Matt Postiff's Blog

Today's question came in the email and had to do with whether the mentions of David in Jeremiah and Ezekiel refer to resurrected King David, or to the Messiah.

Jer. 30:9 "And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them."

Ezek. 34:23-24 "I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them--My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken."

Ezek. 37:24-25 "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statues, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where you fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever."

Hosea 3:5 "Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days."

MacArthur consistently takes David to refer to the greater David = Messiah Jesus in all the cases above.

My problem with that interpretation is that there are other easy ways to refer to God's anointed, and I wonder why the prophets say "David" if they meant "Messiah."

David, like all OT saints, will be resurrected and enjoy the millennial kingdom (Dan. 12:2-3). It is very plausible that he will hold a significant place of rule over the kingdom as a prince under the Messiah. Perhaps Solomon will as well. After that, there are only a few historical kings who were "good." Maybe they all will have some sort of role in the millennial kingdom. Obviously Jesus will outshine them all by a large margin!

My Bible outlines are now available on Kindle.

Another installment of literacy in the Bible:

We mentioned in the video about God’s role for government and the video about abortion that God did—and still does—permit society to exercise capital punishment. This is clear from Genesis 9:6. But does this run afoul of another well-known text of the Bible in the Ten Commandments? Look at Exodus 20:13, where the sixth commandment says “You shall not murder.” In saying this, does God contradict himself? Or does Moses contradict God when he wrote “You shall not murder”?

The key to resolving this question is the difference between murder and killing. The old King James version says “You shall not kill.” But that is a bad translation. Murder and killing are two different things. Granted, they have a similar outcome for the person who is dead, but morally they are entirely different. In a just war, for example, people are killed, but the soldiers are not guilty of murder. A policeman who kills a gun-wielding perpetrator at a crime scene is not guilty of murder either. When a home invasion ends in the death of the homeowner, this is murder. When the same home invasion ends with the death of the invader, that is justifiable homicide, meaning that the homeowner is not guilty of murder because he was simply defending himself and his family.

So, the answer to our question is NO—capital punishment is not murder. Instead, it is a justifiable penalty assigned for certain horrific crimes. Otherwise, God himself would be guilty of murder for allowing and even predetermining the death of certain individuals. Even Jesus himself was killed—was God at fault? No indeed. According to 1 Peter 3:18, Jesus died in the place of unjust people so that He might bring us to God. He voluntarily came to the earth to do that. Certain humans were guilty of putting Him on the cross, to be sure. But in effect it was our sins that killed him. So are we guilty of murder?

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).

The Bible has three important sections that explain what God wants government to do.

First is Romans 13:1-7. It says that there is no governmental authority except those appointed by God. The government’s rulers are to oppose evil. The governmental authority (police officer, president, governor) does not bear the sword in vain, because he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Because of this, God has permitted governments to exercise the authority of capital punishment. Now this has been in place for thousands of years. In the first book of the Bible, for example, Genesis 9:6 says “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” There is only one punishment that fits the crime of murder, and that is to forfeit the murderer’s life. Our society exercises a great amount of mercy toward such offenders by assigning them life in prison, but this can leave the victim’s family feeling as if justice has not fully been done for their loved one. By the way, the idea is that the corporate body of society as a whole exercises that authority—not individual vigilantes.

The third passage is 1 Peter 2:13-14. It explains that the king and governors are sent by God to punish evildoers and to praise those who do good. There are whole departments of government—like the FBI, department of justice, state attorneys general, and the like which are focused on punishing evildoers. And we are thankful for that because it helps keep law and order in our society so that we can live peacefully. There are no governmental departments I am aware of which are dedicated to praising those who do good! But I am thankful for the recognition that is afforded to good and heroic citizens.

Summarize: the basic role of government is to punish evil and praise those who do good.

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.

In the medical community, "SOAP" is an acronym that is a helpful guide for a doctor-patient interaction. The letters stand for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. The patient comes in with some complaint, the subjective. The doctor looks him or her over very well and makes observations for the objective part. Then the doctor makes an assessment and sets out a plan of treatment. All of this is documented in summary fashion in the SOAP note retained in the patient's chart.

The SOAP Bible study method uses the same acronym, which in this case means Scripture, Observation, Application, and Prayer. An example can be seen here. Basically, you determine the Scripture passage that you will study. It would be good to even write it out. Then you can write down everything you observe about the passage, including questions and relevant leads to other portions of Scripture. Then you can think about how to apply the passage to your own life situation, and pray to ask God for help in following His word.

I think the SOAP method can be very helpful. However, it often leads to superficial Bibles study, as pointed out in this article.

To remedy this deficiency, we should think about the SOAP method as the sOap method, with an emphasis on the letter O. The observation part needs to be much more careful and deep than the example linked above. Without proper observation--in other words, exegesis--you cannot arrive at correct interpretation. And you need a correct interpretation before you can determine the appropriate application.

We have previously discussed the Swedish Method and the COMA Method of Bible study.

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.

Here is today's question:

I was listening to your "God forgives sinners" message and at the end before communion you mentioned that people shouldn’t take communion unless they were baptized or intended to be baptized. I was not at the service and only listening to audio so it’s hard to know how the church functions by one audio message but it kind of came off as baptism was a work. Is that what you meant or was that said for possible visitors so they don’t take communion lightly?

Thanks for your inquiry. Your impression that we believe baptism to be a work is not right--if by "work" you mean "a deed necessary to acquire salvation." No works are required, or even able, to save anyone's soul, except for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. On the other hand, baptism is a "work" in that it is something Jesus tells us to do, and it is a "good work," and it should be done by all true believers. But let me be clear: baptism saves no one.

What I was illustrating with my statement about baptism is this point: if you are refusing to obey the commands of Christ, such as baptism, then you are living in sin and need to deal with that first, before taking communion. I add the exception "or intend to be baptized" because we do not have baptism services every month, so maybe someone has newly realized they need to be baptized, or just become a Christian so they have not had the opportunity yet to be baptized because of the church schedule. I have no problem with offering communion in that case. Other churches believe differently on that, but that is where I'm at on it.

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