"THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks (9:20-27) by Mark Copeland

"THE BOOK OF DANIEL"

The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks (9:20-27)

INTRODUCTION

1. We come now to one of the most difficult passages of the Old Testament...
   a. Commonly called "The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks" - Dan 9:20-27
   b. Edward J. Young describes it as "one of the most difficult in all
      the OT, and the interpretations which have been offered are almost legion."
   c. Stuart says that "it would require a volume of considerable
      magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and
      contradictory opinions that have been offered"
 
2. With such a difficult passage before us, we should ...
   a. Approach it with humility, and not dogmatically
   b. Not draw conclusions that would contradict clear teachings of Scripture

[We begin our study with verse 20, in which Daniel first describes...]

I. THE ARRIVAL OF GABRIEL

   A. AT THE TIME OF EVENING OFFERING...
      1. Even as Daniel was confessing his sin and the sin of his
         people, and making supplication for the holy mountain of God
         (i.e., Jerusalem) - Dan 9:20-21
      2. This was the same person seen in the vision at the beginning- cf. Dan 8:16

   B. TO GIVE DANIEL SKILL TO UNDERSTAND...
      1. Commanded to do so even at the beginning of Daniel's prayer
         - Dan 9:22-23
      2. For Daniel was "greatly beloved" - cf. Dan 10:11,19

[And so Gabriel, who provided explanation to Daniel regarding the
vision of the ram and the goat (Dan 8:16), now proceeds to give
details concerning...]

II. THE VISION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

   A. A GENERAL STATEMENT OF WHAT IS TO OCCUR...
      1. 70 "weeks" are determined for Daniel's people (Israel) and his
         holy city (Jerusalem) - Dan 9:24
         a. The word "weeks" in Hebrew is actually "sevens" (i.e., 70 "sevens")
         b. Most agree it likely refers to "weeks", but weeks of what?
            1) Weeks of days?
               a) Then it would be 490 days
               b) Few believe this to be the case, and so most all
                  figuratize this passage to some extent
            2) Weeks of years (i.e., each day representing a year)?
               a) Then it would be 490 years
               b) But the Jews used a lunar calendar (360 days/yr), so
                  it would be 483 years according to our calendar)
               c) Many suggest this to be the answer, but it is not without difficulty
            3) Of some complete, yet non-specific period of time?
               a) Then it may just refer to seventy complete periods of time
               b) And each week may not be equivalent in time (i.e.,
                  one "week" may be longer than other "weeks")
      2. This period of time will be for the fulfillment of six things,
         each apparently related to the work of the coming Messiah
         a. To finish the transgression
            1) The marginal reading has "restrain" for "finish"
            2) The idea is that Messiah would provide a restraining
               power and influence which would check the progress of sin (Barnes)

               - cf. Ac 3:25-26
         b. To make an end of sins
            1) The marginal reading has "to seal up" for "make an end"
            2) The idea is that sins will be sealed up, or closed, or
               hidden, so that they will not be seen, or will not
               develop themselves (Barnes) - cf. Ac 3:19
         c. To make reconciliation for iniquity
            1) Literally, to cover iniquity
            2) How this would be done is not stated here, but cf. Isa 53:5-6,10-12
         -- Note:  The first three things relate to our Lord's work of
            dealing with the problem of sin, how sin would 
            "restrained", "sealed up", and "covered over"
         d. To bring in everlasting righteousness
            1) Literally, to cause to come
            2) To provide a way by which a man could become righteous
               and holy - cf. Ro 3:21-26; 2Co 5:21
         e. To seal up the vision and the prophecy
            1) To complete, to finish, meaning the prophecies would be
               fulfilled (Barnes)
            2) Young suggests that it is referring to OT prophecies,
               especially those related to the work of the Messiah
               making an end of sin - cf. Lk 24:44-47
         f. To anoint the Most Holy
            1) Barnes opines that the Most Holy refers to the temple in Jerusalem
            2) And that the anointing of the temple refers to the
               presence of the Messiah in the temple - cf. Mal 3:1-2;Mt 12:6
            3) Especially regarding the presence of the Lord in the
               temple during His final week - cf. Mt 21:1-16
            4) Some believe it may refer to the baptism of Jesus when
               the Spirit came upon Him in the form of a dove - Mt 3:16-17

   B. A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF HOW THIS WOULD OCCUR...
      1. There shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks - Dan 9:25
         a. Beginning with the command to restore and build Jerusalem,
            until Messiah the prince (the street and the wall shall be
            built, even in troublesome times)
         b. At least three possible decrees may serve as the "terminus
            pro quo" (starting point) of the 70 "weeks"
            1) The decree of Cyrus (539-538 BC) - cf. Ezr 1:1-4
               a) To rebuild the temple (and the city, cf. Isa 44:26-28; 45:13)
               b) If one starts here, then the 70 weeks could not be
                  490 literal years, for that would place the end of
                  the 70 weeks around 55 B.C. (much too early)
               c) The appeal of using this decree as the starting point
                  1] It is the most well-known decree regarding the restoration of Israel
                  2] It was given about the time Daniel received his
                     vision of the 70 weeks
               -- This decree is preferred by many who do not hold to a
                  literal 490 years (Young, Harkrider, McGuiggan)
            2) The decree of Artaxerxes (457 BC) - cf. Ezr 7:13-14
               a) For Ezra to restore the Law and its worship
               b) Starting here, 490 Julian years would end the 70weeks around 33 A.D.
               c) But 490 lunar years end the 70 weeks around 26 A.D.
                  (seven years too early)
               -- This decree is preferred by some amillenialists who
                  hold to a literal 490 years, but not lunar years
                  (Haley's Bible Handbook)
            3) The second decree of Artaxerxes (445-444 BC) - cf. Neh

               a) For Nehemiah to build the city
               b) Starting here, 490 lunar years end the 70 weeks around 38 A.D.
               c) This would place the start of the 70th week near the
                  beginning of Jesus' public ministry (ca. 30 A.D.)
               d) There are problems with the first 7 weeks ending
                  around 396 B.C., which some contend is too late for
                  the restoration of the city
            -- Premillenialists prefer to start with this decree, but
               so do some amillenialists such as Albert Barnes
         c. Each starting date has its problems, but I lean towards
            Barnes' choice of the second decree of Artaxerxes in 445
            B.C. as the terminus a quo for this prophecy
            1) The 7 and 62 "weeks" is the period of time from the
               decree until "Messiah the Prince"
            2) Barnes has this period ending with the baptism of Jesus
               and the beginning of His public ministry
      2. After the 62 weeks, certain events will occur - Dan 9:26-27
         a. Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself
            1) This refers to the death of Christ
            2) Whose death occurs midway during the 70th week (see below)
         b. People of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city
            and the sanctuary
            1) The end of it shall be with a flood; until the end of
               the war, desolations are determined
               a) The people are generally accepted to be the Romans,
                  who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70
               b) The "prince" is thought to be either Titus, the Roman
                  general, or perhaps referring to Jesus Himself (with
                  the Roman army as the instrument of God's judgment
                  upon Jerusalem)
            2) Many contend that the destruction must fall within the 70th week
               a) However, Young and Barnes argue that such is not
                  necessarily required by the text
               b) The desolation to befall Jerusalem may be the
                  consequence of events during the 70th week, and not
                  fall within the period of the 70th week
         c. For 1 week, he shall confirm a covenant with many
            1) "He" refers to Jesus (Barnes)
            2) "Confirm a covenant" describes the work done by Jesus
               and His apostles in Israel, before and immediately after
               His death (Barnes)
               a) His earthly ministry lasted about 3 and half years
               b) The gospel was preached only to Jews for 3-4 years
                  after Pentecost
         d. In the middle of the week he shall bring an end to
            sacrifice and offering
            1) This refers to Jesus who was cut off, but not for Himself (Barnes)
            2) Through His death, He brought the need for sacrifices to
               an end - He 10:12-18
         e. The abomination and desolation to come - Dan 9:27
            1) Alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
            2) Jesus referred to this in Mt 24:15
            3) Again, this desolation may be the consequence of what
               occurred in the 70th week, even though it occurred after
               the 70th week
            4) But if required to occur during the 70th week, then the
               70th week must extend beyond A.D. 70 (Harkrider, McGuiggan)

CONCLUSION

1. Such a brief look at this difficult passage will naturally raise
   many questions, which are beyond the scope of our study

2. For more detailed study, one might consider the following
   commentaries which provide several alternative views...
   a. Commentary on Daniel, Albert Barnes
   b. The Prophecy of Daniel, Edward J. Young
   c. Commentary on Revelation, Robert F. Harkrider
   d. The Book Of Daniel, Jim McGuiggan
   e. Exposition Of Daniel, H. C. Leupold
   -- Each of these examine the passage from the amillenial
      perspective, which finds no place for the "gap theory" favored by
      dispensational premillenialists

While the passage is admittedly difficult, let's not lose sight of the
wonderful promises concerning the Messiah's work related to sin and
righteousness.  For Jesus through His death has truly brought an end to
the consequences of sin and introduced everlasting righteousness!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

"Not Under Bondage" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1081

"Not Under Bondage"

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

“But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).

A current misconception with regard to divorce and remarriage is the notion that 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a “later revelation” that “modifies” or “clarifies” Matthew 19:9. It is argued that 1 Corinthians 7:15 permits the Christian, who is deserted by a non-Christian mate, to remarry on the sole ground of that desertion. On the other hand, it is suggested, Matthew 19:9 (which permits remarriage only on the ground of fornication) applies strictly to a Christian married to a Christian, and therefore is not to be considered applicable to the Christian who is married to a non-Christian. Several factors make this position untenable.

First, the context of Matthew 19 is divorce (Matthew 19:3), while the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is not divorce but the propriety of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). Jesus applied God’s original marriage law (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) to the question of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9). But Paul applied God’s marriage law to several different questions that related to celibacy and the legitimacy of marriage for widows/widowers, Christians/non-Christians, and singles.

Second, it is incorrect to hold that if 1 Corinthians 7:15 pertains to a Christian married to a non-Christian, then Matthew 19:9 must refer exclusively to a Christian married to a Christian. Matthew 19:9 was uttered in context to a group of Jews seeking an answer to their question concerning Jewish divorce (Matthew 19:3). Jesus gave them an answer that was intended for them, as well as for those who would live during the Christian age. He appealed to Genesis 2, which resides in a pre-Jewish context and clearly applies to all people—i.e., the totality of humanity. Genesis 2 is a human race context. It reveals God’s ideal will for human marriage for all of human history—pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and Christian.

Though divorce and remarriage for reasons other than fornication was “permitted” (epetrepsen—Matthew 19:8, though not endorsed) during the Mosaic period, Jesus made clear that the Jews had strayed from the original ideal because of their hard hearts. He further emphasized (notice the use of de—“but” in Matthew 19:9) that the original marriage law, which permitted divorce and remarriage for fornication alone, would be reinstated and would be applicable to all persons during the Christian age. Prior to the cross, ignorance may have been “unattended to” (huperidon—Acts 17:30), that is, God did not have a universal law, like the Gospel (Mark 16:15-16), but with the ratification of the New Testament, all men everywhere are responsible and liable for conforming themselves to God’s universal laws of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. God’s original marriage law was, and is, addressed to all people (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Christ’s application to the question of divorce was implied in the original law, and is addressed to all people (Matthew 19:9). Paul’s application to questions of sex, celibacy, and non-Christian mates is addressed to all people (1 Corinthians 7). Scripture harmonizes beautifully, and God treats all impartially. Thus the phrase “to the rest” (1 Corinthians 7:12) cannot be referring uniquely or solely to non-Christian marriage relationships, since Jesus already referred to all marriages (whether Jew or non-Jew, Christian or non-Christian).

Third, 1 Corinthians 7 does not address different “classes” of marriages. The Corinthian letter was written in response to correspondence previously sent to Paul by the Corinthians (cf. 1:11; 5:1; 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Thus, 1 Corinthians amounts to a point-by-point response to matters previously raised by the Corinthians themselves. When Paul referred to the general question of sexual activity/celibacy (7:1), he was alluding to the method by which he organized his remarks in direct response to questions asked by the Corinthians. Thus, “to the rest” (7:12) refers to the rest of the matters or questions about which the Corinthians specifically inquired (and to which Jesus did not make specific application while on Earth). These matters (not marriages) are easily discernible from what follows. The “rest” of the questions would have included the following:

• Should a Christian male who has a non-Christian wife sever the relationship (vs. 12)?
• Should a Christian female who has a non-Christian husband sever the relationship (vs. 13)?
• Are Christians somehow ceremonially defiled or rendered unclean by such relationships (vs. 14)?
• Are children born to such relationships ceremonially unclean (vs. 14)?
• Is a Christian guilty of sin if their non-Christian mate severs the relationship (vs. 15-16)?
• Does becoming a Christian mean that one should dissolve all conditions and relationships that were entered into before becoming a Christian (vss. 17-24)?
• What should be the sexual and/or marital status of virgins and widows in light of the current period of distress (vss. 25-40)?

All of these questions may be answered in light of, and in harmony with, Jesus’ own remarks in Matthew 19. Jesus did not specifically make application to these unique instances (vs. 12—“to the rest speak I, not the Lord”). He did not address Himself to the application of God’s general marriage law to every specific situation (specifically to the spiritual status of a Christian married to a non-Christian). Yet, His teaching applies to every case of marriage on the question of divorce.

Fourth, the specific context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not. The unbeliever now finds himself married to a different person (in the sense that his mate underwent a total change and began to live a completely different lifestyle). The unbeliever demands that his mate make a choice: “either give up Christ or I’m leaving!” Yet to live in marriage with an unbeliever, who threatens departure if the believer does not capitulate to the unbeliever (i.e., compromise Christian responsibility or neglect divinely ordained duty), is to be involved in slavery (i.e., “bondage”). But neither at the time the marriage was contracted, nor at the present time (the force of the perfect indicative passive in Greek), has the Christian been under that kind of bondage. God never intended nor approved a view that regards marriage as slavery. Christians are slaves only to God—never to men or mates (Matthew 23:10; Romans 6:22; Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:24; Philemon 16; 1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was saying that although a believer is married to an unbeliever (and continues to be so), the believer is not to compromise his or her discipleship. To do so, at the insistence of the unbelieving mate, would constitute slavery that was never God’s intention for marriage.

To suggest that dedoulotai (“bondage”) refers to the marriage bond is to maintain that in some sense (or in some cases) the marriage bond is to be viewed as a state of slavery. But God does not want us to view our marital unions as slave relationships in which we are “under bondage.” We may be “bound” (1 Corinthians 7:27,39; Romans 7:2), but we are not “enslaved” (1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was not commenting on the status of a believer’s marital relationship (i.e., whether bound or loosed). Rather, he was commenting on the status of a believer’s spiritual relationship as a Christian in the context of marital discord that is initiated by the non-Christian mate. Paul was answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a Christian if he or she threatens to leave?” He was not answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a husband/wife (and the potential for remarriage) when the non-Christian departs?” Jesus already answered that question in Matthew 19:9—divorce and remarriage is permitted only upon the basis of sexual unfaithfulness. Paul, too, spoke more directly to this question earlier in the chapter when he ruled out remarriage: “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband” (vss. 10-11).

To summarize: although God’s marriage law is stringent (for everybody), and although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), nevertheless, there are times when an unbelieving mate actually will force the believer to make a choice between Christ and the unbelieving mate. To choose the mate over Christ would be slavery (i.e., “bondage”). Yet, the believer is not now, and never has been, in such enslavement. Thus, the believer must let the unbeliever exit the relationship in peace. The believer must “let him depart”—in the sense that the believer must not seek to prevent his departure by compromising his loyalty to Christ. Of course, the Christian would continue to hold out hope that the marriage could be saved. If, however, the non-Christian forms a sexual union outside of marriage with another, the Christian is permitted the right to exercise the injunction of Matthew 19:9 by putting away the non-Christian on the sole grounds of fornication, and may then marry another eligible person.

One final factor needs to be addressed. Verses 17-24 cannot be requiring an individual to remain in whatever marital state that person is in at the time of conversion. Paul used the examples of slavery and circumcision to show that merely because a person becomes a Christian, he or she is not absolved of pre-Christian circumstances. If a person is a slave prior to baptism, that person will continue to be a slave after baptism, and should not think that becoming a Christian gives one the right to shirk legal status as a slave. This is why Paul instructed Onesimus to return to his position of servitude (Philemon 12). Thus Paul was encouraging the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not become a Christian, to remain in that marriage rather than think that becoming a Christian somehow gives him or her the right to sever the relationship with the non-Christian mate. Being married to a non-Christian mate is not sinful in and of itself (see Miller, 2002).

Paul was not placing his stamp of approval upon relationships, practices, and conditions that were sinful prior to baptism; nor was he encouraging Christians to remain in those relationships. Such would contradict what he later told the Corinthians concerning unequal yokes (2 Corinthians 6:17) and repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-10). Rather, he was referring to relationships and conditions that were not sinful prior to baptism, and was telling Christians that they still had the same obligation to conduct themselves appropriately (i.e., according to God’s laws) within those situations, now that they were Christians. Such instructions apply to any relationship, practice, or condition that was not sinful (i.e., in violation of Christ’s laws) prior to baptism. But it does not apply to any practice or relationship that was sinful prior to baptism (i.e., adultery, homosexuality, evil business practices, etc.; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

May God grant us the humility and determination to conform our lives to His will concerning marriage—no matter how narrow it may seem (Matthew 7:14). May the church of our day be spared any further harm that comes from the promotion of false theories and doctrines that are calculated to re-define God’s will as “wide” and “broad” (Matthew 7:13). May we truly seek to please, not men, but God (Galatians 1:10).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2002), “Be Not Unequally Yoked,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1802.

"Calling on the Name of the Lord" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=775

"Calling on the Name of the Lord"

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Considering how many people within “Christendom” teach that an individual can be saved merely by professing a belief in Christ, it is not surprising that skeptics claim that the Bible contradicts itself in this regard. Although Peter and Paul declared, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13; cf. Joel 2:32), skeptics quickly remind their readers that Jesus once stated: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21; cf. Luke 6:46). Allegedly, Matthew 7:21 clashes with such passages as Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 (see Morgan, 2003; Wells, 2001). Since many professed Christians seem to equate “calling on the name of the Lord” with the idea of saying to Jesus, “Lord, save me,” Bible critics feel even more justified in their pronouncement of “conflicting testimonies.” How can certain professed followers of Christ claim that they were saved by simply “calling out to Christ,” when Christ Himself proclaimed that a mere calling upon Him would not save a person?

The key to correctly understanding the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” is to recognize that more is involved in this action than a mere verbal petition directed toward God. The “call” mentioned in Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13, and Acts 22:16 (where Paul was “calling on the name of the Lord”), is not equated with the “call” (“Lord, Lord”) Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:21).

First, it is appropriate to mention that even in modern times, to “call on” someone frequently means more than simply making a request for something. When a doctor goes to the hospital to “call on” some of his patients, he does not merely walk into the room and say, “I just wanted to come by and say, ‘Hello.’ I wish you the best. Now pay me.” On the contrary, he involves himself in a service. He examines the patient, listens to the patient’s concerns, gives further instructions regarding the patient’s hopeful recovery, and then oftentimes prescribes medication. All of these elements may be involved in a doctor “calling upon” a patient. In the mid-twentieth century, it was common for young men to “call on” young ladies. Again, this expression meant something different than just “making a request” (Brown, 1976, p. 5).

Second, when an individual takes the time to study how the expression “calling on God” is used throughout Scripture, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that, just as similar phrases sometimes have a deeper meaning in modern America, the expression “calling on God” often had a deeper meaning in Bible times. Take, for instance, Paul’s statement recorded in Acts 25:11: “I appeal unto Caesar.” The word “appeal” (epikaloumai) is the same word translated “call” (or “calling”) in Acts 2:21, 22:16, and Romans 10:13. But, Paul was not simply saying, “I’m calling on Caesar to save me.” As James Bales noted:

Paul, in appealing to Caesar, was claiming the right of a Roman citizen to have his case judged by Caesar. He was asking that his case be transferred to Caesar’s court and that Caesar hear and pass judgment on his case. In so doing, he indicated that he was resting his case on Caesar’s judgment. In order for this to be done Paul had to submit to whatever was necessary in order for his case to be brought before Caesar. He had to submit to the Roman soldiers who conveyed him to Rome. He had to submit to whatever formalities or procedure Caesar demanded of those who came before him. All of this was involved in his appeal to Caesar (1960, pp. 81-82, emp. added).

Paul’s “calling” to Caesar involved his submission to him. “That, in a nutshell,” wrote T. Pierce Brown, “is what ‘calling on the Lord’ involves”—obedience (1976, p. 5). It is not a mere verbal recognition of God, or a verbal petition to Him. Those whom Paul (before his conversion to Christ) sought to bind in Damascus—Christians who were described as people “who call on Your [Jehovah’s] name”—were not people who only prayed to God, but those who were serving the Lord, and who, by their obedience, were submitting themselves to His authority (cf. Matthew 28:18). Interestingly, Zephaniah 3:9 links one’s “calling” with his “service”: “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord” (emp. added). When a person submits to the will of God, he accurately can be described as “calling on the Lord.” Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 (among other passages) do not contradict Matthew 7:21, because to “call on the Lord” entails more than just pleading for salvation; it involves submitting to God’s will. According to Colossians 3:17, every single act a Christian performs (in word or deed) should be carried out by Christ’s authority. For a non-Christian receiving salvation, this is no different. In order to obtain salvation, a person must submit to the Lord’s authority. This is what the passages in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 are teaching; it is up to us to go elsewhere in the New Testament to learn how to call upon the name of the Lord.

After Peter quoted the prophecy of Joel and told those in Jerusalem on Pentecost that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21), he told them how to go about “calling on the name of the Lord.” The people in the audience in Acts 2 did not understand Peter’s quotation of Joel to mean that an alien sinner must pray to God for salvation. [Their question in Acts 2:37 (“Men and brethren, what shall we do?”) indicates such.] Furthermore, when Peter responded to their question and told them what to do to be saved, he did not say, “I’ve already told you what to do. You can be saved by petitioning God for salvation through prayer. Just call on His name.” On the contrary, Peter had to explain to them what it meant to “call on the name of the Lord.” Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd sought further guidance from the apostles, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (2:38). Notice the parallel between Acts 2:21 and 2:38:

Acts 2:21	Whoever	Calls	On the name of the Lord	Shall be saved
Acts 2:38	Everyone of you	Repent and be baptized	In the name of Jesus Christ	For the remission of sins

Peter’s non-Christian listeners learned that “calling on the name of the Lord for salvation” was equal to obeying the Gospel, which approximately 3,000 did that very day by repenting of their sins and being baptized into Christ (2:38,41).

But what about Romans 10:13? What is the “call” mentioned in this verse? Notice Romans 10:11-15:

For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” (emp. added).

Although this passage does not define precisely what is meant by one “calling on the name of the Lord,” it does indicate that an alien sinner cannot “call” until after he has heard the Word of God and believed it. Such was meant by Paul’s rhetorical questions: “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” Paul’s statements in this passage are consistent with Peter’s proclamations in Acts 2. It was only after the crowd on Pentecost believed in the resurrected Christ Whom Peter preached (as is evident by their being “cut to the heart” and their subsequent question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”) that Peter told them how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved (2:38).

Perhaps the clearest description of what it means for an alien sinner to “call on the name of the Lord” is found in Acts 22. As the apostle Paul addressed the mob in Jerusalem, he spoke of his encounter with the Lord, Whom he asked, “What shall I do?” (22:10; cf. 9:6). The answer Jesus gave Him at that time was not “call on the name of the Lord.” Instead, Jesus instructed him to “arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do” (22:10). Paul (or Saul—Acts 13:9) demonstrated his belief in Jesus as he went into the city and waited for further instructions. In Acts 9, we learn that during the next three days, while waiting to meet with Ananias, Paul fasted and prayed (vss. 9,11). Although some today might consider what Paul was doing at this point as “calling on the name of the Lord,” Ananias, God’s chosen messenger to Paul, did not think so. He did not tell Paul, “I see you have already called on God. Your sins are forgiven.” After three days of fasting and praying, Paul still was lost in his sins. Even though he obviously believed at this point, and had prayed to God, he had yet to “call on the name of the Lord” for salvation. When Ananias finally came to Paul, he told him: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (22:16). Ananias knew that Paul had not yet “called on the name of the Lord,” just as Peter knew that those on Pentecost had not done so before his command to “repent and be baptized.” Thus, Ananias instructed Paul to “be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The participle phrase, “calling on the name of the Lord,” describes what Paul was doing when he was baptized for the remission of his sins. Every non-Christian who desires to “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved, does so, not simply by saying, “Lord, Lord” (cf. Matthew 7:21), or just by wording a prayer to God (e.g., Paul—Acts 9; 22; cf. Romans 10:13-14), but by obeying God’s instructions to “repent and be baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

This is not to say that repentance and baptism have always been (or are always today) synonymous with “calling on the name of the Lord.” Abraham was not baptized when he “called upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 12:8; cf. 4:26), because baptism was not demanded of God before New Testament times. And, as I mentioned earlier, when the New Testament describes people who are already Christians as “calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 9:14,21; 1 Corinthians 1:2), it certainly does not mean that Christians continually were being baptized for the remission of their sins after having been baptized to become a Christian (cf. 1 John 1:5-10). Depending on when and where the phrase is used, “calling on the name of the Lord” includes: (1) obedience to the gospel plan of salvation; (2) worshiping God; and (3) faithful service to the Lord (Bates, 1979, p. 5). However, it never is used in the sense that all the alien sinner must do in order to be saved is to cry out and say, “Lord, Lord, save me.”

Thus, the skeptic’s allegation that Matthew 7:21 contradicts Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 is unsubstantiated. And, the professed Christian who teaches that all one must do to be saved is just say the sinner’s prayer, is in error.

REFERENCES

Bales, James (1960), The Hub of the Bible—Or—Acts Two Analyzed (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House).

Bates, Bobby (1979), “Whosoever Shall Call Upon the Name of the Lord Shall be Saved,” Firm Foundation, 96:5, March 20.

Brown, T. Pierce (1976), “Calling on His Name,” Firm Foundation, 93:5, July 20.

Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

BORN SINNER PROOF-TEXTS THAT DO NOT PROVE BY STEVE FINNELL

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/born-sinner-proof-texts-that-do-not.html

BORN SINNER PROOF-TEXTS THAT DO NOT PROVE BY STEVE FINNELL

There are a billion Catholics and tens of millions in other denominations that have concluded that all men are born sinners because they inherited Adam's sin and are born with a sin nature.

Born sinner proof-text. Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged  from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. (NKJV)

1. It assumes all men born, are wicked.

2. It treats figurative language as literal. To be literal, then, all the wicked babies in the delivery room of the hospital would be speaking lies at the time of their birth.

3. Point, they were not born astray. They went astray. Infants cannot go astray. Men must know right from wrong to go astray.

Born sinner proof-text. Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,  And in sin my mother conceived me. (NKJV)

Was David literally, saying he was born guilty of Adam's sin at birth? Was he saying he was conceived as a wicked sinner? Of course, not. Hyperbolic and figurative language can be confusing.

Psalm 51:1 .....Blot out my transgressions.(NKJV)

Davis asked God to blot out his transgressions. He did not ask God to blot out Adam's transgression.

Psalm 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin.(NKJV)

David ask God to wash him of his iniquity and his sin. He did not ask to be washed because he was guilty of Adam's sin at birth.

Psalm 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. (NKJV)

David did not acknowledge he was born guilty of Adam's transgression. He was concerned about the sins he committed.

Psalm 51:4 Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight--- That You may be found just when You speak And blameless when You judge. (NKJV)

David did not sin against God while he was still in the womb nor did he sin against God the minute he was born.

God did not give us the Doctrine of Original Sin, so where did it come from? You make the call.  

How Will We Be Known? by B. Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/howknown.html

How Will We Be Known?

“Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right” (Pro 20:11).
Whether a child or a man, we are known by our deeds. Obviously our deeds would include our words.
“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt 12:33-37).
Man’s heart may be known by his words. If a man’s words are honest/dishonest, kind/cruel, loving/hateful, we can know the man.
We can tell whether a child is honest or not in little things. “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?” (Luke 16:10-12).
One main exception to this rule is hypocrisy. “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1).
We must watch for men who hide their real thoughts. There are many Pharisees in the world today. “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14). These men intentionally hide their real thoughts.
God fashions all hearts alike, and then considers what men do with those hearts. “The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works” (Ps 33:13-15).
The face of man shows what the heart is like . “As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man” (Prov 27:19).
Beth Johnson

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The King James Version.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Who knows you? by Gary Rose

Those who know me are well aware that from time to time I enjoy playing with words. Puns, jokes, and the stuff of humor of all sorts (within the limits of propriety) are a sheer pleasure to me. Sometimes, though, I enjoy a more philosophical or perhaps even an intellectual view of things and yes, I even can get “down” occasionally. Point is, that I am a complex being, and it takes a while to get to know me. This is true for everyone I have ever known, for who can really completely understand another’s thinking, background, lifestyle and world-view. The drawing shows just the thought to understanding aspect of communication between people, but if you take in the TOTAL PERSON, then, we must ask the question: who can really understand another human being? My answer, God can; for David said in the 139^th psalm…

Psalm 139 ( The Apostle’s Bible )

  ^[1] For the end, A Psalm of David. O Lord, You have proved me, and known me.  ^[2] You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thoughts long before.  ^[3] You have traced my path and my bed, and have foreseen all my ways.  ^[4] For there is no unrighteous word on my tongue: behold, O Lord, You have known all things,  ^[5] the last and the first: You have fashioned me, and laid Your hand upon me. ^[6] The knowledge of You is too wonderful for me; it is very difficult, I cannot attain to it.  ^[7] Where shall I go from Your Spirit? And to where shall I flee from Your presence?  ^[8] If I should go up to heaven, You are there: if I should go down to hell, You are present.  ^[9] If I should spread my wings to fly straight forward, and sojourn at the extremity of the sea, it would be vain,  ^[10] for even there Your hand would guide me, and Your right hand would hold me.  ^[11] When I said, Surely the darkness will cover me; even the night was light in my luxury.  ^[12] For darkness will not be darkness with You; but night will be light as day. As its darkness, so shall its light be to You.  ^[13] For You, O Lord, have possessed my reins; You have helped me from my mother's womb.

God knows everything about us, literally everything, and yet he loves us anyway. Paul said to the Roman church:

Romans 5 ( English Majority Text Version )

 ^[6] For while we were still weak, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
  ^[7] For scarcely on behalf of a righteous man will anyone die; though perhaps for a good man someone might even dare to die.
  ^[8] But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
  ^[9] Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
  ^[10] For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.

Think about all this for a moment: someone knows you completely and loves you anyway! This is my definition of a true friend. Why not be Jesus’ friend?

Jesus said:

John 15 ( EMTV )

  ^[13]  Greater love has no one than this, that one should lay down his life for his friends.
  ^[14]  You are My friends if you do what I command you. 

And

Matthew 28 ( EMTV )

 ^[18] And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
  ^[19]  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
  ^[20]  teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. 

So, what’s keeping you? Do what Jesus is telling you and live with him forever? Understand yet? If not, go to Acts 2:14-47 for more information. Still don’t get it; contact me and I will help. Why would I do this? Because I can never have enough friends and also Matthew 28: 18-20 of course!