Verse 19 says, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

The contrasting verse is verse 21, which says, “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

It seems to me that this is not a case of men seeing the light of Christ and then evaluating how they should respond.  It’s not like they were presented a choice and could go either way.  On the contrary, their response was predetermined by who they were.

Those who love the darkness do so because they are evil doers.  Those who accept Christ do not become lovers of truth as a result of coming into the light; rather, they come into the light because God has awakened them to the truth.

Going back up to verse 8 (and preceding), Jesus compares the Spirit (Gr., pneuma) with wind (also pneuma).  He says that a re-born spirit is the work of the Spirit, and the Spirit is like the wind in that it “blows wherever it pleases.“  The main point is that spiritual rebirth is a very real thing despite the mechanism being unseen.  However, the passage also implies that the Spirit is not only the “mechanism” that does the regeneration, but also the reason why regeneration takes place.

John 3:16 (and 15) is frequently read as if belief is the criteria for being born again, which is in turn the criteria for eternal life.  However, that is not what Jesus said.  He simply said that those who believe will have eternal life.  I contend that it makes more sense in the context of the chapter to think that those who have been born again are those who will believe.  In other words, spiritual rebirth is the criteria for belief, not the other way around.

Related posts:

1. A Tense Calvinist My wife likes to say that she is a “Calvinist...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Although I don’t really know, I’m guessing that responses to Jonathan Edwards frequently fall into one of several different categories:

1.  Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy!  He was a great thinker and theologian; there is much that can be learned from him.

2.  I’ve heard of him, but that’s about it.

3.  Yeah, I’m not a big fan of those “hellfire and damnation,” “fire and brimstone” types.  We serve a God of love!

These are exaggerated generalizations, and I’m sure there are other categories, but I suspect these three are fairly common reactions.

In my imagined scenario, the person to whom I was speaking fell into the 3rd category.

At that point, I don’t bother trying to convince them that Edwards may have something valuable to offer.  That maybe they have the wrong impression of him; that maybe they should actually read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, instead of just dismiss it.  Instead, I suggest that maybe they should do a study on God’s wrath.

John 3:16 is a wonderful verse.  It’s great news that God offers eternal life to those who believe in Jesus.  But it’s a mistake to focus solely on the positive.  It’s simply not true that the only barrier to eternal life is man’s unwillingness to accept it.  The real barrier, an insurmountable barrier (unless God removes it), is God’s wrath.

John 3:16 says that if we believe in Jesus we will not perish.  We had better ask the question, “why would we perish otherwise?”  We need to read the whole chapter.  John 3:36 tells us that if a person doesn’t believe (and obey) Jesus, then God’s wrath remains (or abides) on him.

I think it’s also worth noting that John isn’t just saying, “one day (in the future) you’ll face God’s wrath” if you don’t trust in Jesus.  It’s true that the day of Judgment, when God pours out His full wrath, is still coming.  But John 3:36 says that God’s wrath “remains.”  It’s already there.  John 3:18 says that the one who doesn’t believe is already under condemnation.

Another instructive passage is in Romans.  Romans 5:8 is quite popular, and rightly so.  But many seem to have lost sight of Romans 5:9.  When we are saved by Christ, what are we saved from?  From ourselves?  Are we rescued from Satan’s grip?  Certainly salvation includes release from bondage to many things, but primarily, we are saved from the wrath of God.

When Jesus died for us, he drank the cup of God’s wrath for us (Matt. 26:42; Isa. 53:4-5,10; Gal. 3:13).  Those who do not trust in Jesus will have to drink the cup of God’s wrath on their own (Rev. 14:10).

There are some within Christianity who minimize or deny the importance of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.  This is a problem, not due to differing interpretations of theological minutia, but a problem of not understanding and appreciating God’s wrath.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Several websites confirm an understanding of this phrase that is more-or-less the way I have normally understood it.

For example, The Phrase Finder defines the meaning as “I too, like someone seen to have suffered misfortune, might have suffered a similar fate, but for God’s mercy.”

Adrian Room, writing in Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, says that the phrase (normally uttered upon observing the disaster or disgrace that has befallen someone as a result of their actions or misdoings) “implies that most of us have committed the same follies, sins etc., but have been fortunate enough to escape the consequences.”

The Free Dictionary has an entry explaining the phrase to mean that, “I would likely have experienced or done the same bad thing if God had not been watching over me.”

Finally, here are the definitions provided by Wiktionary:

1. A recognition that others’ misfortune could be one’s own, if it weren’t for the blessing/kindness/luck bestowed by fate or the Divine.
2. Man’s fate is in God’s hands.
3. More generally, our fate is not entirely in our own hands.

Each of these definitions is true. It’s not my intention to dispute these definitions, but to provide an alternative mindset for thinking about this phrase. The standard thought behind this phrase is that we are passive. I am attempting to change my thinking about the grace of God to include an active element.

“There but for the grace of God, go I,” not because I passively managed to avoid (by luck or by providence) what befell someone else, but because God granted me grace to live a different life.

I still recognize that, in my own power, I could not keep myself from the same behavior and the same results, no matter how hard I try or how much I want to. However, through God’s grace, I don’t just experience different circumstances. My life is actually different. I am a different person. “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift,” his exceeding grace, which is in us (2 Cor. 9:14-15, ASV). Quoting Matthew Henry again, this grace “enables and inclines” our hearts to do what we could not (if we wanted) and would not (if we were able) do on our own.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It is only through God’s grace that we can repent. Grace isn’t the overlooking of faults. Grace isn’t expressing appreciation of someone undeserving. Grace is the power to do what we could not do in and of ourselves. (Hard times come again more and more)

The common definition of grace as “unmerited favor” is perhaps a little misleading, at least the way we tend to understand favor. My tendency, at least, is to think of “favor” as simply to “look at someone” with a “favorable attitude,” or to ultimately reward someone despite the fact that they don’t deserve it. While this definition captures the “unmerited” nature of God’s grace, I don’t think it sufficiently captures the fact that grace doesn’t just mean an “award,” but it delivers an “ability.”

Matthew Henry states this dual aspect of grace better than I could have, in his commentary on Romans 7.

“We are under grace, which promises strength to do what it commands, and pardon upon repentance when we do amiss.”

I see a lot of focus on the forgiving nature of grace, but not much mention of the fact that grace is not just a status; it is the ability to accomplish what God intends for us.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Steve Taylor wrote a song called “Harder To Believe Than Not To.” That song comes to my mind now and then, especially when people try to “sell” Christianity as a six-step process for life enrichment. The Apostle Paul implied that the Christian life is not one you would want to live if it weren’t for the fact that in Christ we have eternal life to look forward to (I Cor. 15:19).

So, what is it about being a Christian that is hard? Is it holding our tongue, being kind to others, helping others in need, and things like that? Sometimes those things can be hard, but I don’t think those things are what make the Christian life hard.

I want others to like me, so it’s not that hard to be kind to them. Sure, sometimes it’s hard to be kind to someone who is annoying or mean-spirited, but in general it’s not that hard to be kind.

I don’t like to see other people suffering, so it’s not that hard to offer help to people in need. Sure, sometimes I am too protective of “my time” or “my stuff,” and it can be hard to find motivation to help someone who continually makes poor choices, but for the most part, it’s not that hard to extend a hand to those in need.

High moral standards aren’t what set Christianity apart. Sometimes it’s hard to consistently maintain high moral standards, but that’s not what makes the Christian life hard. The world understands “good behavior.” The world understands the “golden rule.” What sets Christianity apart and makes the Christian life hard to live, is something that doesn’t occur to the world.

Repentance is hard

The hard thing about the Christian life is repentance. Repentance is hard. Not just confession. Confession isn’t that hard. Sure sometimes pride gets in the way of confession, but it’s not that hard to say, “sorry, I messed up.” It’s not that hard to say, “I see now that what I did was wrong.” “I knew it was wrong, and I did it anyway.” “I broke the rules.” The world understands confession. It also understands what is left unsaid after most confessions. “Now, cut me some slack.”

The hard thing is to not only confess, but then say, “I will change. I will not be like that anymore. I will live my life differently than I used to.” It’s hard for a couple of reasons. One, because often we don’t really want to change. We want to continue with what we know, avoiding the major failures, but not really changing our life. Second, because despite our best intentions we know that we’re likely to fail again. It’s hard to say, “I will stop doing that,” when we aren’t sure how long it will be before we do it again. The most challenging thing about repentance, the root beneath all areas of weakness in our lives, the thing that we are least willing to do, is relinquishing control of our lives. We want to be in control of our money, our happiness, our safety, our image, etc. The result of trying to be in control of our lives is greed, laziness, fear, pride, etc. We need to repent of living life on our own terms.

Ultimate Repentance: putting an end to the usurpation of our lives

The essence of sin and separation from God is living outside of God’s authority. When we sin, we live under our own authority (or so we think; we actually are enslaved to sin). We put ourselves on the throne of our lives. We aren’t actually ruling (we’ve actually turned ourselves into puppets), but we’ve lifted up an idol of ourselves, thinking that we know best. Repentance is acknowledging that our life belongs to God, and letting him take the reins.

The rich young ruler in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18 kept the commandments. But he wanted to keep living life on his terms. He wanted to keep his wealth. Jesus said that if we try to hang on to control of our lives, we will lose our life (Luke 17:33). The key to life is to turn our lives over to the rightful owner.

Giving up your life is hard.

Grace: the power to repent

The truth is, we won’t repent; we won’t relinquish control of our lives. Not of ourselves anyway. Everything in our flesh clings desperately to ownership of our lives. It is only through God’s grace that we can repent. Grace isn’t the overlooking of faults. Grace isn’t expressing appreciation of someone undeserving. Grace is the power to do what we could not do in and of ourselves.

In 1 Cor. 15:10, Paul makes it clear that grace doesn’t just free us from the past, it is the enabling power behind our new creation. Grace has an effect. It makes us into something we couldn’t be without grace. In 2 Cor. 9:8, Paul reminds us that the power to do good works is a result of grace. Grace isn’t just an idea or an emotion. It has legs. It does stuff in our lives. As Hebrews 4:16 says, grace helps us. It is by grace that we saved (Eph 2:8).

Grace makes it possible for us to do the hard work of repentance.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here are some resources I’m looking at to inform my view on this subject:

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/credobaptism

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/whoswork.html

http://www.desiringgod.org/Search/?search=baptism

You might notice that these are primarily from the credobaptist viewpoint (with the exception of the Lutheran page). That’s mainly because that’s the view I currently hold, and I want to see the arguments for this view. If I’m going to be convinced to change my mind, I’m not going to do it lightly. When I read the arguments in favor of paedobaptism, I need to be convinced that the case is stronger than the case for credobaptism if I’m going to change my view.

At this point, it appears to me that the strongest arguments for paedobaptism are historical precedent and the framework through which one understands the Old and New Covenants. I’m sure there are other reasons, but the comparison of baptism to circumcision seems to be the primary argument, backed up by historical practice.

While not pertaining to baptism, per se, this is another link I’m perusing:

http://www.samwaldron.us/Papers.html

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

-Martin Luther

(found at Douglas Wilson’s Blog and Mablog)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Rational thought is certainly of great value, but do we risk limiting God’s work in our life if we only engage Him with our mind, and not our spirit? How do we communicate with our spirit? Do we need to “disengage” our mind in order to not “get in the way” of spiritual communication?

These questions prompted me to look up some verses that may relate to spiritual communication.

Psalm 4:4 says, “reflect in your heart and be still” (HCSB).

Psalm 77:6 says, “I will meditate with my heart, and my spirit ponders” (NASB).

Ecclesiastes 1:16 says, “I communed with my heart” (NKJV).

Is this to say that there is a distinction between the mind and the heart?

In Ecclesiastes, I take it that he is saying that his mind is instructing his heart. He goes on to say, in the same verse, “My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge.” We typically think of wisdom and knowledge as the realm of the mind, not the heart. Is Solomon using the mind and heart as synonyms? Some translations do not refer to the heart in this verse.

Psalm 46:10 says, “Be still, and know that I am God.” In what way are we to be still?

The context is that of fighting?; the command to be still is a command to stop worrying. See also Exodus 14:14 and Nehemiah 8:11.

Psalm 37:7 is another verse that says to “be still.” Again, the context is an instruction to not worry.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It has occurred to me when reading the Gospels that when Jesus told parables, He might have told some of them as a comedian might tell a joke. Just try to picture Jesus using different voices and acting out his stories. Large crowds of people followed Jesus, but few understood His parables; perhaps some just hung around because He was entertaining. I don’t know, it’s just a thought.

Noticing humor in the Bible can make reading the Bible more enjoyable, but also is an aid in getting to know the Bible better and remembering where things are. If you find anything funny in the Bible, or have some Bible jokes, I’d be interested in hearing them so I can add to my list.  Here’s a handful of corny “Bible Jokes.”

The first passage is probably what made me think of the idea of finding humor in the Bible.  I first saw this passage in a men’s dorm bathroom at Taylor University.  Someone had printed it on a piece of paper and stuck it to the door of one of the stalls.

“Jeremiah’s Linen Shorts” (Jeremiah 13:1-7, modified KJV)

Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee some linen shorts, and wear them, but do not wash them. So I got some linen shorts according to the word of the LORD, and I wore them. And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying, Take the shorts that thou hast got, which thou art wearing, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide them there in a hole of the rock. So I went, and hid them by Euphrates, as the LORD commanded me. And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the shorts from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there. Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the shorts from the place where I had hid them: and, behold, the shorts were marred, they were profitable for nothing.

“Arameans Hear Things” (2 Kings 7:5-7, NIV)

At dusk they got up and went to the camp of the Arameans. When they reached the edge of the camp, not a man was there, for the Lord had caused the Arameans to hear the sound of chariots and horses and a great army, so that they said to one another, “Look, the king of Israel has hired the Hittite and Egyptian kings to attack us!” So they got up and fled in the dusk and abandoned their tents and their horses and donkeys. They left the camp as it was and ran for their lives.

“EXTRA!! EXTRA!! Hit Men Begin Prophesying! Read all about it!” (1 Sam. 19:20-23, NIV)

[Saul is trying to kill David] so he sent men to capture him. But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came upon Saul’s men and they also prophesied. Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied. Finally, he himself left for Ramah and went to the great cistern at Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” “Over in Naioth at Ramah,” they said. So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even upon him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth.

“The Israelite Bathroom” (2 Kings 10:27, NIV)

They demolished the sacred stone of Baal and tore down the temple of Baal, and people have used it for a latrine to this day.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Before getting into his main argument (that Christians should adhere to the Law of Moses), the author (Aaron) acknowledges to his reader(s) that…

“You have the real advantage of the entire body of orthodox Christian interpretation on your side. I acknowledge my views as being outside the pale of commonly accepted Christian belief.”

While I know that many who have come to believe that Christians should observe the Mosaic Law have struggled with the fact that so many trusted theologians and preachers teach otherwise, I think this point deserves more weight than it gets.

We are commanded to be subject to our elders (I Peter 5:5). This doesn’t mean our elders are infallible; we still have an obligation to examine Scripture for ourselves. In some cases, those whom we would consider our elders do not agree with each other. In those cases, we might follow the elders we trust the most, arrive at our own conclusion based on personal study, or leave the matter unresolved. However, when the vast majority of our elders are teaching more or less the same thing on a given subject, it strongly suggests that I should not abandon their teaching for my own ideas or the ideas of someone else whom I find more agreeable.

As I look at those whom I would consider as elders, who have committed their lives to the study and proclamation of God’s Word, I cannot believe that they are all unaware of the historical and cultural context that would supposedly reveal the true meaning of Scripture as regards the Law. These are highly educated men who have devoted their lives to this pursuit.

Being made aware of the historical and cultural context, I cannot believe that they are all unable to see it for what it is and accurately deduce the correct meaning. These are highly intelligent men who evidence giftedness in interpreting God’s Word.

Seeing the historical and cultural context for what it is, I cannot believe that they are all unwilling to accept an interpretation that is contrary to their preexisting beliefs. These are godly men who evidence the character that is fitting for an elder. I place more confidence, as a whole, in their willingness to follow the Spirit than in my own.

That being said, I must move on to the specifics of the discussion at hand.

Aaron highlights the supposed discrepancy between the way the Law was regarded by Moses and the Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, etc and the typical interpretation of Paul’s writings. He then sets up two untenable conclusions and the conclusion that he would have us believe. The problem is, his statements are constructed in a way that I would term a “false dilemma.”

When it comes to “reinterpreting” Paul, it is necessary to “redefine” what Paul meant by “law” and “circumcision,” assigning to them the extra-biblical actions that constituted a “legal” conversion of nationality.

However, when “law” is referred to elsewhere, it is taken to explicitly mean the Mosaic Law in its entirety. This assumption of definition is what sets up the logical fallacy that insists on a reinterpretation of Paul as the only way out.

I have not done what I would consider a thorough study of the use of the word “law” or its synonyms. I do know that God commended Abraham because he “obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” This was before the Mosaic Law was given, so we have a precedent for considering God’s “law” to be broader than the list of commandments given to Israel.

As soon as the Ten Commandments were given, Moses tells the Israelites that God is using this set of laws to test them (Exodus 20:20). They fail the test miserably, making it clear that we need something more than “guidelines” for how to live.

The laws that were given to Israel were part of the “Book of the Covenant.” In comparing the covenants that God has made with mankind, I think it is significant that the Mosaic Law is linked with the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. This was a conditional covenant, summarized as “obey the commands I have given you, and things will go well; disobey, and I will send calamity.” This Old Covenant was neither capable of nor intended to justify man or produce righteousness. The New Covenant, which makes the first one obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), also puts an end to the external regulations associated with the Old Covenant (Hebrews 9:10).

I have started a beginning attempt at a unified approach to God’s various covenants with mankind here:
http://blog.sloppyedwards.com/biblical-covenants/

The broader “Law of God” is to be understood and obeyed in much the same way as in the time of Abraham. As Paul said in I Corinthians 9:20-21, he is not under the law that the Jews followed, but is subject to the rule of God in his life.

Going back to Aaron’s post, he says near the end that “by becoming Jewish, they accepted upon themselves the additional liability of the special responsibilities of the Jewish people.” What are these “special responsibilities,” if not the Mosaic Law? What was it that made the nation of Israel “Jewish?” Was it not their shared cultural heritage, as expressed in and built upon the Book of the Covenant? How is it possible for a Gentile to observe the Mosaic Law without becoming “Jewish?”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I think these arguments, like so many arguments, miss the point by focusing on the action (ie, the “do” or the “don’t”) instead of the purpose (ie, the “why”).

It is my intent, therefore, to take a Biblical look at the purpose of Alcohol.

In order to find passages discussing alcohol and to distinguish between different types of alcohol, let’s first review the different words used for alcohol in the Bible.

yayin (H3196) – Typically translated as “wine” in the Old Testament. Strong’s definition: “from an unused root meaning to effervesce.”

she?ka?r (H7941) – Typically translated as “strong drink” in the Old Testament. Strong’s definition: “an intoxicant, that is, intensely alcoholic liquor.”

ti?yro?sh (H8492) – Typically translated as “new wine” or “sweet wine” in the Old Testament. Wine which has been freshly pressed.

oinos (G3631) – The New Testament equivalent of “yayin.”

sikera (G4608) – The New Testament equivalent of “she?ka?r.”

gleukos (G1098) – The New Testament equivalent of “ti?yro?sh.”

There are a few other words used for various forms of alcohol, but they are used rarely or are minor variations of the words above. These word forms are sufficient to determine the usage of alcohol in the Bible and the intended purpose of alcohol. If it comes to light that a different word provides significant insight, the list will be revised.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Three types of baptism:

Baptism of John – water baptism of repentance; precursor to Jesus; getting the heart right through repentance.

Act 13:24 (NIV)
Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit – indwelling of the Holy Spirit

Act 1:5 (NIV)
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Act 1:8 (NIV)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Baptism of Jesus – a testimony of salvation. Water baptism representing spiritual cleansing and rebirth.

There are ten passages in Scripture documenting a conversion to Christ in the early church. All passages in Acts, and in all cases immediately followed by baptism.

1. Acts 2:38-41 – Peter’s sermon; the conversion of 3,000
Act 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized.

2. Acts 8:9-13 – Simon the magician
Act 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized.

3. Acts 8:26-38 – The Ethiopian eunuch
Act 8:38 Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

4. Acts 9:15-18 – the Apostle Paul (Saul)
Act 9:18 He got up and was baptized.

5. Acts 10:47-48 – Cornelius et al
Act 10:48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

6. Acts 16:13-15 – Lydia and her household
Act 16:15 She and the members of her household were baptized.

7. Acts 16:30-33 – The Philippian jailer and his family
Act 16:33 Then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

8. Acts 18:7-8 – Crispus
Act 18:8 Many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

9. Acts 19:1-6 – unnamed disciples
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

10. Acts 22:12-16 – the Apostle Paul (flashback)
Act 22:16 Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Why don’t we baptize immediately today?

1. Inconvenience; lack of water
2. perceived as a barrier to the gospel
3. desire for the entire church to be witnesses
4. perceived as adding works to the gospel

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What are all these covenants, and what bearing do they have on our life today?

To begin, let’s look at the definition of a covenant.

The Definition of a Covenant

The English dictionary defines a covenant as “an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.”

In the Bible, the word “covenant” is first encountered in Genesis 6:18, and is the Hebrew word “beri?yth” (Strong’s number H1285). The word is used 285 times in the KJV, and is translated “covenant” 265 times out of those 285. It is also translated as “league,” and “confederate” or “confederacy.”

“Beriyth” is related to the word “ba?ra?h” (H1262) meaning “to select” and “ba?ra?’” (H1254) meaning “to cut.” It is frequently used with the word “ka?rath,” which also means “to cut.” In Genesis 9:11 where the KJV reads “I will establish my covenant,” it is literally saying “I will cut my covenant.” The context of “cutting a covenant” is portrayed in Genesis 15 when God has Abraham cut a heifer, a goat, and a ram in half, then God passes between the halves.

In the New Testament, the word for “covenant” is the Greek word “diathe?ke?” (Strong’s number G1242). The same word is also translated “testament.”

Old Testament Covenants

As mentioned previously, the first use of the word “covenant” in the Bible is found in Genesis 6:18.

But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.

Here, God is speaking to Noah and giving him instructions on how to build the ark. At this point, it appears that the establishment of the covenant is future tense (“I will establish”). After the flood, we find the record of God initiating and defining His covenant with Noah.

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.” (Genesis 9:8-17 ESV)

Things to note about this covenant:

1. Who are the parties to the covenant?

God makes the covenant with Noah, all the animals, and all future generations.

2. Is a duration given for the covenant?

The covenant is an “everlasting covenant” made with “all future generations.”

3. Is the covenant conditional?

No conditions are mentioned.

4. Is there a sign of the covenant.

The rainbow is the sign of the covenant.

From these observations, we can conclude that the covenant applies to everyone who came after Noah, including those of us alive today, believer and unbeliever alike. The sign of the covenant is still visible as proof that the covenant is still in effect.

From God’s covenant with Noah and the rest of creation, we proceed to the next use of the word “covenant” (beri?yth) in Genesis 15:18.

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.” (Genesis 15:18-21 ESV)

The description of the making of the covenant is in the preceding verses.

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And he said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. (Genesis 15:1-17 ESV)

At least in the immediate context, there are no conditions placed upon Abram. In fact, Abram was asleep when the terms of the covenant were stated and God passed between the carcasses. (Note: at the time God made this covenant with Abram, he was between 75 (Gen. 12:4) and 85 (Gen. 16:3) years old.)

15 or so years later, God revisits His covenant with Abram and expounds on it.

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:1-14 ESV)

In this passage we see some similarities to the covenant God made with Noah.

1. The covenant is not only with Abraham, but with his offspring.

2. The covenant is an everlasting covenant.

3. A sign of the covenant is given.

However, in verse 14 we see a significant difference between this covenant and the one God made with Noah. Disobedience to God’s command regarding circumcision results in the covenant being broken.

Another difference from God’s covenant with Noah is that His covenant with Abraham is not all-encompassing. Not ALL future offspring are members of the covenant. God specifies that He will establish His covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael.

There are some other covenants made in the book of Genesis, but they are between men. God reaffirms the covenant He made with Abraham to Isaac (Gen. 26:3-5,24) and Jacob (Gen. 28:13-15, 35:9-12), but we do not see any new covenants initiated by God.

Of interest is the fact that yet again, God’s covenant with Abraham is selective; he established the covenant with Jacob, but not Esau. As Paul stresses in Romans 9, this should make it clear that God is completely free to select the recipients of His grace at His own discretion. At the time God choose Isaac over Ishmael, one might have thought that His selection was based on Isaac being a “true” son as opposed to Ishmael being the son of a handmaiden. However, Jacob and Esau were twins, sons of Isaac’s favored wife Rachel. God’s choice of Jacob had nothing to do with heritage. In fact, Esau was the firstborn, so God even saw fit to reverse the natural order.

When God first made His covenant with Abraham, He told him that his offspring would be afflicted for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). So when God “remembers” His covenant in Exodus 2:24, it is after the children of Israel have lived in Egypt for about 400 years and grown into a nation.

God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Notice that God did not make individual covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He made one covenant with all three patriarchs.

The events that transpire between Exodus 2:24 and the giving of the law at Mount Sinai are the fulfillment of Genesis 15:14. Exodus chapters 3 and 4 record the call of Moses. Chapters 5 through 11 record the interaction of Moses and Aaron with Pharoah and the first 9 of the 10 plagues. Chapters 12 and 13 describe the Passover and the exodus from Egypt. The crossing of the Red Sea is in chapter 14, and chapters 15 through 18 describe the travels through the wilderness up until they reached Mount Sinai.

God mentions His covenant again in Exodus 19:3-6. He tells Moses,

“Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: …if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

(Sidebar: In Exodos 20:20, after delivering the Ten Commandments to the people, Moses informs them that “God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” It is obvious from the rest of the Old Testament that the Israelites failed the test. Man’s fear is not sufficient to keep him from sinning. Only God Himself is able to keep us from sin. Hence our need for a saviour and the New Covenant.)

Moving ahead to the next mention of the covenant, we come to Exodus 24:7, where we find Moses reading the “Book of the Covenant” to the people. What is the content of this “Book of the Covenant,” what is it’s source, and how and when did it come into being?

Between Exodus 19 and Exodus 24 God is giving Moses a list of His commandments. According to Exodus 24:4, Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord, and it was this record of God’s commandments that comprised the Book of the Covenant. The “official” establishment of this covenant is found in Exodus 24:8. After Moses read the Book of the Covenant, and the people voiced their agreement, the blood from animal sacrifices was used to signify the sealing of the covenant. It is worth noting that the Law or Torah is part of this covenant made at Sinai.

Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.

(Note the similarity between the language Moses uses here, and the language Jesus uses in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24…”This is my blood of the covenant.” The writer of Hebrews discusses this parallel in Hebrews 9:18-22.)

After the covenant with Israel had been established, God gave Moses more details regarding His commandments and the original two tablets with the Law insribed on them (chapters 25-31). In Exodus 31:13-17 God indicates that the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant. So we see, that like the rainbow was a sign of God’s covenant with Noah, and circumcision was a sign of His covenant with Abraham, so the Sabbath was a sign of His covenant with the nation of Israel.

In Exodus 34, after God had replaced the tablets that Moses had broken, He says, “Behold, I am making a covenant” (v.10) and “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (v.27). So we have the contents of the covenant, in the Book of the Covenant, written by Moses, and the tablets of the covenent, the Ten Commandments, written by God. We also have the recipients of the covenant, Moses and the nation of Israel. And we have a sign of the covenant, the Sabbath.

The remainder of the book of Exodus records the carrying out of God’s instructions to Moses on Mount Sinai. Then, in the book of Leviticus, God conveys more commands to Israel.

Towards the end of Leviticus, in chapter 26, God says that if Israel breaks His covenant, He will bring calamity upon them (vv. 14-39). In verses 42-45, He promises to remember His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God also makes some separate covenants with the Levites and the descendents of Aaron. In Numbers 18:19 God makes a “covenant of salt” with Aaron and his descendents that they should receive a portion of the offerings that the Israelites would bring. He also makes a covenant with Phinehas, Aaron’s grandson, that the priesthood would not depart from his family.

In Deuteronomy, before the Israelites cross the Jordan River into Canaan, Moses reviews with them the events that have occured and the covenant that God has established with them. Deuteronomy 5:2-3 make it clear that the covenant established as Mount Sinai was a distinct covenant, separate from the covenant with their fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). However, the proceeding text in Deuteronomy 7-8 reveal that while the covenant at Sinai was distinct from the covenant with Abraham, it was a result of God’s covenant with Abraham (cf. Dt. 7:12, 8:18).

After Moses reviews the Sinia Covenant with the Israelites, He outlines a second covenant or “sub-covenant” in Deuteronomy 29-30. As seen in Deuteronomy 30:6, this second covenant includes a promise of the New Covenant.

The LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your
offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with
all your soul, that you may live.

This is the New Covenant that Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 31:33) and Ezekiel speak of later, and that Jesus reveals at the Last Supper.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are many ways to address this question; some answers can get quite involved.

One answer is, ignorance is no excuse. God is holy, humans are sinful (all of us, with no exceptions–Romans 3:10, 3:23), and without an acceptable sacrifice applied on our behalf, we deserve to go to hell (Romans 5:12, 6:23). There is nothing wrong with this answer, and it should motivate Christians towards global evangelism (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth–Acts 1:8).

However, this answer is still unsatisfactory to some, who find it difficult to accept that there is no hope of salvation for those who die without ever hearing about Jesus. Perhaps this raises the question, “what does it take for an acceptable sacrifice to be applied on your behalf?”

The question with regards to the inhabitant of the remote jungle might be, “is it possible to be saved by Jesus without knowing about Jesus?”

While not attempting to provide a definitive answer to every question that might be asked, there are several concepts that I find helpful.

1. God reveals Himself to us through nature.

Romans 1:19-20 ESV
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Psalms 19:1-4 ESV
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

2. Those who seek God will find Him.

Deuteronomy 4:29 ESV
… seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Jeremiah 29:13 ESV
You will seek me and find me. When you seek me with all your heart.

Luke 11:9-10 ESV
And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

Proverbs 8:17 ESV
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

3. To whom much is given, much is required.

Luke 12:48 ESV
…the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

James 3:1 ESV
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

These verses provide a picture of a God who does not “automatically condemn” people who are unfortunate enough to be born in a part of the world unreached by Christianity. This does not mean sin is excused when there is a lack of knowledge. No one is innocent, but God reveals Himself to everyone, no matter where they live. If someone responds to what they know about God, and earnestly seek the source of that knowledge, God promises to honor their search by revealing more of Himself. There is also an indication that the response that is required of someone who knows a little might look different than the response that is required of someone who knows a lot. This does not mean that there is more than one way of salvation–John 14:6 is clear on that. However, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that salvation is born out of a prescribed response to specific knowledge. The Bible teaches that we are counted as righteous in response to faith. Faith is a gift from God, and God bestows that gift upon whomever He wishes. This also does not excuse us of our responsibility to preach the gospel to a world in need of a Savior. Although God doesn’t “need” us to be His messengers, He glories in working through us, and it is a matter of obedience for us to be witnesses of His glory.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

2 Pet 1:21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Sam 23:2
The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue.

Act 1:16
Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

Act 3:18
But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.

Act 28:25
And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers,

These and other passages in the Bible make it very clear that the prophets, and indeed ALL of Scripture, is God’s Message, not just a “God approved” message from men. Today we see a movie or read a fictional book that is “inspired by a true story.” Someone gets an idea, or is “inspired” by something or someone, and develops the idea into something bigger. That is not the case with Scripture. God did not just ignite the spark of an idea and men ran with it, He provided the entire Message.

What I’m not so sure about, is whether God chose the specific words and sentence structure in the original language (divinely written–all the writer did was move the pen), or whether He gave the writer the liberty to choose how to phrase it (divinely inspired–the writer put God’s Message in his own words).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So, I don’t want to reach the conclusion that homosexual activity is wrong simply because the Bible condemns it. I would like to first ascertain what God’s intention is for our sexual identity, and then see what that tells us about proper sexual activity.

The Bible tells us right from the beginning that God created humans as either male or female (Gen 1:27), and it was intended that they be united as one (Gen 2:24). Jesus confirms this in Matt 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8, and Paul repeats it in Eph 5:31. Both Paul and Peter give instructions for proper husband and wife relationships on numerous occasions (I Cor. 7, I Cor 11, Eph 5, I Tim 2, I Pet 3, etc.). We also see marriage touched on in Proverbs and Song of Solomon; and through the prophets, some of Jesus’ parables, Revelation, etc., we see the symbolism that marriage gives us of our relationship to Christ.

Based on what I see in the Bible, it seems pretty clear to me that God has distinct roles for men and women, and intends for our sexual identity to be heterosexual in nature, and for marriage to be between a man and a woman. To behave otherwise distorts the proper view of ourselves, each other, and God. Hence, the verses that condemn homosexual activity are consistent with the sexual identity the God intended for us.

I came across a good article written by someone who claims to be a gay Christian that pretty much says exactly what I just said, except his article is a lot longer. Very much worth reading though. http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.html

Now, what about someone who has trouble relating with a heterosexual identity, and finds themselves more inclined to a homosexual identity? How should this person respond to these homosexual feelings? Should they fight them, and try to develop heterosexual feelings? From what I’ve heard, this doesn’t work, and I’m inclined to believe that. Should they accept that they have a homosexual identity, but just not act on it? Based on what I concluded above, this would be accepting an identity that is inconsistent with what God intended. I guess what it all boils down to for me right now, the question I haven’t answered yet, is: “Is it okay to be comfortable with feelings that God did not have in mind when he created us?”

Note:
I certainly believe that God can and does change people. I also believe that homosexual desires are not part of God’s design. I think that when we find ourselves in a state that is not according to God’s design, we should ask God to change it, and do everything in our power to change it.

Lust, greed, and bitterness are contrary to God’s nature; it’s not enough to just tell ourselves that we won’t give in to the temptation; we should also be renewing our minds so that we don’t find sin attractive.

Physical sickness is not part of God’s plan either. When we get sick, or contract a disease, or are crippled, we don’t just accept it and move on; we take medicine, have surgery, and engage in therapy in an attempt to return our bodies to the state God originally intended.

However, sometimes there comes a point when we recognize that we will never attain (on earth, at least) the state God originally intended. There must be a balance between our desire to change and our acceptance of the reality that we cannot attain perfection. We shouldn’t give up our desire to change, but we don’t want to become despondant either.

Homosexual advocates may dismiss those who escape their homosexual tendencies as “not really being homosexual to begin with,” and they are wrong to do so. However, there are also people who made sincere efforts to change, even participating in Exodus International, but were unable to shake their feelings. Who am I to question their sincerity, to say, “they didn’t really try” or “they didn’t really want to change”?

I’m not suggesting that we say, “if you can’t change it, just accept it.” I’m asking, what is the proper response to someone who has tried to change and has not been successful?

Originally posted at overflo.org

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I do not necessarily see the need to prove the Bible scientifically, but I do belief that the Bible is accurate. Therefore, I believe that Adam, Noah, Methuselah, etc., really did live 900+ years. Whether or not there was some sort of water canopy or not, I don’t know, but it does appear that the reduction in life span started happening following the Flood, so the most likely explanation in my mind is that there was some sort of change that happened as a result of the flood.

If you follow the genealogies listed in Genesis 5, the Flood takes place 1656 years after Adam’s creation. There are 9 generations between Adam and Noah. Noah was 600 when the Flood began, so those 9 generations are spaced across approximately 1000 years.

After the Flood, there are another 9 generations from Shem to Abram. Using the ages listed in Genesis 11, these 9 generations span 450 years. Looking at the total lifespan of all these individuals, it’s relatively flat until Noah (although Lamech died a bit “young”), and then it starts a steep decline (see attached image; note: I left out Enoch since he didn’t actually die). It seems reasonable to me that the Flood during Noah’s time played a role in shortening the lifespans. If the shortened lifespans were due to the fall of man back in Eden, or the absence of the Tree of Life fruit, you should see a steady decline. It should also be noted that the scale of the curve may be deceiving. I show all the generations equally spaced, but in reality the “flat part” from Adam to Noah spans a time period more than twice as long as the “decline” from Noah to Terah. If I scaled the x-axis according to time, the drop-off would appear even more distinct.

On a side note…

Noah was 500 years old when he became father of Shem, Ham and Japeth (Genesis
5:32) – all in one year? Shem was 100 when he fathered Arphaxad (Genesis 11:10).

Genesis 11:10 also reveals that Arphaxad was born 2 years after the flood. Since the flood started with Noah was 600 years old, Arphaxad was born when Noah was 602 years old and Shem was 100 years old. That means Noah was 502 when Shem was born. Genesis 5:32 most likely means Noah was 500 years old when he became a father. Since Ham is referred to as the youngest in Genesis 9:24, and Shem was born when Noah was 502, the son he had when he was 500 must have been Japheth. The confusing thing is that some translations refer to Shem as the “older brother of Japheth” in Genesis 10:21, whereas other translations refer to Shem as the brother of “Japheth the elder.” While Japheth, Shem, Ham seems like the most likely birth order to me, that’s a topic for another thread.

This doesn’t have anything to do with WHY people lived a long time or what happened to change that, but here’s another interesting look at the various lifespans. Shem was still alive for another 150 years after Abram was born. I don’t have Isaac on the chart, but Abraham had Isaac when he was 100, so Shem was still around for another 50 years after Isaac was born. I don’t know if they lived in the same area or not, but it’s possible that Isaac knew his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather. Shem could have even been at Isaac and Rebekah’s wedding (Isaac was 40 when they got married), but he missed Jacob and Esau by 10 years (Isaac was 60 when they were born).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

God says He will never leave us or forsake us, and scripture is filled with His continual pursuit of His chosen people (despite their desertion and unfaithfulness). For a husband or wife to divorce their spouse, flies in the face of all that marriage is supposed to signify.

I find it interesting that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record the occasion when the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce, but Matthew is the only one who mentions the exception for maritial unfaithfulness. Clearly, while Jesus made this allowance, the thing that really stuck out was His emphatic insistence that husbands and wives should never separate (“what God has joined together, let man not separate”).

When it comes to “what’s done is done, can I get remarried?” I think there are a couple of slippery slopes to be avoided. One is the idea that as long as the other party gets remarried, and therefore “becomes unfaithful,” you are therefore free. This would open the door to marry and divorce willy-nilly provided you always make sure your ex gets remarried first. It also places a great deal of importance on timing; ie., who was unfaithful first. It essentially means two people can take the exact same actions, but one of them is guilty of adultery and the other gets off scot free. This clearly is not what God had in mind. I think the allowance for divorce in the case of marital unfaithfulness is restricted to when it occurs in the context of the marital relationship. I don’t think it is a “way out” for two people who have severed their relationship, regardless of whether they are technically (either legally or in God’s eyes) still married or not.

I also think the “lust = adultery = just cause for divorce” concept is a slippery slope. When Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 that lust is equivalent to committing adultery, the word for adultery is moicheuo?. In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the word for unfaithfulness or fornication is porneia. Even without looking at the Greek words, I would have a problem with this concept because it again opens up a huge “loophole” to allow unhappy people to get out of their marriage, and I don’t believe that’s what God had in mind.

Does that mean someone who made a mistake and married the wrong person, or made a mistake and got divorced when they should have stayed married is doomed to suffer the consequences for the rest of their life? Well, at the risk of sounding harsh, I definitely think it’s a viewpoint that should be considered. Nowhere does God promise to remove the consequences of our own sin, or even the sin of others. He is more concerned with our holiness than He is with our happiness. The truth of the matter is, we are most likely to be happy when we are holy.

Here are links to scriptures that talk about divorce and scholarly articles on the subject:

Nave’s Topical Bible

Torrey’s Topical Handbook

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Divorce in the OT

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Divorce in the NT

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on
inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between 2 “wolves” inside us
all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret,greed, arrogance,
self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and
ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility,
kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his
grandfather:”Which wolf wins?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

A well-meaning individual replied that the story was not biblical. I submit that it can be interpreted biblically.

This story, the origins of which are unknown (possibly invented by a preacher as an illustration), is not unbiblical. The full context of what Paul said in Romans 7 helps us see that.

Romans 7:17-23 (NIV)
As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. (18) I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. (19) For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. (20) Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (21) So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. (22) For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; (23) but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

The TRUE inner being of a redeemed believer is the “good wolf” that delights in God’s law. The “bad wolf” that is waging war with our new spirit (our true self) is the dead remnant of our sinful nature.

The other aspect of the story, the winning wolf being the one that gets fed, is also biblical.

See what Jesus said in the gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 6:21-24 (NIV)
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (22) “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. (23) But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (24) “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

If you compare “food” in the wolf story to “light” in Jesus’ analogy about a lamp, the meanings are very similar. What you focus on, what you fill your life with, determines who you become.

Who would have thought a simple illustration could be so controversial?

Perhaps it would be helpful to remember that no illustration is all-encompassing. An illustration is useful to demonstrate one or more concepts in a way that enhances understanding and is easy to remember. If you try to apply a given illustration to other concepts besides what it’s intended to address, it probably won’t fit very well.

For example, say I shared an illustration about a master who forgave a servant a great debt, and point to the illustration as an example of God’s forgiveness of our sin. Someone might say, “that’s an unbiblical illustration, because in John 15:15, Jesus says, ‘I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.’ ” While that’s a misapplication of John 15:15, it’s also a misunderstanding of Jesus’ parable in Matthew 18. The point of the parable was not the master/servant relationship between us and God; the point of the parable was the need for us to forgive others, particularly in light of the huge debt that has been lifted from us.

Obviously the Bible doesn’t talk about a “bad wolf” and a “good wolf” inside of us. The whole point of an illustration is to present a spiritual truth using a story that is NOT straight from the Bible. If you take something straight from scripture, it’s not an illustration, it’s just…well, scripture.

To understand if the story is biblical, we need to understand the point of the story. The way I understand the story, there are two points being made:
1. There is a conflict between our spirit and our flesh. That conflict is clearly biblical.
2. We can influence which side exerts control based on the “food” we consume. This is where the passage from Matthew 6 comes in. Galatians 6:8 also testifies to the fact that we play a role in “feeding” one nature or the other. “The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Philippians 4:8 is a perfect example of “feeding” the spirit. “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things.” We can also see exhortation in the scripture to “starve” the old sinful self. “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires. Put off falsehood…steal no longer…do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths…get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” (excerpts from Ephesians 4:22-31)

Now, let’s take a look at some of the story’s shortcomings. Just this story by itself, without a proper understanding of it’s limited scope, might imply that Good and Evil are equal and opposite forces. Someone might read this story and understand the Good Wolf and Evil Wolf as comparable to the Light Side and Dark Side of the Force, or the Yin and Yang of Taoism. This would obviously be an unbiblical interpretation, and it is worthwhile to make sure that no one comes away with this interpretation.

Another interpretation that is unbiblical would be to assume that our actions (works) determine our salvation, i.e., the ultimate victor in the battle between our flesh (the evil wolf) and our spirit (the good wolf). In reality, one of the wolves is already dead. For an unbeliever, the spirit is dead, and the flesh reigns. For a believer, the flesh has been crucified, and the spirit is reborn. This crucifixion of the flesh and rebirth of our spirit is accomplished by Jesus, not by anything we do.

So, while there are invalid (unbiblical) interpretations that could be gathered from the story, it can also be used to illustrate our role in the ongoing spiritual battle, which is biblical.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Bible translations commonly adopt primarily one of two philosophies for determining the correct English translation of the Hebrew or Greek text. The first is “formal equivalence” or “word-for-word.” Here the translator takes each Hebrew or Greek word and attempts to translate it into the equivalent English word. An alternative approach is “dynamic equivalence” or “thought-for-thought.” In this case, the translator first attempts to determine the meaning of a complete phrase in the original language, then picks the English words that best convey the same meaning. The translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (and perhaps other translations) have opted to use “optimal equivalence” which might be explained as “as literal as possible, as free as necessary.”

I like the idea of “optimal equivalency.” The way I would phrase it is, “word-for-word as much as possible, unless it produces confusion.” I tried to think of an example where a word-for-word translation would create confusion, and although it’s not a great example, consider the following scenario: let’s say I’m translating the phrase “la bota negra” from Spanish to English. I look up each word in the Spanish-English dictionary, and I see that la=the, bota=boot, and negra=black. So the literal English translation would be “the boot black.” According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a boot-black is “a person who cleans and polishes shoes for a living.” However, anyone familiar with Spanish knows that the modifier (adjective) comes after the noun, whereas in English we put the modifier in front of the noun, so the correct English translation would be “the black boot.” This would be a case where a truly literal word-for-word translation would be a bad idea. Then, of course, sometimes a truly literal word-for-word translation isn’t even possible, because there is no one-to-one correspondance of the Greek or Hebrew word with an English word.

There’s also the issue that what is clear to one person might be confusing to someone else. Something that might be easily understood by an English major might be quite confusing to someone who struggled to graduate highschool. In that case, there is certainly a place for a variety of translations at different reading levels. Unfortunately, simplifying a translation can also require sacrificing some accuracy sometimes.

What if the original language is confusing? Should the translator take his best stab at the intended meaning, or leave it ambiguous so the reader can take it either way? This is a judgement call that the translator has to make, in part depending on how much confidence he has in his ability to interpret the true intent of the passage.

On specific translations, I have read mostly the NIV for the past 15 years or so, with exposure to the KJV and NKJV prior to that. I now have the NLT, and I like reading from it, but am not as confident in it’s accuracy. I also have begun to use e-Sword quite a bit, and I find that I like the LITV fairly well, but do a lot of comparing. The CEV, GNB, NLT, and Message are much more likely than other translations to pick an interpretation that is questionable. The Message in interesting, but I think Eugene Peterson tried too hard to be “hip,” and it comes off sounding corny sometimes. Although the NIV may not be as literal as others, I’ve remained fairly pleased with it; I haven’t seen many cases where it picks an interpretation I find questionable.

Originally posted 8/4/2005 on bibleforums.org

Translation differences

Every translation of the Bible is a little different. Sometimes you read a verse in two different translations, and they have the exact same meaning. Sometimes there is a minor difference, which may only be significant if you’re using it as a proof text for some particular doctrine that relies heavily on that specific verse. Sometimes, though, you read a verse in two different translations, and they seem to say totally different things. I’ve listed three examples of verses where I’ve seen one or more translations pick an interpretation that precludes other interpretations.

Hosea 3:1

Ambiguous:
(LITV) And Jehovah said to me, Go again, love a woman loved by a friend, yet an adulteress…
Albert Barnes: “This woman is the same Gomer, whom the prophet had before been bidden to take.”
John Gill: “not the prophet’s wife, not Gomer, but some other feigned person.”

Another woman:
(CEV) Once again the LORD spoke to me. And this time he said, “Hosea, fall in love with an unfaithful woman who has a lover.
(I guess this could be taken to mean fall in love with his wife, but at first glance it seems to side more with Gill.)

His wife:
(NIV) The LORD said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress.

Since I’ve read primarily the NIV for the last 15 years, I had assumed that Hosea kept redeeming the same woman. Then I looked at the verse in e-Sword the other day and noticed that there were other interpretations, so now there is some doubt in my mind.

I just now noticed that the intro to Hosea 3 in the NASB says, “Hosea’s Second Symbolic Marriage,” so the editors evidently consider it to be another woman, even though the NASB text is ambiguous. The Amplified Version however, says “Go again, love [the same] woman [Gomer].” Strange, since the NASB and AMP are both published by the Lockman Foundation.

The whole book of Hosea seems to be about the cycle of rebuke and redemption that Israel goes through. Just in Chapter 2 alone, we see Israel condemned and cast aside in verses 1-13, then restored in verses 14-23. The pattern is repeated in subsequent chapters, as God continues to chastise Israel, until chapter 14 when He says that if they will return to Him, “I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely, For My anger has turned away from them.”

Because of this pattern of redeeming Israel repeatedly, when it says in Hosea 3:1 to love this woman “even as the LORD loves the children of Israel,” the symbolism works best if the woman is the same woman. Since Hosea 2, with the focus on Israel, is right smack dab in the middle of the illustration of Hosea taking an unfaithful wife, I see no good indication that the illustration has shifted gears to having another woman in the story.

Genesis 6:3

Ambiguous:
(LITV) And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man; in their erring he is flesh. And his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Years until flood:
Adam Clarke: “God promised them one hundred and twenty years’ respite.”
Albert Barnes: “‘His days’ are the days of man, not the individual, but the race.”

Most translations are ambiguous, but Robert Young’s literal translation uses past tense for the word “ha?ya?h” translated “shall be” by other translations. In doing so he appears to side with the view that God has set a deadline for the flood.
(YLT) And Jehovah saith, `My Spirit doth not strive in man–to the age; in their erring they are flesh:’ and his days have been an hundred and twenty years.

Man’s new lifespan:
(NLT) Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years.”

In comparing translations, there are only a few that translate the passage to mean man’s lifespan is being reduced to 120 years, and these translations are the ones that tend to be the most liberal with “rewording” the text to make it more understandable. I am inclined to put more faith in the majority of translations that refrain from picking one meaning over another.

From reading the most literal translations, the 120 year deadline makes more sense to me than a shortened life span. When God says “My Spirit shall not always strive with man” I don’t think He is saying, “I don’t want to put up with anyone for more than 120 years from now on.” He appears to be saying, “I’m not willing to put up with the current state of mankind any longer.” This is consistent with what He says in verse 13: “the end of all flesh has come before Me.” We also see the past tense used here, which gives credence to the YLT usage of “have been” in verse 3. Since past, present, and future have no meaning to God, He looks at mankind and He sees their end 120 years from when He tells Noah about His plan.

If God just wanted people to stop living so long, why wipe out the entire population at once? It just doesn’t seem to fit with the tone of the story. Another problem with the reduced lifespan interpretation is that we continue to see people live beyond 120 years. Those who prefer the reduced lifespan interpretation will say that the reduction in lifespan was gradual not immediate, but I’m not sure this is a very strong defense.

There is one potential problem with the interpretation that the 120 years is the deadline until the flood. We are told in Gen 5:32 that Noah was 500 years old. Then in 6:3 God says there are 120 years until the flood. But according to Gen 7:6, Noah is only 600 years old when the flood starts. At first glance, the math doesn’t seem right.

This is only a problem though, if Noah is 500 years old when God makes His proclamation in 6:3. We might think that has to be the case since 6:3 comes after 5:32, but it’s not at all uncommon for a narrative to loop back to an earlier point in time when starting a new storyline. We see this earlier in Genesis also. God creates man in Gen 1:27, on the 6th day. Then in Gen 2:7, God “creates man” again. I’ve noticed this before, but I didn’t know until today that there is a special term for it: hysteron proteron.

As far as I can tell, the point of Gen 5:32 is not to establish that Noah was 500 years old when chapter 6 begins, but to establish that he was 500 years old when Japeth was born. In chapter 6, the context reveals that he was 480 years old when God made His proclamation in 6:3.

So far, the commentaries I’ve read all seem to agree with the view that the 120 years is God’s deadline, not man’s reduced lifespan. It remains a mystery to me why some Bible scholars decided that man’s new lifespan made more sense.

Exodus 21:22

Ambiguous:
(KJV) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Mathew Henry: “no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying.”
Keil & Delitzsch: “no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born.”

Miscarriage:
(GNB) If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands.

Premature birth:
(NASB) “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

The fact that the woman underwent physical trauma significant enough to cause a premature birth counts as an injury in my book. So when verse 22 says “yet there is no injury,” that would seem to me to make even more sense applied to the child alone since the woman clearly suffered some injury. Then in verse 23, “but if there is any further injury” would apply to both the woman and the child.

Originally posted August 2005 on bibleforums.org

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.