Have you ever wondered why (or noticed that) the paragraph marks in a King James Bible suddenly cease at Acts 20:36? Some erroneously (lest I say irreverently) believe that this is an "error" in the KJB.
I would like to acknowledge Bro. Dave Reese (http://www.right-division.com) for his help with this through correspondence with my pastor, Bro. David O'Steen, per below, with some careful editing (to preserve his view):
"Some suggest the printer ran out of the pilcrow type at this point--if he did, it was an ordained lack. Considering the extensive use of the mark throughout the OT and the Gospels, as well as the meticulous care in typesetting, etc. under the King's orders and the scrutiny of the translators, it seems to me that idea of running out of type is silly. Unfortunately (?) we have very little of the translators' notes to see their reaction...
First thing: As used in English, the pilcrow was not at first a mere paragraph marker but a MARK OF ORDER OF EVENTS in, for example, a service in which certain people were to perform an action or a particular change was made in events. Later, it was used to mark off discourse changes...
[M]ost miss the final paragraph, [which] begins in v 36 and has not yet ended!...I believe the pilcrow at v 36 is connected with the prison epistle truth: Ephesians-Philemon. "See his face no more" is a key. The "ship" in Acts 21 thus removes Paul from the Acts ministry unto his prison ministry (the final order of things)."
Bro. Peter Ruckman, in his Acts commentary (notes on Ch. 20), mentions "present truth" being "fixed" at this point. Synthesizing both his and Bro. Reese's comments together, with reference to Col. 1:25, the following can be suggested:
1. Paul's epistles fulfil or complete the canon. The traditional teaching is that Revelation and perhaps other general epistles or gospels are written after Paul's. What is the scriptural (not literary) support for this? Because they're placed after Paul's epistles?
2. Since everything outside of the Pauline epistles essentially deals with the prophetic, kingdom program re: Israel, and Paul's writings describe the mystery program re: the body of Christ, which was not revealed until Paul, it makes sense for Paul's writings to come last chronologically, in which case his prison epistles are the most present truth that we have. (I believe that the Pauline epistles are right where they should be canonically, since the church age is a parenthesis between God's dealings with Israel preceding the church age--Matthew through early chapters of Acts--and his dealings with Israel after the rapture of the body of Christ, as touched on in the general epistles following Paul's. The general epistles aren't the only scriptures that cover the events after the rapture, but they complete the prophetic, kingdom revelation re: Israel, just as Paul's writings complete the scriptures as a whole).
3. The paragraph mark at Acts 20:36 supports the idea that the prison epistles are the most present truth that we have, since at this juncture Paul's prison ministry begins: he's imprisoned in Jerusalem, then Caesarea, and ultimately in Rome, where he pens Eph.-Col. and Philemon. After a brief release, in which he apparently writes 1 Tim. and Titus, he is imprisoned again for the last time and concludes his writings with 2 Timothy. So no more paragraph marks are needed after Acts 20:36, since it's all "prison ministry" thereafter, essentially.
Remember this principle, which I learned from Bro. Ruckman: apparent errors or contradictions in the KJB are often doors to advanced revelation!
Sunday, July 28, 2013
The Other Chief of Sinners?
To initiate the age of grace, God saves the chief of sinners as a pattern of longsuffering "to them that should hereafter believe on [Jesus Christ] to life everlasting (1 Tim. 1:15-16). That this is to be an age of longsuffering and grace is demonstrated in a marvelous way by the salvation of the chief of sinners and by his subsequent calling to proclaim the gospel of that grace (Acts 20:24).
So Paul, the chief of sinners, is chosen as point man for the grace gospel. But what about the kingdom gospel that preceded (Mt. 3-4, 9-10; Acts 1-12) and follows (Mt. 24:14) his? Who is the point man for that gospel? Well, you might say John Baptist or the Lord Jesus Christ himself, but I really think that the point man of the kingdom gospel is none other than Simon Peter, whom the Lord gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to in Mt. 16: 19, and who emerges as the chief kingdom apostle before and after the Lord's passion.
There is however, an impasse in Peter's leadership...when he denies the Lord (Mark 14:72). Note carefully in Mk. 16:7 where Christ distinguishes Peter from the disciples. This is not an honour, but pointing out that he has lost his discipleship. Judas loses his permanently (Acts 1:20, 25), but Peter's is obviously temporary, since he clearly emerges as the leader of the twelve in Acts 1-12.
How was he restored? Please read John 21:15-19, where Christ asks him three times if he loves him, once for each of Peter's earlier denials (dabbling with "agapeo" and "phileo" will not show you this truth). Where I'm going with this is that the point man for the kingdom gospel is a man who actually fell from his discipleship by denying the Lord, something that the other ten (besides Judas, a devil--John 6:70), did not do. So again we see the grace of God, taking the kingdom apostle who falls the deepest and making him the chief of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). No wonder this other "chief of sinners" exalts the Lord as "the God of all grace" (1 Peter 5:10), a title unique to Simon Peter, who experienced that grace very deeply.
So Paul, the chief of sinners, is chosen as point man for the grace gospel. But what about the kingdom gospel that preceded (Mt. 3-4, 9-10; Acts 1-12) and follows (Mt. 24:14) his? Who is the point man for that gospel? Well, you might say John Baptist or the Lord Jesus Christ himself, but I really think that the point man of the kingdom gospel is none other than Simon Peter, whom the Lord gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to in Mt. 16: 19, and who emerges as the chief kingdom apostle before and after the Lord's passion.
There is however, an impasse in Peter's leadership...when he denies the Lord (Mark 14:72). Note carefully in Mk. 16:7 where Christ distinguishes Peter from the disciples. This is not an honour, but pointing out that he has lost his discipleship. Judas loses his permanently (Acts 1:20, 25), but Peter's is obviously temporary, since he clearly emerges as the leader of the twelve in Acts 1-12.
How was he restored? Please read John 21:15-19, where Christ asks him three times if he loves him, once for each of Peter's earlier denials (dabbling with "agapeo" and "phileo" will not show you this truth). Where I'm going with this is that the point man for the kingdom gospel is a man who actually fell from his discipleship by denying the Lord, something that the other ten (besides Judas, a devil--John 6:70), did not do. So again we see the grace of God, taking the kingdom apostle who falls the deepest and making him the chief of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). No wonder this other "chief of sinners" exalts the Lord as "the God of all grace" (1 Peter 5:10), a title unique to Simon Peter, who experienced that grace very deeply.
Friday, July 26, 2013
The Last Days of the Prophet Abel (Version 2)
If this title caught your eye, I'm glad, since it can be proven from scripture that Abel was a prophet. Turn with me to Luke 11:49-51, where Christ makes it clear that Abel was as much a prophet as Zacharias was (cf. 2 Chron. 24:15-22). We read in Jude 14-15 that Enoch was a prophet, and that Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Pt. 2:4), but before either of these men were even born, Abel prophesied. To whom? Of what? I think that a close comparison of Gen. 4:1-8 with 2 Chron. 24:15-22 may provide some additional details, and due to the cyclical nature of the Bible ("that which is done is that which shall be done:" Eccl. 1:9), what happened to Zacharias may shed light on what happened to Abel.
Christ affirms in Mt. 23:35 that Abel was righteous, as does the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 11:4) and the apostle John (1 John 3:12). So, since in "the mouth of two or three witnesses shall very word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1), including the Lord's own mouth, we can rest assured that Abel was righteous.
Notice in Gen. 4:3 that a "process of time" precedes his last days. During this time the characters of Abel and his brother revealed in vv. 4-8 develop. Abel is a sincere worshipper of God, likely the meditative type like David after him, spending long hours alone with his sheep...and God. Abel is a keeper, whereas Cain is a tiller, a hard worker. Reminds me of the prodigal's brother: "Lo, these many years I serve thee" (Luke 15:29), and yet he despises his penitent brother, picturing the Pharisees' estimation of their penitent countrymen (Luke 15:1-2). These same Pharisees conspire to slay Christ, also typified by Abel (Heb. 11:4, 12:24).
At some point, probably more than once, Adam explained to his sons why they wore animal skins. The blood of animals, Adam said, was required to atone for our sins and restore our fellowship with God (Gen. 3:21). Abel obviously took that to heart and applied it in Gen. 4:4. I think that God "testif[ied] of his gifts" (Heb. 11:4) by sending fire from heaven to consume his offering, just as on mount Carmel he testified of Elijah's offering (1 Ki. 18:24, 38-39) and on other occasions (Gen. 15:17; Lev. 9:24; Judg. 6:21; 1 Chr. 21:26; 2 Chr. 7:1--for a total of seven times!). An alternate scenario is that the brothers went to the gate of the garden, kept by Cherubims, and the fire came from the flaming sword. I tend to think that it was the first scenario rather than the second.
When self-righteous Cain saw this, instead of fearing God and offering the proper sacrifice, which God graciously encourages him to do in 4:7, he boils in rage and determines to retain his self-righteousness no matter the cost (Job 27:5-6; Luke 7:29-30, 16:15). I know that Cain was self-righteous, rather than a seeker of God's righteousness like Abel, because when God tells him how to "do well" in v. 7, he ignores him (Rom. 10:3) and eliminates the one who reminds him that he's not, just as a certain nation did about 4000 years later (Eccl. 1:9!). Furthermore, God not only tells Cain how to be righteous before him ("accepted," v. 7), but also that sin does not have to rule him practically; rather, he can rule over it if he will obey God. So it is in all dispensations: sin did not dominate the lives of the righteous Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 1:6) under the law, nor did it dominate the lives of righteous Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Job before the law, nor should it dominate our lives under grace (Rom. 6:12-15).
How does Cain rid himself of Abel? His conversation may have been a ploy to lead him Abel out into the field, away from the family and others who might hear (Cain was married by now--4:16). Or, he may have known where to find Abel in the field (Judas knew where to find Christ). Now, considering how his antitype Zacharias meets his end in 2 Chron. 24 (stoning), it's my assertion that this may have been the method Cain chose to slay his brother. Other prophets met their doom in this fashion (Acts 7:58; Heb. 11:37), and Cain may have led Abel to a place where he had "ammunition" waiting. Or, he may have grabbed Abel's rod and/or staff (Ps. 23:4), whatever he had, and slew him with that.
But something else happened, I believe, before Abel's martyrdom. Remember that what precipitated Zacharias' stoning was rebuking the apostate Judeans for their idolatry (wrong worship). I think that the prophet Abel may have spoken his last, and perhaps first, prophecy to his brother Cain, and that it was similar to, if not the same, as what God said to Cain in Gen. 4:7: if he would follow the light he had (v.7!), God would accept him, and it would go well with him practically; if not, sin would run him and he would end up in hell. Since Cain had rejected the light God gave him in v. 7, I don't think God gave him more light, but rather restated through Abel what Cain already knew, in hopes that he would repent.
That is more than self-righteous Cain, who is "of that wicked one," could stand, however, and he grabs a stone or Abel's own instruments and starts in on Abel. I wouldn't be surprised if Abel's last words are something like Zacharias' in 2 Chr. 24:22, "...The LORD look upon it and require it." I know that Christ and Stephen ask God to forgive their killers, but Abel precedes them dispensationally, and when he is dead, his blood cries out to God for vengeance (4:10), and vengeance Cain receives (vv. 11-12). He slays a prophet, and becomes a vagabond thereafter. Antitypes: (1) the Jews slay their prophets under the kingdom, and are scattered thereafter (2 Chr. 36:20; John 11:52; Acts 19:13); and (2) the Jews slay John Baptist, Christ, and Stephen, and are driven out of their land in 70 A.D. (Luke 21:20-24).
So ends the brief, but remarkable life of the prophet Abel. No doubt Cain is burning in hell right now (Jude 11, 13), and Abel's soul is comforted in the presence of the one he typified, the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:8-9). Prophets may suffer affliction (James 5:10), but their end is truly blessed (Acts 22:20; Rev. 2:10).
Christ affirms in Mt. 23:35 that Abel was righteous, as does the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 11:4) and the apostle John (1 John 3:12). So, since in "the mouth of two or three witnesses shall very word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1), including the Lord's own mouth, we can rest assured that Abel was righteous.
Notice in Gen. 4:3 that a "process of time" precedes his last days. During this time the characters of Abel and his brother revealed in vv. 4-8 develop. Abel is a sincere worshipper of God, likely the meditative type like David after him, spending long hours alone with his sheep...and God. Abel is a keeper, whereas Cain is a tiller, a hard worker. Reminds me of the prodigal's brother: "Lo, these many years I serve thee" (Luke 15:29), and yet he despises his penitent brother, picturing the Pharisees' estimation of their penitent countrymen (Luke 15:1-2). These same Pharisees conspire to slay Christ, also typified by Abel (Heb. 11:4, 12:24).
At some point, probably more than once, Adam explained to his sons why they wore animal skins. The blood of animals, Adam said, was required to atone for our sins and restore our fellowship with God (Gen. 3:21). Abel obviously took that to heart and applied it in Gen. 4:4. I think that God "testif[ied] of his gifts" (Heb. 11:4) by sending fire from heaven to consume his offering, just as on mount Carmel he testified of Elijah's offering (1 Ki. 18:24, 38-39) and on other occasions (Gen. 15:17; Lev. 9:24; Judg. 6:21; 1 Chr. 21:26; 2 Chr. 7:1--for a total of seven times!). An alternate scenario is that the brothers went to the gate of the garden, kept by Cherubims, and the fire came from the flaming sword. I tend to think that it was the first scenario rather than the second.
When self-righteous Cain saw this, instead of fearing God and offering the proper sacrifice, which God graciously encourages him to do in 4:7, he boils in rage and determines to retain his self-righteousness no matter the cost (Job 27:5-6; Luke 7:29-30, 16:15). I know that Cain was self-righteous, rather than a seeker of God's righteousness like Abel, because when God tells him how to "do well" in v. 7, he ignores him (Rom. 10:3) and eliminates the one who reminds him that he's not, just as a certain nation did about 4000 years later (Eccl. 1:9!). Furthermore, God not only tells Cain how to be righteous before him ("accepted," v. 7), but also that sin does not have to rule him practically; rather, he can rule over it if he will obey God. So it is in all dispensations: sin did not dominate the lives of the righteous Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 1:6) under the law, nor did it dominate the lives of righteous Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Job before the law, nor should it dominate our lives under grace (Rom. 6:12-15).
How does Cain rid himself of Abel? His conversation may have been a ploy to lead him Abel out into the field, away from the family and others who might hear (Cain was married by now--4:16). Or, he may have known where to find Abel in the field (Judas knew where to find Christ). Now, considering how his antitype Zacharias meets his end in 2 Chron. 24 (stoning), it's my assertion that this may have been the method Cain chose to slay his brother. Other prophets met their doom in this fashion (Acts 7:58; Heb. 11:37), and Cain may have led Abel to a place where he had "ammunition" waiting. Or, he may have grabbed Abel's rod and/or staff (Ps. 23:4), whatever he had, and slew him with that.
But something else happened, I believe, before Abel's martyrdom. Remember that what precipitated Zacharias' stoning was rebuking the apostate Judeans for their idolatry (wrong worship). I think that the prophet Abel may have spoken his last, and perhaps first, prophecy to his brother Cain, and that it was similar to, if not the same, as what God said to Cain in Gen. 4:7: if he would follow the light he had (v.7!), God would accept him, and it would go well with him practically; if not, sin would run him and he would end up in hell. Since Cain had rejected the light God gave him in v. 7, I don't think God gave him more light, but rather restated through Abel what Cain already knew, in hopes that he would repent.
That is more than self-righteous Cain, who is "of that wicked one," could stand, however, and he grabs a stone or Abel's own instruments and starts in on Abel. I wouldn't be surprised if Abel's last words are something like Zacharias' in 2 Chr. 24:22, "...The LORD look upon it and require it." I know that Christ and Stephen ask God to forgive their killers, but Abel precedes them dispensationally, and when he is dead, his blood cries out to God for vengeance (4:10), and vengeance Cain receives (vv. 11-12). He slays a prophet, and becomes a vagabond thereafter. Antitypes: (1) the Jews slay their prophets under the kingdom, and are scattered thereafter (2 Chr. 36:20; John 11:52; Acts 19:13); and (2) the Jews slay John Baptist, Christ, and Stephen, and are driven out of their land in 70 A.D. (Luke 21:20-24).
So ends the brief, but remarkable life of the prophet Abel. No doubt Cain is burning in hell right now (Jude 11, 13), and Abel's soul is comforted in the presence of the one he typified, the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:8-9). Prophets may suffer affliction (James 5:10), but their end is truly blessed (Acts 22:20; Rev. 2:10).
Monday, July 22, 2013
The Real "World War I"?
In studying Genesis 14, it occurred to me one day that this war, the first described in scripture, may be more rightly called "World War I" (WWI) than the one that occurred in 1914-1918. It is certainly a "Great War" like the modern WWI, and the first part of this chapter (vv. 1-16), which deals with the specifics of this war, is laden with truth as well as the latter part (vv. 17-24), familar to most due to the appearance of Melchizedek.
1. First, let's note the events leading up this war. A man once said, "War is God's judgment on sin in this life; and hell is God's judgment on sin hereafter." This principle is illustrated well in Gen. 13-14. Note in Gen. 13:13 the exceeding wickedness and sinfulness of Sodom. Then, in 14:4, we see Sodom and four neighboring cities (Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela/Zoar) in subjection to Chedorlaomer, an Elamite king (from east of Shinar/Mesopotamia in modern southern Iraq/southwest Iran), no doubt for their sin (and in fulfillment of Noah's prophecy in Gen. 9:26). So this king is ruling over a large area, and since Shinar is between Elam and Canaan, Chedorlaomer likely reigns over the three kings with him (Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal). His primacy is evident by references to "the kings that were with him" (vv. 5, 17).
2. Because of Sodom's wickedness, and evil influence on its neighbors (Deut. 29:23; Ezek. 16:49, Jude 7), it's no surprise that the five cities of the plain rebel against Chedorlaomer. If they won't submit to God, how can they submit to worldly authority?
3. In response to this rebellion, Chedorlaomer gathers a multi-national, allied army, taken from what I believe are the greatest nations of that time (Shinar, where Nimrod reigned; Ellasar; Elam; and other "nations"). Note that it's Shem's seed vs. Ham's seed, so in light of Gen. 9: 26, the outcome is predictable. If Tidal king of "nations" ruled over any Japhetic peoples, then it would truly have been a "world war," with all three races involved!
4. Chedorlaomer's campaign is very strategic: he smites all of the Sodomites' neighbors first, so they can't come to their assistance, and saves his archenemies for last. Sodomite neighbors that perish:
(a) Giants (v. 5; cf. Deut. 2:10-12, 20-23). The last giants living, after the flood, are connected with Ham (Anak, Og, and Goliath all descend from Ham), and are a sinful bunch (idolaters etc.). Note "Zuzims in Ham" (v. 5).
(b) Horites. Predecessors of the Edomites in Seir (Gen. 36:20; Deut. 2:12). May have been giants too, considering the context.
(c) Amalekites. This is before the Amalek which sprang from Esau (Gen. 36:12; his grandson), or an anachronism of Moses' (like "Dan" in v.14--Dan not yet born at this point).
(d) Amorites. Larger part killed, yet the ones confederate with Abram spared (grace). Bad note: Abram confederate with those whom God judges in this war.
5. Finally the armies meet, with one alliance (i.e. Chedorlaomer's) facing another, more wicked one (sound familiar?). The Sodomite alliance doesn't put up much of a fight: they flee before Chedorlaomer's host, and are either slaughtered in the vale of Siddim (v. 10, "fell there") or flee "to the mountain" (v. 10). How can the wicked stand in battle, with God against them?
6. It's curious that Chedorlaomer doesn't destroy Sodom and its allies: he simply takes all of the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah (and perhaps the other three cities) and departs. Maybe he thought that these cities had learned their lesson and would submit now. True, they do not rebel against him again, but they persist in their sin despite God's visible judgment on them (Rom. 1:18), and their destruction becomes "an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly (2 Pt. 2:6).
In summary, there's much here to support the thought that this war, the first described in scripture, could rightly be called the first "world war" rather than the one that occurred about 4000 years later.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. Eccl. 1:10
Giving 'em Watts
From Wikipedia, re: the Battle of Springfield in the American Revolution (1780):
"As the American artillery ran low on wadding, James Caldwell, the Continental Army chaplain who had lost his wife during the Battle of Connecticut Farms [two weeks earlier], brought up a load of hymn books published by English clergyman Isaac Watts to use instead. 'Give ‘em Watts, boys!', he advised."
In the spirit of Mr. Caldwell, today I'm going to "give YOU Watts," i.e. a wonderful hymn of his (#70), in long meter, subtitled, "God's dominion over the sea. Psa. cvii, 23, &c." This is taken from the Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts, previously published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications (currently out of print to my knowledge--glad I grabbed it!).
1 GOD of the seas! thy thund'ring voice
Makes all the roaring waves rejoice,
And one soft word of thy command
Can sink them silent in the sand.
2 If but a Moses wave thy rod,
The sea divides and owns its God;
The stormy floods their Maker knew,
And let his chosen armies through.
3 The scaly flocks amidst the sea,
To thee, their Lord, a tribute pay;
The meanest fish that swims the flood
Leaps up, and means a praise to God.
4 [The larger monsters of the deep
On thy commands attendance keep;
By thy permission sport and play,
And cleave along their foaming way.
5 If God his voice of tempest rears,
Leviathan lies still and fears;
Anon he lifts his nostrils high,
And spouts the ocean to the sky.]
6 How is thy glorious power ador'd
Amidst these wat'ry nations, Lord!
Yet the bold men that trace the seas,
Bold men, refuse their Maker's praise!
7 [What scenes of miracles they see,
And never tune a song to thee!
While on the flood they safely ride,
They curse the hand that smooths the tide!
8 Anon they plunge in wat'ry graves,
And some drink death among the waves;
Yet the surviving crew blaspheme,
Nor own the God that rescued them.]
9 O for some signal of thine hand!
Shake all the seas, Lord, shake the land;
Great Judge! descend, lest men deny
That there's a God that rules the sky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few comments:
1. I believe the bracketed sections are ones that could be omitted if the song was to be sung more easily, and the overall theme and strength of the hymn still retained.
2. In stanza 4, the word "monsters" can be found in a King James Bible (Lam. 4:3) and in the context refers to whales (sea monsters giving suck to their young ones). Also, I believe that the "leviathan" referred to in Ps. 104:26 refers to the whale, since the whale is the only fish named in scripture, and thus would be the only cross-reference (except for Is. 27:1, which I'll touch on shortly). No matter what any scientist says, a whale is a fish. If you don't believe that, you are making a liar out of Jesus Christ (Jonah 1:17; Mt. 12:40).
3. The fearful connotation that "monsters" has for most people, I believe, stems from the whale's connection with Satan, since most whales and large sea animals are peaceful creatures. Job 41, the most detailed description of Satan in scripture, introduces him as "leviathan," and the same name is given to him in Is. 27:1, where he's said to be a "piercing serpent...crooked serpent...dragon in the sea." So the whale, then, is a physical type of the devil. The earthly leviathan is king of all the aquatic animals, and the spiritual leviathan is king over all "the children of pride" (v. 31) and all "spirtual wickedness in high places" (Mt. 12:26; Eph. 6:12).
Praise God for giving us such hymns and preserving them for posterity. "Give ‘em Watts, boys!"
Let the word of Christ dwell richly in you in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Colossians 3:16
Friday, July 19, 2013
Were Those Living Before Sinai Really "Under Grace"?
It has been assumed by some that those living before the dispensation of the law at Sinai were "under grace" like those in this age (Rom. 6:14-15). I have seen this assumption used to prove that tithing existed before the law (which it did--cf. Gen. 14:20; 28:22) "under grace," and therefore should be practiced now. That's another study of its own, but I would like to raise the question as to whether people living before Sinai were truly "under grace."
Now, it's evident that the grace of God spans the dispensations, but I believe that it's not manifested the same way and to the same degree in every age. In no other age is grace said to "abound" and even "reign" like in the present one (Rom. 5:15, 17, 20-21). True, "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (Gen. 6:8), but scripture doesn't say that he was "under grace" like a saint in this age. God was gracious throughout the the old testament and told Moses this in no uncertain terms in Exodus 34:6-7, as they were communing together on Sinai. Thus, God had shown himself gracious up to that point (Gen. 43:29), and will continue to do so through the ages, since that is part of his character (Ex. 22:27). But I think to say that those living before the giving of the law at Sinai were "under grace" is erroneous.
Even though a written law was given at Sinai, there was an unwritten law that had been operative for about 2500 years: the law written in men's hearts, the conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. conscience) upon their fall, and this knowledge was passed on, innately, to all of their offspring (Deut. 1:39; Rom. 7:9). Hence, it is probably more correct to say that everyone living before the gospel of God's grace was revealed to Paul (Acts 20:24, Gal. 1:11-12) was "under law," either written or unwritten. All of those living before Sinai, and the Gentiles living thereafter, were living under an unwritten law. In some dispensational systems, the age between the fall and the flood is referred to as the "dispensation of conscience" (Scofield, Larkin, Chafer, et al.). But conscience continues after the flood and after the written law is given to Israel, which distinguishes that people even further from the Gentiles than circumcision did (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 147:19-20). From 1500 B.C. (Sinai) to Paul, the Gentiles were not "under grace" while Israel was under the law, were they? Nor were they under the written law (Rom. 2:14; 1 Cor. 9:21).
What clears this up, and the notion that everyone before Sinai was "under grace," is the understanding that, though the law may not have been written down until Sinai, it was operating within men, and God held them accountable for heeding it (Gen. 4:7; 2 Pt. 2:5). Hence, the antediluvians were under law rather than under grace, albeit an unwritten law, as were Gentiles living while Israel was under the written law.
So, even though it may sound right that those living before the written law was given were "under grace," it's really not an accurate statement. Those truly living "under grace" are the ones that the apostle Paul said were: believers in this age who have believed his gospel (Rom. 6:14-17) and entered the body of Christ thereby (Eph. 3:6). As before, grace spans the dispensations because it's the character of God to be gracious, but technically only those saved in this present age by believing the gospel of grace are truly living "under grace."
Now, it's evident that the grace of God spans the dispensations, but I believe that it's not manifested the same way and to the same degree in every age. In no other age is grace said to "abound" and even "reign" like in the present one (Rom. 5:15, 17, 20-21). True, "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (Gen. 6:8), but scripture doesn't say that he was "under grace" like a saint in this age. God was gracious throughout the the old testament and told Moses this in no uncertain terms in Exodus 34:6-7, as they were communing together on Sinai. Thus, God had shown himself gracious up to that point (Gen. 43:29), and will continue to do so through the ages, since that is part of his character (Ex. 22:27). But I think to say that those living before the giving of the law at Sinai were "under grace" is erroneous.
Even though a written law was given at Sinai, there was an unwritten law that had been operative for about 2500 years: the law written in men's hearts, the conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. conscience) upon their fall, and this knowledge was passed on, innately, to all of their offspring (Deut. 1:39; Rom. 7:9). Hence, it is probably more correct to say that everyone living before the gospel of God's grace was revealed to Paul (Acts 20:24, Gal. 1:11-12) was "under law," either written or unwritten. All of those living before Sinai, and the Gentiles living thereafter, were living under an unwritten law. In some dispensational systems, the age between the fall and the flood is referred to as the "dispensation of conscience" (Scofield, Larkin, Chafer, et al.). But conscience continues after the flood and after the written law is given to Israel, which distinguishes that people even further from the Gentiles than circumcision did (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 147:19-20). From 1500 B.C. (Sinai) to Paul, the Gentiles were not "under grace" while Israel was under the law, were they? Nor were they under the written law (Rom. 2:14; 1 Cor. 9:21).
What clears this up, and the notion that everyone before Sinai was "under grace," is the understanding that, though the law may not have been written down until Sinai, it was operating within men, and God held them accountable for heeding it (Gen. 4:7; 2 Pt. 2:5). Hence, the antediluvians were under law rather than under grace, albeit an unwritten law, as were Gentiles living while Israel was under the written law.
So, even though it may sound right that those living before the written law was given were "under grace," it's really not an accurate statement. Those truly living "under grace" are the ones that the apostle Paul said were: believers in this age who have believed his gospel (Rom. 6:14-17) and entered the body of Christ thereby (Eph. 3:6). As before, grace spans the dispensations because it's the character of God to be gracious, but technically only those saved in this present age by believing the gospel of grace are truly living "under grace."
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The Spiritual Growth of Simon Peter
A few brief thoughts on this.
1. Note how Peter introduces himself in his two epistles. In the first, it's "Peter, and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Pt. 1:1); in the second, it's "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" (2 Pt. 1:1). Peter was the name given to him by Christ to signify his spiritual strength, Simon his birth name, pointing to his humanity and weakness. Perhaps he is intimating by adding "Simon" that, "I may be an apostle, but I'm merely a man" (Acts 10:26). Also note how in 2 Pt. 1:1 "servant" precedes "apostle." Seems quite a bit humbler, doesn't it, to add servant and mention it before his apostleship? Compare Paul's self-introduction in Rom. 1:1, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle..."
2. Notice that Peter's epistles emphasize spiritual growth, from start to finish. He mentions it in 1 Pt. 2:2, 1 Pt. 5:10 ("make you perfect"), 2 Pt. 1:5-8, and 2 Pt. 3:18 (his last recorded words!). To be burdened about others' spiritual growth is evidence of one's own.
3. When Peter and John are arraigned before the council of Jewish elders in Acts 4, they are classified as "unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). But, wow, how the tables are turned at the end of Peter's life! Please read 2 Peter 3:5, 8, and 16. In these passage, Peter speaks of others' ignorance (vv. 5, 8) and of them being unlearned (v. 16). He may have seemed ignorant and unlearned to the Jewish elders, but in reality they, and those mentioned in 2 Pt. 3 turn out to be the ignorant and unlearned ones. In 2 Pt. 3:16, Peter also rebukes certain men's instability, and prays for God to "stablish" kingdom saints (1 Pt. 5:10), signifying his own stability, in contrast to his instability before Pentecost.
Truly, the apostle Peter demonstrates remarkable spiritual growth for us and lived what he taught!
1. Note how Peter introduces himself in his two epistles. In the first, it's "Peter, and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1 Pt. 1:1); in the second, it's "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" (2 Pt. 1:1). Peter was the name given to him by Christ to signify his spiritual strength, Simon his birth name, pointing to his humanity and weakness. Perhaps he is intimating by adding "Simon" that, "I may be an apostle, but I'm merely a man" (Acts 10:26). Also note how in 2 Pt. 1:1 "servant" precedes "apostle." Seems quite a bit humbler, doesn't it, to add servant and mention it before his apostleship? Compare Paul's self-introduction in Rom. 1:1, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle..."
2. Notice that Peter's epistles emphasize spiritual growth, from start to finish. He mentions it in 1 Pt. 2:2, 1 Pt. 5:10 ("make you perfect"), 2 Pt. 1:5-8, and 2 Pt. 3:18 (his last recorded words!). To be burdened about others' spiritual growth is evidence of one's own.
3. When Peter and John are arraigned before the council of Jewish elders in Acts 4, they are classified as "unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). But, wow, how the tables are turned at the end of Peter's life! Please read 2 Peter 3:5, 8, and 16. In these passage, Peter speaks of others' ignorance (vv. 5, 8) and of them being unlearned (v. 16). He may have seemed ignorant and unlearned to the Jewish elders, but in reality they, and those mentioned in 2 Pt. 3 turn out to be the ignorant and unlearned ones. In 2 Pt. 3:16, Peter also rebukes certain men's instability, and prays for God to "stablish" kingdom saints (1 Pt. 5:10), signifying his own stability, in contrast to his instability before Pentecost.
Truly, the apostle Peter demonstrates remarkable spiritual growth for us and lived what he taught!
Friday, July 12, 2013
NOW the serpent...
A few quick thoughts on Genesis 3:1.
I just noticed tonight what immediately precedes the devil's appearance: the first marriage and the institution of the home. Satan has always been the enemy of the home, and he moves to destroy the first one as soon as it's created.
Note also, "Now the serpent..." The serpent is doing NOW what he's always done--trying to destroy homes, using the same tactics now as then (see Eph. 6:11; 1 Tim. 2:14; 1 Peter 3:7). So I don't think I'm erring to say that every Christian couple should expect opposition and not give place to the devil (Eph. 4:26-27). In the Pauline passages I've cited, our apostle gives us two major ways to avoid giving place to Satan:
(1) men, be the spiritual leaders in your homes and women, quietly follow them (1 Tim. 2:11-15)--Adam and Eve blew it on both accounts, when she led and he followed;
(2) don't go to bed mad at each other--you are asking for it if you do; make up so you don't get bitter (Heb. 12:15) and BREAK up.
God be merciful to our homes!
I just noticed tonight what immediately precedes the devil's appearance: the first marriage and the institution of the home. Satan has always been the enemy of the home, and he moves to destroy the first one as soon as it's created.
Note also, "Now the serpent..." The serpent is doing NOW what he's always done--trying to destroy homes, using the same tactics now as then (see Eph. 6:11; 1 Tim. 2:14; 1 Peter 3:7). So I don't think I'm erring to say that every Christian couple should expect opposition and not give place to the devil (Eph. 4:26-27). In the Pauline passages I've cited, our apostle gives us two major ways to avoid giving place to Satan:
(1) men, be the spiritual leaders in your homes and women, quietly follow them (1 Tim. 2:11-15)--Adam and Eve blew it on both accounts, when she led and he followed;
(2) don't go to bed mad at each other--you are asking for it if you do; make up so you don't get bitter (Heb. 12:15) and BREAK up.
God be merciful to our homes!
Monday, July 8, 2013
"Swedenborg an Entertaining Madman" (Wesley)
Taken verbatim from Wesley's Journal. I think that the date is December 28, 1769.
Wednesday, 28. I sat down to read and seriously consider some of the writing of Baron Swedenborg. I began with huge prejudice in his favor, knowing him to be a pious man, one of a strong understanding, of much learning, and one who thoroughly believed himself. But I could not hold out long. Any one of his visions puts his real character out of doubt. He is one of the most ingenious, lively, entertaining madmen that ever set pen to paper. But his waking dreams are so wild, so far remote both from Scripture and common sense, that one might as easily swallow the stories of "Tom Thumb," or "Jack the Giant-Killer."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary (mine):
Acts 17:11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
1 Thes. 5:21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I'm not an expert on Swedenborg, but he seems to have had a baleful influence on John Chapman (aka Johnny Appleseed), Helen Keller, E.B. Browning, Coleridge, and others. Just Google "Famous People Influenced by Swedenborg" and decide for yourself.
Wednesday, 28. I sat down to read and seriously consider some of the writing of Baron Swedenborg. I began with huge prejudice in his favor, knowing him to be a pious man, one of a strong understanding, of much learning, and one who thoroughly believed himself. But I could not hold out long. Any one of his visions puts his real character out of doubt. He is one of the most ingenious, lively, entertaining madmen that ever set pen to paper. But his waking dreams are so wild, so far remote both from Scripture and common sense, that one might as easily swallow the stories of "Tom Thumb," or "Jack the Giant-Killer."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary (mine):
Acts 17:11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
1 Thes. 5:21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I'm not an expert on Swedenborg, but he seems to have had a baleful influence on John Chapman (aka Johnny Appleseed), Helen Keller, E.B. Browning, Coleridge, and others. Just Google "Famous People Influenced by Swedenborg" and decide for yourself.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Are YOU a Nuisance to the Devil (Acts 19)?
The inspiration for this post comes from T. Austin-Sparks' Daily Open Windows (courtesy Emmanuel Church, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA), p. 134, and from my pastor, David O'Steen, who is teaching through Acts on Wednesday evenings.
"The Holy Spirit is positive, and not negative, and if the Holy Spirit is really Lord in our lives, our lives will count for something. There will be an influence from our lives which will be eternal. Thank God for the Holy Spirit! Let us be sure to ask the Lord that the anointing shall have a free way in our lives. The effect of the Holy Spirit may be to condemn some people, and it may be to redeem others, but He cannot be neutral, and if the anointing is upon you and upon me, the devil will take account of it. May the Lord help us to see that that may not be a bad thing! Do you want the devil to say: 'Oh, that man, that woman, does not matter. You need not bother about him, or her!' I had a friend once who, whenever we were parting and going our different ways, took hold of my hand and said: 'Goodbye, old man. The Lord make you a nuisance to the devil!' Well, that is how it will be if the Holy Spirit is really upon us, for that it how it was with the Lord Jesus."
[Doctrinal note: the only Pauline reference to anointing is to one that all believers received at salvation, per 2 Cor. 1:21 (note "hath anointed us...hath...given the...Spirit in our hearts"). I think that Sparks may be referring to the anointing in 1 John 2:27, which is not doctrinally aimed at the body of Christ, but rather to kingdom saints in the first century historically and to saints in the great tribulation prophetically.]
"A nuisance to the devil" reminded me of what the devil-possessed man said to the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:15, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" The Lord Jesus and Paul, respectfully were nuisances to the devil:
1. The Lord Jesus "went about healing all that were oppressed of the devil" according to Peter in Acts 10:38.
2. Handkerchiefs and aprons that merely touched Paul's body were used to exorcise evil spirits in Ephesus (Acts 19:12), so I assume that many such spirits were exorcised there. Paul had also exorcised at Philippi (Acts 16:18) and likely other places.
It's not necessary, of course, to exorcise to be a nuisance to the devil. Faithfully preaching the gospel will also do it (Acts 24:5--a pestilent fellow), and also a powerful prayer life (Eph. 6:12, 18).
The Lord make YOU a nuisance to the devil!
"The Holy Spirit is positive, and not negative, and if the Holy Spirit is really Lord in our lives, our lives will count for something. There will be an influence from our lives which will be eternal. Thank God for the Holy Spirit! Let us be sure to ask the Lord that the anointing shall have a free way in our lives. The effect of the Holy Spirit may be to condemn some people, and it may be to redeem others, but He cannot be neutral, and if the anointing is upon you and upon me, the devil will take account of it. May the Lord help us to see that that may not be a bad thing! Do you want the devil to say: 'Oh, that man, that woman, does not matter. You need not bother about him, or her!' I had a friend once who, whenever we were parting and going our different ways, took hold of my hand and said: 'Goodbye, old man. The Lord make you a nuisance to the devil!' Well, that is how it will be if the Holy Spirit is really upon us, for that it how it was with the Lord Jesus."
[Doctrinal note: the only Pauline reference to anointing is to one that all believers received at salvation, per 2 Cor. 1:21 (note "hath anointed us...hath...given the...Spirit in our hearts"). I think that Sparks may be referring to the anointing in 1 John 2:27, which is not doctrinally aimed at the body of Christ, but rather to kingdom saints in the first century historically and to saints in the great tribulation prophetically.]
"A nuisance to the devil" reminded me of what the devil-possessed man said to the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:15, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" The Lord Jesus and Paul, respectfully were nuisances to the devil:
1. The Lord Jesus "went about healing all that were oppressed of the devil" according to Peter in Acts 10:38.
2. Handkerchiefs and aprons that merely touched Paul's body were used to exorcise evil spirits in Ephesus (Acts 19:12), so I assume that many such spirits were exorcised there. Paul had also exorcised at Philippi (Acts 16:18) and likely other places.
It's not necessary, of course, to exorcise to be a nuisance to the devil. Faithfully preaching the gospel will also do it (Acts 24:5--a pestilent fellow), and also a powerful prayer life (Eph. 6:12, 18).
The Lord make YOU a nuisance to the devil!
Friday, July 5, 2013
Who's at the Top of YOUR Prayer List?
From Christian History & Biography (CH&B), Issue 88 (Fall 2005), re: C.S. Lewis' ministry during World War II:
"But perhaps the most practical thing Lewis did in his war service was to pray for his enemies, praying every night for the people he was most tempted to hate. He told his brother in a letter that Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were at the top of his prayer list. He wrote to another correspondent that, when he prayed for Hitler and Stalin, he tried to recollect how his own cruelty might have blossomed under different conditions into something as terrible as theirs, to remember that Christ died for them as much as for him, and that, at bottom, he himself was not "so different from these ghastly creatures."
I'm also reminded of Festo Kivengere and his remarkable book, I Love Idi Amin (1977). Kivengere, an Anglican bishop from Uganda, was expecting arrest from Amin, the African dictator routinely referred to as "Africa's Hitler," and escaped the country on foot in early 1977. Within the year he had published the book. He survived Amin's reign, and after Amin's ouster was able to return to Uganda for years of fruitful ministry. He died of cancer in 1988 (aged 69). [Source: CH&B, Issue 94, Spring 2007]
For further inspiration, read 1 Timothy 2:1-6 in the King James Bible.
"But perhaps the most practical thing Lewis did in his war service was to pray for his enemies, praying every night for the people he was most tempted to hate. He told his brother in a letter that Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were at the top of his prayer list. He wrote to another correspondent that, when he prayed for Hitler and Stalin, he tried to recollect how his own cruelty might have blossomed under different conditions into something as terrible as theirs, to remember that Christ died for them as much as for him, and that, at bottom, he himself was not "so different from these ghastly creatures."
I'm also reminded of Festo Kivengere and his remarkable book, I Love Idi Amin (1977). Kivengere, an Anglican bishop from Uganda, was expecting arrest from Amin, the African dictator routinely referred to as "Africa's Hitler," and escaped the country on foot in early 1977. Within the year he had published the book. He survived Amin's reign, and after Amin's ouster was able to return to Uganda for years of fruitful ministry. He died of cancer in 1988 (aged 69). [Source: CH&B, Issue 94, Spring 2007]
For further inspiration, read 1 Timothy 2:1-6 in the King James Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)