When to Begin?
Youth is a wonderful thing. What a pity it's wasted on the young." This famous quote by George Bernard Shaw was no doubt made when he was old! The Teacher voices a similar opinion, but out of concern, not jealousy. Youth is a thoughtless, carefree season, but "the days of darkness will be many and the days of trouble will come" (11:8; 12:1).
He does not begrudge youthful happiness (11:9), but the brevity of life makes "youth and vigor meaningless" (11:10). Chapter 12, verses 1-8 are depressing. In twenty different ways the Teacher says we are going to die. In fact, he runs out of metaphors. Lights go dark, doors close, cords are severed, and pitchers break. It's a bleak litany of doom. We're tempted to say, "Enough already, I get the point!"
But do we? Do we live as if we are going to die, remembering our Creator and his promises? Do we put our trust in him alone? "However many years a man may live, let him enjoy them all. But let him remember . . ." (11:8). Better to remember late than never, better still to remember right from the start. Those who live for God from early on will enjoy life to the fullest.
I appeal to you on the basis of love. - Philemon 1:9
Alvan T. Fuller served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives. He was Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts and then the Governor of the state. He spent about 15 years in public office, but he didn't cash a single paycheck. He believed he should serve the public out of love and devotion to his fellow citizens, and he didn't need any other motivation.
Paul was hoping for a similar sentiment from Philemon. He wanted Philemon to do what was right, not just what he was told to do. He was making his appeal as a friend, not an apostle. And Paul's greeting indicates that Philemon probably didn't need to be told to be gracious.
Philemon was an encouragement to Paul because he had a track record of boosting the morale of other believers. In a time and place when persecution against the church was commonplace, someone like Philemon was an extremely valuable member of the church. He was a prime example of biblical brotherly love.
Paul repaid Philemon by showing him respect as a brother in Christ. Paul was gracious in his appeal on behalf of Onesimus. By pleading out of love instead of exercising his authority as an apostle, Paul showed his trust that Philemon would do the right thing and accept his former slave as a brother. He also showed him respect by recognizing his rights as master of Onesimus rather than rashly employing him as his own partner in ministry. This tactful approach helped ensure that no disputes lingered between any of the involved parties.
Of course, Paul also showed immense love and grace to Onesimus. His treatment of this new believer was an incredible vote of confidence that prepared him for a lifetime of faithful service. Having the confidence of the Apostle Paul must have meant a great deal to Onesimus, and the recommendation he sent to Philemon did him the favor of restoring a damaged relationship. Paul's letter to Philemon is a case-study in establishing and maintaining harmony in the church.
What I have learnt in this passage
Paul approached Philemon assuming the best, a step we would be wise to follow. If you're planning on confronting a fellow believer, take a moment privately to list the positive things you know about the person. If you think only of the one problem you're addressing, you'll add unnecessary fear to the situation. There is likely ample reason to expect a favorable response, and you can dissolve apprehension by keeping that in mind. Let love rule, even in your confrontations.
Who Was Melchizedek?
The historical Melchizedek and his deeds occupy three verses of the Old Testament, Genesis 14:18-20. The comparison of Jesus with this figure occupies a whole chapter of Hebrews, beginning with Hebrews 7:1. What is more, the author of Hebrews has some strange things to say about King Melchizedek: "First, his name means `king of righteousness'; then also, `king of Salem' means `king of peace.' Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever" (Heb 7:2-3). Who was the historical character Melchizedek? How is Hebrews using the Old Testament? Is this use legitimate? Was it legitimate only for the author of Hebrews, or is it still legitimate today?
Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age (the period before 1500 B.C. ) was divided into numerous city-states. Melchizedek is identified as the priest-king of Salem, which many scholars identify with Jerusalem. There they worshiped El Elyon, or God Most High. While this term is frequently used in the Psalms for Yahweh, it is not recorded as a name by which the patriarchs knew God. Still, Abraham must have recognized an identity between this One and the God he worshiped, for he later takes an oath by God Most High (Gen 14:22). Perhaps he had previous contact with Melchizedek or he and his allies had paused to pray and worship in Salem on their way north. But Melchizedek remains one of the shadowy non-Israelite figures of the Old Testament, including Balaam, which show that God apparently was known to people other than to Israel.
Melchizedek fades from view after this incident, presumably returning to Salem and living out his days. Some scholars point to the sudden appearance of the Zadokite line of priests after David captures Jerusalem, suggesting that they descended from Melchizedek (the ZDK in Zadok and Melchizedek are forms of the same root) and merged with the Aaronic line. Whatever the case, later Judaism did speculate on Melchizedek. There is some evidence that the Hasmonean priest-kings of Judah (164 B.C. --63 B.C. ), from which the Sadducees probably came, looked to Melchizedek for a precedent of a person who was both a priest and a king. In response, rabbinic Judaism (and presumably Pharisaic Judaism earlier) named Melchizedek as one who would "not inherit the age to come" because he blessed Abraham first before he blessed God! A third Jewish view is found in the Dead Sea Scroll 11Q Melchizedek, in which he appears as an archangel warrior. None of this speculation is taken up by the author of Hebrews, although his caution in speaking about Melchizedek may be related to the low view taken of him in Pharisaic circles.
What the author does is look at what the text does and does not say and draw historical correspondences to Christ. He first looks at his name. Melek is the standard Hebrew for "king," and zedek comes from the same root as "righteous" or "righteousness." Originally the name probably meant "my king [ god] is righteous" or "my king is Zedek," but the author reads it as one might normally read what is called a Hebrew construct state, "king of righteousness." He then looks at his being king of Salem and notes that Salem comes from the same root as salom, the Hebrew for "peace" or "well-being." Thus he derives the meaning "king of peace." It is clear that he wants the readers to draw a parallel between Melchizedek and Jesus, whom he has argued is without sin and therefore righteous (Heb 4:15), in contrast to the Aaronic priests. He also has called Jesus the bringer of God's true rest (Heb 4:1-11), which might be comparable to peace. But the author never makes either of the comparisons explicit. Nor do we discover if calling Melchizedek "king of righteousness" has any implications for the low view we presume was taken by Pharisaic Judaism. Presumably the author knows the background of his readers and expects them to draw the proper conclusions.
Then the author notes that Melchizedek is not called "son of" anyone. That several other individuals in the Abraham stories are also named without their parents (such as Abimelek) is immaterial, for he is only interested in the parallel with Melchizedek. He is not talking about history. He then points out that Melchizedek also has no descendants named in the text, nor is there any mention of his birth or death. Historically we expect none of this for a figure who makes only a cameo appearance in the narrative. But for the author they are a parallel with Jesus. He has already indicated that Jesus existed before his birth (Heb 1:2-3), but his real interest is that Jesus exercises his priesthood in heaven as a resurrected being. Thus it literally has no end, just as no end is reported of Melchizedek's life. This contrasts with the repeated changes of ministry, even under ideal circumstances, in the Aaronic priesthood due to the deaths of the high priests.
The author of Hebrews, then, demonstrates a way of interpreting the text that is foreign to modern methods of exegesis. That is, he sees Melchizedek and each detail of the Genesis text as a "type" or historical precedent for Jesus, the "antitype." This form of exegesis is frowned upon today, but such a typological interpretation was quite moderate according to the standards of the author's age. We argue that neither etymology (explaining the meaning of the names) nor typology (noting the correspondences in history in what the text does and does not say) bring out the meaning that the original author (the author of Genesis) had in mind when he wrote the text, and therefore that they are not appropriate means of interpretation if we are interested in biblical authority being behind our interpretation. This was not the point of view of the New Testament writers, who believed that there were deeper meanings than the historical to be discovered in texts, a view that they shared with their contemporaries. Furthermore, they believed that they were under the inspiration of the Spirit and had in Jesus the key to the deeper meaning of the Old Testament. The surprising thing is not how they interpreted Scripture, but how conservative they were in doing it.
How can the modern reader evaluate this? Orthodox Christians believe that the writers of Scripture did have the inspiration of the Spirit. Therefore it would be the prerogative of the Spirit to give whatever message he wanted through his Scripture, even if it might not be the historical message. But can the same be done today? Certainly the New Testament expects that the Spirit will remain in the church, but any speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, according to Paul, cannot be a claim to absolute truth but must be "weighed carefully" (1 Cor 14:29). Scripture, of course, has already been weighed carefully by the church as a whole and found fully of the Spirit. No present speaker can claim such credentials. Thus, exegesis such as we find in Hebrews could be appropriate and helpful for the church so long as the speaker (1) did not claim the authority of the scriptural text for it and (2) did not expect his words to be accepted without careful sifting and weighing (and perhaps correcting and revising). The only exegesis that can claim a higher level of authority is that in which the speaker points his or her finger to the text and is aligned with its message clearly enough for all to see.
Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?”
Romans 13:1-7 states: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
That passage makes it abundantly clear. We are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything - paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, showing respect, etc. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7, he was under the government of Rome, during the reign of Nero, perhaps that most evil of all the Roman Emperors. Paul still recognized that government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?
The next question is: "Is there a time when we should not obey the laws of the land?" The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, "Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" From this, we can plainly see that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land, and obey God's law. However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God (Acts 5:40-42).
Hoped I had answered your doubts and thanks for dropping by.
What does the Bible say about tattoos / body piercings?
The Old Testament law commanded the Israelites, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:28). So, even though believers today are not under the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15), the fact that there was a command against tattoos should cause us to question. The New Testament does not say anything about whether a believer should or should not get a tattoo.
In relation to tattoos and body piercings, a good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use the particular activity for His own good purposes. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). The Bible does not command against tattoos or body piercings, but it also does not give us any reason to believe God would have us get tattoos or body piercings.
Another issue to consider is modesty. The Bible instructs us to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9). One aspect of dressing modestly is making sure everything that should be covered by clothing is adequately covered. However, the essential meaning of modesty is not drawing attention to yourself. People who dress modestly dress in such a way that they do not draw attention to themselves. Tattoos and body piercings most definitely draw attention. In this sense, tattoos and body piercings are not modest.
An important Scriptural principle on issues that the Bible does not specifically address is that if there is room for doubt as to whether it pleases God, then it is best to not engage in that activity. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). We need to remember that our bodies, as well as our souls, have been redeemed and belong to God. Although 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 does not directly apply to tattoos or body piercings, it does give us a principle, "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." This great truth should have a real bearing on what we do and where we go with our bodies. If our bodies belong to God, we should make sure we have His clear "permission" before we "mark it up" with tattoos or body piercings.
Esther--For Such a Time as This
Why does the book of Esther, which so wonderfully illustrates the doctrine of the providence of God, never once use the name of God? And what does this strange saying in Esther 4:14 mean? The sentence contains a figure of speech known as aposiopesis--a sudden breaking off of what was being said or written so that the mind is more impressed by what is left unsaid, it being too wonderful, solemn or awful to verbalize. In English this figure is sometimes called the "sudden silence."
Taking the last problem first, it must be noted that the last clause in Esther 4:14 is usually understood to mean "Who knows whether you have not for a time like this attained royalty?" This makes very good sense, but it cannot be justified linguistically. The sentence contains an aposiopesis, since the object of "who knows" is unexpressed. It is incorrect to translate the verse with a conditional "whether . . . not" (as in the RSV, for example) rather than "but that." The omitted clause in the aposiopesis would be "what might not have been done." The resulting translation, with the suppressed clause now included, would be "Who knows what might not have been done but that you attained to royalty for such a time as this?"
"Who knows" can also be translated "perhaps." On that rendering, Mordecai would have said, "Perhaps you have attained to royalty [to the dignity of being queen] for a time like this [to use your position to deliver your people]." Thus Mordecai's speech contains an urgent appeal to Esther to use her high position to preserve her fellow Jews from destruction.
The absence of God's name from the book must also be faced. Many interpreters rightly focus on the phrase "another place" in Esther 4:14 ("if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place"). This particular phrase is one of the most debated yet most crucial in the book of Esther.
Did Mordecai have another individual in mind? Or did he think that some other world power would arise to deliver the Jews out of this empire?
Surely the Greek "A" text, Josephus, and 1 and 2 Targums are correct in seeing in "another place" a veiled reference to God, just as the New Testament uses "kingdom of heaven" as a circumlocution for "the kingdom of God" and as 1 Maccabees 16:3 uses "mercy" as a veiled allusion to God. Often in later Talmudic literature, the word "place" (maqom) would be used in place of the name of God.
Furthermore, the fact that Esther asked the community of Jews to fast on her behalf (Esther 4:16) indicates that she and they sought divine help. Moreover, faith in the providence of God and his hand in history is illustrated throughout the book. In Esther, the wonderful works of God declare his name; there is no need to spell out that name when his hand and presence can be detected everywhere.
Was Jesus a pacifist
Hi passerby, you asked:" Was Jesus a pacifist"? Well as we all know tht Jesus is the prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6), He was not, and is not, a pacifist. Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, "Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty." Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, & 8 say, “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” Daniel 9:26 says that, “War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” Matthew 24:6-8 says, “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.”
Jesus Himself said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law---a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (Matthew 10:34-36). “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it” (Matthew 11:12).
We are commanded to hate what is evil and cling to what is good (Romans 12:9). In doing so we must take a stand against what is evil in this world and pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22). Jesus did this, and in so doing, spoke openly against the religious and political rulers of His time because they were not seeking a righteousness from God, but rather of their own making (Luke 20:1-2, Romans 9:31-33). Zeal for God’s righteousness consumed Jesus and He was not afraid to stand up against those who opposed and dishonored His Father (John 2:15-17, see also Numbers 25:11). “Those who hate Him He will repay to their face by destruction; He will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate Him.” (Deuteronomy 7:10). “While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3).
The Old Testament is full of examples of how God used his people in war to bring judgment upon nations whose sin had reached its full measure (Only a few examples: Genesis 15:16, Numbers 21:3, 31:1-7, 32:20-21, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 6:20-21, 8:1-8, 10:29-32, 11:7-20). In raising the moral consciousness of the world, God must take the people as He finds them and introduce principles of righteousness within the moral framework with which the people can identify. We can be assured though, that it is always with justice that God judges and makes war (Revelation 19:11). “For we know Him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay’, and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:30-31). What we can learn from these and other Biblical examples is that we are only to wage war when it is the will of God and not at our own discretion (John 18:11, Numbers 14:41-45). It is God’s choice as to how and when He brings judgment of sin upon this world, and it’s inhabitants, to display His holiness. We are simply called to follow Him (Matthew 16:24-25).
All of this may sound contradictory to the teachings of Jesus, God Himself, in which He instructs us to, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19), turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), as well as the command, “you shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). After all we are told that God is love (4:16) and “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9). It also says in 2 Corinthians 10:4 “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine powers to demolish strongholds.“ While all this is indeed true, it helps in examining these seemingly contradictory concepts from an eternal perspective, that we may gain a more complete understanding for Jesus’ purpose in coming to this earth.
At the beginning of human history, God commanded mankind to rule over the earth (Genesis 1:26-31, Hebrews 2:6-8). When man disobeyed God, sin entered the world (Genesis 2:17, 3:6-7). By this one action man sold his right to rule this world to Satan and at the same time became captive to sin himself (John 8:34, 12:31; Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:2, 6:12). As a result, sinful men live in a world full of corruption, each person doing what is right in his own eyes, the whole time being led astray by their own evil desires (Psalm 8:6, 51:5; Proverbs 14:12; Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20, James 1:14-15). It isn’t hard to see that the whole world lies in Satan’s power (1 John 5:19). Even Jesus did not dispute with him over the fact that he ruled the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8-10). Therefore, there can be no lasting peace or restoration of the land until Jesus returns to redeem the land and man (Galatians 4:4-5).
Jesus came in the likeness of mankind, while still retaining his full authority as God, in order that He might redeem men from their sentence of death, and re-establish, for the believer, man’s authority to rule (Philippians 2:6-8, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 54-57, Revelation 20:6). When Jesus died on the cross He purchased back the land and men’s souls from the dominion of Satan through the shedding of His own blood, the purchase price for redemption of man’s sin (Hebrews 9:22, Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 Corinthians 6:20). A day is coming, after severe judgment upon the earth, when Jesus will break the seal of the deed and end Satan’s rule (Revelation 5:1-10, 6-18, 19:11-21). At the end of Jesus’ 1,000 year reign upon this earth, Satan will be set free for a short time and war once again will be waged (Revelation 20:7-10). It is only at the end of that war, once the murderer of man, Satan, is destroyed by Jesus, and His servants’ blood is finally avenged, that wars will cease and peace will once again be established in the new heaven and new earth (John 8:44, Deuteronomy 32:43, Daniel 7:13-14, 2 Peter 3:3-13, Revelation 21:1-4). Until that time we are called to fight the good fight and keep the faith (2 Timothy 4:7).
The "SILENT" years of the Bible
The close of the book of Malachi in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel is back again in the land of Palestine after the Babylonian captivity, but they are under the domination of the great world power of that day, Persia and the Medio-Persian empire. In Jerusalem, the temple had been restored, although it was a much smaller building than the one that Solomon had built and decorated in such marvelous glory.
Within the temple the line of Aaronic priests was still worshipping and carrying on the sacred rites as they had been ordered to do by the law of Moses. There was a direct line of descendancy in the priesthood that could be traced back to Aaron.
But the royal line of David had fallen on evil days. The people knew who the rightful successor to David was, and in the book of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, his name is given to us. It was Zerubbabel, the royal prince, yet there was no king on the throne of Israel, they were a puppet nation, under the domination of Persia. Nevertheless, although they were beset with weakness and formalism as the prophets have shown us, the people were united. There were no political schisms or factions among them, nor were they divided into groups or parties.
Now when you open the New Testament to the book of Matthew, you discover an entirely different atmosphere -- almost a different world. Rome is now the dominant power of the earth. The Roman legions have spread throughout the length and breadth of the civilized world. The center of power has shifted from the East to the West, to Rome. Palestine is still a puppet state -- the Jews never did regain their own sovereignty -- but now there is a king on the throne. But this king is the descendant of Esau instead of Jacob, and his name is Herod the Great. Furthermore, the high priests who now sit in the seat of religious authority in the nation are no longer from the line of Aaron. They cannot trace their descendancy back, rather, they are hired priests to whom the office is sold as political patronage.
The temple is still the center of Jewish worship, although the building has been partially destroyed and rebuilt about a half-dozen times since the close of the Old Testament. But now the synagogues that have sprung up in every Jewish city seem to be the center of Jewish life even more than the temple.
At this time the people of Israel were split into three major parties. Two of them, the Pharisees and Sadducees, were much more prominent than the third. The smaller group, the Essenes, could hardly be designated as a party. Not long ago, however, they came into great prominence in our time and took on new significance because they had stowed away some documents in caves overlooking the Dead Sea -- documents which were brought to light again by the accidental discovery of an Arab shepherd boy and are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Now, what happened in these four hundred so-called "silent" years after the last of the inspired prophets spoke and the first of the New Testament writers began to write? You remember there is a word in Paul's letter to the Galatians that says, "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law." (Gal. 4:4) In other words, the time of our Lord's birth was God's appointed hour, the moment for which God had been long preparing. Some of the exciting preparations took place during that time of "silence," however, and you will understand your New Testament much better if you understand something of the historic events during the time between the Testaments.
After Malachi had ceased his prophesying and the canon of the Old Testament closed -- that is, the number of the books in the Old Testament was fulfilled and the inspired prophets ceased to speak -- God allowed a period of time for the teachings of the Old Testament to penetrate throughout the world. During this time, he rearranged the scenes of history, much as a stage crew will rearrange the stage sets after the curtain has fallen, and when the curtain rises again there is an entirely new setting.
In about 435 B.C., when the prophet Malachi ceased his writing, the center of world power began to shift from the East to the West. Up to this time, Babylon had been the major world power, but this was soon succeeded by the Medio-Persian empire, as you remember from ancient history. This shift had been predicted by the prophet Daniel, who said that there would rise up a bear who was higher on one side than the other, signifying the division between Media and Persia, with the Persians the predominant ones (Dan. 7:5).
At the height of the Persian power there arose in the country of Macedonia (which we now know as Greece), north of the Black Sea, a man by the name of Philip of Macedon, who became a leader in his own country. He united the islands of Greece and became their ruler. His son was destined to become one of the great world leaders of all time, Alexander the Great. In 330 B.C. a tremendous battle between the Persians and the Greeks entirely altered the course of history. In that battle, Alexander, as a young man only twenty years old, led the armies of Greece in victory over the Persians and completely demolished the power of Persia. The center of world power then shifted farther west into Greece, and the Grecian empire was born.
A year after that historic battle, Alexander the Great led his armies down into the Syrian world toward Egypt. On the way, he planned to lay siege to the city of Jerusalem. As the victorious armies of the Greeks approached the city, word was brought to the Jews in Jerusalem that the armies were on their way. The high priest at that time, who was a godly old man by the name of Jaddua (who, by the way, is mentioned in the Bible in the book of Nehemiah) took the sacred writings of Daniel the prophet and, accompanied by a host of other priests dressed in white garments, went forth and met Alexander some distance outside the city.
All this is from the report of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who tells us that Alexander left his army and hurried to meet this body of priests. When he met them, he told the high priest that he had had a vision the night before in which God had shown him an old man, robed in a white garment, who would show him something of great significance to himself, according to the account, the high priest then opened the prophecies of Daniel and read them to Alexander.
In the prophecies Alexander was able to see the predictions that he would become that notable goat with the horn in his forehead, who would come from the West and smash the power of Medio-Persia and conquer the world. He was so overwhelmed by the accuracy of this prophecy and, of course, by the fact that it spoke about him, that he promised that he would save Jerusalem from siege, and sent the high priest back with honors. How true that account is, is very difficult at this distance in time to say; that, at any event, is the story.
Alexander died in 323 B.C. when he was only about thirty-three years old. He had drunk himself to death in the prime of his life, grieved because he had no more worlds to conquer. After his death, his empire was torn with dissension, because he had left no heir. His son had been murdered earlier, so there was no one to inherit the empire of Alexander.
After some time, however, the four generals that had led Alexander's armies divided his empire between them. Two of them are particularly noteworthy to us. One was Ptolemy, who gained Egypt and the northern African countries; the other was Seleucus, who gained Syria, to the north of Palestine. During this time Palestine was annexed by Egypt, and suffered greatly at the hands of Ptolemy. In fact, for the next one hundred years, Palestine was caught in the meat-grinder of the unending conflicts between Syria on the north and Egypt on the south.
Now if you have read the prophecies of Daniel, you will recall that Daniel was able, by inspiration, to give a very accurate and detailed account of the highlights of these years of conflict between the king of the North (Syria) and the king of the South (Egypt). The eleventh chapter of Daniel gives us a most amazingly accurate account of that which has long since been fulfilled. If you want to see just how accurate the prophecy is, I suggest you compare that chapter of Daniel with the historical record of what actually occurred during that time. H. A. Ironside's little book, The 400 Silent Years, gathers that up in some detail.
During this time Grecian influence was becoming strong in Palestine. A party arose among the Jews called the Hellenists, who were very eager to bring Grecian culture and thought into the nation and to liberalize some of the Jewish laws. This forced a split into two major parties. There were those who were strong Hebrew nationalist, who wanted to preserve everything according to the Mosaic order. They resisted all the foreign influences that were coming in to disrupt the old Jewish ways. This party became known as the Pharisees, which means "to separate." They were the separationists who insisted on preserving traditions. They grew stronger and stronger, becoming more legalistic and rigid in their requirements, until they became the target for some of the most scorching words our Lord ever spoke. They had become religious hypocrites, keeping the outward form of the law, but completely violating its spirit.
On the other hand, the Hellenists -- the Greek lovers -- became more and more influential in the politics of the land. They formed the party that was known in New Testament days as the Sadducees, the liberals. They turned away from the strict interpretation of the law and became the rationalists of their day, ceasing to believe in the supernatural in any way. We are told in the New Testament that they came again and again to the Lord with questions about the supernatural, like "What will happen to a woman who has been married to seven different men? In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?" (Matt. 22:23-33) They did not believe in a resurrection, but in these questions they were trying to put Jesus on the spot.
Now there was also a young rebel Jewish priest who married a Samaritan, went down to Samaria, and in rebellion against the Jewish laws, built a temple on Mount Gerizim that became a rival of the temple in Jerusalem. This caused intense, fanatical rivalry between the Jews and the Samaritans, and this rivalry is also reflected in the New Testament.
Also during this time, in Egypt, under the reign of one of the Ptolemies, the Hebrew scriptures were translated for the first time into another language, in about 284 B.C. A group of 70 scholars was called together by the Egyptian king to make a translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Book by book they translated the Old Testament into Greek. When they had finished, it was given the name of the Septuagint, which means 70, because of the number of translators. This became the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. From it many of the quotations in the New Testament are derived. That is why New Testament quotations of Old Testament verses are sometimes in different words -- because they come from the Greek translation. The Septuagint is still in existence today, and is widely used in various parts of the world. It is still a very important document.
A little later on, about 203 B.C., a king named Antiochus the Great came into power in Syria, to the north of Palestine. He captured Jerusalem from the Egyptians and began the reign of Syrian power over Palestine. He had two sons, one of whom succeeded him and reigned only a few years. When he died, his brother took the throne. This man, named Antiochus Epiphanes, became one of the most vicious and violent persecutors of the Jews ever known. In fact, he is often called the Antichrist of the Old Testament, since he fulfills some of the predictions of Daniel concerning the coming of one who would be "a contemptible person" and "a vile king." His name (which he modestly bestowed upon himself) means "Antiochus the Illustrious." Nevertheless, some of his own courtiers evidently agreed more with the prophecies of Daniel, and they changed two letters in his title. from Epiphanes to Epipames, which means "the mad man."
His first act was to depose the high priest in Jerusalem. thus ending the long line of succession, beginning with Aaron and his sons through the many centuries of Jewish life. Onias the Third was the last of the hereditary line of priests. Antiochus Epiphanes sold the priesthood to Jason, who was not of the priestly line. Jason, in turn, was tricked by his younger brother Menelaus, who purchased the priesthood and then sold the golden vessels of the temple in order to make up the tribute money. Epiphanes overthrew the God-authorized line of priests.
Then, and under his reign, the city of Jerusalem and all the religious rites of the Jews began to deteriorate as they came fully under the power of the Syrian king.
In 171 B.C. Antiochus invaded Egypt and once again Palestine was caught in the nutcracker of rivalry. Palestine is the most fought-over country in the world, and Jerusalem is the most captured city in all history. It has been pillaged, ravished, burned and destroyed more than 27 times in its history.
While Antiochus was in Egypt, it was reported that he had been killed in battle, and Jerusalem rejoiced. The people organized a revolt and overthrew Menelaus, the pseudo-priest. When report reached Antiochus (who was very much alive in Egypt) that Jerusalem was delighted at the report of his death, he organized his armies and swept like a fury back across the land, falling upon Jerusalem with terrible vengeance.
He overturned the city, regained his power, and guided by the treacherous Menelaus, intruded into the very Holy of Holies in the temple itself. Some 40,000 people were slain in three days of fighting during this terrible time. When he forced his way into the Holy of Holies, he destroyed the scrolls of the law and, to the absolute horror of the Jews, took a sow and offered it upon the sacred altar. Then with a broth made from the flesh of this unclean animal, he sprinkled everything in the temple, thus completely defiling and violating the sanctuary. It is impossible for us to grasp how horrifying this was to the Jews. They were simply appalled that anything like this could ever happen to their sacred temple.
It was that act of defiling the temple which is referred to by the Lord Jesus as the "desolating sacrilege" which Daniel had predicted (Matt. 24:15), and which also became a sign of the coming desolation of the temple when Antichrist himself will enter the temple, call himself God, and thus defile the temple in that time. As we know from the New Testament, that still lies in the future.
Daniel the prophet had said the sanctuary would be polluted for 2300 days. (Dan. 8:14) In exact accordance with that prophecy, it was exactly 2300 days -- six and a half years -- before the temple was cleansed. It was cleansed under the leadership of a man now famous in Jewish history, Judas Maccabaeus. He was one of the priestly line who, with his father and four brothers, rose up in revolt against the Syrian king. They captured the attention of the Israelites, summoned them to follow them into battle, and in a series of pitched battles in which they were always an overwhelming minority, overthrew the power of the Syrian kings, captured Jerusalem, and cleansed the temple. The day they cleansed the temple was named the Day of Dedication, and it occurred on the 25th day of December. On that date Jews still celebrate the Feast of Dedication each year.
The Maccabees, who were of the Asmonean family, began a line of high priests known as the Asmonean Dynasty. Their sons, for about the next three or four generations, ruled as priests in Jerusalem, all the time having to defend themselves against the constant assaults of the Syrian army who tried to recapture the city and the temple. During the days of the Maccabbees there was a temporary overthrow of foreign domination, which is why the Jews look back to this time and regard it with such tremendous veneration.
During this time, one of the Asmonean priests made a league with the rising power in the West, Rome. He signed a treaty with the Senate of Rome, providing for help in the event of Syrian attack. Though the treaty was made in all earnestness and sincerity, it was this pact which introduced Rome into the picture and history of Israel.
As the battles between the two opposing forces waged hotter and hotter, Rome was watchful. Finally, the Governor of Idumea, a man named Antipater and a descendant of Esau, made a pact with two other neighboring kings and attacked Jerusalem to try to overthrow the authority of the Asmonean high priest. This battle raged so fiercely that finally Pompey, the Roman general, who happened to have an army in Damascus at the time, was besought by both parties to come and intervene. One side had a little more money than the other, and persuaded by that logical argument, Pompey came down from Damascus, entered the city of Jerusalem -- again with terrible slaughter -- overthrew the city and captured it for Rome. That was in 63 B.C. From that time on, Palestine was under the authority and power of Rome.
Now Pompey and the Roman Senate appointed Antipater as the Procurator of Judea, and he in turn made his two sons kings of Galilee and Judea. The son who became king of Judea is known to us a Herod the Great. ("Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'" (Matt. 2:1, 2)
Meanwhile, the pagan empires around had been deteriorating and disintegrating. Their religions had fallen upon evil days. The people were sick of the polytheism and emptiness of their pagan faiths. The Jews had gone through times of pressure and had failed in their efforts to re-establish themselves, and had given up all hope. There was a growing air of expectancy that the only hope they had left was the coming at last of the promised Messiah. In the East, the oriental empires had come to the place where the wisdom and knowledge of the past had disintegrated and they too were looking for something. When the moment came when the star arose over Bethlehem, the wise men of the East who were looking for an answer to their problems saw it immediately and came out to seek the One it pointed to. Thus, "when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son."
It is amazing how God utilizes history to work out his purposes. Though we are living in the days that might be termed "the silence of God," when for almost 2,000 years there has been no inspired voice from God, we must look back -- even as they did during those 400 silent years -- upon the inspired record and realize that God has already said all that needs to be said, through the Old and New Testaments. God's purposes have not ended, for sure. He is working them out as fully now as he did in those days. Just as the world had come to a place of hopelessness then, and the One who would fulfill all their hopes came into their midst, so the world again is facing a time when despair is spreading widely across the earth. Hopelessness is rampant everywhere and in this time God is moving to bring to fulfillment all the prophetic words concerning the coming of his Son again into the world to establish his kingdom. How long? How close? Who knows? But what God has done in history, he will do again as we approach the end of "the silence of God."
Is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved?
Hiya ???, Well you asked is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved? Well, the most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.
While salvation by faith is the most crucial issue, in comparing Roman Catholicism with the Word of God, there are many other differences and contradictions as well. The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in disagreement with what the Bible declares. These include apostolic succession, worship of saints or Mary, prayer to saints or Mary, the pope / papacy, infant baptism, transubstantiation, plenary indulgences, the sacramental system, and purgatory. While Catholics claim Scriptural support for these concepts, none of these teachings have any solid foundation in the clear teaching of Scripture. These concepts are based on Catholic tradition, not the Word of God. In fact, they all clearly contradict Biblical principles.
In regards to the question “Are Catholics saved?”, this is a more difficult question to answer. It is impossible to give a universal statement on the salvation of all members of any denomination of Christianity. Not ALL Baptists are saved. Not ALL Presbyterians are saved. Not ALL Lutherans are saved. Salvation is determined by personal faith in Jesus alone for salvation, not by titles or denominational identification. Despite the unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, there are genuine believers who attend Roman Catholic churches. There are many Roman Catholics who have genuinely placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. However, these Catholic Christians are believers despite what the Catholic Church teaches, not because of what it teaches. To varying degrees, the Catholic Church teaches from the Bible and points people to Jesus Christ as the Savior. As a result, people are sometimes saved in Catholic churches. The Bible has an impact whenever it is proclaimed (Isaiah 55:11). Catholic Christians remain in the Catholic Church out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church truly stands for, out of family tradition and peer pressure, or out of a desire to reach other Catholics for Christ.
At the same time, the Catholic Church also leads many people away from a genuine faith relationship with Christ. The unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church have often given the enemies of Christ opportunity to blaspheme. The Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus Christ established. It is not a church that is based on the teachings of the Apostles (as described in the Book of Acts and the New Testament epistles). While Jesus’ words in Mark 7:9 were directed towards the Pharisees, they accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Luke 11:29-30: No Sign?
This saying seems to contradict Mark 8:12 ("no sign will be given to [this generation]"): "no sign" does not seem to mean the same as "no sign except the sign of Jonah." Materially, however, there is little difference in sense between the two, as we shall see when we consider what the sign of Jonah was. In fact, we may be dealing not with two separate sayings but with two variant forms which the same original saying has acquired in the course of transmission. The form preserved by Luke was probably derived from the collection of sayings of Jesus which is conventionally labeled Q. Mark's form reappears in Matthew 16:4; the Q form is reproduced in Matthew 12:39. Both forms are amplified in Matthew's text and assimilated to one another.
According to Mark, the refusal to give a sign was Jesus' response to some Pharisees who, in the course of debate, asked him to supply "a sign from heaven." Jesus spoke and acted with evident authority; what was his authority for speaking and acting as he did? His practice on the sabbath day set at defiance the traditional interpretation of the sabbath law that had been built up over the generations; what was his authority for refusing to accept the "tradition of the elders"? Whereas the great prophets of the past had prefaced their proclamation with "Thus says the Lord," Jesus was content to set over against what "was said to the men of old" his uncompromising "But I say to you." What was the basis for this claim to personal authority?
How can such authority be vindicated? When Moses approached Pharaoh as the spokesman of the God of Israel and demanded that his people be allowed to leave Egypt, he demonstrated the authority by which he spoke in a succession of signs, such as turning his rod into a serpent and changing Nile water into blood (Ex 7:8-24). No doubt Pharaoh was the sort of person who would be impressed by such signs, but Moses' enduring right to be recognized as a prophet of the living God rests on a firmer foundation than such signs. When Elijah entered the presence of Ahab to denounce his toleration of Baal-worship in Israel, he confirmed his denunciation with the announcement of three years' drought (1 Kings 17:1). Baal, the rain-giver, was to be hit in the one place where he could be hurt--in his reputation. This particular sign was thus highly relevant to Elijah's message. If Moses and Elijah, then, had confirmed their authority as messengers of God by signs such as these, why could not Jesus confirm his authority in a similar way?
First, what sort of sign would have convinced them? External signs might have been necessary to convince a heathen Egyptian or an apostate king of Israel, but why should they be necessary for custodians and teachers of the law of the true God? They should have been able to decide without the aid of signs whether Jesus' teaching was true or not, whether it was in line or not with the Law and the Prophets.
Second, would the kind of sign they had in mind really have validated the truth of Jesus' words? Matthew Arnold remarked, in the course of a nineteenth-century controversy, that his written statements were unlikely to carry greater conviction if he demonstrated his ability to turn his pen into a penwiper. It may be suspected that it was some similarly extraordinary but essentially irrelevant sign that was being asked from Jesus. If, for example, he had thrown himself down in public from the pinnacle of the temple into the Kidron gorge and suffered no harm, that would have done nothing to confirm his teaching about the kingdom of God, even if it would have silenced the demand for a sign.
In the third place, what about the signs he actually performed? Why were they not sufficient to convince his questioners? One Pharisee, indeed, is reported as saying to him, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him" (Jn 3:2). Jesus himself affirmed that if it was by the power of God that he relieved those who were demon-possessed, that was a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God (Lk 11:20). But some of those to whom these words were spoken chose to believe that it was not by the power of God but by the power of the prince of demons that he healed the demon-possessed. If the restoration of bodily and mental health could be dismissed as a work of Satan, no number of healing acts would have established the divine authority by which they were performed.
In his comments on the "pillar passages" for a scientific life of Jesus, P. W. Schmiedel included Mark 8:12 as the first of four such passages that had a special bearing on the miracles of Jesus. The saying "No sign shall be given to this generation" was an acutely authentic one, he maintained, and implied that the miracle stories of the Gospels weresecondary constructions. To this it might be said that, while the healing miracles did serve as signs of the kingdom of God to those who had eyes to see, they did not compel belief in those who were prejudiced in the opposite direction. The Pharisees mentioned in this incident may have wanted a sign that would compel belief, but can genuine belief ever be compelled? While the miracles served as signs, they were not performed in order to be signs. They were as much part and parcel of Jesus' ministry as was his preaching--not, as it has been put, seals affixed to the document to certify its genuineness but an integral element in the very text of the document. No sign would be given that was not already available in the ministry itself; to ask for more was a mark of unbelief.
What, now, of the sign of Jonah? Jonah, it is said, was "a sign to the men of Nineveh." How? By his one-sentence message of judgment. That was all the "sign" that the people of Nineveh had; it was sufficient to move them to belief and repentance. Schmiedel illustrates that there is no real contradiction between "no sign" absolutely and "no sign except the sign of Jonah" by the analogy of an aggressor who invades a neighboring country without provocation. When asked what justification he can give for his action, he replies, "I shall give you no other justification than that which my sword gives"--which is as much as to say "no justification." As Jonah's ministry in Nineveh was sign enough, so Jesus' ministry in Palestine is sign enough. No other sign would be given.
In the Q collection the refusal to give any sign but the sign of Jonah was followed by a comparison between the people to whom Jesus ministered and those to whom Jonah preached. Jesus' hearers shared the rich heritage of divine worship and revelation which had been enjoyed over the centuries by the people of Israel; Jonah preached to pagans. Yet Jonah's hearers made a swift and positive response to his message; the reaction on the part of the majority of Jesus' hearers was quite different. Therefore, he said, "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here" (Mt 12:41; Lk 11:32). The "something greater" was Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God, which was more important and far-reaching than Jonah and his preaching. Yet Jonah and his preaching were enough to bring the people of Nineveh to repentance; Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom made no such large-scale impact on his generation. On the day of judgment, therefore, the people of Nineveh would compare very favorably with the Galileans to whom Jesus preached; indeed, they would serve as tacit, if not as vocal, witnesses against them. Whether these words of Jesus were spoken on the same occasion as the saying about the sign or on another occasion, their relevance to it is unmistakable.
Matthew, for his part, adds a further analogy between Jonah's situation and that of Jesus: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40). This is commonly supposed to be a later insertion among the Jonah sayings, but T. W. Manson has pointed out that no one after the resurrection of Jesus, which by common Christian consent took place on "the third day," would have represented him as being buried for a much longer period. In any case, it would be unwise to press "three days and three nights" to mean seventy-two hours, nei- ther more nor less. Jonah's experience in the Mediterranean was not a sign tothe people of Nineveh, any more than Jesus' resurrection on Easter Day after his entombment on Good Friday was a public spectacle. In Matthew 12:40 we simply have an analogy traced between two servants of God, who were both brought up by God "from the Pit" (Jon 2:6; see Ps 16:10, quoted with reference to Jesus in Acts 2:27; 13:35).
Thanks to Rev Alex for providing the abovementioned info.
Why study the Old Testament since we have the New Testament?
Hi QQ, well the New Testament supplements the Old Testament but does not replace it. Christians use the Old Testament for guidance in matters where it does not conflict with New Testament principles, and it also provides important background information for understanding the new covenant initiated by Jesus.
However, The Law of Moses regulated almost every aspect of life in Old Testament times. But with the coming of Christ, God established a new covenant of faith and love with mankind. Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. However, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament.
In Biblical times, the Law of Moses (also called Old Testament Law, Mosaic Law, or just The Law) regulated almost every aspect of Jewish life. The Ten Commandments and many other laws defined matters of morals, religious practice and government. It regulated the army, criminal justice, commerce, property rights, slavery, sexual relations, marriage and social interactions. It required circumcision for males, blood sacrifices, and Sabbath observance. It provided for the welfare of widows, orphans, the poor, foreigners and domestic animals. Ceremonial rules divided animals into "clean" and "unclean" categories. Clean animals could be eaten; unclean animals could not.
By the time of Jesus, the great moral principles God had given to Moses in the Ten Commandments had been turned into hundreds of ceremonial rules. People thought they were living holy lives if they just obeyed all those rules. But many people found enough "loopholes" to obey all the rules and still live wicked and greedy lives (Matthew 23:23-28).
Jesus said that was not at all what God had intended. Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:16-17). He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).
Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict Jewish rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).
In contrast to the "clean" and "unclean rules," Jesus said no food can defile a person. It is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23).
The first Christians came from among the Jews, and they continued to observe the Law of Moses as well as their new Christian faith. But as more and more Gentiles (non-Jews) converted to Christianity, there were disputes about whether or not these Gentile Christians must observe the Law. Issues of circumcision and diet were especially troublesome.
In about the year 49 A.D., Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James and other Christian leaders met in Jerusalem to settle the issue (Acts 15:1-29). It was agreed that no conditions should be imposed on the Gentile converts except faith in Christ. However, the council recommended that Gentile Christians abstain from certain things that were particularly offensive to their Jewish brethren - food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality (Acts 15:29).
With the coming of Christ, God has established a new covenant with mankind (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:8-13, 9:11-15) that supersedes the Old Testament Law.
Jesus and His apostles gave us a radically new understanding of the true intent of the Old Testament Law; they brought a new era of the rule of love for all people and spiritual truth instead of rule by law (Luke 10:25-28, John 13:34-35, Ephesians 2:14-18).
The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc.
Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).
However, freedom from the Old Testament Law is not a license for Christians to relax their moral standards. The moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-48, 7:1-5, 15:18-19, 25:37-40, Mark 7:21-23, 12:28-31, Luke 12:15, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, Galatians 5:19-21, James 1:27, 2:15-16, 1 John 3:17-19).
Numbers 35:21: No Ransom for a Murderer?
Of all the crimes punishable by death under Old Testament law, was it possible to obtain compensation for damages through some type of substitutionary restitution in every case except first-degree, premeditated murder? If so, why was this crime singled out for special treatment? Were not the other crimes as serious? If they were not, why did they carry such a stiff sanction--the death penalty?
The key text in this discussion must be Numbers 35:31, "Do not accept a ransom [substitute] for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death."
There are sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the Old Testament: kidnapping, adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, incorrigible delinquency in a child, striking or cursing parents, offering a human sacrifice, false prophecy, blasphemy, profaning the sabbath, sacrificing to false gods, magic and divination, unchastity, the rape of a betrothed virgin, and premeditated murder. In each case, where the evidence was clear and beyond a reasonable doubt, the death penalty was demanded.
One major distinction was drawn, however, between the penalty for premeditated murder and penalties for the other fifteen crimes on this list. Only in the case where someone had lain in wait to kill with malice and forethought does Scripture specify that the officials were forbidden to take a ransom.
The word ransom comes from a root meaning "substitute." The only fair inference from Number 35:31, then, is that perpetrators of any of the other fifteen capital crimes could escape death by offering a proper ransom or substitute. In those fifteen cases, the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime. It is important, however, to note that only God could say which crimes might have their sanctions lessened.
Some have contended that this argument is an argument from silence, and therefore fallacious. But the alternative to this argument from silence (which has venerable precedent in rabbinic and Protestant commentary) would require upholding the death penalty for all sixteen crimes as valid to our present day. And if death is the only proper punishment for these crimes even in the present day, why did the apostle Paul not make any reference to it, especially when he had specific occasion to do so when he dealt with the case of incest in 1 Corinthians 5? Why did Paul recommend church discipline rather than capital punishment for the offending mother and son?
I am not arguing here that the penalties of the Old Testament are too severe or that the New Testament is more "urbane" and "cultured." Some have properly noted that even Hebrews 2:2 says that "every violation and disobedience received its just [or appropriate] punishment." In fact, too many people misunderstand the talion ("tooth-for-a-tooth") principle (Ex 21:23-25). It is simply a "life-for-life" stereotype expression that worked out in actual practice to this: Make the punishment fit the crime; don't try to profit from or trade on calamity.
Since the taking of life involved deep disregard for God and for the creatures made in his image, Genesis 9:6 makes it clear that the only way the state and society could preserve the rights, dignity and worth of all humanity was to offer the life of the proven first-degree murderer back to God. That is why this one capital offense remained when the others were allowed the option of a "ransom" or "substitute."
Thanks Nick for this info.
Our deepeest condolences
Hi, the whole members of the Biblestudies07 wld like to send our deepest regards to 3rd Sergeant Isz Sazli and Private Fan to their families and their loved ones. May the Lord's peace and comfort rests upon them, and to those who are injured at Taiwan we prayed tht may the Lord heals their injury and give them speedy recovery, Amen!
Well, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is a 60-year-old former heroin addict and convict who believes that he is the living incarnation of “Jesus Christ, the Man . . . the second coming of Christ.” The Puerto Rican-born Miranda claims that in 1973 he had an “epiphany” -- a revelatory manifestation of a divine being. He says that he doesn’t know why God picked him. Still, Miranda once believed that he was the reincarnation of the apostle Paul. Then two years later he proclaimed himself as Jesus Christ. “God merged with me [and] . . . the resurrected Jesus . . . integrated/infiltrated himself within me.”
Miranda formed his own ministry in the mid-'80s, Crescendio en Gracia (‘Growing in Grace Ministry’) or “God’s Government on Earth.” While currently headquartered in a Miami, Florida warehouse, Miranda travels with a security team of nine bodyguards. He claims that his followers, largely Hispanic, reside in more than 20 countries, primarily in Central and South America, as well as the United States. His people call him everything from apostle to Jesus Christ Man, giving him their entire savings, cars, businesses, and estates, including a million-dollar home in a gated community. What makes this self-proclaimed messiah’s message so enticing?
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda – Destructive and Dangerous
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda’s message is basic: “freedom to indulge.” He teaches that:
- The devil, hell, and sin are non-existent,
- Prayer is a waste of time, and
- The Ten Commandments (moral or ethical guidelines) are irrelevant.
His followers believe they are God’s chosen people, predestined for salvation, no matter what they do on earth. As such, all other religions’ teachings are rejected, believing that all other faiths are false and must be destroyed -- even when Crescendio en Gracia’s marches result in violent consequences. Miranda esteems himself above Jesus of Nazareth. His responses during interviews are startling: “I am greater than him . . . I teach better than him . . . I won’t die. Even if you tried to kill me! I will be president of the biggest government that this earth has experienced. I’m going to change the whole world.”
These statements are both frightening and disturbing to authorities. Daniel Alvarez received his Masters Degree in Theology from Harvard Divinity School and serves as a Florida International University religion professor. Alvarez sees Crescendio en Gracia as having all the makings of a destructive cult with Miranda fitting into the classic mold of a cult leader who requires total submission by his followers. Cult authority, Rick Ross (Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey), agrees that Growing in Grace fits the basic profile of a dangerous cult which thrives on persuasion (brainwashing) and ultimately exploitation of its members.
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda – Deceiver or Deliverer
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is not Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ means “anointed one” -- consecrated, set apart as holy.
- Unlike Miranda, Jesus Christ knew the purpose of His incarnation (Colossians 1:19-22).
- Christ humbly acknowledged God the Father as greater than Himself (John 5:19; 14:28).
- Jesus Christ fervently believed in praying -- especially for others (John 17) and in obedience to God the Father (Hebrews 5:7-8).
- Jesus Christ is the exact representation of the Eternal God, yet chose to lay down His divine nature as a human sacrifice, dying for our sins (Hebrews 1:3; 2:14-15).
- Jesus taught with the goal of honoring God (John 7:16-18).
The Bible warns extensively of false teachers, those who practice deception (Matthew 24:4-5, Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, 2 Peter 2:1-3). The Scriptures also tell of Jesus Christ’s Second Coming to reunite all believers eternally with God (Matthew 16:27, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, Revelation 1:7-8). Do not be deceived. Jesus Christ’s divine nature is unchanging. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. So do not be attracted by strange, new ideas” (Hebrews 13:8-9).
Our Father's Love
Hi all, I want to share with you something which money can't buy and that is God's love. A young Christian dad who took his parenting role very seriously When his son was an infant, he protected him, and as the boy grew, his dad played ball with him, encouraged him, and tried to teach him about God and life. But in his teen years, the boy went too far and too fast in his move toward independence.
Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, he rejected his father's values. He made foolish decisions and got into trouble. The father was deeply disappointed, but he never gave up on him. "No matter what he's done," he said, "he's still my son. I'll never stop loving him. He'll always be welcome in my house." The joyful day finally came when father and son were reunited.
The people in Hosea's day followed a similar pattern. Although God had rescued them from Egypt and nourished them, they turned their backs on Him. They insulted His name by worshiping the gods of the Canaanites. But still God loved them and longed for their return (Hosea 11:8).
Do you fear that you may have strayed too far from God to be restored? He who saved and cares for you longs for your return. His arms are open in forgiveness and acceptance. He will never drive you away.
How glad we can be for our Father's love!
God's love has no limits.
Verse to memorize:
I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love. —Hosea 11:4
What does the Bible say about astrology or the Zodiac? Is astrology something a Christian should study?
Hi questionaire, you asked about the astrology and the zodiac. Well, the Bible has much to say about the stars. Most basic to our understanding of the stars is that God created them. They show His power and majesty. The heavens are Gods “handiwork” (Psalm 8:3; 19:1). He has “garnished the heavens” (Job 26:13). He has all the stars numbered and named (Psalm 147:4).
The Bible also teaches that God arranged the stars into recognizable groups that we call constellations. The Bible mentions three of these: Orion, the Bear (Ursa Major), and “the crooked serpent” (most likely Draco) in Job 9:9; 26:13; 38:31-32; and Amos 5:8. The same passages also reference the star group Pleiades (the Seven Stars). God is the One Who “fastens the bands” of these constellations; He is the One Who brings them forth, “each in its season.” In Job 28:32, God also points to the “Mazzaroth,” usually translated “constellations.” This is thought by many to be a reference to the twelve constellations of the zodiac.
The constellations have been tracked and studied for millennia—the Egyptians and Greeks knew of the zodiac and used it to measure the beginning of spring centuries before Christ. Much has been written of the meaning of the zodiacal constellations, including theories that they comprise an ancient display of God’s redemptive plan. For example, the constellation Leo can be seen as a celestial depiction of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5), and Virgo could be a reminder of the virgin who bore Christ. However, the Bible does not indicate any “hidden meaning” for these or other constellations.
The Bible says that stars, along with the sun and moon, were given for “signs” and “seasons” (Genesis 1:14); that is, they were meant to mark time for us. They are also “signs” in the sense of navigational “indicators,” and all through history we have used the stars to chart courses across the globe.
God used the stars as an illustration of His promise to give Abraham an innumerable seed (Genesis 15:5). Thus, every time Abraham looked up at the night sky, he had a reminder of God’s faithfulness and goodness. The final judgment of the earth will be accompanied by astronomical events relating to the stars (Isaiah 13:9-10; Joel 3:15; Matthew 26:29).
Astrology is the “interpretation” of an assumed influence the stars (and planets) exert on human destiny. It is a false belief. The royal astrologers of the Babylonian court were put to shame by God’s prophet Daniel (Daniel 1:20) and were powerless to interpret the king’s dream (Daniel 2:27). God specifies astrologers as among those who will be burned as stubble in God’s judgment (Isaiah 47:13-14). Astrology, as a form of divination, is expressly forbidden in scripture (Deuteronomy 18:10-14).
God forbade the children of Israel to worship or serve the “host of heaven” (Deuteronomy 4:19). Several times in their history, however, Israel fell into that very sin (2 Kings 17:16 is one example). Their worship of the stars brought God’s judgment each time.
The stars should awaken wonder at God’s power, wisdom, and infinitude. We should use the stars to keep track of time and place and to remind us of God’s faithful, covenant-keeping nature. All the while, we acknowledge the Creator of the heavens. Our wisdom comes from God, not the stars (James 1:5). The Word of God, the Bible, is our guide through life (Psalm 119:105).
Isaiah 1:17
Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. - Isaiah 1:17
These truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Do you know tht God endow us with certain rights. He spelled them out clearly when He gave the law to Moses, but He took a different approach than what the Founding Fathers used. Rather than listing the rights all men possess, God told Israel the right way to treat others. It's a distinction that makes a difference in our mindset. Our focus should be on treating others with love, not demanding that our own rights be met.
The first fifteen verses in our passage today summarize the fair way to compensate an owner for destroyed or stolen property, and in each case, a threefold pattern emerges. First, enough evidence must be found to judge the issue fairly. Second, the value of the property lost or stolen must be appreciated. Lastly, the party responsible must take action to make appropriate restitution, in some cases repaying more than what was lost (vv. 4, 5, 9).
The passage also informed Israel of the right way to worship God and the right way to love others. What stands out most within the context of this month's study is the particular way God commanded Israel to treat foreigners, widows, and orphans, people in circumstances of hardship or suffering. Verses 21 and 22 are, in effect, commandments of compassion. While there is no detailed list stipulating how these people should be cared for or accommodated, the law of God comes to their general defense. Again, anyone following the basic commandments of the heart to love God and others would have had no problem living up to the details listed in this passage.
TODAY ALONG THE WAY
Never underestimate the link between a person's property and the person himself. Showing love to your neighbor includes showing respect for your neighbor's possessions. If you're responsible for damage or loss to other people's property—from a mild trampling of a lawn to a major scratch on a car—be quick to make amends and be generous with your repayment. Try to think if there have been any instances you've overlooked. Even if admitting fault is embarrassing, it's an opportunity to show God's love. - Rev Alex
Why did God create hell?
Hi challenger, you asked if god is compassionate and loving then why did he create hell? Well God is a Holy God as well as a compassionate God. Not only is He Holy, but He is also just. This means that God demands justice for all sins. Unless our sins are forgiven by Jesus, we will stand in judgement for our sins and hell is the place of punishment. Jesus said,
"And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." - Matthew 25:46
It is important to understand that God sees sin much worse than we do. However, His love for people is also greater. God is so awesome! That is why He sent Jesus to die on a cross for us. Everyone who asks for forgiveness can receive a "pardon" for sin if they ask Him. Amen.
Why did God create stars?
Hi, my name is Nick. Sowwy for the late reply. Well challenger you asked why did God create stars right?
Well stars that shine in the sky are "for signs", and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Gen. 1:14 KJV). There was no time before God created anything (Gen 1.1). Since time is the sequence of events, there were no earthly or human events before God created the world. Since time did not exist for God - no yesterday, today, and tomorrow - then there was no time in eternity past. Once God created time, He also set the earth spinning on its axis, and from human perspective people can observe the passing of time by comparing themselves to the apparent stationary positions of the moon and stars in the sky. Stars help us tell time and dates.
And you asked where was Jesus for the three days between His death and resurrection? Well since the Bible doesn't give many details about that time. However, there is one verse worth considering:
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved." - I Peter 3:18-20
This would indicate that Christ preached to those who rejected God before He died on the cross. The purpose may have been to show them the fulfillment of God's plan of salvation and their guilt for rejecting God. Hoped I had answered your questions and thanks for coming by and may God bless.
Why do innocent people have to suffer part 2
Thank you Eric. Well, you may still have questions like if God is all-powerful so that He could prohibit sin, amd all-loving so that he doesn't want to harm people, then why does He allow sin right?
Well, I am sure you have two alternatives. Either God is not all-powerful, or His motives are not all pure, yet the answer is that God is all-powerful and He is all-loving.
To be tempted is not the same as sinning. God created Adam and Eve to be free so that they could worship Him freely. God did not want coerced worship; He wanted authentic worship. So God gave Adam and Eve a free will to worship Him. If they were forced to worship God, it would not have been authentic worship right, so that is not true freedom.
For Adam and Eve to be free, they had to have the ability to both reject God and worship him freely. Adam and Eve fully understood what God expected of them. And if they had never been tempted concerning their loyalty to God, they would have remained in immaturity, God did not give them an arbitary insignificant demand. God said they could eat from all the trees in the garden except "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." This tree was the only one that they could eat from. If the fruit of this tree in the midst of the Garden were the only available thing to eat, then God would have been guility of coercion to sin. But God created all of the trees and said they could eat freely of all of them except the one in the middle of the Garden. Since sin is an act, attitude, or response toward God, Adam and Eve sinned by denying God's rulership over them and going contrary to the one and only thing that He requested.
So the answer is: God allowed Adam and Eve to sin because freedom was a requisite for authentic worship of God. God gave human beings the freedom to either worship Him or reject him.
Why do innocent people have to suffer?
Hi, my name is Eric. You asked why do innocent people have to suffer right? Well first of all, no one is completely innocent. We are born into this world sinners (Psalm 51:5), and as sinners, we have a sin nature and are introduced into a world that is infected by sin (Gen. 3:1-21). So at birth we take on the liability of sin and live in an atmosphere of sin, where the consequences of sin (disease, accidents, vicious people, etc.) will affect us. This means people suffer because they live in a sinful world. God is not punishing them. Neither is God the cause of their pain and sufferings.
But God may allow sufferings to bring closer to Him. When people hurt physically, they cry out for God thats wat my friend Kel had posted in the earlier posts "a poor man called, and the Lord heard him; and the Lord saved him out of all his troubles. " - Psalm 34:6; they do the same with mental and emotional problems.
Just look at Jesus Christ. He is the only innocent person to ever live, and look at His suffering. He was Truth, but they accused Him of telling lies. He and the FAther were One, yet they accused Him of blashemy. The Scriptures say, "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. . . so He opened not His mouth" (Isa. 53:7).
Through our suffering, we are delivered from self-reliance. We think we can solve all our problems until we suffer; then, we learn to pray and ask for God's help. Well passer-by hoped I have answered your question and thanks for coming by, May God bless you and your loved ones.
Sharing time
Hi all, today I want to share my favourite verse tht might drives you and me on. This verse is found in Matthew 11:28 it says: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Well what does it mean by come to me, does Jesus say tht by nailing to the cross like me you will have rest hahaha of course not.
Well wad Jesus meant is if you are having any problems i.e. worry about your job, or your kids or your studies you can go to Jesus. But the question is how cos he is not in the world anymore right? Well the most easiest way to go to Jesus is to pray.
Well show you something interesting perhaps you might knw what I am talking about. They key is found in Psalm 34:6 it says that a poor man called, and the Lord heard him; and the Lord saved him out of all his troubles. Haha that’s the key look carefully at those words marked in bold, called and heard wads so special about this two words. Give you 1 such example say if you have no money, you will go to your daddy or mummy and asks for some pocket money right, and then they will give you right. So it is the same concept: “When you call the upon the Lord, he hears you and so He will help you whatever problems you are facing. Just like the Psalm 34:6 it says the poor man called and the Lord heard him .
So when Jesus said: “Come to me” it means go to him through prayers and through your prayers you can seek him and He shall be found by you Amen!!! Or perhaps you might be thinking how do I call the name of the Lord while I don’t even know His name. Well, just say Lord Jesus, I am now in trouble now pls come help or save me then wait patiently for the Lord and He will do something interesting in your life. And some ppl might think tht if too many ppl seek the Lord wouldn’t He very busy, well showed you another verse that is in the same Psalm 34 it is the verse 7. Verse 7 says that: “The angels of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them interesting right.
Well what this verse means is: “When you the call name of the Lord, the Lord will sent His messengers and that is His angels to you. But dun worry the angels is unseen if it can be seen I guess you wld be scared to death hahaha. And what does the fear Him means, well it means tht if you seek Him with all your heart then He will hear your prayers its tht simple. So my dear brothers and sisters out there, so what are you waiting for come and taste this Jesus Christ for he is good; and blessed is the man who trusts in Him.
I tell you Christianity is not about religion or culture, Christianity is about God’s love for you and He cares for you. So my friends dun wait come and taste this Jesus Christ for He is marvelous, Amen! ! ! I can tell you Jesus Christ is my best and a faithful where I can ever find. Well folks that’s all for this hoped to see you around and may God Bless.
Questions to UFOs and Aliens part 2
Well passer-by though the Bible did not mention anything about Aliens or UFOs BUT the Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. Yes, there are many strange and unexplainable things that take place. There is no reason, though, to attribute these phenomena to aliens or UFOs. If there is a discernable cause to these supposed events, it is likely spiritual, and more specifically, demonic in origin.
But still the Bible says tht the earth, and mankind, are unique in God's creation. Genesis 1 teaches that God created the earth before He even created the sun, the moon, or the stars. Acts 17:24, 26 states that "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth,… has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings."
So you see after creation, God says He saw everything tht He had made was very good. (Genesis 1:31). Until the Adam and Eve sinned thats where problems of all sorts, sickness, and death comes in. Even though animals have no personal sin before God (they are not moral beings) they nevertheless suffer and even die (Romans 8:19-22). Jesus Christ died to remove the punishment that we deserve for our sin. When He returns, He will undo many aspects of the curse that has existed since Adam, and ultimately He will remove all aspects of the curse (Revelation 21-22). Note that Romans 8:19-22 states that all of creation eagerly waits for this time! It's important to also note that Christ came to earth to die, that He came to earth to die for mankind, and that He died only once (Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10).
So you see God created the earth and mankind unique, all of creation suffered as a result of the fall of man. Christ came to earth to offer Himself once and only once to pay for our sins. Not only will believers be delivered, but all of creation will be delivered as well.
And if all of creation suffers, that means that any life apart from earth would also suffer. If, for the sake of argument, there exists moral beings on other planets, then they also suffer; and if not now, then someday they will surely suffer when everything will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10). If they had never sinned, then God would be unjust to punish them; but if they had sinned, and Christ could die only once (which He did on earth) then they are left in their sin, which would also be against the character of God (2 Peter 3:9). This leaves us with an unsolvable paradox . . . unless, of course, there are no moral beings outside of earth.
Well passer-by hoped I had given you a satisfactory answer anyway thanks for visiting this site and May God bless You and your family Amen! ! !
