Menu

Bible Passages

Responding to God’s Word (Nehemiah)

Nehemiah Chapter 8 gives us a commendable example of how a congregation ought to respond to the Word of God. Underlying any true “revival,” whether individual or more widespread, is the preaching and study of the Scriptures.

1) They showed an eager desire to hear the Word of God (vs. 1).

2) They realized it was for all–men, women and children, any who could profit from the hearing (vs. 2; cf. 10:28).

3) They demonstrated discipline and strong commitment (the meeting went on for hours, vs. 3).

4) They had prepared the environment for the best possible hearing of the Word (vs. 4).

5) They showed respect for God’s Word and for God’s servant (vs. 5).

6) They had a worshipful and submissive attitude before God (vs. 6).

7) They had the Word carefully interpreted for them and applied to their needs (vs. 7), and the meaning of words explained (vs. 8).

8) The Spirit of God brought conviction when the Word was proclaimed (vs. 9; cf. 9:1-3).

Note: Nehemiah and the others were not forbidding the people to mourn for their sins (vs. 9- 10). They simply asked them to keep in mind the purpose of the day. From the date given (vs. 2) it was a celebration of the Feast of Trumpets, typifying the regathering of Israel from among the Gentile nations (cf. Lev. 23:24-25). This was an occasion for joy.

9) They came back for more, and in order to dig deeper (vs. 13, 18).

10) They applied the Word and took appropriate action (vs. 14-17; cf. 10:28-29).

“Turned” – From What to What?

Acts 26:18 suggests six powerful contrasts between the unsaved and the saved individual which help define the effects of conversion (to “turn”). Sometimes the contrasts are stated explicitly; other times, one side or the other is implied [noted in squared brackets]. They are as follows.

1) From spiritual darkness to the light (with eyes now opened)

2) From the power of Satan to a personal relationship with God

3) [Guilty and condemned] to sins forgiven

4) [No ultimate future but death and hell] to an eternal inheritance from God (cf. I Pet. 1:3-4)

5) [Separated from God] to separated unto God (sanctified)

6) [No faith in Christ] to faith in Christ

Adam’s Curse

,

Question: Glenn asks, “Referring to Genesis 3:14-19, did God curse Adam, and therefore mankind? If not, what judgment did God place upon Adam? (In Genesis 1:28, it says God blessed them.) What does the word ‘curse’ mean in Genesis 3?”

Answer: Human beings can utter curses, but these are powerless apart from the permissive will of a sovereign God. Even the mercenary prophet Balaam realized that. When called upon by Balak to curse Israel, he refused, saying, “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom God has not denounced?” (Num. 23:8). But, leaving aside curses uttered by men and women, let’s consider what it means for God to curse someone or something.

The root of the Hebrew word seems to mean to bind. Thus, when God utters a curse He sets certain barriers, limitations, and restrictions, establishing these as a punishment or a discipline (like a parent that “grounds” a rebellious teen, or removes certain privileges). In addition to the curse in question, the Word of God gives us other examples. For instance, God cursed Cain for murdering his brother (Gen. 4:11), and disobedience to the Law of Moses brought a curse upon the Israelites (Deut. 11:28; 27:14-26). In Deuteronomy 28, the details of what that curse would mean are spelled out, including enemy invasion, and a scattering of the people among the nations.

Back in Genesis 3:14, it is the serpent that is cursed. Earlier, the devil (normally an invisible spirit) had used it to communicate with Adam and Eve, in Eden. We have no way of knowing the appearance of this animal in the beginning, but it must have been beautiful. What it became was a definite come down. Many now view this slithering reptile with dread and loathing. Though the snake was not directly responsible, it thus became a perpetual reminder of the fall, and of the judgment yet to come upon Satan (vs. 15).

The serpent was not the only creature to be cursed. All of the physical creation suffered because of that first sin. As Paul puts it in Romans, “the creation was subjected to futility” (Rom. 8:20). In this way, it has become a giant object lesson of the destructiveness of sin. Human beings were to have dominion over creation, managing it on behalf of God, and subject to His sovereign will (Gen. 1:26-28). But by rejecting God’s rule (in the test He set up) and accepting Satan’s word (Gen. 2:17; 3:6), Adam and Eve were saying, in effect, they knew better than God how to manage things. The frustration we have all experienced since the fall shows how terribly wrong they were.

The curse is creation-wide. But the serpent is mentioned specifically for the reason noted above. We are also given a few specifics of how the curse would affect human beings. Women, with the prime responsibility of having and raising children, now have more pain and difficulty in childbirth than God designed originally (vs. 16). And men’s frustration relates particularly to their daily work (vs. 17-19). Every weed we pull from the garden should be a reminder to us of what sin has done!

The prophesied productivity of the Millennial Kingdom, and the lack of danger from wild animals, suggest that the curse will be removed from the present creation, during the thousand year earthly reign of Christ (cf. Isa. 11:6-9; 35:9; 65:25). After this, in the new heavens and new earth God will provide one day (II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1), there will be “no more curse” (Rev. 22:3). All the things associated with a natural world out of kilter (such as aging, sickness, pain and death–not to mention weather patterns gone amok!) will be forever gone (Rev. 21:4-5).

But this does not imply that nature under the curse is totally out of control. You note that God “blessed” our first parents (Gen. 1:28). And He blesses us still, in grace. “He makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Go back to the definition given earlier. God sets definite boundaries for His chastenings. He does not abdicate His lordship. It can still be said of creation, “In Him [Christ] all things consist [are held in place]” (Col. 1:17). He “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). But in the future we will learn just how much more beautiful and satisfying nature can be when the curse is removed.

Where Is Your God?

The question is asked in Psalm 42:3, “My tears have been my food day and night, while they continually say to me, ‘Where is your God?'” (cf. vs. 10). It is somewhat reminiscent of the mockery of Christ on the cross (Matt. 27:43-44). A question such as this may have various emotions in back of it. And they are emotions frequently behind the ridicule of believers today.

1) Certainly there is hatred and scorn behind the words in Psalm 42. These are “enemies” (vs. 10), happy to see the psalmist in distress.

2) There is contempt, and unbelief in the question. They think they are seeing a weak God who cannot help (or no God at all).

3) There is perhaps a measure of superstitious dread and fear involved. There are reports of how the God of Israel has come to their aid in past days, in some spectacular ways. Maybe He will again.

4) There is maybe a hint of regret and disappointment behind their words. Could it be they are reflecting, “If only there were someone who could help us at such times”?

1 Corinthians 5:5 and Bible Translations

Question: Glenn also asks, “I am really concerned about the various translations. In the NIV, in First Corinthians 5:5, it states, ‘Hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed, and the spirit saved on the day of the Lord.’ In the NKJV the same verse is translated, ‘Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ.'” [Glenn’s legitimate concern is that these do not sound the same.]

Answer:The availability of many different Bible translations in English can be a great blessing–or it can breed confusion and error. Unless we are experts in Hebrew and Greek, the safest course is to use one of the better literal translations as a main Bible, comparing others for study purposes. Among the newer versions, the New King James Version, and the New American Standard Bible are excellent. That is not to say they have absolutely no translation difficulties, but they tend to be reliable in the vast majority of cases. The New International Version is helpful many times too. But the translators often paraphrase (rephrasing the original in their own words, according to what they think it means). When this happens, the NIV becomes more of a man-made commentary than a Bible. And commentators can be wrong.

Bottom line: Use the NIV as a helpful study tool, but check it against a more literal translation.

Regarding the passage in question, the sinful nature (in Greek, sarkos, “the flesh,” used in this spiritual sense) is not “destroyed” on this side of eternity. In the believer, “The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” But we can have victory as we “walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16-17). Christians who do not do so become “carnal” (sarkikos), worldly, and remain spiritual babies (I Cor. 3:1-3). The Greek word (sarkos) which the NIV translates “sinful nature” can also mean “physical body” (as the NIV admits in a footnote). In other words, sometimes “flesh” is used in the physical sense of the word, depending on the context. I believe this is the intended meaning in First Corinthians 5:5. (The verse is describing a step also mentioned in First Timothy 1:20).

If the man is a believer (which is possible in this case), Satan cannot affect his security in Christ (Rom. 8:38-39). However, he can assault him physically–as he did Job. The thought here is that such physical affliction from Satan may cause this wayward individual to seek after God, and bring him to repentance.

In the local church, the fellowship of believers provides an umbrella of protection for each individual Christian. This comes about through the presence of the Lord in their midst (Matt. 18:20), the purifying work of the Spirit through the Word, and the mutual admonishment and encouragement of Christians. When a member is expelled (vs. 2, 11), he loses that benefit and is more vulnerable to Satan’s attacks. This is part of the remedial effect of church discipline. Believers should not pray for him to be kept from this, because it is meant to be corrective (cf. I Jn. 5:16-17, where John speaks of a “sin unto death [i.e. physical death]”). (Paul gives us an example of this in First Corinthians 11:27, 30).

Views of the Millennium (Revelation 20)

, , ,

Question: Glenn asks, “In Revelation 20 it refers to the 1000-year reign of Christ. Please explain the differences in the beliefs in those who are pre, post and amillennial?”

Answer: The word “millennium” is simply an English form of the Latin words mille annus, meaning a thousand years (taken, of course, from Revelation 20:4, “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years”).

The Postmillennial View. That through the preaching of the gospel the world will eventually be christianized, bringing in a golden age (a millennium). Then the world will be fit for Christ’s return, and He will come back (“post” meaning after the millennium). This view was popular in the late 1800’s, when new inventions and discoveries signaled great progress. But two world wars dashed the hopes of most postmilliennialists that the world is getting better. There are relatively few of them today. And, of course, the view does not square with Scripture that teaches us “perilous times” will come in the last days, and “evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse” (II Tim. 3:1-5, 13).

The Amillennial View. That there is no such thing as a literal, earthly millennium (“a” meaning no). To hold this view, most amillennialists “spiritualize” the many Bible chapters describing the earthly reign of the Messiah, applying them to the church today in some symbolic sense. For example, consider what Matthew Henry (an amillennialist) does with Isaiah 11:6-9. The passage speaks of the removal of the curse upon creation, and the harmony in the natural world during the earthly reign of Christ. It refers to the wolf and the lamb dwelling together, etc. But Henry says, “Unity or concord [is] intimated in these figurative promises…men of the most fierce and furious dispositions shall have their temper so strangely altered by the grace of Christ that they shall live in love with even the weakest and such as formerly were easy prey.”

That the Lord transforms lives is quite true. The question is whether Isaiah meant that! And I would argue that he did not. The biggest problem with amillennialism is its inconsistent method of interpretation. It treats most of Scripture literally. But when it comes to many prophecies concerning Israel it resorts to “spiritualizing” (allegorizing). But then the question comes: Which Scriptures should be taken literally, and which should not? And who decides? (Matthew Henry decided those are “figurative promises,” but who gave him that right?) As the old interpreters used to say, “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”

The Bible can best be understood with a consistently literal interpretation, duly taking into account figures of speech. (See the article regarding the interpretation of prophecy on the website.) There are approximately 1,000 individual prophecies found in the Word of God. To date, around 500 (or half) of them have been literally fulfilled. That can give us confidence that a plain, natural meaning is intended by the prophets. For example, was Christ literally born in Bethlehem as Micah predicted (Mic. 5:2)? Or are we to treat “Bethlehem” in some spiritual or symbolic way, rather than as a literal town?

The Premillennial View (the position of this website). That Christ will come back, visibly, bodily, before (“pre” meaning before) the millennium, ushering in a golden age of peace and plenty on the earth. There is an enormous amount of Scripture describing His earthly reign from the throne of David, and the nature of life on earth at that time. A consistent treatment of the Scriptures (as even some amillennialists will admit) will lead one to be a premillennialist. A good book summarizing the arguments for this position is Ryrie’s little volume The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.

Contrasting the Secular and the Spiritual Man

Psalm 17:13-15 provides an interesting contrast between the outlook of the believer and the unregenerate person. A contrast between…

  1. Those who are enemies of God’s people and therefore of God Himself, versus those who can call on God for deliverance because they are on His side (“deliver my soul from the wicked,” vs. 13; cf. Rom. 8:31).
  2. “Men of the world” (vs. 14), who see life as bounded by the cradle and the grave (or the womb and the tomb!), versus those whose “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20).
  3. “Men…who have their portion in this life” (vs. 14), versus those who have “treasures in heaven” (Matt. 6:19-21, 33; cf. I Pet. 1:3-4).
  4. Those who are unaware of God’s blessing and common grace (“whose belly You fill with Your hidden treasure,” vs. 14; cf. Matt. 5:45) versus those who recognize God’s hand in every blessing (cf. Phil. 4:19; Jas. 1:17).
  5. Those whose idea of “eternal life” is to live on in their children (“they are satisfied with children, and leave the rest of their possession for their babes, vs. 14) versus those who believe in the resurrection, and life after death (“as for me, I will see Your face in righteousness,” vs. 15).
  6. Those who face final judgment for sin (Heb. 9:27), versus those who will be perfected and confirmed in righteousness, through faith (vs. 15).
  7. Those whose satisfaction is found in what they produce and acquire (vs. 14), versus those who find satisfaction in the fulfilment of God’s purpose (“I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness,” vs. 15).

“If Your Right Hand Causes You To Sin…”

,

Question: Helena asks, “What is the meaning of Jesus’ words, ‘If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off…’ (Matt. 5:29-30)?”

right hand

Answer: These words of Jesus appear in the “Sermon on the Mount” and are found again in Matthew 18:8-9, and in Mark 9:43-48. Mention is made of amputating a hand and a foot, and putting out an eye. But these cannot be commands to engage in self-mutilation. The Bible condemns such behaviour. It is the idolatrous heathen who abuse their bodies in an attempt to please their gods (I Kgs. 18:25-29). Physically, we are the special creation of God (Gen. 2:7) and the Christian’s body is “the temple of the Holy Spirit,” to be used to glorify Him (I Cor. 6:19-20).

When we examine closely what Jesus said, nothing seems right. It is not the hand, the foot or the eye that “causes” sin. Nor is it the present physical body of the unbeliever that enters hell, but a new, resurrection body (Rev. 20:11-15). Further, even one who is blinded may be lustful still. Jesus used these startling words to stir a reaction. The seeming anomalies in the teaching are meant to force us to see the real problem. Amputation will not solve a problem that is rooted elsewhere. It is in the heart where sin is generated (cf. Mk. 7:20-23). So we are driven back to the opening word, “if.” If the eye is the problem….But it is not.

Centuries ago, a man was arrested in England for being a pickpocket. As a cruel punishment, his right hand was cut off. But he simply learned new dexterity with his left hand and went right on stealing. When arrested again, his left hand also was amputated. But he then taught himself to pick pockets with his teeth! The gruesome tale makes a point. Where does the real problem lie? Not in the hands of the pickpocket, nor even his teeth. What he needed, and what we all need if we are to consistently obey God’s Word, is a transformed heart. David realized that and prayed, “Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:10). And the creation of a new heart is the central promise of the New Covenant (Ezek. 36:26).

Second Corinthians 5:17 says, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (cf. 3:18). By the power of the Holy Spirit we are to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). And when the Spirit of God changes the human heart, it will affect our eyes (what we admire and desire), our feet (the path we choose in life), and our hands (what we do and make). That is the point of the passages in question.

The Lie

,

Question: Glenn asks, “In Romans: 1:25, it states, ‘…who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and serve the creature rather than the Creator…’ Explain the meaning of the words, ‘for the lie,’ and what was the ‘creature’? And at the end of the verse, it reads, ‘…who is blessed forever.’ Please explain.”

Answer: “The lie” is mentioned a number of times in the Word of God. John 8:44 (literally) says of the devil, “When he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own resources. for he is a liar and the father of it [i.e. of the lie].” And of those who will be deceived by the coming Antichrist we read, “God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” (II Thess. 2:11).

“The truth of God” in this case might be summed up by the words of the Lord Jesus to Satan, “You shall worship the Lord Your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Matt. 4:10). Only Almighty God is worthy of our allegiance and our worship. That is the truth of God. And an assertion that we should worship anything or anyone other than God “the lie.”

In the context, in Romans (vs. 23) the heathen worship various creatures (animals) made into idols, rather than the One who created them. And you’ll notice “man” is included in vs. 23. The glorifying of man is humanism, a religion whose ruling passion is pride, with man himself as its ultimate god.

This was behind “the lie” of Eden–“Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God” (Gen. 3:5). In other words, “You don’t need God; be your own god!” “The lie” of Second Thessalonians is akin to this, since it involves the worship of Satan’s counterfeit Christ, a mere man.

You also ask about the closing words of Romans 1:25. “…the Creator, who is blessed [praiseworthy, or praised] forever” is simply Paul’s way of saying he totally rejects “the lie.” He refers to God in a similar way in Romans 9:5. “Blessed” translates the Greek eulogia which gives us the English word eulogize–a eulogy being words of praise for the dear departed at a funeral. In Mark 14:61, Jesus is asked, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [the One Forever Praiseworthy].”

Women Head Covering: Is it necessary for women to have their heads covered in the house of God?

Question:  Are head coverings for women for today? I have a dear sister-in-the-Lord who has a blog, and is very much pro-head coverings. I was surprised to discover also that R.C. Sproul condones head coverings.

Answer: Thanks for the great question. There are a number of issues that arise in the context of the Bible passage that deals with the subject (I Corinthians 11:2-16). I won’t attempt to address them all. I’ll focus mainly on the verses that apply to women covering their heads in the meetings of the church.

As you imply, there are differences of both interpretation and application with regard to the passage. Some, of course, reject the validity of the teaching altogether, asserting that Paul was simply speaking for himself, and was prejudiced against women. For those who believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, that is not an option.

But even when we deal with sincere Christian people, ones who accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, there are differences. Some believe Paul’s instruction is universal, and applies to our own time, and women should have their heads covered in the house of God. Others are convinced it was a cultural thing in the first century that has no direct application today. That the principle of humility behind it is still valid, but the specifics of dress are not.

When I was a boy, our family attended a church that believed in women having their heads covered. This was interpreted to mean that a woman should wear a hat in the Lord’s house. But nothing was said about the kind of hat, and those of some got bigger and fancier as time went on. Easter Sunday, in particular, was the traditional time to wear new finery and show off your latest head gear.

It doesn’t take much thought to realize that this practice actually flies in the face of the principle Paul was trying to teach. The hats became a matter of personal pride (for some, at least) rather than a sign of humility, modesty and submission.

As to the passage of Scripture, I checked a number of commentaries. Most authors seem to come to the conclusion that there were unique cultural implications to head coverings in Bible times that do not pertain today. Josh McDowell provides an example of the most frequent approach:

“Most scholars today see this passage as a cultural injunction rather than a universal command. They see it as an issue in the first century on how Paul dealt with matters of authority….So to many the issue for us today isn’t a covering for a woman’s head, but an attitude of heart–one of humility, submission, and service to one another.” (The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses, by Josh and Sean McDowell)

My own conclusion is similar. That a woman’s head being covered in the culture of the first century had symbolic meaning it does not generally have for Christians today, certainly in North America. In the first century, head coverings were not simply to keep the sun off, or worn as a decoration. They made a statement about a woman’s humility and modesty.

I don’t think the vast majority of people today would think of that, if they saw a girl wearing a hat. In some situations, it might make her stand out even more, and be more of a focus of attention, which could end up sending just the opposite message.

Things like tradition, culture, and custom can be tricky. There are, for example, those who are against women wearing slacks. But I find it difficult to point to a specific Scripture for insisting on that. (Men wore skirts in Bible times!) And some pant suits on women are far more modest that mini-skirts I’ve seen!

However, even if women covering their heads is not an absolute command for Christians today, I would try to avoid offending those who take that position. If my wife and I visited a church where that practice was the norm, I know she would have no problem wearing a scarf or shawl over her head. It would be a way of showing respect and Christian love for brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, here is the passage (vs. 2-5) in the NKJV, with some explanatory additions I’ve included in squared brackets.

“I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions [teachings  passed on from the Lord] just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man [the One to whom he is responsible] is Christ, the head of woman [the one to whom she is responsible] is man [i.e. her husband], and the head of Christ [the One to whom He is responsible, as Man] is God [the Father]. Every man praying or prophesying, having his [physical] head covered, dishonors his head [Christ]. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her [physical] head uncovered dishonors her head [her husband], for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.”

In these verses, the apostle addresses a distortion of what it means to have liberty in Christ, the idea that under grace we are free from restraint and can do as we please.

For some women, this apparently included a rejection of the headship of their husbands in the home. And to display their independence they cast aside a symbol of humility recognized in the culture of that day. But Paul declared this not to be a liberating, but a degrading step. If women do that, they might as well shave their heads–a sign of disgrace in that culture which was particularly associated with prostitutes.

As the context indicates (vs. 8-12), the headship of the husband was established in the very beginning, with Adam and Eve. It is taught in the New Testament too (Eph. 5:22-24).

This is a God-ordained administrative order in the home It does not mean women are inferior to men. That can be seen in the passage when vs. 3 says, “the head of Christ is God.” As God the Son, Christ is fully God (Col. 2:9), and is worthy of equal honour with the Father (Jn. 5:23). But He willingly submitted Himself to God the Father in order to carry out a divine purpose and plan.

Not only were those in the unsaved in the community watching the Christians and how they behaved, so were the angels (vs. 10; cf. Eph. 3:10). The holy angels are quite interested in earthly goings on, and the purpose of God in them (I Pet. 1:12). And just as these spirit beings are submissive to God, they expect that this attitude will be seen in the saints as well (cf. Matt. 6:10).

Load More