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.

Today's question has to do with John 3:5.

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

The question has to do with how Nicodemus understood the references to water and the Spirit. Does water have to do with the physical birthing process? Is the water referring to baptism? Is the Spirit referring to tongues?

If you read the verse, you will see no mention of baptism and tongues. The verse talks about water and Spirit, not baptism and tongues. Yet, I can imagine where the errant ideas come from:

1. water => supposedly equals baptism

2. Spirit => supposedly equals tongues, to some charismatics, a necessary sign of salvation

I can see how water could be equated with baptism, based on the (then) recent history of John the Baptist doing his baptizing ministry. But neither Jesus nor the New Testament suggests that we must be water-baptized in order to be saved. Consider all Old Testament saints, and the "good" thief on the cross next to Jesus. We are water baptized because we are saved, but not the reverse. That is, the statement "we are saved because of water baptism" is false. The Pentecostal believer will make a lengthy case against us from the text in Acts 2:38, but such has been adequately answered in such places as this article by Professor R. Bruce Compton at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

The second point (Spirit => tongues) is fabricated out of thin air because no place up to this point in Bible history is the Holy Spirit gift of tongues mentioned. The first occurrences is Acts 2, many months after Jesus spoke. There is no way that Nicodemus could have guessed that tongues was the referent of Jesus' words. Tongues were the farthest thing from his mind, and from the mind of our Lord, when He spoke these words.

The truth is that both water and Spirit have Old Testament referents that should have been familiar to Nicodemus. The fact that they were not leads the Lord Jesus to rebuke him for his ignorance (John 3:10). Here it is, with key words bolded:

Ezekiel 36:25-27—"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Water refers to spiritual cleansing from sin. The water of baptism does not wash away sin in any shape, manner, or form. It is merely a symbol of Spirit baptism and of union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

The Spirit refers to a ministry that begins at regeneration and continues throughout the life of the believer. The believer's spiritual life is generated and sustained by the Holy Spirit who dwells in him/her.

Jesus is saying "unless one is born of water [=cleansed from sin and thus forgiven] and the Spirit [regeneration, new life and indwelling], he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This is what Christians call the new birth, or "being born again."

Speaking illustratively now, suppose that you come to the door of the kingdom of Christ in the future (Revelation 20). Jesus will not let you inside unless you have been born of water and the Spirit. If you have not been forgiven and regenerated, you will be turned away to an eternity of condemnation in Hell. That is what He is saying to Nicodemus. You must be born again!

John 3:3—Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

After Christ rose from the dead, He met with the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. They had breakfast together, and then Jesus asked Peter:

Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" (John 21:15)

What exactly does this mean? As I see it, there are four possibilities:

1. "Do you love me more than you love these fish/nets/fishing?" That seems a bit insulting—of course Peter loves the Lord more than he loves fish and fishing. After all, he did leave fishing behind years earlier to follow the Lord.

2. Some have suggested the question is "Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?" This doesn’t seem much better than the first option. The issue is not whether Peter loves the other disciples. Nothing in the context indicates a difficulty in that area. The question has to do with whether Peter loves the Lord, not the disciples.

3. Instead, the question could refer comparatively to the love of the other disciples: "Do you love me more than these other disciples love me?" I shy away from this interpretation because I hesitate to think the Lord would be looking for comparative statements between disciples as to their love for him.

4. But there is a twist on this "comparative" interpretation that I think fits better. Peter himself had professed to be more reliable in following Christ than all the others (Matt. 26:33, Mark 14:29). Even if the others fell away, Peter asserted, he would never do so. The Lord is not asking Peter if Peter loves Jesus more than the other disciples, as if Peter is better than them. He is asking if Peter’s earlier profession to be more loyal is in fact true. Read the question with this emphasis: "Do you love me more than these others, as you professed previously?" Peter has to answer truthfully that he does love the Lord, while recognizing in humility that he was no better than the other disciples because he too had failed. The point is that Peter should humbly acknowledge that he does not in fact love the Lord more than the other disciples. Peter's initial "yes" conveys the point that he "gets it."

In the end, what matters is that we love Jesus more than anything else in our own lives. We are called to the love the Lord with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. We are not to elevate ourselves above our neighbors in our own estimation.

Some time ago we prepared a quick guide on some topics for witnessing to people who hold different belief systems. This can be greatly improved, I'm sure, but it is offered "as is" and will hopefully be a help to you. The image below is a preview; if you click it, the PDF will download.

Please contact us if you want to suggest additions or corrections. Thank you!

Today's question:

David was a man after God's own heart, right? So can I sin—even in ways like David—and count on God's forgiveness? Aren't I forgiven all my sins: past, present, and future?

This question has recurred over the years of my pastoral ministry. Let me address it in this forum, with the hope that it will be a help to someone out there with this misguided thinking.

First of all, the kind of thinking expressed by the question is not the kind of thinking that a true believer expresses. The true believer understands his sinfulness and hates sin. He wants to depart from evil and do good. He wants to please the Lord. He doesn't want to "count on" the forgiveness of God as a cover for the flesh. He wants to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. If he does fall into sin, he repents and feels terrible about it. Whether the person who asked the question truly thought that as a "way of life" kind of thinking, I do not know. But I do know that it is an unbelieving pattern of thinking and indicates a big problem.

Second, the person asking the question doesn't understand that God judged David severely for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. Consider how God evaluated and how God judged David:

2 Samuel 11:27: "But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD."

2 Samuel 12:14: "By this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme."

2 Samuel 12:14: "The child also who is born to you shall surely die." That in fact occurred and is recorded in 2 Samuel 12:19.

2 Samuel 12:10: "The sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me."

2 Samuel 12:11: "I will raise up adversity against you from your own house."

And now, observe what history records:

2 Samuel 13: Amnon raped Tamar. Both are children of David. Subsequently, Absalom, another son, murders Amnon.

2 Samuel 15: Absalom rebels against his father and stages a coup. David has to leave Jerusalem and live in the wilderness. As David left the city, Shimei cursed him (16:5-14).

2 Samuel 16:22: "So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel."

2 Samuel 18: Absalom is killed. David's grief now extends to three of his children who have been either killed or raped.

2 Samuel 20: Sheba rebels against David's kingdom.

2 Samuel 24: David fell into pride and took a census of the nation of Israel. God punished him and thousands of his people died. He had that on his conscience all his days.

2 Kings 1: Adonijah presumed to take the kingdom from David and David's appointed successor, Solomon. The priest Abiathar joined him in the rebellion. In chapter 3, Joab was executed and Abiathar exiled.

Hopefully it is obvious that David's sin had far-reaching consequences. If that is the kind of thing you want to go through, be my guest. I trust you will choose the wise route and desire to live righteously before God.

During an examination of Acts 17:2-3, I thought to connect it back to Isaiah 53 (a significant section of "the scriptures"). Paul was using the Scriptures to demonstrate that the Messiah had to suffer and rise again. Then he connected those prophecies to the actual historical happenings in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to show his audience the need to believe in Christ.

When I took a look at Isaiah, here is what I found (verses quoted from NKJV unless otherwise noted):

Isaiah 52:14 As many were astonished at you; His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more htan the sons of men.	→	Mark 15:19 Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him...Matthew 27:26 and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.
Isaiah 52:15 So shall He sprinkle many nations	→	1 Peter 1:1-2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. (See also Hebrews 10:22.)
Isaiah 52:15 For that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.	→	Romans 15:20-21 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation, but as it is written: "To whom He was not announced, they shall see; and those who have not heard shall understand." (Rom. 15:21 NKJ)
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our report?	→	Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
Isaiah 53:1 And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?	→	John 12:37-38 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"
Isaiah 53:4 Surely He has born our griefs, and carried our sorrows.	→	Matthew 8:16-17 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: "He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses."
Isaiah 53:5 He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.	→	1 Peter 2:24 Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.	→	1 Peter 2:25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not his mouth	→	Matthew 26:62-63 And the high priest arose and said to Him, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" But Jesus kept silent.
Isaiah 53:9 And He made his grave...with the rich in His death.	→	Matthew 27:57, 60 Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph...and laid [the body of Jesus] in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb...
Isaiah 53:9 because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.	→	1 Peter 2:22 Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him.	→	Genesis 3:15 He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.
Isaiah 53:11 By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.	→	Acts 13:38-39 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 "and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Isaiah 53:12 ...and He was numbered with the transgressors...	→	Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." (ESV)

The apostle was showing that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. Isaiah 53 does this. It focuses on the suffering. But it also teaches the resurrection because it says that God will prolong the days of His servant (Isaiah 53:10), and He will give Him a portion with the great and spoil with the strong (Isaiah 53:12). These things clearly imply that He must come to life again in order to receive these blessings.

Here is today's question:

I’m reading through first Kings, and am clear in the first half of the chapter but am starting to get lost in chapter 20. Why did King Ahab make a pact with the evil king Ben-Hadad. And why did a prophet ask to be stricken?

The implication of 1 Kings 20:13, 22, and 28 is that God promised the king of Israel (Ahab) to defeat the entire Syrian army, including their leader Ben-Hadad. God had appointed this troubler of Israel, Ben-Hadad, to destruction, much like Jericho was devoted to total destruction in Joshua 6-7. The Hebrew term for such a "ban" or destruction is herem.

Why did Ahab make a treaty with Ben-Hadad instead of destroying him? Sin. More specifically, the sin of pride. He wanted to continue to be known as merciful (v. 31). What Ahab did was not worth what Israel got in return--they got cities taken by Ben-Hadad's father returned, and a marketplace in Damascus. To get that stuff, Ahab disobeyed God's instructions to him. He was told God would give the army into his hand; he was told to make plans to fight against the army in the coming spring season; and he was to be God's agent to defeat the arrogant Syrians who thought God was a God of the hills only, not the valleys. But he refused to finish the job. Without punishing the Syrian king, he was basically letting the nation go (even though many foot soldiers died).

Ahab's sin is like that of Jehoshaphat of Judah (1 Kings 22). The latter got himself mixed up with wicked Ahab when he should not have. All too often, the people of Israel "went down to Egypt" for help instead of just following the Lord their God (see Isaiah 30:1-5).

The prophet asked to be stricken to make his "costume" as a soldier more realistic. He was disguised because otherwise the king would have recognized him as a well-known prophet, and would immediately have suspected something before the prophet could make his point. His point was made by way of a fictional story, to show the king that someone who is entrusted to do something as important as he was (with Ben-Hadad) was not going to avoid consequences for his failure to carry out his duty. The only punishment fit for such a sin was a punishment that was commensurate with the crime--the life of the king and the people of Israel in place of the life of Ben-Hadad.

Somewhat parenthetically, 1 Kings 20:35-36 show that obedience to a man of God was required even if it meant doing something fairly strange, such as inflicting a wound upon him. Because the neighbor would not obey, there was a penalty for that too. The severity of the penalty was probably due to the fact that the neighbor knew the man was a prophet and that he should obey him as one who was giving the word of God. It is unlikely he walked up to a random stranger and interacted with him this way.

There is a fascinating little passage in Acts 16:6-10 that mentions the Spirit of God prohibiting Paul and his team from ministering the gospel in certain areas. Prior to this, Paul and Silas had been visiting churches planted during their first missionary tour though southern Asia Minor. They were joined by Timothy as they ministered in Derbe, Lystra, and surrounding cities. The team then wished to head west toward what was known as Asia (the region where Ephesus is), but the text says the Holy Spirit forbade them from going there. Then they turned their sights northeast toward Bithynia, but the Spirit also prevented them from going there.

So the question posted to me was this: why not minister in those locations? The people there needed Christ just as much as the others, right? The prohibition/lack of permission doesn't seem in accord with the Great Commission, which directs believers to preach the gospel to every nation.

The fact is that the text does does not tell us. So, was it:

• not the right time?
• too dangerous?
• like the Lord's command to the 12 not to minister in Samaria or in Gentile places, but only to Israelites (Matthew 10:5)?
• less urgent than something else?

Since the text doesn't tell us explicitly, we need not speculate further. But the text does tell us that there was an urgent need in another place. That was made known via special revelation (a dream/vision). The team concluded that the Lord was using the vision to guide them to cross over into Europe and preach the gospel there. We know from later in the chapter that a business-woman and a corrections official needed to hear the gospel and be saved. A church had to be started in that place, the city of Philippi. A slave girl who was being trafficked because of her demon possession had to be rescued from her oppressors. The Lord was readying the people there and was about to open their hearts to the message of Christ.

As I read the passage again this morning, I pondered the notion that in ministry, timing is important. This doesn't mean we are in a rush, but sometimes the "iron is hot" and work needs to be done about it. Sometimes there are people who are in a needy state "right now" and need our attention. For those needs, the time is now.

It also illustrates a point that life and ministry is not something that is always going to present open doors. This should not discourage us. We must keep on going, and pressing into new areas and new directions, and we must stay keen about the circumstances and facts of what is going on around us. Since we don't have special revelation today, we must rely on godly wisdom gained from Scripture, and godly counsel from others who have gained such wisdom, so that we can ascertain which direction to move.

There is another entire question, and that is how did the Spirit communicate this prohibition to Paul and the missionary team? It seems to be special revelation, but did it have a providential component as well? We will leave that for another post sometime.

Listen to the sermon where I covered this passage.

In Job 1:5, we learn that Job expressed his godliness by offering burnt sacrifices for each of his children. He was concerned that his children had sinned against God, and he wanted to do something about it. Before the time of Christ, and before the time of the Levitical priests in Israel, the role of priest fell to the patriarch of the family. Job was carrying out this role as family priest.

Parents today can demonstrate godliness by doing something like this for their children. Obviously the application of animal sacrifice has run its course and is now obsolete. But we can certainly be sensitive to the possibility that our children may have sinned and not dealt properly with it. In fact, our children may not know practically how to deal with sin. We must instruct them in this. We should pray for them regularly. We should do what we can to sanctify our children, that is, set them apart for God and godliness by example and by directive in their behavior.

The extra blessings that we possess today (Bible, churches, pastors, etc.) do not exempt us as parents from teaching our children. The Law of Moses explicitly taught the Jewish people to instruct their children constantly about the things of God. It seems to go without saying that the same principle applies to Christians today, even though we are not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Law.

As I studied this, I wondered how I could implement the principle here with respect to my own children. I have sometimes prayed for my kids, having in my mind a thought like Job had in 1:5, but with the uncomfortable knowledge that no forgiveness would be extended by God without the child's own repentance.

So what is the point of us doing “priestly” activities today for others such as our children? There is no other mediator between God and men but the man Christ Jesus, so how can I as a parent be a kind of mediator, praying prayers that my children should pray, or offering confession that they should offer?

In the first place, I don't believe that God despises this parental prayer: "Lord, please forgive my children their sins." God can answer this heart cry, though not in a direct fashion. God won’t forgive the child merely for your prayer's sake, as if your prayer is of sufficient merit. But God hears the faithful and fervent prayer of the righteous parent, and answer by bringing the attitude of repentance to the child and thus forgiving the child through the normal means of confession and repentance on the basis of the blood of Christ.

Secondly, you can make that prayer more direct by asking God to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins to your offspring. God can do that—in fact, that is the business that God is in today as He calls sinners to Himself. Salvation is not an accident. It depends completely on the grace of God. God uses means, such as parental instruction, and church ministry, to accomplish it. But it comes through repentant faith, which is a gracious gift of God. Let us ask God for it for our children.

Third, you can express confession for your own sins in raising your children, which may be reflected in some measure in their own misdeeds. Perhaps you have erred in teaching them, or erred in your example, in such a way that has misled them and been a factor causing their sin. That doesn’t exempt them from responsibility or liability toward God, but it can be a factor.

Regarding the matter of interceding for adults in a sacrificial context as Job did in 42:8-9, that is similar to above. We cannot do this directly today. But we can pray for those who have sinned and ask the Lord to help them see their sin. We can direct them as to how to deal appropriately with their sin by appealing to God through Christ about it.

I was reading in Acts 13 this morning, and came across this:

But Elymas the sorcerer...withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith (Acts 13:8).

Bad idea. The apostle Paul had to remove that barrier to the gospel, and he had supernatural abilities to do so. Elymas ended up being blind for an undetermined length of time.

This brought to my attention how seriously God takes it when someone attempts to keep others from the Christian faith. God hates that. And He will punish it.

Some other examples: Matthew 11:12, 19:13-14, 23:13; Acts 13:45; 1 Thessalonians 2:16.

So, all of you out there in society who are inclined to meddle in the faith-business of others--whether you are atheist or communist or whatever--please mind your own business. This advice is for your own good. If you are trying to keep children from learning the Christian faith so that they can make up their own mind, you are doing an awful disservice to them. Be aware that God takes note.

Maybe you are a parent and you don't want your kids to get "too involved" in Christianity. Maybe you want them to have a nice career instead of going into ministry or missions. Take care what you are doing!

We are often reminded that "there is none good, no not one." And that is true because of God's perfect standard of good. Nevertheless, God wants us to be good, and He is busy about transforming His people into good people.

Years ago, the former pastor of our church, known to some of you reading this, would routinely ask people how they were doing. You would think nothing of it, because it seemed to be the start of a routine conversation. “I’m good,” you would answer. “Wait a minute!” Pastor would reply with a loud voice. “The Bible says there is none good, no not one!” It was a real “gotcha” which worked because of the turn on the word ‘good’ in which it is being used in two different senses—one sense in your response and a different sense in Romans 3:12.

But in fact there are people whom God has deemed to call good because His salvation has made them good. His Word records a number of examples:

• There is Barnabas, who "was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (Acts 11:24).
• "There was a man named Joseph (of Arimathea), a council member, a good and just man" (Lk. 23:50).
• There was another Joseph, betrothed to Mary, who was a just man (Matthew 1:19).
• There is a class of good men of whom Jesus spoke: "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things" (Matt. 12:35).
• This is like the passage that says, "a good man obtains favor from the LORD" (Prov. 12:2) and "a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children" (Prov. 13:22; see also 14:14).
• There is Job, who "was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." (Job 1:1 and repeated several other times).
• Another was Cornelius. Others reported of him that "he is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people" (Acts 10:22). His Old Testament faith was completed as he believed in the Jewish Messiah.
• Another was "Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there" (Acts 22:12).
• Abraham was called "God's friend" (James 2:23). We cannot imagine God having a "friend" who is bad!
• David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22).
• Zacharias and Elizabeth "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6).
• Phoebe was a servant of the church in Cenchrea who was a helper of many (Romans 16:1-2).
• There are Priscilla and Aquila, and many others mentioned in Romans 16.

It is God’s business to turn people who are not good into people are who are. Justification declares us to be righteous based on the righteousness of another, so we are “good” in the estimation of God as He sees us in Christ. More than that, the initial gift of regeneration makes us into new people. This gives us the basic equipment we need to be genuinely good in practice. Through the ongoing process of sanctification, God gradually transforms us so that we become something different than we were. God is working to transform our behavior, our minds, our character, our attitudes, and everything about us so that we become good, like His Son. Yes, God is working to change our personalities—not to eliminate the beautiful diversity that distinguishes us from one another, but to progressively eradicate those sinful parts of our personalities until we reach glory.

Goodness is a gift from God. It is a communication of His infinite goodness to finite creatures. It is not something we work up to, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. I am so thankful for that. But what to do when we fail to be good? We often fall short. Some temptation grabs hold of us. Some emotions or words come out which are contrary to the Spirit’s influence. We behave inappropriately.

In our failures, the ancient sage Job is a great example. God tells us that He was a good man. But even Job got off track when he spoke out of turn against God. In Job 40:3-5 and 42:1-6, Job admitted that he was wrong. He repented in dust and ashes. Then God declared that Job spoke what was right, and accepted him (42:7-9). Thanks to God that He is merciful to those with a contrite heart and a broken spirit.

The somewhat paradoxical truth of the situation is this: for a person to be godly, he must repent when he sins. Said another way, a good person responds to sin in her life by changing her mind about that sin, confessing it to the Lord and asking for help to avoid it in the future. The righteous repent. The unrighteous do not repent. Repentance is a mark of the righteous. Of course, a person who never sinned would never need repentance. But that is not our lot—not until after the rapture. And so, for us to be like Christ, we have to do something that Christ never had to do, and that is repent!

Take courage, dear friends! When you stumble, express to God that contrition that you know He loves. Be broken over sin, and God will receive your penitent prayer with openness, mercy, and grace.

The disciples asked the Lord if there were few who would be saved. The answer was, in short, yes. The door is narrow, and the way is difficult. The Lord wants a few good men. You probably know this phrase from the advertising slogan of the U.S. Marines. The phrase is known from 1799 (1779 by some accounts), when Captain William Jones advertised for “a few good men” to serve on the ship called Providence. That message has stuck for over 200 years. There is something special about being one of the “few,” especially when those few are good.

There are no good people in one sense. But, there are a few good people in another sense. May God multiply that tribe. May you all be “good ministers of Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 4:6) and “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10).

This article is cross-posted at dbts.edu/blog and at the Southern Sentinel..

The question from a church member today was somewhat involved, but it had to do with the reality of ghosts, whether deceased human spirits can roam outside of their proper abode (Heaven or Hell), and the difference between Hades and Hell.

Here is what I wrote in reply:

1. Sheol is a Hebrew word for "grave." That was seen by the Old Testament believer as the entry-way into the world of the dead. Both believers and unbelievers went to Sheol (Psalm 16:10, Jonah 2:2, Isaiah 14:11).

2. When a believer died in Old Testament times, his body was placed in the grave, and his soul went to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22). He cannot return to the land of the living, even as a ghost or spirit.

3. When an unbeliever died Old Testament times, his body was placed in the grave, and his soul went to Hades (Luke 16:23). Hades has a climate like Hell. He could not return to the land of the living. Therefore, "ghosts" as they are commonly known do not exist. He cannot cross the great gap between Hades and Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:26).

4. Today, when a believer dies, his body is placed in the grave, and his soul goes immediately up to heaven = paradise, not (in this present age) to Abraham's bosom. They cannot come back to "haunt" the living. They will be resurrected at the rapture or just before the millennial kingdom (1 Thess. 4:13-18, Daniel 12:2-3), and always be with Christ, in the new heaven and new earth.

5. Today, when an unbeliever dies, his body is placed in the grave, and his soul goes immediately to Hades, same as #3 above. He is stuck there until...

6. At the great white throne judgment, his soul and body are rejoined (resurrected) and he is judged (Revelation 20:11-15). Then he is cast into the lake of fire (= Hell) because he did not trust Christ.

7. Notice in Revelation 20:14 that Hades and Hell are two different things (one is thrown into the other!). That is almost always misunderstood by people today. Hades will be emptied out, and Hell will be filled with those people. As mentioned above, the climate of both places is basically the same (hot). It is my understanding that there is technically no one in Hell today. All unbelievers are in Hades. The first residents of Hell will be the beast and false prophet (Revelation 19:20). Not even Satan is in Hell. We know this, because the Bible says that he roams about like a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). But he will go there (Revelation 20:10) after the millennial kingdom of Christ. Only then will all unbelievers go there (Revelation 20:15).

8. Are there "spirits" today? Yes. They are not "ghosts" as commonly thought, that is, the spirits of departed people. Rather, there are good angels and bad angels (= demons). And like Satan, the demons do roam about and do stuff in the world, and try to frustrate God's purposes and people. We can't see them; they are very stealthy; we can't even diagnose for sure when someone is afflicted with a demon. But that is OK, because He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4). We can pray for people who are acting weird and ask God to save them. Typically demonic influence is far worse in cultures given over to paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and the like. Christian-ized cultures are not as affected. Our culture was more Christian-ized in years past; it is becoming more paganized today. So, we will be seeing an increase in demonic activity.

9. Reiterate: those in Hades cannot come and go from earth. They are confined in punishment. And since no one is in Hell yet, they can't come and go from earth either. Those in heaven don't come and go from earth either. Here's why: What kind of heaven would it be if the people there could come back and see all the sin and evil and disasters that are happening here? It wouldn't be very joyful, would it? To make it even more clear, remember that the Bible says that absent from the body is present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). If you are present with the Lord (in heaven) that means you don't roam around in other places (the earth).

Today's question comes from one of our young people:

Was Paul an apostle, and considered one of the twelve? How could he be if he did not see the Lord like the others?

I tried to keep the answer brief, so I didn't cite all the verses. But here it is: First, there were 12 apostles. But Judas was a bad apple, and wasn't genuine. So, after he betrayed the Lord, there were 11. Then after Jesus ascended to heaven, the 11 picked Matthias to become the new 12th apostle. He had been with them throughout Jesus' ministry and saw all the things they did.

Now, as for Paul, he definitely was an apostle (1 Timothy 2:7). But he is number 13. His selection was different than the others, because he saw the Lord on the road to Damascus after Jesus had already gone back to heaven (Acts 9:3-7, 17). He saw Jesus at other times too (Acts 22:18, probably also 2 Corinthians 12:4). He received the good news directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:12). His ministry was also somewhat unique, for God sent him to the Gentiles to preach Christ (Romans 11:13).

Last evening, Pastor John O'Dell taught our church family about the suffering of Christ on the cross from Matthew 27:45-46. The message was not recorded, but we captured the following points from his lesson. Christ's suffering on the cross...

1. demonstrates the depth of God's love.
2. demonstrates the vileness of sin.
3. demonstrates the severity of God's judgment on sin.
4. demonstrates the deceitfulness of the human heart, with regard to the people who witnessed His torture and suffering, yet were unmoved (Jeremiah 17:9).
5. shows that believers will not be forsaken, because Jesus was forsaken for them.

How shall we interpret James 4:1-10? The entire book of James seems to be directed toward believers, at least generally so. But there is some very strong language in chapter 4 that seems to indicate readers who were heavy into sin, so much so that they might seem like unbelievers:

• Wars
• Fights
• Desire for pleasure
• Lust
• Murder
• Covet
• Not asking God
• Asking amiss
• Spending on personal pleasures
• Adulterers
• Friendship with the world
• Enmity with God
• Spirit that yearns jealously
• Proud
• Sinners
• Double-minded

This sounds suspiciously like the worldly wisdom mentioned in James 3:14-16. Where does this stuff come from? James identifies the source in verse 1: an internal heart problem where desires for pleasure are in control of the person's behavior.

Whether this is a description of a believer or not, none of this is good or acceptable. If a member of the church behaved consistently like this and without repentance, what would the church do? It would have to conclude that the person is not acting like a believer should act. It should then call the person to repent. The call would look something like this:

• Submit to God
• Resist the Devil
• Draw near to God
• Cleanse your hands
• Purify your heart
• Lament
• Mourn
• Weep
• Turn laughter into mourning
• Turn joy into gloom
• Humble yourself before God

If the person responds properly with humble repentance, all will be well. If the person does not, then they are giving off strong evidence that they are not genuine in their profession of faith.

I taught on the subject of divorce from Mark 10 and related passages this past weekend. I was struck how some of the strongest encouragement to me after the message came from several individuals in our assembly who have experienced divorce, and some of those have been remarried.

I take a very conservative stance on divorce and remarriage. These people were not in the least put off by my teaching, but were 100% in agreement. (I'm sure there were others who weren't--but I did not hear from them!)

One point I take from this is that you can have people in your church who have experienced the horrors of divorce, but that doesn't mean you have to tiptoe around the subject. You know how it is--when you get to Mark 10 or Matthew 19 or 1 Corinthians 7 in your expositional series, you are tempted to skip those sections, or talk in a very milquetoast way. Look—divorce is wrong. Preach against it.

In his book Faith Alone, Arnold Fruchtenbaum is explaining the fifth chapter of Galatians regarding the works of the flesh. He writes:

[Paul] points out that people who practise such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. While these works are common among the unsaved, saved people, of course, can also fall into these sins. While all will enter the Messianic Kingdom not all will inherit the Messianic Kingdom, meaning not all will be rewarded and receive a position of honor and glory in the Kingdom. So how we live now does matter and will matter for a thousand years. These works [of the flesh] in believers do not mean that they will not enter the Kingdom, but it does mean that they are not walking on the basis of the newborn human spirit. (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Faith Alone: The Condition of Our Salvation, Ariel Ministries, 2014, p. 53.)

The distinction between entering and inheriting the kingdom is unheard of among conservative Christians, and is rejected by most dispensationalists. More than that, it is unbiblical. Paul is calling out people who practice the sins of the flesh. People who are idolaters, sorcerers, heretics, murderers, drunks, and so forth will neither enter nor inherit the kingdom of God. In the same way, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 describes these people. They are unsaved. They will not enjoy the kingdom for 1000 years, nor will they enjoy heaven or anything else after they die.

A believer may fall into temporary sin such as some listed in Paul's sin lists. But that is not the same as those who practice such sins, relish in them, never repent of them, and continue to live in them.

In the bigger picture of theology, we need to beware of the three-tiered system of theology that teaches there are (1) unbelieving fleshly people (who don't enter or inherit the kingdom), (2) believing carnal people (who enter but do not inherit?), and (3) believing spiritual people (who enter and inherit?). We must recognize that unbelieving people are fleshly and that is the same as saying they are carnal. Anyone in the so-called carnal state needs to leave that state, as Paul commands. That state is not acceptable because it is exactly the same as the unbelieving=fleshly state. Granted, one may behave carnally for a temporary period of time, but one who lives carnally all the time, with no repentance, shows absolutely no fruit of salvation, despite any of their verbal protestations to the contrary.

There are TWO kinds of people according to Romans 8:5-9. Only one will inherit/enter the kingdom, and heaven. The other will NOT.

I am just completing an expositional series in 2 Peter in our church, and yesterday I delivered a message at the chapel service of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary from Peter's letter. In preparation for the message, I noted that Peter appeals to two witnesses as the basis of his apologetic, that is, his defense of the gospel.

The first of these witnesses is found in 2 Peter 1:16-18. There, Peter flatly denies the charge that he is propagating a clever myth. Rather, he personally eyewitnessed the majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. But far more than a mere "experience," Peter has recorded for us a heavenly revelation with apostolic authority. Jesus, God the Father, James, John, Peter, Moses, and Elijah were present at this unveiling of the regal glory of King Jesus. Peter's letter, and all the NT writings, are classed the same way--as apostolic revelation. So Peter's first witness boils down to this: the New Testament of the Bible.

The second of Peter's witnesses is found in 2 Peter 1:19-21. There he writes of the prophetic word that is altogether reliable. It did not originate in man, but rather with the activity of the Holy Spirit superintending the authors of the Old Testament. And that is why it is entirely trustworthy, because it originates with God.

Peter reiterates these two witnesses once again in 2 Peter 3:2:

That you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior...

We have the Old Testament in the mention of the holy prophets, and the New Testament in the phrase "commandment of...the apostles."

By two or three witnesses, let every word be established (Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1). You cannot get more reliable witnesses than the Old and New Testaments. The Christian faith is founded upon solid, historical, revealed truth from heaven. There is no reason to abandon it for the speculations and scoffing of men.

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has just released its latest recommended book list. I recommend it!