Matt Postiff's Blog

Here is today's question:

How do you answer in your own heart His words in Matthew 23:37-38 where Jesus says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate...” This desire is not a reflection of special grace, but how can you explain this longing of God that never in fact came to pass?

Answer: This saying comes immediately after the Lord’s lamentation that the Jewish people had a habit of killing the prophets and rejecting God’s messengers. This wicked tendency grieved God not only because it indicated a damaged relationship where the people were not welcoming Him as their God, but that it had terrible temporal and eternal consequences. Despite these necessary and natural consequences, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).

Like an extremely patient human father or national leader, instead of rejection, what the Lord was hoping for was that they would receive him, along the lines of making a commitment to this effect: “You will be our God, and we will be your people.” God is pictured as a caring hen who wants to protect and provide warmth for her chicks. But the little chickens were unwilling. They refused God’s care and protection. They wanted to go their own way.

The longing of God which did not come to pass is parallel with many other of God’s desires in Scripture that are morally right but which do not come to pass because, ultimately, God did not decree those things to come to pass. God’s decree is the primary or first cause. But there is a secondary cause which is the human element, because people are immoral and desire bad things. People do not always (or often?) follow God’s desired or moral will.

God has good reasons for His decree, the highest of these to demonstrate His great glory—including the glory of His longsuffering, love, grace and forgiveness. He also has in mind the long-term good of His creatures. My answer touches on what theologians call “theodicy,” or “justification of God” which attempts to explain exactly how God does such things which we see as contradictory or difficult. A full “theodicy” in this brief article is not possible. Suffice it to say that in some things, God decrees what He hates in order to bring about what He loves. God decrees in temporal history those things which are unpleasant to Him in order to achieve a greater eternal good. God decrees that which is undesirable in one sense so that He can accomplish something more desirable. God decrees things that we would not in order to accomplish results, like His greatest glory, which are beyond the horizon of our present sight and understanding.

Jesus speaks of Himself as God in human terms (using the figure of speech called an anthropomorphism) so that we can understand His stance toward mankind. It is not a harsh stance. It is not a judgmental, hyper-critical, hateful kind of stance. It is a forbearing, caring, loving stance.

Think of a good human judge. He cares for the people who come into his courtroom. But he also is bound to execute justice. If he is visited by someone who does wrong, and he gives a light sentence and an admonition to do better, he shows his care for them. He hopes that they will listen and heed his warnings. He earnestly hopes so because if they do not, he knows that they have to face consequences for wrongdoing. If that person comes into his courtroom another time with a more serious offense, the judge might say, “Oh, how I wish you had heard what I said, but you refused. Now I have to punish you in accordance with what is right.” God is like this judge, but the offenses have been multiplied over and over again by the Jewish people and their leaders for generations. At some point Jerusalem has to face the consequences.

Finally, we should remember one more fact. The initial question assumes that God’s desire never in fact came to pass, that is, that Israel was not gathered under His wings. But that is only for the time being. In the future, God will gather Israel, and they will at that time be very willing. Ultimately, God’s longing will come to pass, for the nation as a whole, though not for specific historical individuals who might otherwise have enjoyed God’s blessing had they not been so hard-hearted.

Today's question was presented in lengthy form, but boils down to this: Why do some Bible verses use the word "straw" to describe what is fed to animals? Straw has little sustenance value. Isiaah 11:7 says that the lion will eat straw like the ox. This translation grates on the nerves of a farmer, for every farmer knows that you do not feed straw to an ox; you feed the ox dried hay or grass or perhaps oats, but not the yellow, dried stalks of wheat. It seems unlikely that the Bible is suggesting a low-calorie diet for the animals; straw can be used to dilute the energy content of the animal's diet or "dry it out" and provide some forage. But a diet completely of straw is infeasible.

I believe the most concise answer is that the Hebrew term "teben" (soft b, like a v, like "teh-ven") in some contexts refers to "cattle fodder" and would be better translated as "hay" or "feed."

I puzzled over this perhaps 20 years ago but did not come to a satisfactory conclusion because I had more important things to do at the time (and still do!). I thought then and still have some of this thinking left in me now, that the translators are a bit ignorant when it comes to animal husbandry. Growing up myself on a small ranch/farm, I am well aware of the difference between straw and hay, at least in our context of mainly wheat straw and grass/alfafa/timothy hay. Indeed, straw does not have much if any nutritional value. It is used for bedding in stalls, or as a ground cover for muddy areas or to protect areas of newly planted grass.

I suspect that the Hebrew term has what is called "wider semantic domain" than our more specific English terms for hay or straw. It seems that it must refer to the portion of the plant above ground, sometimes what is left behind after harvesting grain = straw and other times the whole plant = grass/alfalfa/etc.

I would advocate the translation of such "feed" passages as "hay" or "grass" or something similar. I think the translators have simply gotten it wrong in this case, badly so, and nearly universally so as indicated by a brief perusal of several translations in passages like Isaiah 11:7, 65:25.

Other passages use straw in a way that is clearly not food: Isaiah 25:10. And others are somewhat ambiguous but could refer to bedding/comfort instead of food: 1 Kings 4:28, Gen. 24:32.

Note "hay" in 1 Cor. 3:12 and Prov. 27:25. And then "mowings" in Psalm 72:6, Amos 7:1, and James 5:4.

Q: Were James and John cousins of Jesus?

A: In the NKJV, the only time the word "cousin" is used in Colossians 4:10, and it refers to Mark and Barnabas, not James and John. So much for finding an easy answer!

James and John were sons of Zebedee.

The mother of Zebedee's sons is mentioned as one of the women at the cross when Jesus died, Matt. 27:56. The other women named are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses.

Mark 15:40 lists Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome as those observing at the cross. The same three women are mentioned in Mark 16:1. From this it is a guess, though not certain, that Salome is the mother of Zebedee's sons and thus the wife of Zebedee.

So if either Zebedee is the brother of Mary or Joseph (parents of Jesus), or if his wife, perhaps Salome, is the sister of Mary or Joseph, then James and John would be cousins of Jesus.

But there is one more piece of data. John 19:25 says that Jesus's mother Mary and His mother's sister, and Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. It may be that Mary's sister is Salome.

This identification of Salome as Mary's sister is possible, but Mark 15:41 says that there were many other women at the cross as well.

Since there are a couple of "speculative" points in this reconstruction, we cannot be sure that James and John are cousins of Jesus.

At least that's what I can figure out so far!

I was reading some old sermons on Revelation and came across a note that there are 19 heptads (seven things) in the book. I wanted to check this. Here is what I came up with. The ESV uses the word seven 55 times in 31 verses. They boil down to the following list.

1. Seven churches of Asia
2. Seven spirits before God’s throne
3. Seven golden lampstands (refer to the above churches)
4. Seven stars (the messengers of those churches)
5. Seven torches/lamps of fire (same as the seven spirits above)
6. Seven seals
7. A lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (the eyes are the same as the seven spirits of God)
8. Seven angels with seven trumpets
9. Seven thunders
10. Seven thousand people
11. A red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems
12. A beast from the sea with seven heads (and ten diadems on its horns)
13. Seven angels with seven plagues
14. Seven golden bowls full of God’s wrath (same as seven plagues)
15. Woman sitting on a scarlet beast, with seven heads and ten horns
16. Seven mountains (the seven heads of the above beast)
17. Seven kings

As to the significance of the number seven and its repetition, I do not have all the answers. The traditional answer is that the number seven refers to completeness or fullness. That may well be the case in some of the more symbolic references. Many of the references are simply to a countable number of items that happen to be seven in number.

Incidentally, the number ten occurs frequently as well (11 times in 8 verses), though not as often as seven.

1. Ten days
2. Ten thousand times ten thousand angels
3. A red dragon with ten horns
4. A best from the sea with ten horns and ten crowns
5. A scarlet beast with ten horns
6. Ten kings (same as the ten horns above)

Are a person’s dreams sometimes God’s way of revealing truth?

In the church era, no. We can say this with confidence because the canon is closed, and new revelation is not being given by any means, whether dreams, visions, prophecies, etc. See 1 Cor. 13:8, Eph. 2:20, 2 Peter 1:3.

The Scriptures are clear that during prior times, God sometimes used dreams to reveal information (Daniel 1:17 for example, or Matthew 1:20). Given the frequency of dreams, however—every night millions of people have them—it is clear that dream-based revelation had to be very rare as a percentage of all dreams.

The Scriptures are also clear that during the future era, dreams will once again be used by God to convey information from Heaven (Acts 2:17).

What leads to the content of my dreams?

This is a difficult question. Dreams are basically thoughts—thoughts that we have while sleeping. Now think about this related question: what leads to the content of my thoughts during the daytime, when I am awake? There is a combination of factors, including:

1. What you try to think about, which may be righteous or sinful.
2. What your flesh desires, which is sinful.
3. The stimuli that come from the outside world, say through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. These factors can induce thoughts that may lean righteous or sinful.
4. Your memories.
5. All three of the above factors can interact with one another so that you try to think about bad things and seek flesh-pleasing stimuli that come from the outside and you direct your eyes senses to focus there.

Your brain can remember many if not most things that you see, hear, sense, etc. Your brain can remember faces you have seen at the store; and it can even construct new variations of those faces, places and circumstances, sometimes in fantastical or unrealistic ways. All this is fuel for dreams.

Sometimes what you think about a lot during the daytime makes its way into your dreams. Other times, what you have not thought about much lately makes its way there.

Is there accountability to God for what is “thought” in dreaming?

Yes. Your dreams are yours and neither come from nor belong to anyone else. They are not the Devil’s fault. They arise from your own heart and mind, and as such are subject to the truth spoken by the Lord Jesus that out of the abundance of the heart come evil thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:21-23, Luke 6:45). Our hearts are characterized by sinful depravity to a greater or lesser degree which affects what comes out of them in our thoughts—whether during the day or during the night.

Because a dream happens while you are asleep or partially unconscious, it may feel like you can excuse the content of your dreams because you do not have overt control over those thoughts (#1 above). But you can have thoughts or influence thoughts during your dreams. Regardless of whether you have experienced that phenomenon, we must recognize that our flesh (#2 above) still desires sinful things and can affect what we are thinking while asleep. Stimuli from outside of our mind can also affect our thoughts while we sleep (#3 above; perhaps we have a fever, or smell a skunk in the middle of the night, or a hear loud noise outside the house). These stimuli can be incorporated into our dreams as well.

The bottom line is that if we dream a sinful dream, we ought to confess it as sin to God, because it is sin. Thank the Lord for pleasant dreams!

Can I influence my dreams?

In short, yes. As you ingest God’s word, purify your heart more, and are cautious about what you expose yourself to during the day, you can reduce sinful and scary dreams. You are responsible for shaping the influences on your heart because it is the source of your life (Prov. 4:23).

Sometimes, there are triggers, such as foods, illness, or lack of exercise or too much stress or mismanagement of stress, that may influence the presence and frequency of dreams. If you become aware of particular things in your life that do this, you can take steps to mitigate their influence on your nighttime thought life.

A passage I use often when asked about dreams is Philippians 4:6-9. There, Paul teaches us to fight anxiety with prayer and purpose of thought and obedience to apostolic teaching. If we do that, "the peace of God...will guard your hearts and your minds" and "the God of peace will be with you."

We hope to conform our thoughts to Scripture so that we will be godly even in our nighttime thoughts: "when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night" (Psalm 63:6).

Resources

Heath Lambert, Fighting the Fear of Bad Dreams

Here is FBC's annually-renewed set of Bible reading schedules. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2024.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the New Testament four times
• Read the Old Testament once

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

Does the Bible teach in Revelation 10:6 that time will cease?

I noted an article by Gitt in 2013 cites Rev 10:6 to support the end of physical time.

This interpretation is highly suspect. Here is why. First, in Revelation 10:6, "time" (KJV) should be translated "delay." (See the third definition in the BDAG lexicon.) It refers to the fact that there will be no more delay until the mystery of God is finished. The end times will now fully unfold without further delay.

Second, in the context of the eternal state, Revelation 22:2 says that the tree of life which bears 12 fruits, will yield its fruit every month. Evidently the passage of time must occur for this to happen on a monthly basis. Therefore, time seems to continue in the eternal state. Someone might object that in eternity there is no need for the sun or moon. Perhaps those heavenly bodies cease to exist, and so the times they mark (days and months) cease as well. But note that months can be marked without the moon—in fact today we have months that do not correspond precisely to the lunar cycle.

Third, and more philosophically, I doubt that finite creatures can exist in a completely timeless way, for a movement from one location to another would take some time. What transpires as the creature is chewing the fruit of the tree of life? Being time-bound is a feature of finite creatures which distinguishes them from the only infinite being, God.

Fourth, the passage of time is not a negative feature in the heavenly state. Since time existed during the open days of the creation week prior to sin, and the passage of time did no harm to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, there seems to be no reason that it could not exist in the heavenly state.

There are parallels to this. Humans existed in physical bodies in the pre-fall state, and they will exist in physical bodies in the heavenly state. There are three-dimensional objects in the present existence, and there is no reason to suppose that this same sort of thing will exist in the future. After all, the three-dimensional human body of Jesus is approximately the same as the one He had post-resurrection. It exists in Heaven today, and is coming back the very same way (Acts 1:11). The heavenly state boasts a new heaven, earth, new city called Jerusalem with foundations, walls, and gates, a river, and a multi-fruited tree. Such things are similar to the 3-D kinds of things that exist today. I see no reason that time should have to disappear in the future.

Finally, when God created all things, including time, in Genesis 1:31 he said that it was "very good." There is no indication that time was bad, nor became bad simply because sin entered the world. Time is certainly used for sinful purposes, just like our human bodies may be used for sinful things. But time itself is not bad, and this is no reason to suppose it necessary to eliminate time in the eternal state.

I wrote on this subject a few years ago.

Today's question from a church attender:

What are your thoughts about how we are to think scripturally about our second amendment rights?

First, let us start by understanding the second amendment text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a ground or reason clause. It would be equivalent to saying this: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to security of a free State", then the following right has to be maintained.

That right is that the people, who must be ready to defend the security of the free State, also necessarily must be able to keep and bear arms. These arms are firearms, in short, and of a sort that can be effective to defend the security of the State. To keep means to own or possess, a necessity for security. To bear means to carry and transport with and/or on their person, again, to be able at a moment's notice to defend the security of the free State. The security of the State starts with the security of individuals within the State, so that it can be rightly said that individual self defense is at the core of the second amendment.

To hobble the type of firearm to be ineffective in comparison to what would be used against the citizen, or to prohibit gun or other similar weapon ownership, or to make it illegal to carry the weapon where it may be needed to provide security—all three of these restrictions are not permitted to the State. The constitution restricts the ability of the State in these areas. These would all be forms of infringement on the right of the people to defend the security of their persons and property.

The limitation in the constitution also serves to limit the power of the State against its citizens. History shows very clearly that when a people is disarmed, they are then often subject to horrific abuses of power and death at the hands of the State. The limitation on power imposed by the second amendment is very useful because people are depraved (a basic Christian teaching), and groups of people gathered into governmental agencies are also depraved. Their power needs to be limited to limit the damage of their depravity.

It should be rather obvious that this right is to be protected for individuals, not just corporate militias. Since militias are not even common these days, a militia-only interpretation would gut the amendment of its practical protections for the rights of the people. The point is that the people had to keep and bear arms so that they could join together in their militias to protect the security of the state.

Now, how is the Christian to think about this? Does this accord with Scriptural teaching?

The right of a person to defend himself or herself is present in Scripture. Consider the following:

Exodus 22:2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

The homeowner is permitted to defend the security of his family, even by taking the life of a night-time intruder. The assumption is that a threat to personal safety justifies even homicide. The homeowner would not be guilty of murder in that case.

The astute reader will notice verse 3:

Exodus 22:3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

The difference is the daylight. If a thief comes during the day to steal property, then taking his life is not justified, and the homeowner would be guilty of bloodshed. However, if at night, the intentions of the intruder are not well understood, and in the confusion of the situation, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. This mirrors advice that I heard from a police officer once. He said when people break into a home at night, they do not have good things planned for the residents there. This justifies using deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the occupants.

On the other hand, if a homeowner has daylight enough to see a thief carrying away his big screen TV, the homeowner is not justified to shoot the thief. That would certainly land the homeowner in jail, because the response was disproportionate to the crime. Only when death or great bodily harm is likely can deadly force be justified. Property crimes do not merit or justify the death penalty. The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery should have learned this fact long before they committed their heinous act against a man who they (wrongly) believed to be guilty of a property crime. Now they are justly jailed because of what they did.

One would be safe to assume that if the home invader comes in armed with an instrument of death, the homeowner should be able to "keep and bear" an arm of equal or greater firepower to defend his life. Thus the second amendment is not at all out of accord with Biblical teaching.

Guns did not exist during Bible times. However, another deadly weapon—the sword—did exist. Listen to the words of Jesus:

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Here the Lord expressly tells His disciples to acquire a sword. Does that sound strange coming from the lips of Jesus? Not if you understand that He is speaking of the "new normal" for the disciples. Previously, (see v. 35) He had sent them out with special divine provision. They would be cared for by a special divine providence. But now, He is sending them out again, after He will be gone, and they will be going out as sheep among wolves. This is the new normal. While they will try to be as harmless as doves, this does not mean that they cannot defend themselves from robbers or murderers. This is what the sword is for. It is not for offensive use, forcing conversions or enforcing a "Christian law" upon the places where we live. It is for defensive use. It is most obviously not for show. Like the Roman police, we do not "bear the sword in vain" (Romans 13:4). If it is carried, it is meant to be used in those situations where it is needed.

What are some objections to this?

I heard a very well-known evangelical preacher say that he would not use a gun against an intruder, for the criminal presumably needs eternal life, and the preacher already has it. If the preacher shoots the invader, then the invader goes to Hell. If the criminal shoots the preacher, the preacher goes to heaven, so he does not have anything to worry about in the end.

I respond to that objection this way: I have more than myself to "worry" about. I have a family—wife, children, and perhaps house guests, some of whom may not be going to heaven yet. I am charged with their safety, like Lot who welcomed two angels into his home instead of letting them stay overnight in the dangerous city square (Genesis 19:2-3, 8). Also, I feel that I have a moral duty to not only help when I see a person in need where it is safe to help them, but also, if necessary, to assist in the task of restraining evil where it pops up its ugly head. I certainly would rather not have to do that, and hope never to have to do so. But if it comes down to a question of "me or him" I know which I will lean toward. The innocent homeowner must not feel guilty if he defends himself. It is the criminal intruder who was in the wrong the entire time.

I take it then that the Lord could equivalently say, "he who has no gun, let him sell his garment and buy one." There is nothing wrong with the second amendment, and Christians can support it and defend it thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with guns of all sorts and sizes.

In this day and age, however, there is increasingly something wrong with people who have access to guns. Witness the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, or the many other gun, knife, or bomb crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals around our land and throughout the world. Making new restrictive laws does not solve those problems, it only shifts them around. What we find most often, as in the Uvalde case, is a cascade of errors that resulted in a tragedy. The young man should never have had access to weapons because he was deeply disturbed. He was mentally incompetent to be responsible with a firearm.

One other point. Let us suppose that the elected officials in this land change the law to ban guns or certain kinds of guns. Or suppose that the second amendment were repealed. Would that justify an uprising of the gun-owning public? From a Christian standpoint, no, it would not justify revolution. It would be very undesirable to the ongoing of a free people, and it would be bad, and it would be out of accord with the founding spirit of our country, but if passed lawfully, it would be the new law of the land, and that law should be obeyed (1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13:1-2).

How do you inform someone who makes the following assertion:

Christians believe in polytheism—they have three gods.

The best way is to explain that we believe what the Bible says, and then let Scripture speak for itself (all quotations from ESV):

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ...there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all...

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isaiah 43:10 Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." (See also verse 8.)

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God.

Isaiah 45:6 That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:18 I am the LORD, and there is no other (see also 45:21, 22).

Isaiah 46:9 for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me...

After demonstrating that the oneness of God is a foundational truth of the Christian faith, you can explain that the one God exists as three persons sharing a single divine essence. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Hard to understand? Certainly, because God is not like we are. God is not a human being. He is an infinite, un-caused, un-created, no-beginning being who is unique. There is no one else like him.

Today's question:

Romans 3:30 says that one God will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Why are two different prepositions used?

First, let's double check that there are in fact two different prepositions in the Greek text, and there are: the first is "ek" faith and the second is "dia" faith.

Now to the question of why this is. Bottom line: this is most likely a stylistic variation and the prepositions are not conveying any difference at all.

This conclusion is supported by the truth gleaned from our systematic theology studies that there is only ONE way of salvation, by grace through faith. There is not one way for Jews and a different way for Gentiles. There is no such thing as a dual covenant or "automatic pass" for Jews because they are "God's people." Today, if they do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved. And if Gentiles do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved either.

Douglas Moo points out that there are two other places where these prepositions are neighbors to each other with the same object (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, p. 252):

Romans 11:36 ESV For from (ek) him and through (dia) him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

2 Peter 3:5 ESV For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out (ek) of water and through (dia) water by the word of God...

In these verses, context demonstrates that the different prepositions do mean different things, that is, they are not used as synonyms. But in the context of Romans 3:30, they are used as synonyms.

This reminds me of an important principle of interpretation: you have to be VERY sure if you are building a big theological point on a small preposition (or two). Prepositions are outsized in their importance in language in general, and in Scripture particularly, in that they modify and connect ideas together to create larger and more significant ideas. But they are not that outsized whereby you can undermine a clear theological truth with an argument based on a dubious distinction between what can most easily be explained as synonyms.

You are saved by faith. You are saved through faith. Those two sentences mean the same thing. And thank God for them, otherwise we would not be saved at all!

A website visitor asked the following:

I would like to know if slavery was ordained by God and tehreby existed in the Old and New Testament to reflect God's order (like marriage)? Or, was slavery man-made, and, thus, more of a reflection of culture and man-made traditions? Which is it?

I prepared a brief answer that I shared last Sunday evening. Basically, this is it: Slavery was not created by God to reflect creation order. It is therefore unlike marriage. God did not "institute" slavery in the way that most westerners understand slavery. It came about as a result of the sin of man. Slavery was therefore man-made.

However, everything that comes to pass is ordained/permitted by God, so we would have to say that in some sense, God did ordain slavery, just like he did all other sins. I understand slavery to be unlike marriage, but more like divorce in that slavery and divorce were not instituted by God but God permitted and regulated them because of the sinfulness of the human heart.

The Law which God gave through Moses did make provision for a kind of slavery that we could call debt-servitude. It was used instead of what we have—modern bankruptcy—and to avoid imprisonment for petty thieves. Instead, they had to work off their restitution if they could not pay it up front.

Probably the most important passage on the subject—at least for a modern westerner—is this: Exodus 21:16. In that section, God outlaws man-stealing. The entire slave trade in early American history was based on this method of obtaining and selling and buying slaves. It was an abominable enterprise from start to finish—and God made it clear by assigning it the death penalty.

Here are the messages I preached on this subject in 2016:

The Bible and Slavery, Part 1

The Bible and Slavery, Part 2

The Bible and Slavery, Part 3

Another brief but helpful resource.

Here is a brief listing of the few papers I have published. I had to consolidate these into one place for another purpose, so I figured it would be good to keep a record here as well.

Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 14, 2009, 31-58.

God and Counterfactuals, DBSJ Vol. 15, 2010, 23-73.

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 19, 2014, 95-103.

Cherry Picking Theology?, Inside Sources, July 31, 2015.

Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology, DBSJ Vol. 21, 2016, 31-58. This was cross-posted at SharperIron.

Here is a short "Bible Literacy" video about abortion and capital punishment.

Many people who are in favor of capital punishment are opposed to abortion, including a good number of Christian people. But, isn’t this inconsistent? It is about the same as someone being for abortion but against capital punishment! Those who are opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, or who are in favor of both, seem more consistent from the standpoint of preserving life.

But our interest is not in who is more or less consistent on the basis of a single metric—that is too limited of a view. We are trying to increase our basic Bible literacy by understanding what the Bible teaches about these matters.

We turn to Exodus 21:22-23, where a matter of case law is given in which a pregnant woman is struck by someone. If she gives birth prematurely but the baby lives, it is a civil infraction with a monetary penalty. But if the baby dies, the Law of God in the Jewish theocracy stated that it was to be punished by the lex talionis, “life for life.” The law stated that if the baby died, the perpetrator was to be punished with death. That is how seriously God takes human life. It is precious in His sight, even in the mother’s womb. Abortion is just a “decorated” word for what amounts to exactly the same thing—murder of an innocent human.

The reason that some people take the “inconsistent” position for capital punishment and against abortion is that the Scripture teaches so. Consistency comes to view when you look at the issue through the lens of justice—it is unjust for an innocent baby to be killed, but it is perfectly just for a murderer to forfeit his life. The opposite view—that capital punishment is wrong and abortion is OK is actually inconsistent from this justice perspective—why does an innocent baby deserve to die, but a criminal guilty of a horrific crime deserve to live? Abortion basically is capital punishment…done to an innocent child.

Read 2 Corinthians 11:2:

For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (NKJV)

Christian, at your conversion, you became engaged (betrothed or promised) to Jesus Christ. You belong exclusively to Him. The wedding of the Lamb is coming. Are you staying pure? Are you getting ready? The symbolism of this is rich. While we await the consummation of salvation, the application of "engagement" touches every area of our lives, just like your upcoming wedding did (or will, if you are yet to be married).

Benevolent giving supplies two things: (1) the material needs of others; (2) a basis for thanksgiving to God, for when the recipients receive the gift, they offer thanksgiving to God not only for the gift but for the people who gave the gift.

BOTH are important results of your benevolence. This principle is found in 2 Corinthians 9:12.

I taught some recently about the Hebrew Roots Movement--what it is, and why we do not believe it. The following messages were delivered in December of 2020: December 2 December 6 December 13

I received a couple of negative comments on the message. Here is the first:

Moses didn't ever make up his own law. Who's finger do you think wrote the 10 commandments?

I replied:

Hello Mike, the statement and question you write in your comment are not a point of difference between us. That is, we never said or even implied that Moses made up his own law. It was obviously the Law of God; it is called the Mosaic Law for short because God gave it through Moses. And, of course God wrote the tablets (twice--Deut. 9:10/10:2 and Exodus 31:18/34:1). But Moses wrote them again in the manuscripts of Exodus and Deuteronomy which have passed down to us through preservation and translation.

Now, perhaps your question is meant to suggest that GOD wrote the Law, therefore it is eternally binding. That is, it is not man's law, but God's law, and therefore must be followed by all men of all ethnicities at all times. We differ with you very firmly if that is your point. Illustrations: Have you had a son and had him circumcised? Did you do it on the eighth day? If not, you broke the Law of God (Lev. 12:3)--if you believe that God has made it still binding, even upon Gentiles. And if you broke the law in one point, you have broken all of it. The Apostle Paul commanded the Gentiles in Colosse that they were not to accept a man's judgment against them if they did not observe days such as Sabbath, and months, and other sorts of external religious rites. Those rites do nothing to restrain the appetites of the sinful nature of man (Col. 2:16-23). The book of Galatians is clear, as is Acts 15, that circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles to practice. Only if you believe that God's law is like the Law of the Medes and Persians (which cannot be revoked, book of Daniel), could you believe that once God sets an instruction in place that He can never change it again. He is the boss, and can change the terms and conditions whenever He pleases. A great example is found in Ezekiel 40-48 where the temple and its operation have quite a number of differences compared to that given under Moses.

Hope that is helpful. If not, please try to formulate your follow-up question in a way that is a bit more clear, and less adversarial sounding. Thanks, and may God bless you with a clear understanding of His Word!

The writer responded:

OK, brother, at about 10:50, you begin to say that 1 John is not speaking about the law of Moses, but about the "law of Christ" and your own words, "the law of God." It is manipulative. (I don't say you were intentionally trying to mislead). Over time, a little twisting of words and phrases will tend to establish one's viewpoint, but it can be misleading. We can discuss more over email if you prefer.

And I reply again:

Hello again Mike, Thank you for recognizing there is no intent to mislead here. In using the phrase "Law of Christ," I am following the apostle Paul in Galatians 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:21. I understand this law to be precisely the same as the law of liberty in James 1:25 and 2:12. It is the code given by Christ through His teaching and the writings of His apostles (the New Testament). It is summarized by the law of love for God and neighbor. Indeed, it looks very similar to the Law given through Moses because it comes from the same God. But it is different--circumcision is not required; Sabbath observance is not required; kosher diet is not required; observance of the three major Jewish holidays is not required; animal sacrifice is not required. All these things are abundantly clear in New Testament teaching.

I would offer this rebuttal to the HRM viewpoint: The words I used were not twisting or manipulating the text of Scripture. Rather, something has become twisted in the teaching of the Hebrew Roots Movement. It appears to be going back to something substantially similar to the Galatian error that Paul wrote so strongly against.

There is a certain romantic idea of going back to the early church, but the church had a lot of problems as evidenced in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts. It was not the pristine thing that we might like it to be. Furthermore, we have the benefit of completed written revelation which in the first decades of the church, the believers did not. Finally, in those early years, there was a lot of going back and forth on the Jew/Gentile issue. Acts 15 made clear that the church is not primarily Jewish in flavor. Of course it arises from the Jewish faith in the Old Testament; but it includes the Gentiles as Gentiles.

I was reading this morning:

2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

In the last few years, it has become a "thing" that people are busybodies (meddlers) through social media. Some—maybe you?—spend tremendous amounts of time browsing and commenting and liking and hash-tagging and sharing and so on. They want to know all the news. Meanwhile, their life work goes undone. The house is unkempt, the outdoor work is undone, the job is not done faithfully, sleep patterns become irregular, church is not attended much less served, and so on. It is very easy to fall into this kind of laziness. Fight against the tendency and pick up your other tasks.

I may be writing with a little bit of hyperbole, but you get the point. Be challenged by this word if you need to be, and get your body busy about what God has called you to do. Spend a whole lot less time on Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and whatever other similar platforms are out there.

Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2021. This year, the schedules start on 1/3 (or 1/4 for Monday-Friday plans) at the beginning of the first full week of the year. This way, you have a few days to catch up on last year's reading, or get ahead on this year's reading.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the Old Testament once

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

In Acts 13:20, an interpretive question comes up about the 450 year time span. Does it refer to the period of the time in Egypt, the wandering, and the conquest of the land, as the NASB seems to indicate? Or does the period of time refer to the time of the judges, as the KJV indicates? The problem with the latter is that the period of the judges is only about 327 years, according to John Whitcomb's analysis.

There is a difference in the Greek of Acts 13:20, where the three-word phrase "and after this" is earlier in the Greek majority text (MT) than it is in the Nestle-Aland text (NA28). Perhaps you could say it is "transposed" with the phrase "about 450 years"

NA28 literal rendering = About 450 years. And after this He gave judges until Samuel the prophet.

MT and TR literal rendering = And after this, about 450 years, He gave judges until Samuel the prophet.

Importantly, note that the KJV does not quite follow the literal rendering I give above. It says,

KJV = And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

Notice that KJV moves the "450 years" phrase even later in the verse than the MT word order. It puts it AFTER the word "judges," but in all Greek texts, 450 years occurs BEFORE the word judges.

Perhaps I could resuscitate the NKJV/KJV by translating a bit more in word-for-word order this way:

And after that--about 450 years--he gave them judges...

The KJV has obfuscated things even more than the Greek text transposition necessitates. My "fix" to the KJV is admittedly somewhat strained, as it is basically saying this:

And after that stuff--about 450 years of it--he gave them judges...

My suggestion is that the KJV translation is the problem—not so much the Greek text underlying it. This means that we need not charge that there is a terrible error in the Greek text underlying the KJV. There is a different word order, yes. But an irreconcilable error? Not quite. A different solution to the problem is to recognize the KJV has translated the words in an unhappy order which makes the chronology confused, and then to offer a paraphrase that addresses the chronology problem in a somewhat plausible fashion.

I am not saying this to support a KJVO viewpoint, because I most definitely do not hold that view. In fact, I think the KJV can be charged with an error in its translation here. However, I believe my suggestion is more fair to the Greek text. However you take it, the 450 years must apply to the time in Egypt through the conquest, not the time of the judges. My explanation is also more plausible than this one, which says that the 450 years does cover the period of the judges, and Moses was the first judge!

Many have wondered what is the key to Christian sanctification. One answer that is often given is "obedience to the Bible." While alone it is not enough--for obedience must be by faith through the power of the Holy Spirit--it is crucial to the Christian life.

I say that while setting aside the currently popular "anti-legalism" philosophy that decries any call for obedience as a legalistic approach to earn merit with God. Christians understand intuitively that obeying God's word is a good thing, and that you cannot earn merit by doing so: it is the work of Christ that washes our sin away and provides ALL the merit God requires to be saved from eternal punishment.

Supporting the emphasis on obeying God are the following texts that I collected in a recent reading of the New Testament text:

Matthew 7:24-27 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."

Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Luke 6:46-49 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great."

Luke 8:21 "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

John 13:17 "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them."

James 1:22-25 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Remember, before you can embark on a life of obedience regarding the works God has ordained for you to do, you need to "do" the work of belief:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

For a very similar topic see this blog post from a few years ago.

Just an observation:

Matt. 13:39 "The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.

Matt. 13:40 "Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.

Matt. 13:49 "So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just...

Matt. 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Matt. 28:20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

The Bible's teaching in these contexts is clear: we are in an age or time period, and the end of that age will bring some significant events--a separation followed by a judgment, and Christ's second coming. The Lord promises to be with His people throughout the age until its end--at which point He will come back. We are not in the kingdom yet, but we do await the beginning of that kingdom, when Christ will consolidate His rule by removing all rebels at the end of the age, and blessing His people with entrance into His glorious society with its perfect government.

After many years of work, I have completed the first draft of outlines for every book of the Bible. I offer it for your Bible reading, study, teaching, and preaching.

Bible Book Outlines PDF.

I welcome your input and questions. Many outlines I would like to tweak, and others need additional work--particularly longer books like Genesis and Revelation that could benefit from more detail.

In our area in the past few years, it has become a thing for schools to promote "mindfulness." Immediately upon hearing what the students do during their "mindfulness" times in class, it sounded suspect. I was disturbed by the thinly veiled attempt to get a religious position into the secular classroom while the school system rejects Christianity and makes every attempt to get God out of the schools.

One of our deacons helped me by writing the following after he read a book by a Buddhist monk on the topic.

Mindfulness is a new word for meditation that was invented to help get meditation accepted in more places. It is a less religious, hippy sounding word.

Even though mindfulness is claimed to be non-religious, it smells a lot of Buddhism, and not surprisingly, Buddhists tend to be the topic experts on it.

The main idea of mindfulness is to become aware of your own thoughts. On the surface this idea of self awareness looks similar to the truth of introspection. This similarity to a good mental exercise sweetens the underlying poison of mindfulness. The Bible talks about introspection: 2 Corinthians 13:5—"examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith," Psalm 19:12—believers want to be aware of secret faults, Ephesians 5:15 speaks about walking circumspectly, which includes turning our eyes on ourselves, Prov 4:23—"keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life," and 1 Peter 1:13—"be sober minded."

However, mindfulness differs fundamentally from biblical introspection in that it is non-judgmental, detached, and OK with all thoughts, whether good or bad. The mindfulness book likens meditation to sitting beside a road and watching cars drive by, where the cars are your thoughts. You let the cars go by (the good and the bad ones) and don't try to chase the good ones or stop the bad ones. You just sit and watch your thoughts and study them to become more aware of them. Over time, the busy traffic gets less busy and you enjoy more peace and quiet. Eventually there are times when no cars drive by.

Mindfulness claims there exists an underlying peace and joy that is always present for us to enjoy. We just have to clear our thoughts to find it. Mindfulness thereby replaces the idea of ultimate peace and joy that comes from our relationship with God.

By claiming that thoughts and feelings are autonomous, mindfulness excuses guilt, and convolutes the idea of identity and personhood (similar to the way atheism does by denying free will).

Mindfulness strives to create a perception that things are OK, whether they are good or bad or nothing at all. This sounds a lot like the Buddhist effort to numb the fear of death and to numb the craving for meaning in life. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put eternity in our heart, yet no one can find out the work of God from beginning to end. In other words, God has put in our hearts a yearning for eternity and meaningfulness. Buddhism deceives by numbing that yearning in the heart.

It occurs to me that there is a likeness between these two ideas:

1. Splitting the Mosaic Law into components and pulling forward (from the past) the moral component into the church age.

Left behind are the ceremonial and civil parts of the law, as well as the curses for disobedience.

2. Splitting the New Covenant into components and pulling back (from the future) the spiritual component into the church age.

Left "ahead" are the physical, agricultural, economic, and political parts of the New Covenant. Also left "ahead" are spiritual components that find no fulfillment in the present era (all will know the Lord, universal forgiveness for Israel).

It seems inconsistent to criticize #1 at the same time to accept #2.

It seems more consistent to accept both #1 and #2 or reject them both.

The problem with accepting both it puts Christians today under parts of two covenants--the Mosaic and the New. This has a somewhat suspect basis. I say this about the Law covenant because Paul writes:

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law (Galatians 5:18).

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? (Galatians 4:21)

But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." (Galatians 3:11)

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

So, Christians are not under "the law," nor are they under "part of the law." This is no major loss, for we have the Law of Christ as our directive, a law operational on the basis of grace and the indwelling ministry of the Spirit.

As far as splitting the New Covenant, the New Covenant is specifically directed to Israel, not the church. This is clear from a review of the primary passage:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jeremiah 31:33)

Note the phrase "I will make with the house of Israel."

Finally, it does not appear to me that the New Covenant has actually been made yet. Certainly, its sacrificial basis is complete in the work of Christ. Certainly massive spiritual benefits come out of that work into Christians today. But those are not necessarily direct fulfillments of the New Covenant. They do not constitute the "making" of a covenant, where the people group to be covenanted has offered no agreement to the terms of the covenant. In fact, most of the terms of the covenant (and some could argue all of its terms) remain unfulfilled.

The prophet above says that the time of the making of the covenant is "after those days." Jeremiah is clear that those days were "coming" future to his writing.

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- (Jeremiah 31:31)

According to Ezekiel 20:35-37, this will happen during the eschaton:

"And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face...I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant (Ezekiel 20:35, 37)

This has not happened yet.

The most accurate viewpoint, as I understand it, is to keep both the Law and New Covenants whole, not splitting them such that some terms of one or the other, or both, fall upon the church.

Twice recently I have heard about those who teach that faith is a work. One variation is simply that: faith is a work, and so we cannot encourage or exhort people to believe. The second variation is: faith is the first work a person does after regeneration.

But is faith really a work? Most Christians rightly balk at that statement because the Bible clearly contrasts faith with works. Note these Bible passages that demonstrate the contrast: Romans 3:27, 4:5, 9:32; Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 3:5; Hebrews 6:1, 11:33; James 2:14-26.

There are several passages that connect faith with works in the sense that faith produces work. This is how we should understand 1 Thessalonians 1:3 which speaks of the “work of faith.” This phrase does not mean “the work which is faith” as if faith is a genitive of apposition. Rather, it means “the work which is produced by faith,” where the genitive “faith” is a genitive of production or producer. The same is true concerning the “work of faith” in 2 Thess. 1:11.

James 2:14-26 speaks of living faith that produces good works. This shows that faith and works are integrally related to one another. But it is obvious that they are in different categories.

Paul offers an extended passage in his explanation of the gospel in Romans 4:1-6 which teaches very carefully the distinction between faith and works. In it, he argues that Abraham was not justified by works, but that he was justified by faith. Obviously faith and works are of different sorts. Works are associated with debt; faith is associated with grace. Righteousness is accounted to someone apart from works (4:6). Therefore, since righteousness is accounted to those who believe (4:3, 5), belief cannot possibly be a work.

Jesus once responded to the question, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (John 6:28). It is evident to me that his answer set faith against works when he replied, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). You don't work the works of God to be saved—instead, you believe in Christ.

Furthermore, I believe that faith is a gift of God. Ephesians 2:8-9 can be understood this way. God grants repentance unto life (Acts 11:18), and he also gives His people to believe in Christ (Philippians 1:29). If faith indeed is a gift, it cannot be a work.

Faith is “exercised” by the person who is being saved. There can be no doubt or argument about that. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Without faith in Christ, it is impossible to be saved. We are commanded to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” You might wonder how a dead-in-transgressions sinner can believe. That is a difficult question, mostly resolved by the fact that salvation is a miracle. But what you cannot do is think that the person’s faith is a work that merits God’s grace.

I conclude that whatever faith is and however you might describe it, it is not a work.

References

Article at The Gospel Coalition "Why is Faith Not a Work?"

GotQuestions.org

Part 2 can be found here.