as the Angel of Yahweh.  Now the person is referred to as Yahweh.  This is one of the strongest passages to show that the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is not an angel but is identified as Yahweh.  Since he has seen the angel of the Lord and John 1 says that no one has seen God at any time, we put two and two together and realize that the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ.  So the Lord Jesus Christ appeared here.

NKJ Judges 6:15 So he said to Him, “O my Lord, how can I save Israel? Indeed my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”

“I am from the smallest clan.  I am from the smallest family.  You can get all of my cousins together and we don’t even fill up a room.”

NKJ Judges 6:16 And the LORD said to him, “Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat the Midianites as one man.”

This is a promise from God to Gideon.  He is giving him personal direction.  We call this special revelation.  This is a form of special revelation called a theophany.  There are different kinds of special revelation in the Old Testament.  Sometimes God spoke audibly.  Sometimes He appeared in dreams or visions. Sometimes He appeared as He did here as the Angel of the Lord in a theophany.  So He gives specific direction to Gideon and then tells him what to do.

So He says, “Okay the first thing you have to do if you are going to deliver Israel and part of the problem is their moral compromise, you have to deal with the moral compromise in your own family and you have to sanctify your own household.  Your father’s got a huge altar that he has built to Baal and you have to destroy that.”

It is comparable to confession of sin and sanctification.  In other words, you have to clean up the mess that is going on in your own family first; then we will take you to the next level.  The point that I want to make here in terms of knowing the will of God is that God has made it very clear, hasn’t He?  God has chosen Gideon for this particular task.  It is not a task that he wanted.  It’s one that he wants to avoid. 

So when he starts putting out the fleece to set up these circumstances he says, “God if you really want me to do this then let’s create a set of circumstances that are somewhat difficult to perform and if that happens then I will know that it is Your will.”

He is not even trying to get confirmation of God’s will.  He is trying to come up with impossibility so that he can avoid God’s will.   He doesn’t really believe that this can happen.  So he sets out the fleece here and the first thing is there will be dew on the fleece but the ground around it will be dry.  After that happens he thinks, “Well maybe that was pretty simple to do.  Now we are going to reverse it.  I am going to put the fleece out.  If the fleece is dry and the ground is wet….”

He can’t figure out how that could happen.  You have probably done this if you have been a Christian more than a couple of years.  You know God wants you to do something and you want to avoid it.

You think, “Give me a sign.”

What are you asking for?  You are asking for special revelation.  Special revelation ceased with the closing of the canon.  God has given us all the information we need in order to perform His will.  We don’t need anything else.  It is sufficient.  That is what sufficient means – it’s enough.

So Gideon is not an example of how to know God’s will at least in the episode of the fleece.  He is an example in that he is given specific direction by God as to what to do and later as he goes into battle against the Midianites, God is going to give him as he did earlier with  Joshua, specific strategy as to how to defeat the enemy.   It is not a strategy that you would find in Sun Tzu or Clausovitz or any book on military strategy.   It is let’s get down to the fewest number possible - down to 300 going against 135,000.  It started with 30,000.  God whittled them down to 300.

He said, “Now we are going to demonstrate that victory is the Lord’s.”

So in the process he learns something about doing God’s work God’s way.  It is not according to presuppositions of human reason or empiricism.  It is according to the basis of divine revelation.  Gideon (at least putting out the fleece)is not an example of how to test the waters, cast lots, or draw straws or any of the other things that people do to say, “If God really wants me to do this then this will happen.”

What we are supposed to do is to be obedient to the special revelation that God has given.

The other person that people go to when they are going to preach on knowing God’s will is Jonah.  You knew we would get there eventually.  Now Jonah is not a book that is written to tell people how to know the will of God.  It is definitely a book that gives us information on how to know God’s will.  We know it because God gives specific revelation once again.  Direct revelation comes from God to Jonah.  

NKJ Jonah 1:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,

NKJ Jonah 1:2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.”

God has a specific geographical direction for Jonah at this time.  There are times in our lives when God does want us in a specific place at a specific time.  God will get us there.  That is the lesson from Jonah.  No matter how much Jonah wants to avoid the assignment of going where God wants him to be, he ends up being exactly where God wants him to be geographically.

The principle from that is that when you as a believer are positive to the Lord, walking by the Spirit, making a tough decision in life whether to work for this company and go to Dallas or that company and go to Austin or some other company and go to Cambridge, Massachusetts. You have to work through a decision making process and you are thinking, “Where is the place God really wants me?”  If God for some reason has a geographical plan for you and wants you in Cambridge, Massachusetts and you chose to go to Dallas because you don’t know how you can live up there among the heathen Yankees, then guess what is going to happen?  God will so superintend the circumstances that that door will shut down in Dallas.  The opportunity will still be there for you to go to Massachusetts.  That is how God works.  If you are doing all the right things in the decision making process and God truly does want you in one specific place then you can’t avoid it.  God will get you there.  He is not going write it out in handwriting across the sky.  You are not going to be able to go out to your favorite restaurant and buy a piece of chocolate cake and hope that it is written in the icing on the chocolate cake and give you the answer.  God will make sure that as you go through the process if He truly wants you someplace then the other options will shut down and you will end up in that particular location, in that particular place.  That is what happens with Jonah.

We are all pretty much familiar with this story.  God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh.  He gives him a specific responsibility to go to Nineveh.  Jonah knowing the will of God wants to do the opposite.

NKJ Jonah 1:3 But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

If you don’t have a good map in your mind of the ancient world, Nineveh was to the east of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.  Nineveh was about 500 miles to the east.  Tarshish is 1000-1500 miles due west.  He wanted to go as far and as fast as he could to get away from the direction God wanted him to go.

What doctrine does that bring to mind?  Omnipresence.  David said it in the psalm.

NKJ Psalm 139:8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.

You can’t get away from the presence of God.  Therefore you can’t avoid God’s specific will for your life if there is a specific will for your life in a specific decision.  God will make sure that it is brought about.

He does that with Jonah.  He works out the circumstances so that there is a storm.  Jonah gets thrown over the side of the boat. There is a large fish, not a whale.  Whales don’t have throats large enough to swallow a human.  You need to know that.  But there are a number of large fish that can and have swallowed human whole.  There have been examples of whalers who have fallen overboard and been swallowed by different types of fish then a day or two later they will find the fish, cut it open, and they come out.

The interesting thing is that in the two or three instances when this has occurred, the stomach acids have had an interesting effect on the individual.  They are bleached white.  Their hair is bleached white.  They look like a walking ghost.  They will scare the devil out of you.  You can just imagine what Jonah looked like after three days in the belly of the fish where the stomach acids have bleached him as white as he could be.  He comes walking into the streets of Nineveh announcing that God is about to bring judgment on the city of Nineveh.

So you see God multitasks.  Not only did He have a good way to transport Jonah back from the middle of the Mediterranean back to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, at the same time he was creating a scenario where people would want to pay attention.  It was an attention grabber for Jonah.  God is the original multitasker.

As a third example of knowing the will of God we have seen in our study of Genesis Abraham.  Abraham is living his life according to whatever revelation God has given him.  And he is worshipping the Lord down in Ur of the Chaldeans.  Then God appears to him and gives him direction.  Now we are going to get there in a couple of weeks but I finally circled and highlighted this verse because I kept running across it but I never could find it when I needed it.  Whenever we study the life of Abraham and his background in Ur of the Chaldeans, everybody goes over to the verse in Joshua that talks about the fact that Abraham came out from his ancestors who were moon worshippers.  Everyone gets the idea that Abraham comes out of this family and they are all pagan except for him.  So how did he come to know the truth?  They were moon worshippers but they were worshipping a bunch of different gods including the true God.

NKJ Genesis 31:53 “The God of Abraham, the God of Nahor, and the God of their father judge between us.” And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.

Laban is talking to Jacob.  They are creating a covenant.  This is the end of the chapter that we are about to start in the next couple of weeks. 

Nahor is Abraham’s father and Laban’s grandfather.

The god of their father was Tirah.

This is a clear indication that Abraham’s father and his family may have come out of an environment of moon worshippers and astrologers caught up in the Chaldean pantheon which is associated with the stars but they also knew who the God of the Bible was and they worshipped Him.  So he doesn’t come out of the pure pagan background that nearly everybody mentions.  When I first started studying Abraham I had read through this and noted this verse.  In commentary after commentary, people ignore that verse or they are not aware of its presence.  It has a tremendous impact.

So here is Abraham. He is living for 60 or 70 years in Ur of the Chaldeans and then one day God says, “Now I have a specific plan for your life.  I haven’t had a specific plan up to now.  You lived in Ur.  You could have lived wherever you wanted to.  Now I have a specific plan for your life and I want you to get out of your country, I want you to leave your family and go to a land that I am going to show you.  You don’t know where you are going, but you have to trust Me.”

Abraham as we have seen in our study did not fully obey God.  God’s will was “leave your family and let’s go.”  He didn’t leave his father.  He took his father and his nephew Lot with him.  They headed out to Haran.  They got to Aram.  They half way to the Promised Land and stopped for about 15 years before they moved on. So God inHhis permissive will allowed Abraham to be what?  Partially obedient.  It also meant that it was going to postpone the time of blessing in Abraham’s life.  When we are in carnality and we are violating the moral and revealed will of God, it slows down the process.  So Abraham is an example of God’s directive will.  We see the same thing occurring in our passage in Genesis 31.

Going back to Genesis 28 Jacob is leaving the land and God appeared to him.  Again it is a theophany.  He sees this ladder or stairway that goes to heaven and the angels ascending and descending.  God tells him that wherever he goes He will be with him.  The implication there is that wherever you go not as long as you go to my specific places. God doesn’t specify where he is supposed to go it is just that wherever he goes God will be with him.  When the time comes for Jacob to return to the land in chapter 31, God is going to appear to him in Genesis 31:3.

NKJ Genesis 31:3 Then the LORD said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your family, and I will be with you.”

It is a direct correlation to what He said in Genesis 28 at Bethel when Jacob was on his way out of the land. God has protected him.  He has provided him.  He has blessed him wherever he went.  Now it is time to go home.  When it was time to leave and when it was time to come home he knew it because there was special revelation.  How did he know God’s will for his life?  God gave him special revelation.  Special revelation isn’t going on today so we can’t follow that as an example.  Those are some Old Testament examples.

Let’s turn to some New Testament examples.  Turn to Acts 10.

This is a famous story in the midst of the transition from a Jewish oriented early church to a Gentile early church.  Acts 10 marks that transition.  Peter up to this point has been the predominant apostle.  He is the leader of the apostles.  The church is centered in Jerusalem and 95% of the believers are Jews.  But now there is going to be a shift. It is foreshadowed by the fact that the apostle to the Gentiles is saved in the previous chapter.

The first 7 or 8 chapters focus on Peter.  Then Paul comes in and you have a transition period where you hear about Peter then Paul the Peter then Paul then Peter.  Then it is Paul from there on out.  So God is going to give direction to Peter to take the gospel to Gentiles.  We see Peter here as a uptight somewhat racist Jew who doesn’t want to go even into a Gentile home because he is afraid he will get out of fellowship.  He will eat the wrong thing or touch the wrong thing.  He is still thinking in terms of Old Testament Mosaic law.  He is still thinking in terms of all of the laws of cleanness and uncleanness.  So God gives him a vision.  It is another form of special revelation.

He saw heaven open up.  He falls into a trance in verse 10.

NKJ Acts 10:11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.

NKJ Acts 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.

NKJ Acts 10:13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

Let’s get the background here.  We don’t understand what is going on.  In the Mosaic Law and dietary laws it was prohibited for Jews to eat certain kinds of animals for food.  They couldn’t eat wild animals.  They couldn’t eat birds, certain kinds of bird.  They couldn’t eat pork.  And of course they couldn’t eat crawfish or any kind of crustacean because they are scavengers.

Every time I talk on this we have to have a little side bar.  You will be always run into somebody who is going to promote a diet that is a biblical diet.  You will be sanctified and holy in your eating habits even more so because this is from the Bible.  All of a sudden the tone gets somber.  They go back to the Mosaic Law as if the Mosaic Law and the dietary laws had anything at all to do diet or anything to do with nutrition.  Here is why you know it didn’t have anything to do with nutrition.  It didn’t have to do with the fact that they didn’t know how to cook pork so they wouldn’t get trichinosis.  It didn’t have anything to do with not cooking shrimp or crawfish or anything well enough.  It had to do with the fact that God used the dietary laws and all of the cleanness and unclean laws in the Old Testament to reinforce the fact that visually as training aids that whenever you were involved or touched or participated in anything that was directly related to anything in the Genesis 3 judgment of sin, then you were ceremonially unclean.  There had to be a sacrifice.  In other words if you touched a dead body, (There is nothing immoral or unhealthy or sinful in touching a dead body.  I am sure they had morticians and they had to do that.) you were ceremonially unclean.  If you were the equivalent of the ambulance drivers that came to pick up someone who died of a heart attack, you are going to be touching a dead body.  You would be ceremonially unclean for a period of 7 days, then you would have to bring the proper sacrifices into the temple.  But that’s not sin.  It is picture that when a human being is involved in any of these things that sin separates from God.   This is a visual image that these things that are related to sin related to death.  For example, if a woman gave birth she is ceremonially unclean for a week.  Why?  It is because it was part of the penalty for sin was that the woman would experience increased labor and pain in giving birth.  All of these different things had something to do with the curse of Genesis 3 and its working its way out in history.  Most of these animals that we are talking about whether they are pigs, jackals, crawfish, catfish, these things are scavengers.  They eat dead things.  So the Jews were prohibited from eating them or touching them.

But now they are on a tablecloth.  A beautiful heavenly sheet or tablecloth comes down from heaven with all of these unclean animals on there.  Peter is told that it is God’s will for him to eat all of this.

Unlike Jews today who usually can’t wait to go down and have pork chops and bacon as soon as they get saved, Peter was very hesitant about this.

He says, “No, Lord.  I have never let anything unclean touch my lips and I’m not going to do it now.”

God had to repeat Himself a couple of times (3 times) before Peter was willing to rise up, kill, and eat.  I think it is interesting that he had to rise, kill and eat.  It would make the PETA crowd very upset because all he had probably was a dull knife.  It’s not the easiest thing to do.  So that’s special revelation.  It doesn’t have anything to do with health code.  God doesn’t say that when you kill the pig and start cutting up the pork chops you have got to get that meat to 180 degrees to make sure you kill those trichinosis bacteria.  He doesn’t say anything about making sure that when you are frying the catfish that you make sure the oil is at a certain temperature or that you clean the catfish a certain way.  There is no introduction of any new data in the history of mankind at this point related to bacteria, health or nutrition.

NKJ Acts 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

It is at this instant in history that man knows that all of these things that have been unclean are now clean.  Nutritionists may come up with all kinds of correlations and they do that.  But let me tell you, don’t ever do it because it is biblical because that is not why God did it.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with diet.  It had to do with theology and only theology.  It was a visual aid in understanding the impact of sin on mankind.

After this, Peter was given one form of revelation.  He is wondering within himself what the vision which he had seen meant.

NKJ Acts 10:17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate.

Cornelius had been introduced earlier.  He was a Gentile soldier, a centurion that was a god worshipper.  He is on positive volition and he wants to know God so God is going to take Peter to him to explain the plan of salvation that Jesus has died for his sins.  So when the Gentiles coming looking for him Peter is thinking about the vision.

NKJ Acts 10:19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you.

This is once again special revelation.  Notice the specificity.

NKJ Acts 10:20 “Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.”

I think it is interesting to note here that when you do have dreams and visions all throughout the Old Testament, the individual is not left to try to figure out what the dream or the vision means.  It’s not like you have been out contemplating your navel or like the American Comanche Indian mystics would do – take a peyote button and chew on it until they hallucinated and then they would see all of these different spirit animals and power animals appear.   Then they would come out and interpret the dream as to what it meant.  This isn’t what is going on.  God always in these situations always explains what the dream or the vision means.  God doesn’t leave us out there to guess at what the symbols mean.

So he has the vision of the tablecloth coming down.   He is not left on his own to interpret what it means.  God speaks and gives the interpretation to him.  The significance of it is that you can no longer make a distinction between Jew and gentile.  You can go to a gentile home and eat and have fellowship with them and you don’t have to worry about what they are putting on the table anymore because you’re not under the Mosaic Law anymore.  So the Holy Spirit gives him specific direction.

Another example is in Acts 13.

NKJ Acts 13:1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

NKJ Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Once again it is special revelation and it was something that was heard by all of them.  It is not a voice that is heard within the head of one of them.  It was heard by all of them.  They knew what God’s specific will was.

NKJ Acts 13:3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

It was the beginning of the first missionary trip.

Now one other example that I want to go to is in Acts 15.  This is at the Jerusalem Council.  This was the first ecclesiastical gathering of church leaders to try to resolve a doctrinal issue.  The issue here flows out of what we first saw in Acts 10 with Peter.  These gentiles are trusting in Christ by the truckload.

“What do we need to require of them in order to be saved?  Do they need come in under the Mosaic Law?  Do they need to be circumcised?  Do they have to follow dietary laws? What are we supposed to do?”

So they all came together.

NKJ Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

These are apostles.  They are not getting together and praying to the Holy Sprit and saying, “Speak to me and tell me what to do here.”   They are coming together and they are going to look at the Scriptures and are going to discuss what Jesus taught and then they are going to make a wise decision based upon the doctrine that they already have.   There is no direct revelation anywhere in this passage.  There is no special revelation.

NKJ Acts 15:7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

They are arguing with each other.  One stands up and says one thing; another stands up and says something else.  Finally Peter stood up and talks about what happened to him when he went to see Cornelius and everything that transpired there.  Then after they listened to Peter, then they were all silent.

NKJ Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

They listened to Paul and Barnabas talk about how many gentiles were coming to Christ as a result of their ministry.

Then James spoke and sort of summarizes everything.

NKJ Acts 15:13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me:

Then they come to a conclusion.  They have heard all of the arguments and come to a conclusion.  Notice the Holy Spirit doesn’t speak to them.  God doesn’t appear to them.  They don’t have inspiration.  We don’t get the moving of the Holy Sprit.  We don’t have the act of inspiration.  What do we have? 

NKJ Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

Watch the verbiage there.

They made a decision on what they thought was the best course of action in light of the data.

They reached a conclusion here.  Their conclusion was that back in verses 19 and 20 that they wouldn’t require the gentiles to come in under the Mosaic Law.   All they would tell them was to abstain from things polluted by idols and abstain from sexual immorality and from things strangled and from blood. 

All of this goes back to what?  Pretty much the Noahic Covenant, not the Mosaic Law or the Abrahamic Covenant, but to the Noahic covenant where you are prohibited from eating or drinking blood and of course from idolatry.  Sexual immorality had always been wrong.  So they made a decision.

Now how do we broadcast this?  Okay, let’s make a decision.  So they send Paul and Barnabas and a couple of others back to Antioch to communicate the decision to them. 

Then in verse 24-25 they express in this letter what their decision is.

NKJ Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” -- to whom we gave no such commandment –

Some troublemakers tried to enforce circumcision.

NKJ Acts 15:25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

You ought to underline that phrase “It seemed good to us”.  That is how they reached the decision.  They evaluated all of the data and said, “It seemed good to us in light of what we know from Scripture and what Jesus taught.  We have come to this doctrinal conclusion.”

No special revelation was involved.

Then in verse 28 we read.

NKJ Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

They are not getting any special revelation.  The reference there to the Holy Spirit is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been working not overtly but covertly behind the scenes in and through their decision making process to bring them to this conclusion as they were in fellowship.  It is not a decision that is reached through special revelation or some sort of liver quiver or an inner vibration or anything like that.  This becomes the paradigm for how decision making is going to occur once the canon is closed and the apostles are off the scene and all we have is the completed canon of Scripture.  When we have decisions to make in life what we do is make sure that we are in fellowship, we focus on the Word, we put together all of the issues, we search the Scriptures to see what God has revealed with regard to this particular type of decision in our lives and the we make a decision that will provide for the very best for us within that context remembering that the greatest priority is not how good a decision looks on a resume, how good that man or woman looks, how much entertainment or how much activity there is in that particular city.

I always thought that God was calling me to somewhere like Gunnison, Colorado where I back packing and hiking and skiing.  But God had other plans.

So you make decisions based on your spiritual life, where you are going to be fed the Word the best. and where you are going to be involved in the ministry the best and where you are going to able to grow to spiritual maturity.

We will come back next time and wrap up our study on how to know God’s will and how God’s will was made manifest in Jacob’s life.

Wisdom and Decision Making Part 3. Genesis 31

Gen. 128b 

NKJ Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

We have been covering divine guidance, decision making, and the knowing the will of God for two weeks.  So far I have developed 9 points.  If you don’t have those first 9 points, that’s okay.   You can get the DVD or the tape and you can pick up on them. The ninth point is pretty much what we covered last week.  That was examples from the Old Testament and some from the New Testament on how decision making was done.  We looked at the example of Gideon as someone who was told what the will of God was when an angel of the Lord appeared to him and gave him specific direction as to what he should do. Then he goes through the episode of putting out the fleece.  That wasn’t to find out what God wanted him to do.  It was to try to trip God up so he could avoid doing what God told him to do.

Then we had the example of Jonah - again, another negative example.  Jonah heard what God wanted him to do.   God specifically told him to go to Nineveh.  He decided that he wanted to exercise his volition to go in the opposite direction.  So he took off and headed west instead of east and God prepared a special aquatic taxi for him to bring him back to the right location.  He had to put a little pressure on him to get his will in the right direction.  You see God doesn’t manipulate the will.  He just knows where the pressure points are that get us to respond freely to His motivation.   Either that or I guess he would have spent the rest of whatever few days he had in the belly of the fish.  Then we looked at some examples in Abraham.

We looked at some examples in the New Testament, in Acts 15 specifically, that we will come back to again tonight.  That is such a crucial paradigm in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council.  Here you have the apostles gathered together to make a crucial decision in relationship to whatever mandates were going to be placed upon the Gentiles that were now coming into the church. We lose sight of what a radical thing this was for these people.   You have the 12 Jewish apostles now because the Apostle Paul has joined their ranks.  You also have Barnabas and a few other church leaders and pastors and they all gather together to deal with this doctrinal issue that they have never had to wrestle with before because up to this point whatever organization of believers that they were familiar with had always just included Jews.  God has been working through Jews all through the Old Testament since the call of Abraham.  Now there is this new organism that has come into being known as the church.  It has been obvious to them since Acts 10 when God revealed the vision to Peter to take the gospel to the gentile Roman centurion Cornelius and to give him the gospel that the gentiles were coming into the church on equal footing with the Jews.  That had never happened before.  So now these leaders of the church have to make decisions.

“What do we do?  Do they need to be circumcised?  Do they need to follow any of the Mosaic Law?  What requirements should we place upon these Gentiles?”

Paul will later call them in Romans 11 “these wild olive branches”.

“What are we going to do with them?”

So they had to make some momentous decisions.  You would think that a decision that is that important, that is that crucial is a decision that they go to prayer and wait for God the Holy Spirit to reveal His will to them.  But that is not how it works.  It is not an overt revelation from the Holy Spirit that takes place in Acts 15.  We looked at the way it is described in the Scripture that they argued all day back and forth.  They weighed the issues.  They talked about what the Scriptures taught in the Old Testament.  They talked about what had been revealed to Peter.  Peter reviewed the revelation that God had given him in Acts 10 and what had transpired with the household of Cornelius.  They go back through all this doctrine and look at the pros and cons and weigh out the different sides and then they came to a conclusion.  They expressed that in the verbiage, “It seemed good to us”.  In other words, once they laid out the parameters of doctrine, then they realized where that was leading them in terms of the kind of decision that they should make.  They didn’t need to require circumcision.   They would have said that circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.  They aren’t under Abraham so they didn’t need to require that.  But there are some other problems here.  Coming from a Gentile background and a pagan background, they had some other issues that were related to some things in the Noahic Covenant which of course was for all of mankind and so they wanted to make sure that they stayed away from eating meat that was sacrificed to the idols of the temple and that they stayed away from sexual immorality.  It was that encouragement.  It is a conclusion that is reached from looking at doctrine.

So I pointed out last time that this is what we call a wisdom approach to decision making in contrast to what is often presented as the way to learn God’s will - the idea that God always has a specific thing for you to do, a specific place for you to be, and a specific job for you to have that you need to be living in the center of God’s will.

That view is diagrammed in a chart.  There is a circle that defines the parameters of God’s will.  If you really want that blessing, that happiness and want to make sure that your decisions don’t fall apart on you, then you have to live in the center of God’s will. So there is a tremendous amount of soul searching that goes on in this process.  If you bought into this view of decision making; then you sit around and spend a lot of time in prayer, contemplating your naval and waiting somehow for God the Holy Spirit to move you in terms of some kind of vibration or some kind of inner peace or however it is expressed.  Let me tell you that evangelicals have gotten good in expressing this in ways so it doesn’t sound as egregious as it really is because what they are doing is waiting for some kind of special revelation to occur. We live in an age when there is no special revelation.   God has been silent since the close of the canon in 95 AD.  There is no more special revelation.  That is not something that is unique in history.  Malachi was the last prophet and that closed out the Old Testament canon.  God was silent.

There is a great book by Sir Robert Anderson who wrote a classic work on the coming prince that had to do with Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9.  A little known work that he produced was one called “The Silence of God” in which he showed that once God finished His purpose in providing revelation, He is silent.  It focuses primarily on the period of silence from God that occurred from 420-430 BC when Malachi wrote up to that revelation by an angel to Zacharias that his wife Elizabeth was going to have a child.  That preceded the announcement to Mary and the announcement to Joseph.  That was the first time there was any special revelation for a period of about 400 years.  God was silent.

There is a reason that God was silent.  He had given the information.  It is now the opportunity for believers to utilize that information, to learn that information, to meditate on what God has revealed, and take that and apply that to whatever circumstances, situation, decision making that is present in their lives  That is what God wants us to do.  It is to know that Word and to take it and extrapolate principles from it to apply to our lives, to think about it and to be engaged intellectually with His revelation so that we can then make decisions.  What we want to do in intellectual laziness is let God make the decision for us.  Then when things go sour, well it is just God’s will.  What did you just do?  You blamed God for your lousy decision.  You don’t want to accept the responsibility for making a bad decision if indeed it was a bad decision.  

But on the other hand we have to recognize that God often allows us and it is often actively God’s will for us to go a certain course and the consequences are not going to be what we would hope them to be.   It may be God’s will for you to take a certain job.  Every door closes.  There is no other alternative.  You lose your job here or whatever they are going to offer you, you know that it is not what you want to do.  Yet another job opens at another company or another job opens up in another city or another state.  You know that there is nothing else you can do so you go that direction.  You pray about it.  You seek counsel from friends.  You go through the whole process of sound decision making.  It’s a good decision.  Then a year later you lose your job.  You are stuck half way across the country from your family and friends and the church where you grew up.  You don’t have a job.  You see that it was God’s plan.  That’s the test.  We often evaluate decisions on the basis of what happens later on.

We think, “Well, if it doesn’t work out or there is a problem or things fall apart; then I must have missed God’s will.  I am not in the center of God’s will.”

I remember when I was going through the process of making the decision as to whether or not to move back to Houston from Connecticut and come down here and pastor this church.  I had gone through process of looking at the clear mandates of Scripture related to various responsibilities.  For example, I felt very strongly about my responsibility to be close at hand because of family responsibilities not only for my family but also for my in-laws.  They are getting older and have health problems.  It is very difficult when you are 2,000 miles away to deal with that.  That last year before I came down here I think I made 15 trips to Houston.  So you begin to weigh all of these different factors. I am going through the pros and cons and just what is a wise decision here.  I discussed it a lot with my good friend Jim Myers and we would go through the pros and cons.  I laid out my case.

He said, “What you have to remember is that you have made the decision from the right motivation for the right purpose.  You have worked through all the factors and even if you go down there and things don’t work out, it’s a good decision.”

See people often have problems with that because we think of good decisions as one that produces prosperity and greater apparent stability in our lives and those kinds of things rather than the fact that God may be testing our whole decision making process.  We passed the test.  We made the decision according to all the right canons of decision making.  We pray about it.  We put it in the Lord’s hands.  We take counsel from mature believers. We take into account every factor that is possible that we can possibly learn. Then things go sour.   It doesn’t mean that it’s a bad decision.  It has put us in the next place God wanted us to be in order to give us a further test.  We have to recognize that God is not there to be a magic genie to take the place of our personal decisions and responsibilities so that we can make easy decisions and not have to go through those tests.   The decision making process is as much part of the test as anything else.  Are we going to learn to sift through the Word, to meditate on the Word, and to pray to be in an attitude of dependence upon God and His direction in our lives?  Or, are we going to sit back and hope that somehow God is going to short circuit the thought process and give us the answer?  Too often that is what happens.  We looked at this in terms of the problem that is often presented in terms of living in the center of God’s will.  We talked about different kinds of will that theologians talk about.  God’s sovereign will includes everything that He has decreed that will take place in history. This does not absolve man of human responsibility.  We don’t know what those decisions are.   God’s sovereignty clearly includes the free exercise of volition on the part of His creatures.  It is not a fatalistic concept that usually comes across in various forms of Calvinism.  God’s sovereign will is unknowable.

Then we have a second category – God’s moral or revealed will.  This includes all of the statutes, the mandates, and the prohibitions that we find in Scripture – all of the imperatives that we find in the Bible. This is what God has revealed that we should do.  And we have looked at a number of those.  That defines the parameter of God’s revealed will.   Sometimes we are living outside of God’s revealed will because we are making bad decisions based on living according to the sin nature.  We are in God’s sovereign will but we are not in God’s moral will.  So when we confess our sins and back in fellowship and basing decisions on God’s Word then we are living in that overlap zone where we are walking by means of the Spirit and we are in fellowship and applying the Word and giving thanks for all things and praying without ceasing and loving one another as Christ love the church and all those different things that define God’s moral will and it is also within God’s sovereign will.   So we are in that shaded area between the two circles.

So there are three things that focus on what we have covered so far.   First of all the specifics of God’s decreed will are secret, unrevealed and unknown.   God hasn’t told us what is going to happen tomorrow.  So when you face the decisions tomorrow you are not being affected by God in any way other than God the Holy Spirit is bringing doctrine to bear in our thinking.  It is our volition – are we going to apply it or not?  Whatever happens is what God has permitted to happen or allowed to a happen.  The only way we can know God’s decreed will is what happens in history. Once it happens, then we know what God’s will was.  We can only know the specifics of God’s moral or revealed will - what He has told us to do, what He has mandated.  So His moral will includes all the precepts, mandates and prohibitions that are in the Scriptures,

Conclusion: Since we can only know the specifics of God’s revealed or moral will before the fact questions about the will of God  - How do I know God’s will?  Should I do this?  Should I do that?  Should I buy this?  Should I buy that?  Should I marry this person or that person?  Should I get married at all or stay single?  These questions which we often bring up – how do I know God’s will - are really questions related to wisdom because they don’t relate to revealed information.

God hasn’t told you that you need to you live in Bellaire and not in Spring Branch.  Of course there are ways that God tells you things like that.  You know when you look at your bank account that it’s not God’s will for you to live over in Bellaire because you can’t afford to pay $500,000 for a lot.  That is one of the ways that God channels us along is what He provides for us in terms of jobs and finances.  That all has to be factored in to the equation that we use to come to a conclusion in decision making.

The idea that I am presenting here is the idea that we are to live in God’s revealed will.  That means that we have to know what that revealed will is.   We have to know the Old Testament.  We have to know the New Testament.  The Old Testament is so often overlooked and untaught.  But the Old Testament gives us the flesh and blood life stories that illustrate the principles that are so clearly expressed in the New Testament.  When you bring the two together, then you can look at the Old Testament and gain a greater understanding of how the doctrine is applied in different circumstances and different situations.

So the circle describes all of the parameters of God’s revealed will - the prohibitions, the mandates, the encouragement that the Word has that we should do certain things and not do other things.  As long as we are operating inside the circle then we are in the will of God.  We have to recognize that many decisions have no right or wrong answer.  They don’t take us outside the moral or revealed will of God.   The decision is determined through wisdom and prayer.  What underlies and wraps around the whole decision making process is that promise in Proverbs 3:5-6 that we trust in the Lord with all of our heart and lean not on our own understanding in all our ways acknowledge Him and He will direct our path.  As we look at a circumstance, we evaluate all of the pros and cons in decision making. We commit it to the Lord.  We trust in the Lord and make a decision based on what appears to be the wise course of action.

Where do we get wisdom?  There is the rub. Don’t confuse wisdom with common sense. The common sense that you picked up through your life is a hodgepodge of human viewpoint as well as divine viewpoint.  It is a mixture of old wives’ tales and cultural concepts and your own experience and a little bit of the Word of God thrown in there and popular religious notions.  It is not necessarily the same as divine viewpoint wisdom.

The Jews in the Old Testament understood the importance of wisdom.  When they divided up the Old Testament canon they split it up into three parts.   There was the Torah or the instruction for life.  Torah really doesn’t mean law in the same sense that we think of law.  It includes that, but it is more than that.  The word Torah at its root, core meaning has to do with instruction.  It is the instruction for life. So you have the Torah, the first five books of Moses that are the foundation of the Old Testament.   Then you have another set of books, the prophets – the former prophets and the latter prophets.  They deal with the history of Israel and the application – how the law was applied by God in the outworking of history in Israel in terms of their obedience or disobedience in relation to the blessing and cursing promises in the law.

Then you have another set of Old Testament books that were called the writings.  These were wisdom books because they addressed very practical areas of life.  For example you have two books that deal with the whole issue of undeserved suffering and how you as a believer should respond to undeserved suffering and God’s sovereign role in the background in undeserved suffering.

And you have the book of Ruth which deals with the fact that you start off with Naomi.   She loses her husband and her two sons. She has cursing in her life.  There is judgment.  Her life is miserable.  It is “woe is me”.  At the end of the book Ruth her daughter-in-law now has a new husband Boaz who is the kinsman redeemer.  It is a picture of redemption.  Redemption is what turns cursing into blessing.   At the end of the book Naomi is blessed and she has children that are raised up in her husband’s name through the concept of levirate marriage with Boaz.  You have all of the different generations that come from Ruth and Boaz leading up to David who of course is the great king.  The whole of Ruth is about cursing being turned to blessing.

Job deals with what is going on in terms of the angelic conflict and the background behind suffering.   We often don’t know and will never know why we go through the tests or the crises or the suffering that we go through because our finite minds can’t factor all the data.  We just have to trust God.

Then you have the Psalms.  In many of the psalms you have wisdom psalms that express wisdom in the living of life.   Proverbs and Song of Solomon deal with wisdom in love, sex and marriage.  Then you have Ecclesiastes which points out the failure of human wisdom.

Then you have Daniel.  Daniel is also a wisdom book because it is dealing with how these young Jewish boys who have been trained up as orthodox believers following the Mosaic Law are now living in a pagan culture and they have to learn to apply what they know in a world that is completely encased in paganism.  They are being told to eat different kinds of food and do different things.  They have to learn to apply doctrine.

Wisdom is not common sense.  Wisdom is learning how to take the Word of God and produce something of value, something that is skillful in life, and to produce a life of beauty that glorifies God.

So last time we looked at point 9.  The ninth point was these examples of God’s specific individual will.

10     Knowing God’s will is based on what I call the grace learning spiral.  God the Holy Spirit teaches us doctrine.  Through the doctrine He guides and leads us.  It is never apart from the objective Word of God.  It always through the Word of God.

We have this confusion that I am dealing with on Thursday nights.  This concept is - is the leading of the Holy Spirit the same as divine guidance?  Where we are going to go with that is - no, it’s not.  It is something different.  Yet too often in popular Christianity when we see the words “the leading of the Holy Spirit”, we automatically think of divine guidance.  There have been many theologians and many Bible teachers who have taken that position.  That is why I want to take a lot of time to look at the context that surrounds the two uses of that phrase in Romans 8:14 and Galatians 5:18 to show that neither passage is dealing with divine guidance.  It is talking about the whole methodology, the whole mechanic, the whole procedure of living the Christian life on the basis of the supernatural ministry of God the Holy Spirit in our life which is not divine guidance.  It has to do with the dynamic of the spiritual life and spiritual growth itself.  But what under girds this is understanding this process.

So I have some verses to lay out here and then we will look at a chart.

This circle pictures what is going on in your head, in your mind.  The Greeks called it the nous.  There are a couple of different words that the Greek texts used to describe what is happening inside the thinking part of the soul.  The nous describes the thinking as a whole.  At the core of your thinking the Scripture uses the word cardia.  Cardia is never used in the Scriptures to talk about that thing that is beating in the middle of your chest.  There is not one use in Old Testament or New Testament where it refers to the physical organ that is pumping and circulating blood in our body.  It just isn’t used that way.  Not ever.  If it is never used that way physically or literally in the literature, then when it uses the heart as a metaphor for what is going on in your soul you can’t use it metaphorically to describe something that there is no example of in the Scripture.  If you are going to say that the core issue here has to do with beating and circulation then you have to be able to show that some where that is a concept used in the literature.  It is never used literally that way.

So we have to look and say, “What is the analogy here?  What does the metaphor mean?”

The metaphor is that heart is used in the Old Testament and New Testament to describe fundamentally the core of the soul, what is at the center of your thinking, or what is driving your thinking.  The Scripture talks about the heart as the center.  We use it that way all the time.  We talk about the heart of the matter.  We talk about the hearts of palms.  We use it all the time to refer to the center of something – that which is most significant.  About 90% of the time in the Old Testament the word lebh in the Hebrew refers to thinking, not emotion.  Yet what happens so often today is that people think that heart has to do with emotion.  There are a few places where the word heart has to do with volition in choosing.  There are a couple of places where it is clear that it does have to do with emotion, but in 90-95% of the uses of cardia in the New Testament and lebh in the Old Testament it refers to the thinking part of the soul.  So the heart has to do with what is going on inside your cranium, what is going on inside your head when you are thinking about something and making decisions and applying doctrine in life.  We all make hundreds and hundreds of decisions everyday.

How do we get the Word of God into the center of our thinking?  The pastor teaches and through the ministry of God the Holy Sprit who fills us with doctrine. When we look at Ephesians 5:18, we are commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

NKJ Ephesians 5:18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,

NKJ Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

That is the operation that He is doing.  He is filling us.  But what is He filling us with?  We compare that to Colossians 3:16 and we realize that the results in Colossians 3:17f and the results in Ephesians 5:19f are the same.  So if these two different mandates produce identical results then those two mandates must be related to one another.  The mandate in Ephesians 5:18 is to be filled by means of the Spirit.

The mandate of Colossians 3:16 is to let the word of Christ richly dwell within you. 

So what are you being filled with?  You are being filled with the Word of God, not with more of the Holy Spirit.  It is the idea of taking a pitcher that is filled with some content. If you are talking about getting more of the Spirit - that is people take filling of the Sprit – you are going to get more of the Spirit.  But see you are already indwelt with the Spirit.  You are not going to get any more of the Spirit.  You already have all you are going to get.  But now He is going to operationally fill you up with something.  So you can be filled by means of the pitcher or you can be filled with water.  Water would be content.  The way the Greek expresses the content of the filling is that it usually uses a genitive.  We don’t have a genitive in Ephesians 5:18; we have a dative.  Dative describes what you are using to fill something up with.  So when you get up in the morning, you fill your coffee cup by means of the coffee pot.    The coffee pot is the means getting the coffee into your cup so you can get it into body so you can wake up.  It is means.  It is the instrument.

God uses the Holy Spirit to fill us up with the Word.  We can’t learn the Word apart from the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit doesn’t operate apart from His Word.  They work in tandem.  You can’t separate them.  You don’t have one without the other.  If you learn the Word without the Holy Spirit, you just have a lot of academic knowledge.  There are a lot of people that have a lot of academic knowledge about the Bible and they aren’t even saved.  There is a ten volume work that is often referenced in Greek studies edited by Kittle and it’s called “The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament”.   I would say that probably 70 % of the Greek scholars that wrote articles in there are not saved.  They are 19th century and early 20th century classic liberals.   They don’t believe that Christ died as a substitute for their sins.  They don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but this is their field.   In Europe it is a respected occupation and profession to be a biblical scholar.  So a lot of people go into the field of biblical scholarship and they die without knowing anything about the grace of God.  But, they do some helpful work in places, but you have to be careful.  So the Holy Spirit fills us up with His Word.

As we listen to the pastor we have to exercise our volition just to be there.  That has to be a priority.  Everyday we have to make those decisions.  Is the Word of God going to be a priority today?  Am I going to remind myself that I am a child of God in the family of God and I need to think like God?  So we have to exercise our volition.  As we do that, we learn the Word.  It becomes first of all academic knowledge.

Everything is academic knowledge initially.  You learned algebra.  You learned geometry.  You learned all of these concepts as academic information.  Suddenly one day you had to balance a checkbook and you realized that all of that math had a practical value.  Or you got into mechanical drawing when you were in junior high or high school.  You suddenly realized that geometry had some practical application.  Now all of a sudden it’s not just academic anymore.  It had real meaning and significance.  That’s what happens in the process of learning.

We learned things first as academic knowledge, then when we believe it under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit.

We say, “It’s not just that I can regurgitate what the pastor said.  I really understand and believe.”

You can’t believe what you don’t understand.  There are too many Christians running around who picked up all kinds of phrases and verbiage and jargon from various pastors of all stripes and kinds and they think they know something about the Bible because they use this jargon.  That doesn’t mean that they understand anything.  It just means that they managed to learn the vocabulary.

But once you can express things in your own words, it’s clear that you understand what was said.   There are different levels of understanding.  Every time I go back and study some doctrine that I have studied for years, certain things that I thought I understood…  It is sort of like a light bulb goes off and there is another level of understanding.  So this is progressive.  This is how learning takes place.  We believe it.

“This is the Word of God.  I believe it.”

God the Holy Spirit transfers it into our thought as epignosis [e)pignwsij].   EPI [e)pi] is an intensifier. It is a preposition in Greek.  It is set as a prefix on the word gnosis to indicate it is a full knowledge.  This is placed in the storehouse of the core of our thinking. So now it becomes usable, spiritual knowledge.  The more we learn the more there is this storehouse of doctrine that creates a matrix of knowledge and doctrine that we can draw upon in various different circumstances.  The more you learn; the more you know; the larger the storehouse.  Then when you face various crisis all of a sudden God the Holy Spirit starts pulling these different things out that are stored there. You are able to make a decision, an application.  That is where the concept of the Hebrew word chokmah meaning wisdom or skill comes into play.  It has to do with the application of this knowledge that you have.  Many of us have gone through this.

I don’t know about you, but my mother had me taking piano lessons when I was 8 years old.  I took piano lessons for about 8 years. I could sit down and read music and play the piano.  I could play pretty well.  But there are other people who have much more ability and they would take those foundational principles of music and they could really play.  What they were producing was something that had tremendous beauty, skill and artistry because their level of application went beyond mine. I operated on academic knowledge and a lot of practice.  Practice is key though before you can develop any kind of wisdom.  You have to practice those spiritual skills and application.  As you practice it more and more and it becomes second nature to you in any field of life, then eventually you are proficient at it.  Then you get to the point that you can do something well and produce something of value and something of artistry.  That is what application is when it comes to wisdom.  The more you know in that storehouse of epignosis doctrine in your soul; then when you face issues, crisis, challenges in life then that is what you do.

In light of that, I had an email question this last week related to the application of these things that I have been teaching.  Here is the question - when faced with a choice that has no clear biblical reference (In other words there is not a “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not” related to it.  For example, which house should I buy?  You have found two or three houses.  They are all in your price range.  You can get a loan.  They are all acceptable.  Now you have a decision to make.  How do I decide which one I should buy?)  will God’s will be made clear by the subsequent elimination of all the wrong options.  No.  God is not going to make the decisions for you. 

Now there might be if He has a specific place for you to live, then He will eliminate those other options.  They will fall through.

You’ll make an offer and the seller says, “No way. I have got another offer.”

You may be 5 minutes too late with your offer.  They have already accepted another offer.   Something like that will happen.  We have all experienced something like that.  If God intervenes then you know that He is clearly channeling you in a certain direction.

If not the test is “Okay.  I have to make a responsible decision.  I have to weigh these options.”

This is what you do.  We are all familiar with this.  When we think about how we are going to invest money for retirement.  What stocks are we going to buy?  We go in and we do all of our homework.  What mutual fund should we put it in?  The way we go about it is not to sit in the closet and pray and meditate and wait for liver quiver to take place.  We have to investigate all of the options and learn as much as we can so that we make a wise and informed decision.  What envelops the whole decision making process is that we commit it to the Lord in prayer and we trust the Lord and we do the best we can and make a decision and go forward trusting that God will direct our paths in the process of decision making.

So there are many areas of life where God may not have a specific will.   Whether you live in Bellaire, in Memorial, in River Oaks, in Katy, in Sugar Land, or in Jersey Village - as long as the decision that you are making is done on the basis of sound responsible decision making related to finances it is a good decision.

You may decide, “I could live in Bellaire, but I am going to live out in Sugar Land and I want to use the extra money to support the missions, to support a missionary, to support Chafer Seminary, or to support the church.”

“I want to live in this area because it is closer to church and therefore I am not going to have the problem of traffic and all of these other things.”

Different factors will enter in.  That is not saying that it is wrong to live 30 minutes away instead of 5 minutes away or that it is wrong to utilize the financial resources that God has given to put into a house that is nicer or larger.

You could say, “It is more than I need but I can use the extra space so that when missionaries come in or we have a pastor’s conference I would have a place to put people up.  I could use this for hospitality.”

You make the decision based on the doctrine in your soul, then commit it to the Lord and go forward.  There may not be any center of God’s will in that issue.  There is no specific thing there.  If there is, then God will close the doors.  If there’s not then go ahead and make the best decision based on the information that you have in your soul.

The basic issue that under girds all of this is that we need to utilize the doctrine that God has provided for us.

NKJ Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

More and more I realize what a central verse this is for everything in the Christian life.  It doesn’t say to transform your emotions.  It says to transform you mind.  You have to think about it.

I started developing an analogy a few weeks ago about culture.  As I thought more about this, I realized that we have shifted cultures.  The instant you were saved you shifted your culture.  You were living.  You were born and you have been living in a human viewpoint pagan culture.  You have been born again into the royal family of God and you have been transported into an eternal divine viewpoint culture.  What Paul keeps telling people is that you keep living like you are still in the old culture and you have to learn a whole new set of norms and standards and values and thinking within the framework of this new culture.  It would be as if you were suddenly transported from Houston, Texas and dropped down in a village of 300 people in some northwestern province of China and you weren’t ever going to see another American or English speaking person again for the rest of your life.   You would have to learn a whole new language, all new customs, all new sets of etiquette.  You would have to learn different skills for work – everything.  The better and more time you gave to it and the more you concentrated on it, the better it would be.

If you sat there and said, “You know I am living over here in some backwater village in China but I want to do things like I did back in America.”, what is going to happen?  You will have all kinds of turmoil in your life. That is what happens with Christians.  We resist learning to think in terms of this new divine viewpoint culture.   It is a major overhaul of everything in our lives.  That is what Romans 12:2 is talking about.   So the key issue is to have our thinking renewed.  That happens according to a process outlined in the grace learning spiral.

NKJ Ephesians 5:17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

What is the next verse?

NKJ Ephesians 5:18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,

So that is how we understand the will of the Lord -  through the study of the Word and the right relationship to the Holy Spirit.  He makes it clear to us and we go through that process.

NKJ Ephesians 6:6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

This is talking about the work ethic of believers.  Even if you are working for some no good rotten irresponsible boss employer who is operating on some form of paganism and even though there is a lot of conflict and even though he may not be as competent as you are, we don’t ultimately work for whoever that human boss is.  Whatever you are doing, you are working for the Lord in that job.  This gives you a doctrine of labor that you can apply to whatever your job or career or profession is.  You ultimately think of going to work everyday, not for yourself; but you’re serving the Lord in that particular role.  That is God’s will for your life. 

NKJ Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;

NKJ Proverbs 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.

It is talking not about generating some sort of emotion here.  It is talking about trusting believing that God is involved in my life and in my decision making so that He is working covertly.  Come back to the analogy I used a couple of weeks ago.  It is like the ministry of the Holy Spirit in your life and my life is analogous to a program on a computer that is running in the background.  You have got this running in the background.  It is doing certain things.  For example like some of the virus protection devices running in the background and constantly checking things.  You don’t see it.  You don’t observe it.  You are doing other things, but it’s there in the background always guarding and protecting. That is what the Holy Spirit is doing.  It is not an overt thing so you are talking to the Holy Spirit.  You are not waiting for the Holy Spirit to give you vibrations or move you in a particular direction.  You know that if you are in right relation to the Holy Spirit that Holy Spirit program is running in the background and is taking care of things in an indirect manner.

If you decide to go to Dallas instead of Denver, and God wants you to go to Denver He will straighten that path out.  Dallas will disappear and Denver will be the only option.

NKJ Psalm 32:8 I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye.

This is direct revelation.  It is through the Word of God. All of that relates the importance of the process of the grace learning spiral where doctrine becomes the foundation in the soul.

11.     As we learn doctrine, the Holy Spirit operates in this covert manner like a program on a computer running in the background. He does two things.  The first is retention. He is the one who is taking that doctrine and storing it in your soul.  You may forget things consciously.  But then something comes up and you hit some situation all of a sudden some verse or some principle pops up into your head.  That is the Holy Sprit who is bringing that up so that you are reminded of principles to make a decision.  He brings it to your thinking in recall.  It is you decision to apply doctrine here or just do things your own way.  The Holy Spirit the divine retrieval agent who constantly reminds us of the truth and application.

12.     Along with specific doctrine for specific situation, there is also the accumulation of doctrine in the soul which produces skill as a result of practice.  It is practice, practice, practice. Practice doesn’t make perfect though.  Perfect practice makes perfect.  If you practice it wrong all the time, you will do it wrong.  What do we practice?  We practice the basic spiritual skills.  When we sin we keep short accounts.  We confess our sin to the Lord.  We walk by means of the Holy Sprit tantamount to abiding in Christ and living in the Spirit.  We will tie all of these things together in our series we are doing on Thursday nights.  We live according to the Spirit.  We walk by the Spirit.  That is the second spiritual skill or problem solving device.  Then we have the faith rest drill where we take the promises of God and mix them with faith in our soul and apply those to specific situations.  Then there is grace orientation and doctrinal orientation, having a personal sense of our eternal destiny, personal love for God, unconditional love for all mankind, occupation with Christ and personal happiness.  We have studied them many times and will study them many more times.  Those are the basic skills.  You practice them over and over and over again. In the military you practice certain skills over and over again.   In music you play those techniques over and over again.  You hate them; you resist it.  It is mind numbing.   Then when all of a sudden you need to perform in that area; you can do it because you practice, practice, practice.  As you do it the right way then it produces skill.   God the Holy Spirit is working in the background building strength in your soul.  That is referred to as edification in the Bible. 

It is the process of building something in your life that strengthens your soul.  So the process is studying the Word and making it a priority.  The God the Holy Spirit takes over from there.  It’s that stored doctrine that gives us the discernment to recognize when some decisions may involve a distinct geographical will from God and when they don’t.  It is discernment.   We are going to hit this in the paragraph we are dealing with in Hebrews 5:11-15 on Thursday nights.  What has happened there is that due to spiritual regression those believers that the writer of Hebrews is addressing have had their sense dulled. They have to go back to basics because they haven’t been practicing the basics. So they no longer have the ability to exercise discernment.  It is specifically stated in that passage.  So what has to happen?  They have to go back through the process and retrain themselves in terms of the basics of the spiritual life.

So we talked about these terms – geographical will, operational will, God’s permissive will.  We have seen examples of Jonah in Nineveh and Paul in Rome.  I have one other example that I want to bring up.  That is going to be with one of the strangest episodes in the Old Testament.  We will stop a little early tonight because I can’t get started in Balaam when we have so much to cover in three chapters in Numbers.  We will cover the will of God in Balaam and see examples of Gods revealed will, God’s operational will, and God’s overriding will.  All of these are evident in this really bizarre episode with Balaam.  That is the guy with the talking ass in Numbers.

Doctrine of Divine Institutions   Gen 026

1)      The laws of divine establishment are principles ordained by God for the protection, perpetuation, orderly function, survival and blessing of the human race. In His omniscience God knew the limitations of mankind. He also knew that man would sin, so He is establishing certain institutions from the very beginning. These we call the laws of divine establishment and they are covered under five divine institutions. These are for everyone, not just for believers.

2)      The term “divine institutions” has been used by Christians to speak of the absolute social structures that have been instituted by God for the entire human race—for believers and unbelievers alike. The term “divine” emphasizes the fact that they have their origin in God. These are social structures that have been built into creation and into the nature of man by God.

3)      There is a conflict between the divine viewpoint which says that there are absolute social structures established by God, and human viewpoint which teaches that these are simply social customs or conventions that have been developed pragmatically through human history and are different in every culture. Postmodernism would say that the various expressions of these customs are all equally valid. So human viewpoint sees these as purely relative, something that man just developed over time to pragmatically handle the situation.

4)      These divine institutions represent absolute structures which God has built into the social constitution of man. If these institutions are violated then something fundamental falls apart, and there are serious long-term consequences in human society.

5)      There are five divine institutions: a) Human responsibility or individual responsibility; b) Marriage; c) Family; d) Human government; e) Individual nations. Each of these are established over the course of human history. The first three were established pre-fall because the command was to be fruitful and multiply and that envisions family even though there are no offspring until after the fall. Human government and individual nations doesn’t come in until after the flood. Government institutions are introduced to restrain sin and to control unrighteousness.

6)      The first divine institution, human responsibility, or sometimes individual responsibility. Sometimes it is labeled simply volition, emphasizing individual human choice. Sometimes it has been called personal responsibility, responsible dominion, responsible labor. The issue is responsibility. Genesis 1:26-30; 2:15-17; Psalm 8:3-8. The main idea here is that man has been placed on the earth and given responsibility. He is answerable to God and he is to manage the earth under God’s authority.

7)      The very concept of being responsible for something includes the idea of volition. A person makes a choice as to whether they will be responsible or be irresponsible, whether they will fulfill the obligation or not. So the issue: Will man fulfill the responsibility that God gives him in the garden in perfect environment?

8)      As we look at each divine institution each has an authority with it. In human responsibility the authority is God. Adam is responsible and accountable to God for his actions. In human responsibility man is ultimately accountable to God at the judgment seat of Christ for believers and at the great white throne judgment for unbelievers. In marriage the authority is the husband. The wife is under his authority, under his leadership, and she is responsible to the husband. 1 Corinthians 11:3. It is the man Adam who is the federal head, the representative head of the human race. When Eve sinned nothing really happened, but it is Adam’s sin that causes the human race to fall. It is in Adam all die, not in Eve. So man is the head. In the family it is the parents who are the authority and who are accountable for the welfare of that family. They are responsible to God for what happens in the family. Children are to be obedient to their parents. That is where they learn authority orientation. If they don’t learn authority orientation in the family, then when they become adults they are going to have major problems handling any other situation where they have to face authority. Then we come to human government, and whether that government is a monarchy, a some form of totalitarian government, a dictatorship, an empire, whether a democracy or a republic, there is always an individual or a group of individuals who are the final authority. Then the individual nations are accountable once again to God. And the nations will be held accountable and there will be a judgment of the nations at the great white throne judgment. So each divine institution has embedded within it an authority structure.

9)      Accountability has to do with either cursing or blessing. This is a major theme in Genesis, that if man is responsible then he will be blessed—if he is obedient to God—and if he disobeys God with reference to the mandate in Genesis 2:17 then there will be cursing and spiritual death which will hinder man in fulfilling his responsibilities.

All that introduces us to the first divine institution, human responsibility. When you have human responsibility, when someone understands the nature of responsibility and grows up, matures, and demonstrates responsible behavior, then this is going to strengthen the marriage, strengthen the family, it strengthens human government and it strengthens the nation. But when there is a nation that fails to understand responsibility and accountability it destroys marriage, destroys family, destroys government, and will ultimately destroy the nation. It sets up the domino effect. That is why it is so crucial for parents to teach responsibility and to have consistent accountability with their children as they are growing up.

Each of these of these institutions is under incredible assault today. There are all kinds of attacks on human responsibility from humanistic psychology—it’s not my fault, it’s my parents’ fault, society’s fault, the education system’s fault, or somebody mistreated me and it’s their fault. It is never my fault that I make bad decisions, it is somebody else’s fault, and so psychology comes along with its sister sociology and they have presented a two-fold frontal assault against personal responsibility and accountability in our society. Marriage is under assault today and one of the reasons is because we’ve allowed the world to redefine marriage. The world has redefined marriage as a loving relationship between two people. That is not how the bible defines marriage. Marriage in the Bible is a relationship between a man and a woman to fulfill certain responsibilities under the authority of God. The Bible never presents marriage in terms of a loving relationship and this idea of dating and courtship and finding somebody you fall in love with, finding a soul mate, and all of that. This is not to put it down but it is not the picture you get in Scripture. In Scripture you have people who have arranged marriages throughout. For example, Mary and Joseph, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, etc. This is not a situation where love and romantic love is the foundation of the institution, that is a human viewpoint concept.

The bottom line to all the other divine institutions is human responsibility. But part of that includes fulfilling responsibility, and in the garden there wasn’t just the responsibility of not eating the fruit—that is the only mandate that carried with it a penalty—there was the positive mandate of working the garden and guarding the garden.

Doctrine of Divine Providence    Gen. 146b

1)      God is sovereign, He rules the universe, and He is directing history according to His plan. He is the ultimate authority as the creator over everything that happens in human history. He guides and directs history towards His planned end.

2)      God oversees the outworking of His plan and He provides protection for His people. So even though there is instability in the world because of evil, because of Satan, because of sin natures, because there are 6-1/2 billion people running around who all want to be god, God never loses His control, and in His omnipotence He oversees the progress in human history and brings about that which is for His glory.

3)      Despite human failures and flaws, despite all the chaos of sin, God works all things together for good. Romans 8:28.

Doctrine of Divine Revelation        Heb. 004

   1. Definition 
         a.  The word revelation is derived from the Greek word apokolupsis.  It means unveiling or disclosure of something.  He discloses to the mind of man the information that God wants him to have.  It signifies God’s revelation of Himself.  Man may be able to acquire it.   Revelation is a function of God. Man does not generate revelation.  It is at God’s discretion not man’s discretion.

         b. We must distinguish revelation from other functions.

                1)      One function is inspiration. It is the process whereby God oversaw the process of inscripturation or the recording of the Word and it’s preservation throughout the years.  It is not the same thing as revelation.

               2)      Illumination is the process whereby God the Holy Spirit enables us to understand what has been revealed in the Scripture.  He does not speak to you as He did to the prophets.  I John 2:27, Luke 24:32-5, I Cor 2:9-10

               3)      Another category is leading.  God the Holy Spirit leads us through verbal and non-verbal events directly (Scripture) and indirectly (illumination, the council of others, the teaching of the pastor, or circumstances).

   2. There are two categories of divine revelation

         a.  General revelation refers to non-verbal or non-specific revelation.  In Ps 19:1 we are told that the heavens speak to us non-verbally.  We can see the magnificent design of a flower.  It tells us something about the character of God.  Proverbs talks about studying the ants.  You could come to some false conclusions studying ants.  The female ant dominates.  If you apply that you would be way off.  The Bible tells us how to interpret general revelation.  The Bible says to look at how the ant works. Not to see how it functions socially.  It limits that.  Special revelation defines and helps us understand general revelation.  Adam and Eve could not have derived from general revelation that they would fall by eating of the tree.  That had to be communicated through special revelation.  That is the relationship between the two.  There are no prohibitions in general revelation.  General revelation is interpreted through special revelation. Special revelation tells us about God, His power, His planning, His abilities, and information about man and nature.  Sometimes this is called natural revelation.  Due to sin, general revelation is continuously suppressed by the unbeliever.  Ps 19:1-6, Rom 1:18-21, Matt 5:45

   3.  Special revelation is progressive in nature.  He gives information to man incrementally.  He did not dump it on man all at one time.  Peter knew some things Paul did not know.  Yet Peter said that some of the things of Paul were hard to understand.  Other information was given to John. 

   5. Special revelation is verbal and specific and precise.  It is not just ideas or concepts.  Every word is important. This is called prepositional revelation.  He reveals with words, sentences, and statements.  Ex 19:6  It is the words that are important.  Deut 29:1, 31:24, Gal 1:11-12, Deut 13:1

   6. God gives us tests to validate truth.   There are Old Testaments tests for revelation.

NKJ Deuteronomy 13:1 "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

2 "and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods' -- which you have not known -- 'and let us serve them,'

3 "you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 "You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.

 

What is important is the message.  Is it consistent with the rest of the Word?

God allows the test to see if you will follow His word.  It is a test of the doctrine in your soul.  It is a test to know if you love the Lord with all of your heart and soul and mind.  

Deut 18: 20-22 is the second great test.

NKJ Deuteronomy 18:20   'But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'

This is legislation.  This is what God put in the Mosaic Law.  If they were not always right 100%, then they were to be put to death.  Why?  Because they are claiming to utter words from God and to represent God.  If they say something that is false, then it could mislead others in their spiritual life.  That is how important God sees this.  That God spoke indicates a high level of authority.

NKJ Deuteronomy 18:21    "And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' -- 22 "when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

7.  The illustration is in I Kings 13.  Let me set the stage here.  The situation takes place after the death of Solomon.  The kingdom was first united under Saul.  Then, he was succeeded by David.  David was succeeded by his son Solomon.  Solomon was succeeded by his young son Rehoboam.  Rehoboam was a fool.  Because of Solomon’s disobedience and sin, God told Solomon that he would take the kingdom away from him.  So that he would be faithful to the Davidic covenant, two tribes of Judah and Benjamin would be faithful to the house of David in the south.  Then there was another kingdom in the north of the 10 tribes.  There was a tax revolt. Rehoboam increased already egregious taxes on all the Jews.  So the ten tribes said they would not put up with that and he would not be their king any more.  They appointed Jeroboam I as their king.  Jeroboam recognizes that he must unify the kingdom and that would not happen if he was sending everyone south to Jerusalem.  So he does four things.  He establishes two new centers for worship that compete with the temple in Jerusalem.  One is in Bethel in the south.  The other is up north in Dan.  The second thing he did was to establish these golden calves as idols.  He substitutes a false god.  Third, he establishes a new priest caste and gets rid of the Levite priests and takes priests from the other nations.  He redid the spiritual calendar of Israel.  He is brilliant in the way he restructures everything.  He is a master in understanding what had to take place.  But God would not let that happen and sends a prophet to him.  He goes from Judah to Bethel.

NKJ 1 Kings 13:1 And behold, a man of God went from Judah to Bethel by the word of the LORD, and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.  2 Then he cried out against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, "O altar, altar! Thus says the LORD: 'Behold, a child, Josiah by name, shall be born to the house of David; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and men's bones shall be burned on you.' "

Jeroboam acts like a priest.  He imitates David.  The prophet comes to him and makes a prophetic announcement to him.  This is precise communication from God.  It involves a child-king named Josiah.  He will be from the house of David.  He will sacrifice priests on the high places and burn men’s bones. This event takes place around 931 BC.  This is fulfilled 300 years later in II Kings 23:15, 20.

NKJ 2 Kings 23:15  Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and crushed it to powder, and burned the wooden image.

2 Kings 23:20 He executed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned men's bones on them; and he returned to Jerusalem.

 

Here we see the precise fulfillment.  But how did the people know that this would be fulfilled later?  Because God gave them an immediate sign found in verse 3.

NKJ 1 Kings 13:3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, "This is the sign which the LORD has spoken: Surely the altar shall split apart, and the ashes on it shall be poured out."  4 So it came to pass when King Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, who cried out against the altar in Bethel, that he stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, "Arrest him!" Then his hand, which he stretched out toward him, withered, so that he could not pull it back to himself.  5 The altar also was split apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD.

This confirms the prophecy.  The king wants his hand restored.  Imagine how scared he was at that point.

1 Kings 13:6 Then the king answered and said to the man of God, "Please entreat the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me." So the man of God entreated the LORD, and the king's hand was restored to him, and became as before.

7 Then the king said to the man of God, "Come home with me and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward."

8 But the man of God said to the king, "If you were to give me half your house, I would not go in with you; nor would I eat bread nor drink water in this place.

9 "For so it was commanded me by the word of the LORD, saying, 'You shall not eat bread, nor drink water, nor return by the same way you came.' " 

10 So he went another way and did not return by the way he came to Bethel

 

God told him to go straight home.  So he does that.  Now we go to scene two.