Menu

Your Questions

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.

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.

Legalism and License

,

Question: Bill asks, “Can you please explain the difference between legalism and license?”

Answer: In Christian teaching, license is a moral distortion of liberty. It is the notion that living under grace gives us the freedom (or even the right) to do whatever we want and be free from any binding standard. (This is called “antinomianism.”) It argues that since Christ has paid the penalty for all our sins, we are free to live as we please. But of course that is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Christian liberty is not a license to do as we wish, but the power to do as we ought. Though the epistles recognize our freedom in Christ, that is balanced with the fact that:

A) If we truly love God we will want to do only those things that please Him (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23; I Jn. 2:5). Since God hates sin and cannot abide it in His presence (Hab. 1:13), why would we want to grieve Him (Eph. 4:30) and hinder our fellowship with Him (Ps. 66:18; Isa. 59:2)?

B) In showing Christ-like love to others–which we are to do (Jn. 13:34), we will want to avoid those things that could harm them. To act in such a way as would cause others to stumble into sin is hateful and wrong (I Cor. 8:9, 11-12; I Pet. 2:16; cf. Rom. 15:1-2).

C) Sin is still dangerous and destructive, if allowed into our lives as Christians. It can still enslave us if we let it. Instead, we should be living in a way that is edifying to ourselves and to others (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Gal. 5:13; cf. Eph. 4:29).

James speaks of “the law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25; 2:12), I believe he is referring to the entire Word of God, as applied under Grace. The Law of Moses called for strict obedience, but did not, in itself, provide the power to obey. The Law was thus a frustrating burden, a yoke of bondage (Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1). Under Grace, we are given a new nature (II Pet. 1:3-4), and indwelt by the Spirit of God (I Cor. 6:19; Rom. 8:9). This is the spiritual and universal aspect of God’s “New Covenant” with Israel (Jer. 31:33; 32:40; Ezek. 36:26-27), made possible by the shed blood of Christ (I Cor. 11:25). We have, by this means, a new sensitivity to God and His will, and a new power to do what is right. That is liberating!

It is not that the Christian life is without standards. God’s righteous standard is eternal (Isa. 51:6, 8). Rather, we now have a new desire and a new power (by God’s Spirit) to live lives that are pleasing to Him. But that brings us to the matter of legalism. Charles Ryrie, in his fine book, Balancing the Christian Life, says, “Legalism is not the presence of laws….Legalism may be defined as a fleshly attitude which conforms to a code for the purpose of exalting self” (p. 159). Put a slightly different way, It is not “legalistic” to have moral standards. Legalism is the belief that God’s acceptance needs to be earned by our good works. It involves a failure to understand and appreciate the grace and love of God.

This addresses the motivation for Christian living. When Christ died upon the cross, He paid the penalty for all the sins of all mankind for all time (Isa. 53:6; I Jn. 2:2). If one lays claim to Christ’s Calvary work as His own, that is all that is necessary. There is no longer any outstanding payment in the way of our full acceptance by God. We are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6). Each and every believer is a “son and heir” in the family of God (Gal. 3:26; 4:7). Our standing before God is anchored in grace, His unmerited favour (Rom. 5:1-2).

In that exalted position, we live to please God, not to earn something that is already ours, but to express our appreciation for it. In this sense Law and Grace are complete opposites. (Under Law, Doing leads to Blessing; Under Grace, Blessing leads to Doing.) There is a word that is used some two dozen times in the epistles. It is the word “beseech” (plead, entreat). It perfectly reflects our new standing. The Law said, “Do this and you will be blessed.” Grace says, here are all the blessings, free and clear, guaranteed in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Now, won’t you please show Him how much you appreciate that? Won’t you please obey Him in response to His gracious gift?

That is the thrust of verses such as: Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, by the mercies of God [because of the great work of salvation described in the earlier chapters], that you present your bodies a living sacrifice…” And Second Corinthians 6:1, “We then [because of what is described in 5:21], as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain…” And Ephesians 4:1, “I therefore [on the basis of the great work of God described to this point in the book]…beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called.”

“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 “Best Hymn”?

,

Question: Ken asks, “What is the best hymn, in your opinion?”

hymnals

Answer: Though there is agreement on some hymns that belong near the top of the list, a final choice will always come down to subjective opinion. And it depends a lot on the criteria laid down for evaluating them. The three traditional hymns that hymnologists often put at the top of the list are: Jesus, Lover of My Soul; Rock of Ages; and When I Survey the Wondrous Cross. Others ranking near the top are: All Praise to Thee, My God, This Night; Hark! The Herald Angels Sing; Lo, He Comes With Clouds Descending; and Abide With Me.

If the question were to be a bit different, and we asked what are the most popular hymns, the answer has changed somewhat over the years. An extensive poll, taken 50 years ago, rated the following as the top ten favourites (in order of rank): The Old Rugged Cross; What a Friend We Have in Jesus; I Love to Tell the Story; In the Garden; Rock of Ages; Sweet Hour of Prayer; Abide with Me; He Leadeth Me; Jesus Lover of My Soul; and Nearer My God To Thee.

In 1990, ten thousand people of all ages were asked to list their favourites. The top ten (in order) were: Amazing Grace; How Great Thou Art; In the Garden; The Old Rugged Cross; What a Friend We Have in Jesus; A Mighty Fortress Is Our God; Blessed Assurance; He Lives; Victory in Jesus; and Holy, Holy, Holy.

You will notice that the two favourite hymns on the more current list do not even appear in the top ten a generation ago. So, are they new hymns? Hardly. “Amazing Grace” was first published in 1779, and “How Great Thou Art” was written in 1886. But in 1955, the Billy Graham Toronto Crusade introduced a “new” hymn they had found, and within the next few years “How Great Thou Art” had become the most popular hymn in America. Then, in 1970, folk singer Judy Collins made a recording of “Amazing Grace” and it went on to achieve “Top 40” status on the hit parade–one of the few Christian songs ever to do so. It has been popular ever since.

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].”

Salvation and Suffering: Is it necessary to suffer for Christ to be saved?

,

Question: I have a question about Romans 8:17. If we do not suffer for Christ or share in His sufferings, does that mean we will not have eternal life at all? I kept struggling with the thought that if I do not suffer for Christ or share in His sufferings, I do not belong to Him at all.

Answer: Thanks. You ask an excellent question. There are several points we need to deal with to provide a full answer.

First, the implication that there is something else necessary for salvation, other than trusting in the saving work of Christ. The simplest explanation of how to be saved comes from Paul’s encounter with the Philippian jailer. He asks the apostle, “What must I do to be saved?” And the answer comes back, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:30-31). It’s not “Believe and suffer…” or “Believe and join a church…” or “believe and do good works…” It’s simply “believe.”

Each of the things mentioned has its place in the Christian life, but not in terms of receiving the gift of salvation. And that’s an important point–it is a gift. That’s what God’s grace is all about. It’s unearned and unmerited favour. Something God gives us that we haven’t paid for. Christ did the paying on the cross (I Cor. 15:3). Salvation is not a do, but a done. By putting our faith in Christ, we are accepting what He did as being for us, personally, and receiving God’s gift.

The Bible is quite clear that grace excludes any kind of works (Rom. 4:4-5; 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9). Instead, to be saved, we are to receive (believe on) Christ as our personal Saviour (Jn. 1:12-13). Something like a hundred times, the New Testament gives simple faith in Christ as the one and only means of salvation (e.g. Jn. 3:16, 36; 6:40, 47; Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 1:16; 5:1; Gal. 3:26, cf. 4:6-7). Sufferers for Christ will be rewarded one day, but that is not to say that suffering is how we’re saved.

This should be enough to raise a question about adding suffering as a requirement for salvation. And there’s a logical problem with doing that, as well as a biblical one. The question must be raised: How much suffering is enough suffering? Will I get to heaven if I’m mocked for being a Christian and bear it humbly? Or do I have to lose my job, or be put in prison? Or be burned at the stake? You can see the problem!

Since these things are so, we should ask whether there is another acceptable interpretation of the verse in Romans–and I believe there is. Here’s the verse, in context, in the New King James Version:

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (Rom. 8:16-17).

About this passage, William MacDonald writes, “[Paul] is not making heroic suffering a condition for salvation….Rather, he sees all Christians as being co-sufferers and all Christians as glorified with Christ. [The Greek word for] “if” is equivalent to ‘since.’…All who acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Saviour are seen here as incurring the hostility of the world, with its shame and reproach” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p. 1711).

Notice the alternate translation of “if” (ei per in Greek) that MacDonald offers: since. The Bible Knowledge Commentary suggests, “if, as is the fact” (Vol. 2, p. 471). William Newell, in his classic commentary Romans Verse by Verse, suggests, “inasmuch as” (p. 316). M. R. Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament says, “the conditional participle with the indicative mood assumes the fact: if so be, as is really the case” (p. 709).

A note in The NIV Study Bible sums it up this way: “The Greek construction used here does not set forth a condition but states a fact. The meaning, then, is not that there is some doubt about sharing Christ’s glory. Rather, despite the fact that Christians presently suffer, they are assured a future entrance into their inheritance” (p. 1717).

Let’s render the Romans passage with the acceptable option discussed, and see what happens. “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, since indeed [ei per] we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (Rom. 8:16-17).

What is being described is not an optional choice, but an actual fact. We do suffer. The only other place in the New Testament where that phrase “suffer with” is used is in First Corinthians 12:26, which says, “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” The point there is that the church is a body, and what happens to one part (or member) happens to all. Therefore, what happens to all should be a concern of each one.

In other words, if the church, the body of Christ, suffers (which it does), that means we suffer as Christians, because we are a part of the body. If you have a toothache, your whole body feels miserable until it’s somehow dealt with. That’s all Paul is saying about the spiritual body of Christ, and it’s the key to the meaning of Romans 8:17. Just as surely as we can look forward to future glory, as members of the body of Christ, we also face the world’s antagonism and opposition as His body, here below. It’s not something added on; it just is.

Salvation and Baptism: Is baptism necessary for salvation?

, ,

Question: What is the meaning of the words of Ananias to Paul, after the latter met with Christ on the Damascus Road: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Does this means that water baptism cleanses away sin?

Answer: Though Paul’s conversion is described first in Acts 9:1-19, this (i.e. Acts 22:16) is the only place where these words of Ananias are recorded. Various attempts have been made to explain the seeming implication that water baptism effectually cleanses sins. But the New Testament makes it clear that it is the blood of Christ that does that (I Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5). What then is the meaning here?

1) Some (Charles Ryrie and others) try to avoid the problem by re-translating–”having arisen, be baptized; and wash away your sins, having called on the name of the Lord.” However, though this accurately reflects the meaning of the Greek original, it does not explain why baptism precedes cleansing–especially when there are other indications that Paul was saved (and cleansed) before this.

Paul (then called Saul) had already demonstrated faith in, and submission to Christ, on the Damascus Road (Acts 22:10). And he was filled with the Spirit before he was baptized (Acts 9:17-18). Further, Paul heard the gospel not from Ananias first, but from Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-12). In other words, there is every indication that Paul received Christ as Saviour and was filled with the Spirit and cleansed of his sins before his water baptism.

2) It may be helpful to consider his baptism as being more Jewish than Christian. Water baptism was used by the Jews to initiate proselytes to Judaism, and John the Baptist used it as a symbol of repentance, in preparation for Christ’s coming. The church, thoroughly Jewish in the early days, would be untaught about the truth of being positionally “in Christ” and the union with Him that is expressed by Christian baptism.

Rather, they would attach to baptism something of its former significance. Note Paul’s emphasis on the Jewishness of this event (Acts 22:3, 12, 14). The only ones in Acts who are told to be baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38), or similar words, are Jews.

The nation of Israel had rejected their Messiah. “His blood be on us and on our children,” they’d said (Matt. 27:25). By a public baptism conducted by church leaders, individual Jews were openly disassociating themselves from their Christ-rejecting nation, and identifying themselves with Him.

Baptism thus was a sign of their repentance of the specific sins related to the death of Christ and of any prior opposition to His work through the church. In effect, it took them off Jewish ground and put them on Christian ground–though a full understanding of this only came gradually. For Paul, his baptism likely testified outwardly to a repudiation of his former hateful actions against Christ and the church.

It is only when we move away from the early days, and past the official introduction of Gentiles into the body of Christ, that we see a greater emphasis on positional truth in connection with baptism. Today, believer’s baptism by immersion signifies the individual’s identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and a determination to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).

Paul certainly never saw it as essential for salvation. He baptized very few individuals (I Cor. 1:14-17), which would be strange if he believed they couldn’t be saved without it!

Lord of All: Is Christ Lord of all?

,

Question: How can Jesus be the God of all people? He Himself said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 15:24).

Answer: This is a case of needing to distinguish God’s program from His Person. And needing to distinguish the steps in His program from His ultimate goal.

His Program and His Person

As to God Himself, He is One God in three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. Each of the three Persons of the Trinity is fully God, and worthy of equal honour with the others, yet there is only one God. Each Person of the Trinity has a unique function and ministry, yet there is only one God.

We should not reject this truth simply because there is nothing we can see in nature that parallels it, or that can fully illustrate it. God is infinitely transcendent; He is utterly supreme and unique. Nothing, and no one else is like Him.

triquetra

One of many attempts to illustrate the Trinity is a figure called the triquetra, seen above. It is one figure, with three distinct points, yet no point can exist without the others. They are all three interconnected and each is equal to the others.

That is helpful. But the triquetra fails to deal adequately with the uniqueness of each Person in the triune Godhead. As you see from the drawing, the points are all exactly the same, which is not true of the Persons of the Trinity. For example, Jesus Christ is both God and Man, but the Spirit of God is not a Man.

The difficulty of explaining these truths was not lost on the Bible’s authors. John was a Jew who was taught there is only one true God (Deut. 6:4). Yet he wrote of Christ, whom he called “the Word” (cf. Jn. 1:14), and said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it: “In the beginning <before all time> was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.”

Your problem of confusing God’s program (what He does), with who He is, can be illustrated by something that happened to Queen Victoria, long ago. It was the custom of the queen to go for walks in ordinary clothes, with a faithful servant following some distance behind.

On one such occasion she came upon a flock of sheep, driven by a boy who rudely shouted, “Get out of the way, you stupid old woman!” The queen smiled, and said nothing. But when her servant passed by he informed the lad he’d been speaking to her Majesty the Queen. Totally unrepentant, the boy responded, “Well, she should dress like it!”

You seem to be asking that everything the Lord does must be clearly and evidently God-like, from your point of view. But would you have recognized Christ’s deity if you were there to see Him hanging on a cross, or watched as they buried His lifeless body in a stone cold tomb? Not likely. Even His disciples didn’t at first.

However, the Bible assures us of the deity of Christ over and over. He is “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).

A number of times Christ is also said to be the Creator of all things (cf. Col. 1:16-17). The Lord Jesus Himself said, “All should honour the Son just as they honour the Father” (Jn. 5:23), and He took to Himself the “I AM” name of Jehovah God (Exod. 3:14) : “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (Jn. 8:58).

His Program and His Goal

Now, let’s think about my second point. That we must distinguish the steps in God’s program from His ultimate goal, and we must allow Him, as the sovereign Lord of all, to do what, in His infinite wisdom, He knows is the best way to reach that goal.

There is no doubt that God has favoured Israel in a unique way, above all the other nations on earth (Deut. 7:6). Four thousand years ago, He chose Abraham, and promised to make of his descendants a great nation, with a land of their own–a land that would be theirs in perpetuity (Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15).  Through Israel came the inspired Word of God (Rom. 3:1-2), and through them came Christ, the living Word (Rom. 9:5; cf. Matt. 1:1).

The Lord calls the nation “Israel My glory” (Isa. 46:13), something said of no other people. Of Israel it was said, “He who touches you touches the apple [pupil] of His [God’s] eye” (Zech. 2:8)–meaning something especially valued by the Lord. And Israel is the special focus of the narrative in much of the Bible, from Genesis 11:27 (about Abraham’s ancestry), all the way through to the early chapters of Acts.

In the Gospels, the Jews are still the focus on God’s plan. Even in the promise of Jesus’ birth to Joseph it is said, “He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That, of course, does not mean He was not going to save others too. But this was a message important to a believing Jew. (To say that the allies liberated Paris from the Nazis in the Second World War does not mean they did not also liberate France and other nations of Europe.)

As you point out, Christ’s primary ministry, at first, was to “the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). And when Jesus sent to disciples out to minister, they too were sent only to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6). Even the early Christians, after Pentecost, preached the gospel only to the Jews, at first (Acts 11:19).

However, the gospel of grace, salvation through the finished work of Christ, is “for the Jew first and also for the Greek [the Gentile]” (Rom. 1:16). “Jesus Christ–He is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), not just Lord of the Jews.

When the Jews rejected and crucified their Messiah-King, the gospel message was extended to all nations. The disciples, whose ministry was restricted before, were then given a wider mission: “You shall be witnesses to Me…to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) The Great Commission is to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:18-20).

Why would the Lord favour one nation above all others as He did? I’m not sure of all the reasons–and He owes me no explanation for that. We do know that God blessed the nation of Israel and equipped them to be a witness for Him to the ancient world. “‘You are My witnesses,’ says the LORD, ‘and My servant whom I have chosen'” (Isa. 43:10). However, through disobedience and unbelief, and habitual idolatry, Israel failed in this task.

Today, the church is the spiritual body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23), made up of all nations treated on an equal basis (Gal. 3:26-28). It is a body, not with an earthly citizenship and kingdom, but a heavenly citizenship and kingdom (Phil. 3:20). And the church has taken up the work at which Israel failed: to witness to a dying world.

This wider work was part of God’s plan from the beginning. Even in His covenant with Abraham we see it: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed'” (Gal. 3:8).

So, you see, though He had, and still has, special blessings in store for Israel as a nation, in fulfillment of His covenants, God had the salvation of all nations on His heart and in His sovereign plan, even then. But we must allow Him to work in His own way, while rejoicing in what He has done for us personally.

Two Parts or Three: Are humans two-part beings (spirit and body) or three-part beings (spirit, soul and body)?

,

Question: Are human two-part beings (spirit and body), or three-part beings (spirit, and soul, and body)?

Answer: This has long been debated. I have always taken a tripartite position, though there actually may be a way in which both views are correct, depending on how you look at it. Some of what is below is, I believe, indisputably biblical. But, admittedly, I also venture into the area of the theoretical. I think the ideas are logical, and possible, but cannot be dogmatic about them.

The words for spirit (ruwach in Hebrew, and pneuma in Greek) are found many times in the Bible, as are the words for soul (nephesh in Hebrew, and psuche in Greek). The Hebrew and Greek words have a greater variety of meanings than soul and spirit do in English, allowing for different uses. For example, both ruwach and pneuma can mean wind or breath, as well as spirit. And there are times when they seem to be used generally or interchangeably, to represent the immaterial part of man.

However, there are several Scriptures which suggest a distinction between the soul and the spirit. In his letter to the Thessalonian Christians, Paul prays, “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it” (I Thess. 5:23-24).

Unlike the NKJV (above) which omits the word “and” between spirit and soul, it is there in the Greek original: “your spirit and soul and body.” Interestingly, the original KJV of 1611 retained the double “and,” so why it was dropped from the modern revision I’m not sure.

There is great specificity in that description–your whole (entire, complete) spirit and soul and body. It will not do, I believe, to say the Apostle is simply throwing a bunch of words together to emphasize that he’s speaking of the entire being. If we believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, each word is important.

A similar thing is done in the Great Commission, in dealing with the Persons of the Trinity. It is not, “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each Person is given His unique place: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, italics mine). There can be no mistaking the distinct identity and equal importance of each One.

Kenneth Wuest’s Expanded Translation of the Thessalonian passage has: “May the God of peace Himself consecrate you, every part of each one of you, to His worship and service, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved in their entirety blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The uniqueness of the soul and the spirit is indicated in other texts as well. Hebrews 4:12 tells us, “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit.” That is, it is able to identify and distinguish between spiritual needs on the one hand, and psychological (mental/emotional) needs on the other.

Without question, there is a material part of man, and an invisible, immaterial part, those two. Or, to put it more precisely, man is body and man is spirit, a physical being and a spirit being. This, in itself, is quite unique. The angels are exclusively spirit beings, though they can take on a physical appearance when they choose to. Animals do not, as far as we know, have an eternal spirit. Only man is both body and spirit.

We come, then, to the way in which man can be seen as both a two-part and a three-part being. Yes, we are both material and immaterial beings, body and spirit. But I would argue that we have a soul as well. A simple way to distinguish the three is to say:

    ¤ Through our spirits we have God consciousness
    ¤ Through our souls we have self consciousness
    ¤ Through our bodies we have world consciousness (by our senses)

Picture the spirit and the body as two circles. If we bring them together so that they partly overlap, in the area of overlap we have a possible way to portray the place of the third aspect of our being, the soul. My view is that the soul is the psychological part of us, involving our intellect, emotions and will. But if that is so, how then is it connected to the spirit?

Consider what happens at death, when the spirit leaves the body? Does the soul disappear or cease to exist? Or, to put it another way, are our eternal spirits unable to think, feel or decide? That would be nonsense. But what if the mind is more than a physical organ inside our skulls. Is it possible we have a mind as well as a brain? The answer, it seems to me, is that the mind is to the spirit as the brain is to the body. The brain is a physical organ, capable of directing the physical body. But the mind is an eternal entity, more related to the spirit. The two are integrated in us, but are not the same thing.

To see the distinction, it’s helpful to view the difference between the unregenerate and born again person. The Bible tells us that the unsaved person is spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph.  2:1, 5). Not that the spirit is extinct–since it is eternal. But it is utterly alienated from God, insensitive to God, and powerless to respond appropriately to Him (Rom. 3:11). That means the unsaved person (the “natural” man) is soul-directed, not God directed (I Cor. 2:14). “These are sensual [psuchikos or soulish] persons…not having the Spirit” (Jude 1:19).

But what happens with the new birth? We are given new spiritual life, the life of the Spirit, who comes to indwell us (Jn. 6:63; I Cor. 6:19). Through Him, and by His illumination of the Word of God, our thinking is transformed (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23), and we gain “the mind [or understanding] of Christ” (I Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5). It’s not that our physical brain ceases to function or stops gathering data through our senses. But it is further equipped and enabled to function in a new dimension.

In addition to the input from our physical senses, we now are able to view life from God’s point of view, and are empowered respond to it accordingly. When we die, the body (including the brain) perishes, but the transformed mind, finally perfected (I Jn. 3:2), continues to exist as a part of our eternal spirits.

Some of the above is admittedly theorizing beyond the scope of what Scripture reveals, or what it reveals only dimly. It may not satisfy those who are convinced otherwise. But I’ve tried to show a legitimate way in which both the two-part and three-part views of man can be integrated, and both be correct.

Load More