6/24/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Difficult Way To Life (7:14) by Mark Copeland


"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Difficult Way To Life (7:14)

INTRODUCTION

1. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus spoke of two ways...
   a. The way to destruction - Mt 7:13
   b. The way to life - Mt 7:14

2. In describing these two ways, He pointed out the contrasts...
   a. The way to destruction is broad, and many chose to follow it - Mt 7:13
   b. The way to life is difficult, and there are few who find it - Mt 7:14

[If we desired to be saved, to experience eternal life, there will be
hardship along the way.  As we use this lesson to contemplate "The
Difficult Way To Life", we note first that...]

I. WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED

   A. WE HAVE BEEN WARNED...
      1. By Jesus in our text and elsewhere - Mt 7:14; Jn 15:18-20;16:33
      2  By Paul to his fellow disciples - Ac 14:22; 2Ti 3:12
      3  By Peter in his epistle - 1Pe 4:12
      -- Jesus and His apostles have given full disclosure that the way
         to life is difficult

   B. WE HAVE MANY ENEMIES...
      1. Satan himself, who seeks to devour - 1Pe 5:8-9
      2. People who think us 'strange', who may ridicule and ostracize
         us - 1Pe 4:3-4
      3. The lust of the flesh, with its bad habits - 1Pe 2:11
      -- Without and within, there are forces at work making the way to
         life difficult

[Forewarned, what should our attitude be?  Though the way to life is difficult...]

II. WE SHOULD NOT BE RESENTFUL

   A. WE ARE TOLD TO REJOICE...
      1. By Jesus in His sermons - Mt 5:10-12; Lk 6:22-23
      2. By James in his epistle - Jm 1:2
      3. As did the apostles, when persecuted - Ac 5:41
      -- Jesus and His apostles say that we should rejoice.  Why?

   B. BECAUSE IT MAKES US STRONGER...
      1. Which is why Paul gloried in his tribulations - Ro 5:3-4; 2 Co 12:10
      2. Which is why James told us to rejoice in our trials - Jm 1:2-4
      3. "In the difficult are the friendly forces, the hands that work
         on us." - Rainer Maria Rilke
      -- Can we begin to see why God would allow the way to life to be
         so difficult?

[So rejoice, not resent, when trials and tribulations befall us on the
way to life.  What may appear to be stumbling blocks may in fact be
stepping stones to victory.  Especially as we consider why...]

III. WE SHOULD NOT BE DEFEATED

   A. WE HAVE GOD ON OUR SIDE...
      1. He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to endure
         - 1Co 10:13a
      2. He will provide a way of escape, enabling us to endure - 1Co 10:13b
      3. This includes strength to stand strong
         a. His Spirit to empower the inner man - Ep 3:16; cf. Ro 15:13
         b. His armor to protect, and fight the good fight - Ep 6:10-13
      -- Through God's providence and provision, we have the ability to
         be victorious!

   B. WE HAVE JESUS TO INSPIRE US...
      1. He provided an example of suffering, for us to follow - 1 Pe 2:21
      2. We should look to Him, as we seek to endure - He 12:1-4
      3. Even as Stephen did, emulating His forgiving spirit - Ac 7:54-60; cf. Lk 23:34
      -- Through Jesus' example, we have the inspiration and motivation
         to succeed!

CONCLUSION

1. This is not to say we will never misstep along the way to life...
   a. As Christians we sin - 1Jn 1:8,10
   b. When we stumble, we have mercy and forgiveness - 1Jn 1:7,9

2. So as we travel on the way to life, finding it at times to be difficult...
   a. Let's not be surprised
   b. Let's not be resentful
   c. Let's not be defeated

But as the writer to the Hebrews penned in his epistle...

   "Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble
   knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is
   lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed."

   "Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no
   one will see the Lord:"

   "Looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God;
   lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by
   this many become defiled;"
                                                   - Heb 12:12-15

And as Paul confessed in his epistle...

  "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." - Php 4:13

Note:  The idea and main points for this study came from a daily
devotional written my cousin and brother in the Lord, Gary Henry.  Visit
his website at WordPoints.com to find lots of good material!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Lessons Learned from the Practice of Law: Interpretative Aids by Kevin Cain, J.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=10

Lessons Learned from the Practice of Law: Interpretative Aids

by  Kevin Cain, J.D.

When interpreting a statute, courts adhere to general canons of construction to aid in the proper interpretation of that statute. The first and most important rule of statutory interpretation is that the resolution of a dispute over the meaning of a statute begins with the language of the statute itself (United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 1989). In other words, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is “that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there” (Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 1992). As such, “[i]f statutory language is plain, permitting only one construction, there is no occasion to seek out congressional intent by reference to legislative history or other extrinsic aids” (Lapine v. Town of Wellesley, 2002). However, if the statute’s language is not plain, courts may rely on the legislative history of the statute to help interpret that statute (United States v. Fields, 2007). Legislative history is comprised of the comments and statements of senators and congressmen made while a bill is being debated.

Occasionally, a judge will cite a statement made by a legislator to help explain or support a particular interpretation of some statute. For example, when trying to determine the exact meaning of a less-than-clear statute, the judge may look to a record of statements made by various legislators while the bill is being discussed and ultimately passed into law. These statements may help clarify the meaning or purpose of a particular law.

Not all scholars think that legislative history is a proper tool in determining the interpretation of a statute. One of the most outspoken scholars on this subject is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He has clearly identified himself as one who does not favor the use of legislative history when interpreting a statute. In one of his more colorful explanations of this view, Justice Scalia recalled the statement of Judge Harold Leventhal who once compared arguments from legislative history to “entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one’s friends” (Conroy v. Aniskoff, 1993). The point being, everyone can find a friend in that setting. Likewise, everyone can research and find some remote statement made by a legislator that supports his subjective interpretation of a statute. Accordingly, many scholars and judges believe that there may very well be a good reason why such language was left on the legislative floor and never made its way into the statute itself. Simply put, if it is not in the statute, it should not resolve the meaning of a statute. Accordingly, the law says what it means and it means what it says.

The same comparison can be made with God’s holy Word. We have many extrinsic aids: books, commentaries, research tools, historical statements, church fathers, and scholarly interpretations of God’s Word. These can be both a blessing and a curse, depending upon how we use them. However, we often turn to these aids not because we cannot understand what God has revealed through His Word. Rather, we often turn to these extra-biblical sources because we are either (1) lacking in diligence to study the Bible for ourselves, or because (2) our judgment is clouded by our preconceived ideas about what we think that passage should mean.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addressed this problem. During the lifetime of Jesus, just like today, people were prone to listen to scholars, religious leaders, and other sources outside the Bible, and consider them just as important and binding as God’s word. Jesus says no less than six times in that sermon, “You have heard that it was said...” (Matthew 5:21,27,31,33,38,43). Jesus is contrasting the true word of God with what the people have heard their religious leaders teach over the years (see Lyons, 2009). Scholars and religious leaders may teach one thing, but of infinitely greater importance is the pure and simple Word of God. When Jesus continues in the Sermon on the Mount and says, “but I say to you,” he is turning our attention from scholars, commentators, and “legislative history,” and is directing our minds and hearts toward the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I have heard the phrase before that the Bible is its own best interpreter (Miller, 2003). In other words, when we come to a passage that we do not clearly understand, rather than turning to non-inspired sources to help us understand the Bible, we should be turning to other passages in the Bible to help us understand more clearly.

For example, we can literally see the Bible interpreting itself through a literary style called Hebrew parallelism. This beautiful style of writing involves the repetition of a thought, but expressed in different terms. The author makes a point, and then emphasizes that point by repeating it, but in different language that adds further depth, meaning, and application to the first phrase. For example, Psalm 19:1 states, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Then, that same verse goes on to repeat itself in Hebrew parallelism when it declares, “And the firmament shows His handiwork.” How do the heavens declare the glory of God? They demonstrate the fine work of God’s own hands. The last half of this verse helps us interpret the first half. A little later in this same psalm, the psalmist writes, “The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart” (Psalm 19:8). That same verse then interprets itself when it states, “The commandments of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes” (Psalm 19:8). These two phrases are not distinct and unrelated. This is parallelism; the Bible interpreting itself through thoughtful reiteration.

An understanding of the “whole counsel of God” will cause us to dig deeper into the Scriptures and less into what others have to say about the Bible. When Paul addressed the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20, Paul declared that he had not hesitated to declare unto them the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). No doubt, a person familiar with the whole counsel of God will spend more time in the Bible and less time studying other sources. But how do we become a person who is more inclined to turn to the Word of God rather than the words of men?

Paul gave some excellent advice to the young preacher Timothy describing the nature of how we become more familiar with the Bible, so that we can preach the “whole counsel of God.” Paul wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV). Other translations replace the word “study” with “be diligent” (NASB, NKJV), “make every effort” (NCV), and “do your best” (NIV, ESV). All these translations are accurate. Study is designed to be hard, arduous work by its very nature. To study God’s Word in such a way that we can rightly divide the word of truth, we must make great effort and work hard at familiarizing ourselves with the Word of God.  Certainly devotional reading for the pure pleasure of God’s Word has its place, but we must also roll up our sleeves, work hard, and apply ourselves to the diligent study of God’s Word so we can answer those who question us about our faith and our hope (1 Peter 3:15).

We must be people of the Book—people who are drawn to and guided more and more by the word of God, and less and less by what others say about the Word of God. Commentaries, treatise, scholarly writings, and other uninspired works can be useful and have their place in a Christian’s life. But this “legislative history” can only be helpful after we have plumed the depths in ardent study of the way, the truth, and the life—God’s holy Word (John 1:1, 14: 14:6).  You have heard that it was said, “I read a good book recently.” But I say unto you, “Read the good book.”

REFERENCES

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992).

Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 519 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring).

Lapine v. Town of Wellesley, 304 F.3d 90, 96 (1st Cir. 2002).

Lyons, Eric (2009), “This Is the Law and the Prophets,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=526.

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Bible Is Its Own Best Interpreter,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1242.

United States v. Fields, 500 F.3d 1327, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989).

Left Behind—or Left Bedazzled? (Part II) by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5061

Left Behind—or Left Bedazzled? (Part II)

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

An examination of Dispensational premillennialism (Part II)

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the November issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Revelation 13

A second passage that is used to support the notion of an “Antichrist” is Revelation 13:1-10. Several points regarding the context of the book of Revelation and its proper interpretation lead to the understanding that the seven-headed sea beast was a symbol for the then monstrous emperor of Rome who was responsible for unleashing horrible atrocities upon Christians of Asia Minor in the latter years of the first century A.D. (Summers, 1951, pp. 173-178). The two-horned land beast (Revelation 13:11-18), who enforced worship of the sea beast, refers to the official governmental organization known as the Roman Concilia that was responsible for supporting and regulating all details relative to emperor worship (Summers, pp. 178-179; Swete, 1911, pp. xci-xciii,168ff.). This evil legal entity was authorized to instigate economic sanctions against those who refused to appropriate the “mark” of the beast, “mark” being a symbol for the tokens of proof of their submission to Caesar worship (vs. 17). With this understanding of Revelation 13, it is unscriptural and unbiblical to identify the sea beast in Revelation 13 with some revived Roman dictator or “future fuehrer” (Lindsey, 1970, pp. 87ff.) known as the “Antichrist.”

2 Thessalonians 2

A third passage used to foster belief in an “Antichrist” is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Whatever interpretation is placed upon this passage, its use to refer to a future personage is doomed to failure since Paul explicitly stated that he was referring to a person who would be the product of the circumstances of his own day, i.e., “already at work” (vs. 7). How could Paul have had in mind a future dictator that still has not arisen, though 2,000 years have transpired? One need go no further to know that 2 Thessalonians 2 does not refer to a future Antichrist.

History is replete with a variety of interpretations of this passage, the most prominent one likely being the view that the papacy is under consideration (see Workman, 1988, pp. 428-434; Eadie, 1877, pp. 340ff.). Another possibility is that the “falling away” (vs. 3), or apostasy, referred to the Jewish rejection of the “new and living way” of approach to God (Hebrews 10:20). The Jews were the single most adamant opponents to Christ and the infant church (John 8:37-44; Acts 7:51-53; 13:45-50; Romans 10:20-21; 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). This rebellion, or falling away, would not reach its “full” (Matthew 23:32) climax until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the resulting dispersal of the Jewish people. Paul had already alluded to this Jewish apostasy in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. The pouring out of God’s wrath was the logical consequence of the first-century Israelite failure to make the transition to Christianity.

According to this viewpoint, the “man of sin” or “son of perdition” (vs. 3) would have referred to the personification of Roman imperialism, and would have been equated with “the abomination of desolation” that Jesus, quoting Daniel 9, alluded to in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20. Verse 4 would refer to the Roman general who introduced his idolatrous insignia into the Holy of Holies in A.D. 70 (cf. Swete, p. xci).

That which was “withholding” (vs. 6), or restraining, this man of sin, at the time Paul was writing 2 Thessalonians in approximately A.D. 53, would have been the presence of the Jewish state. The ingenious design of God was that Christianity would appear to the hostile Roman government to be nothing more than another sect of the Jews. Thus Christianity was shielded for the moment (i.e., A.D. 30-70) from the fury of the persecuting forces of Rome, while it developed, spread, and gave the Jews ample opportunity to be incorporated into the elect remnant—the church of Christ (cf. Romans 11:26). Thus the nation of Israel was rendered totally without excuse in its rejection of Christianity, while at the same time serving as a restraining force by preventing Christianity from being perceived by the Romans as a separate, and therefore illegal, religion (religio illicita). Once the Jewish apostasy was complete, and God’s wrath was poured out upon Jerusalem, Christianity came to be seen as a distinct religion from Judaism. Increasingly, Christians found themselves brought into conflict with the persecution from “the wicked” or “lawless one” (vs. 8). In fact, after A.D. 70 (when the withholding effect of Judaism was removed), Roman opposition to Christianity gradually grew greater, culminating in the fierce and formidable persecution imposed by Caesar Domitian in the final decade of the first century.

Once the shield of Judaism was removed (vs. 7), and Christianity increasingly found itself subject to the indignities of governmental disfavor, the Lord was to come and “consume with the spirit of His mouth” the one responsible. This terminology is not an allusion to Christ’s second coming. Rather, this verse refers to Christ’s coming in judgment on the Roman power. Such a use of the word “coming” to describe the display of God’s wrath upon people in history is not unusual (cf. Isaiah 19:1; Micah 1:3). Paul alluded to the government’s use of counterfeit miracles (vs. 9), and thus deceit (vs. 10), that is reminiscent of the Concilia’s employment of tricks and illusions to deceive people into worshipping the emperor (Revelation 13:13-15) during the last decade of the first century A.D. (Summers, p. 178; Swete, pp. 170-172).

Summary

When studied in context, these passages render the notion of an “Antichrist” and the entire dispensational scheme without scriptural support. Those in bygone days who applied these passages to Nero,  Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. have been proven wrong. Yet the pattern continues unabated among those who have not learned from the sad mistakes of the past.

will there be an armageddon?

The next feature of the dispensational scheme insists that world history will culminate in a cataclysmic global holocaust known as “Armageddon” (followed by the “Millennium,” a 1000-year reign of Christ on Earth). They say that current events in the Middle East and elsewhere are arranging themselves in such a fashion that the second coming of Christ is imminent. Of course, this claim has been made repeatedly for many, many years—with no fulfillment forthcoming.

The term “armageddon” occurs only once in the New Testament: Revelation 16:16. In keeping with the literary genre of the book (i.e., apocalypse [“revelation”]—vs. 1), the term is unquestionably used with figurative connotations. The Holy Spirit capitalized on the meaning which this location possessed for those who would have been familiar with the Old Testament (as Asia Minor Christians would have been). In Hebrew, the term “Harmageddon” means “mountain (or hill) of Megiddo.” Was there a hill of Megiddo? Yes. In fact, Jews were only too familiar with this prominent battlefield and vicinity. Many bloody encounters stained the soil of this region. It was here that Deborah and Barak defeated the Canaanites (Judges 5:19). Gideon was victorious over the Midianites in this area (Judges 7). These positive accomplishments were etched into the Israelite consciousness. But there were other, more vivid, images evoked by Megiddo, for it also served as a place where national tragedy had occurred. Ahaziah died there after being pierced by Jehu’s arrow (2 Kings 9:27). And it was there that good King Josiah perished tragically at the hands of Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29).

With this long historical background, Megiddo came to occupy a place in the minds of believers similar to places which immediately bring to the American mind definite and strong impressions: the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, the Twin Towers, etc. This significance was then utilized by the Holy Spirit to convey to struggling, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor near the end of the first century the sure outcome of the conflict then being waged between the forces of evil (Satan and imperial Rome) and the forces of righteousness (God, Christ, and faithful saints who were enduring). These Christians were certainly in no need of assurance that some future global holocaust would occur which Christ would bring to an end 2,000+ years removed from their suffering. These Christians were in dire need of assurance that Christ would come to their aid soon. They needed encouragement to hang on, and to remain steadfast in the face of inhuman mistreatment. The symbol of armageddon provided that assurance. Christians were given the solace that the outcome of the battle would soon be realized. The enemies of God and His People would be punished, while suffering saints would soon be comforted. Thus “armageddon” is purely symbolic and in no way relates to dispensational dreams of a future world war centered in or emanating from northern Palestine.

Will there be a millennium?

Dispensationalism also insists that when Jesus returns (for a third time!) to terminate “Armageddon,” He will then usher in the “Millennium”—an alleged thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth in which He will establish a literal, physical kingdom, and rule from Jerusalem. Four contextual indicators militate against a literal 1,000 years in Revelation 20:1-6. First, the events of the book of Revelation were to “shortly take place”—an expression that occurs near the beginning as well as near the end of the book (1:1; 22:6). “Shortly” (en tachei) meant quickly, at once, without delay, soon, in a short time (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 814; Mounce, 2006, p. 1288; Hengstenberg, 1851, 1:47-49). Moffatt gave the meaning as “soon” and noted: “The keynote of the Apocalypse is the cheering assurance that upon God’s part there is no reluctance or delay; His people have not long to wait now” (n.d., 5:335, emp. added).

Other passages where the term is used, confirm that a brief length of time is intended—not merely the rapidity with which the designated events occur, as some have suggested. Regarding those disciples who cry out to God night and day for His intervention, Jesus assured: “He will avenge them speedily (en tachei)” (Luke 18:8). What comfort would be afforded if Jesus intended to convey the idea that relief may be long delayed, but when it finally did come, it would come in a quick fashion? When Peter was asleep in prison, bound with two chains between two soldiers, and an angel awoke him by striking him on the side and instructed him to “arise quickly (en tachei)!” (Acts 12:7), would Peter have understood the angel to mean that he could continue resting or sleeping for as long as he chose, just as long as when he did get ready to get up, he came up off the prison floor with a rapid motion? When Festus insisted that Paul be detained in Caesarea rather than be transferred to Jerusalem, since “he himself was going there shortly (en tachei)” (Acts 25:4), would anyone have understood him to mean that he may delay his visit to Caesarea by years? Paul even used the term in contradistinction with being “delayed” (1 Timothy 3:14-15; cf. White, n.d., 4:117). When Paul wrote to Roman Christians, informing them that “the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly (en tachei)” (16:20), did he mean “in the near future”? Or did he mean that God’s action on their behalf may not come for centuries or millennia, but nevertheless wanted them to be assured that when God finally did act, He would do so in a swift manner? Additional occurrences of the expression further underscore the meaning of “soon” (Acts 10:33; 17:15; 22:18).

A second contextual indicator within Revelation itself is the occurrence of the phrase: “for the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). Thayer said “near” (eggus) refers to “things imminent and soon to come to pass” (1901, p. 164; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, p. 213). Such a reference would necessarily pertain to the first century—not the twenty-first. Two or three thousand years would be too late for the desperate Christians of Asia Minor (see Summers, p. 99). Those who get caught up in “millennium mania” seem oblivious to the fact that the book was written to an original, immediate audience. Revelation was, in fact, written to the seven churches of Christ situated in Asia Minor (1:4). All seven are even named (1:11)! If the book was written to them, and if it was their spiritual condition that was the concern of the book, millenarians are incorrect in their contention that the book is devoted primarily, if not exclusively, to predictions of the end times. Though the Old Testament prophets predicted future events on occasion, their primary message was relevant to their immediate audience. Dispensationalists have trouble finding in Revelation a relevant message for a first-century audience. The apostle John recognized their need, and identified himself as their “companion” in the terrible tribulation they were then enduring (1:9). Not only was this tribulation going on at that time, but John further referred to himself and his readers as being in the kingdom at that time (1:9). Thus, Christ’s kingdom was already set up, in existence on Earth, and in full operating mode.

Third, there is the statement of the angel to John: “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:10). What did the angel mean? What he meant becomes apparent when one reflects upon the fact that Daniel was told to do the exact opposite of what John was told to do. After receiving a remarkable series of detailed prophecies, Daniel was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end” (Daniel 12:4, emp. added). Furthermore, he was instructed: “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (vs. 9, emp. added). The reason Daniel was told to seal the book was because the fulfillment of the prophecies that had been revealed to him were hundreds of years off in the future—far from his own day. The predictions, therefore, would be of no immediate value to the initial recipients of the book. The book could be closed and placed on the shelf until those who would be living at the time of their fulfillment could appreciate the relevance of its predictions. In stark contrast, John was ordered: “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book” (22:10, emp. added). Why? The text answers—“for the time is at hand”! These words can hold no other meaning than that the bulk of Revelation was fulfilled in close proximity to the time they were written—2,000 years ago.

Fourth, consider the use of the impersonal verb “must”: “things which must shortly take place” (1:1). Baptist Greek grammarian Ray Summers explained:

The verb translated “it is necessary” or “must”…indicates that a moral necessity is involved; the nature of the case is such that the things revealed here must come to pass shortly…. The things revealed here must happen shortly, or the cause will be lost…. They were in need of assurance of help in the immediate present—not in some millennium of the distant and uncertain future (p. 99, emp. in orig.).

Indeed, the downtrodden, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor needed assistance right away. The dispensational framework would rob those first-century saints of the very comfort and reassurance they so desperately needed, deserved—and received.

Fifth, note the use of the term “signified”: “And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John” (1:1, ASV, KJV). This term (seimaino), as is evident from the English translation, means “to show by signs” (Mounce, 2006, p. 1268;  Moulton and Milligan, 1930, p. 572; Vincent, 1890, 2:564; Summers, p. 99; Perschbacher, 1990, p. 369; Robertson, 1960, 6:284). The term, along with the Greek word translated “revelation” (apocalupsis), introduces the nature of this book. The book of Revelation reveals or unveils God’s message through signs or symbols. Placing a literal interpretation on the numbers, animals, objects, colors, and locations of Revelation—as dispensationalists routinely try to do—does violence to the true intent of the book. John’s Revelation declares itself to be a book of symbols, filled with figurative language, and not intended to be taken literally. In fact, as Swete observed, “much of the imagery of the Apocalypse is doubtless not symbolism, but merely designed to heighten the colouring of the great picture, and to add vividness and movement to its scenes” (p. cxxxiii). A genuine recognition of this self-declared feature of the book excludes a literal interpretation of the number 1,000.

In addition to these preliminary contextual details, chapter 20 contains specific features that assist the interpreter in pinpointing the meaning of the symbol of a “thousand year reign.” It is surely noteworthy that in the entire Bible, the only allusion to a so-called thousand-year reign is Revelation 20:4,6—a fact that is conceded even by dispensationalists (e.g., Ladd, 1972, p. 267; Mounce, 1977, pp. 356-357). Yet an entire belief system has been built upon such scanty evidence. An examination of the setting and context yields surprising results. For example, a simple reading of the immediate context reveals that the theme of Revelation 20 is not “the thousand-year reign of Christ.” Rather, it is “victory over Satan.” Each of the symbols presents concepts that, when put together, relieve the fears of oppressed Christians regarding their outcome. The key, abyss, and chain (vs. 1) are apocalyptic symbols for the effective limitation or containment of Satan in his ability to deceive the nations in the specific matter of emperor worship enforced by the government (see Swete, pp. xxxi, civ-cv). The symbol of one thousand years (vss. 2-7) is a high multiple of ten, representing ultimate completeness (see Summers, pp. 23). John’s readers thus could know that the devil was to be completely restrained from deceiving the nations into worshipping the emperor. The thousand years symbolized the extended triumph of God’s kingdom on Earth over the devil who was then operating through the persecuting powers of Rome. A thousand symbolic years of victory would lessen suffering in the minds of persecuted Christians.

“Loosing for a little season” (vs. 3) represented the revival of persecution under later emperors like Aurelius, Diocletian, and Julian the Apostate. “Thrones” (vs. 4) represented the victorious power of the oppressed. The persecuted saints were pictured on thrones judging because of the victory of their cause. “Souls” (vs. 4)—not resurrected bodies, but disembodied souls—represent those who were martyrs of the Domitianic persecution. Their refusal to “receive the mark” meant they refused to worship Caesar or to manifest those marks that would identify them as adherents of the false state religion of emperor worship. The “first resurrection” (vs. 5) referred to the triumphant resurrection of the cause for which the Christians of 20:4 had lived and died. Gog and Magog were symbolic of the enemies of God and Christ, imagery drawn from Ezekiel 38 and 39. The “beloved city” (vs. 9) is spiritual Israel, the church (John 4:20-21; Galatians 6:16).

Some allowance may be granted in the interpretation of these highly figurative symbols, without doing damage to other Bible doctrines, or reflecting adversely upon the Gospel system and the broader will of Deity. However, the 1,000 years must not be perceived as a yet-future period. There is simply no biblical support for doing so. The figure represents an important concept for those to whom it was first directed. It has meaning for people living today only in that context. There will be no 1,000-year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth.

Is the kingdom yet to be established?

Dispensationalists further claim that the kingdom is yet future, and that Jesus is not reigning now, but will commence His reign in His kingdom when He returns in the future to establish it in Jerusalem. However, several passages cannot be harmonized with such a view. First, the Bible teaches that the kingdom exists now and has existed since A.D. 30. While Jesus was on Earth, He went to Galilee, “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14-15). He also stated that “there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1). In fact, God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13, emp. added). To insist that the kingdom is yet to be established is to fail to recognize that the Bible plainly declares that the kingdom already exists on Earth.

Second, the words “kingdom,” “Israel,” and “church” all refer to the same group of people—the saved, Christians, the church of Christ, spiritual Israel. Jesus predicted that He would build His “church” and give to Peter the keys of the “kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19). Jesus did not build one institution and give to Peter the keys to a different institution that would be established on Earth 2,000+ years after Peter’s death. Paul told the Galatian Christians: “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.… And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7,29; cf. 6:16). He told Christians in Rome: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is the church of Christ which is the kingdom.

Third, Jesus is reigning now in heaven and has been since A.D. 30. Peter referred to this reign when he explained that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). Daniel predicted over four centuries prior to fulfillment:

One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (7:13-14, emp. added).

This prophecy was fulfilled at the ascension of Christ: “while they watched, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Jesus returned to heaven where He was given rule over His kingdom.

Peter made this fact clear in his remarks on Pentecost: “God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.... This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God...” (Acts 2:30-33, emp. added). So Jesus was reigning at that moment over His kingdom. Paul expressed the same truth: “He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet” (Ephesians 1:20-22). Hence, when Jesus returns a second time, it will not be to reign on Earth. Rather, “[t]hen comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25, emp. added).

Fourth, Jesus completed His work on Earth and, consequently, has no reason to return to the Earth, itself, to do any additional work. He explained to the disciples: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34, emp. added). Shortly before His departure from the Earth, He prayed to the Father: “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4, emp. added). He reiterated this fact on the cross when He declared: “It is finished” (John 19:30).

Dispensationalists say that Jesus came with the intention to be King, and to set up an earthly kingdom, but that the Jews unexpectedly rejected Him. But this claim is in direct conflict with the facts. On one occasion, after feeding thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fish—a feat that would constitute a tremendous advantage should war with Rome be forthcoming—John noted that “when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to a mountain by Himself alone” (6:15, emp. added). If Jesus intended to establish a physical kingdom on Earth, that occasion would have been the perfect time to do so—with the support of the masses. So why did Jesus refuse to be made a king on Earth on a physical throne? He gave the reason to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). The dispensational claim that Jesus is coming back to be a king on Earth on a physical throne is the very thing first-century Jews tried to get Him to do—but which He refused to do—and which He denied before Pilate. Did Jesus lie to Pilate?

but what about the promises to Israel?

Many these days insist that God made clear promises in Scripture to physical Israel that are yet to be fulfilled and which absolutely must be fulfilled, and that they play a prominent and continuing role in God’s scheme of things. This contention has had a profound impact upon U.S. foreign policy and in the way people around the world—especially in the Middle East—perceive America. It is surely a shock to find that the Bible depicts no such favored status. All people stand on level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ. God is no respecter of persons and makes no distinctions between people on the basis of ethnicity (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11,28-29; Galatians 3:28). The promises that were made to physical Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled long ago.

For example, God announced to Abraham that He would give to his descendants (the Israelites) the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1; 15:7). This promise was fulfilled when Israel took possession of Palestine in the 15th century B.C. (Joshua 21:43-45; 2 Chronicles 9:26). What so many people today fail to recognize is that Israelite retainment of the land was contingent upon their continued obedience (Leviticus 18:24-28; Joshua 23:14-16; 1 Kings 9:3-7). But, sadly, they forfeited retention of the land due to their incessant disobedience and continual rejection of God’s guidance. The complete and final cutoff of physical Israel took place in A.D. 70—as Jesus mournfully announced: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:37-38).

Further, the reestablishment of national Israel, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple (i.e., the national promises of Deuteronomy 30 and Zechariah 12-14) were literally fulfilled in the returning remnant after the Babylonian captivity (Nehemiah 1:8-10; Isaiah 10:22; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezra 3:1-11). The establishment of the modern state of Israel in May of 1948 cannot supplant this already achieved fulfillment and has nothing to do with the original promises made to Abraham and his descendants.

Many of the Old Testament prophecies that predicted the return of the Jews after captivity were laced with predictions of the coming Christ to the Earth to bring ultimate redemption. Hence, the national promises were spiritually fulfilled in the church of Christ wherein both Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. For example, premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return, set up His millennial kingdom, and reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, incorporating the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian spin placed upon it.

However, two Bible passages correct this mistaken interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (the one God refused to allow David to build—2 Samuel 7:1-7) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this lineage to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.

The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” [NOTE: Also, study Ezekiel 37:15-24 and see Jesus’ application to Himself in the first century (John 10:11,16).]

In light of James’ inspired application of it to the integrated church of the first century, the Amos prophecy, like all others in the Old Testament that dispensationalists wish to apply to the future, find their ultimate and final climax in the momentous advent of the Christian religion on the planet—2,000 years ago. The premillennial treatment of prophecy, in the final analysis, demeans and trivializes the significance of the Gospel, the church of Christ, and the Christian religion as the final revelation from God to mankind.

Conclusion

A careful and consistent appraisal of Bible teaching forces one to conclude that all promises made to physical Israel have either been fulfilled or forfeited through disobedience. All who wish to be acceptable to God must submit to Jesus Christ now (John 3:5; 8:24). [NOTE: Compare the use of “now” in Romans to refer to the Christian age which began at Pentecost: 3:26; 5:9,11; 8:1,18; 11:5; 13:11; 16:26.] Christians need not fear any of the political, economic, or military developments of today or tomorrow. God has given us simple instructions on how to become a Christian, how to live the Christian life, and the need to urge others to do the same. God deals with all human beings today on the same basis and on the same grounds—obedience to Christ’s will. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The sensationalism and hysteria associated with the ongoing attempt to apply long since fulfilled Bible prophecy to the current events of today is seductive. But it only serves the purpose of diverting people’s attention away from their daily responsibility to live obediently and faithfully now.

The Bible portrait of the end times is much simpler and succinct. The Bible teaches that at some point in the future, unknown even to the angels (Matthew 24:36), Jesus will return in flaming fire (2 Thessalonians 1:8). He will hover among the clouds without ever setting foot on the Earth (Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:17). At that point, all who are in the graves will be resurrected (Luke 14:14; John 5:28-29) and changed (1 Corinthians 15:52-53). The righteous will rise to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Then all people who have ever lived, both good and evil, will stand in judgment before God (Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-13; 2 Corinthians 5:10). The wicked will be consigned to hell, while the righteous will be welcomed into heaven (Romans 2:5-10).

When one is willing to remove from his mind all preconceived and complex theological concoctions, and simply let the Bible paint its own picture of the end of time and the second coming of Christ, the dispensational viewpoint is seen to be convoluted, concocted, and unfounded. There will be no “Rapture.” There will be no “Antichrist.” There will be no “Great Tribulation.” There will be no “Armageddon” or “Millennium” on Earth.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Eadie, John (1877), Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Hengstenberg, E.W. (1851), The Revelation of St. John, trans. Patrick Fairbairn (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).

Ladd, George E. (1972), A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Moffatt, James (no date), The Revelation of St. John the Divine in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. Nicoll, W. Robertson  (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Moulton, James and George Milligan (1930), The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1982 reprint.

Mounce, Robert (1977), The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Mounce, Robert (2006), Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Perschbacher, Wesley (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Robertson, A.T. (1960), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Summers, Ray (1951), Worthy Is the Lamb (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Swete, Henry (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

Vincent, M.R. (1890), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).

White, Newport (no date), The First and Second Epistles to Timothy in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Workman, Gary (1988), Studies in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon (Denton, TX: Valid Publications).

Additional Works Consulted

Bales, J.D. (1972), Prophecy and Premillennialism (Searcy, AR: James Bales).

Barclay, William (1960), The Revelation of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Hailey, Homer (1979), Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Harper, E.R. (no date), Prophecy Foretold Prophecy Fulfilled (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Jackson, Wayne (no date), Premillenialism: A System of Infidelity (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier).

Turner, Rex (1979), The Premillennialists’ Abuse of the Prophecies of Daniel (Memphis, TN: Getwell church of Christ).

Winkler, Wendell, ed. (1978), “Premillennialism, True or False?” (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).

Mother Teresa GEORGE L. FAULL


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/mother-teresa-george-l.html

Mother Teresa

 

GEORGE L. FAULL


Mother Teresa, the little nun from Calcutta India, will probably be declared a Saint soon, since the Pope waived the 5-year delay usually required after death in their false system of Sainthood.  There were 300,000 people at her Beatification Mass in October 2003.

However, in her private journals she wrote, “I want God with all the power of my soul, and yet between us there is a terrible separation.”  “I am told God lives in me and yet reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great, nothing touches my soul.”  “Heaven from every side is closed.”  “I feel just that terrible loss of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing.”

This is how the little lady felt!  She had no feeling of assurance of God’s love and care or assurance of Heaven and not even of His existence!!!

Oh, this is so sad!  What a pity this little heroine and model to millions, felt only apprehension, fear, and doubt.

Her environment was a system of salvation by works rather than grace. Pomp and circumstance, rather than humility surrounded her superiors.  Tradition reigned, rather than Biblical truth.  There was religious politics, rather than simple servant-hood, bondage, instead of freedom in Christ.  Their emphasis is upon a mere man, rather than the Christ.  It is a profit-led Church instead of a Spirit filled Church.  Such religion cannot possibly satisfy a soul that is hungry for a personal relationship with God.

Remember the lesson of this little woman who is considered the epitome of a Christian Saint by the world.  Remember her I say, and weep for her and the millions who speak of her as Billy Graham and Chuck Colson who both said of her, “she is my model of holiness.”  Weep for them, as well.

What a contrast to Paul, who said in his waning days, II Timothy 4:6-8, “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”  and II Timothy 1:12, “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: forI know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Archbishop O’Connor said of Mother Teresa (her birth name is Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu), “If she is not in heaven, then I am really terrified of dying, because of all she did.”

These off-guard words show the mindset of one who believes our good works saves us.  The Catholics are putting money into the coffers of Rome trying to expedite the little Nobel Peace Prizewinner through purgatory.  Over and over she was listed as one of the most respected women in polls all over the world.  The nations of the world have given her their highest commendations.  Her own church gave her the Pope John XXII Peace Prize in 1971.  Likewise, Protestants extol her from World Vision to Pat Robertson to the Signs and Wonders Conventions.  All extol her as a model Christian.

The Catholic view is she must spend time in purgatory to let the fires of purgatory remove the dross of sin that yet remained in her.  (As if fire could cleanse what the blood of Christ could not.) 
This sounds so different than Romans 5:1-2, “1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

The truth is, however, the little lady held to doctrine that is as foreign to the Bible as purgatory itself.

·         She held to the doctrine of transubstantiation where the cup and bread become the literal body and blood of 
     Christ.
·         She believed the mass was the re-crucifixion of Christ.
·         She prayed for the dead.
·         She believed Mary was co-redeemer with Christ, and continues to make intercession for people.
·         She believed Mary was worthy of worship.
·         She used the rosary and advocated the reality of purgatory.  In fact, the little woman, with all her good deeds,   
     spoke some of the most blasphemous doctrines ever fostered by her church.
·         As noted in another issue, she taught that the sincere of all religions were saved.

I am always amazed at those who advocate that one is saved by faith only also defend Mother Teresa.  They say, “Look at all she has done, if she is not saved, then no one is going to be saved.”  One wonders why they cannot keep their foot on their own proposition.

First Proposition: One is saved by faith only.
Second Proposition: She is saved because of all her good works.

If someone can harmonize these contradictory propositions, they never took the same course in logic that I took.

We’re thankful for the help she gave the people of Calcutta but good works without faith is as dead as faith without works.  Hebrews 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

Jesus Christ Is The Propitiation For Our Sins by Roy Davison


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/redemption.html

Jesus Christ Is The Propitiation For Our Sins

The Apostle John writes these reassuring words: "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:1, 2).

What does it mean that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins? John uses the same word in chapter four: "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:9, 10).

What does the word 'propitiation' mean? These are the only two passages in the New Testament where this specific Greek word is used, but twelve other words are used that have a similar meaning (from four word families).

One English word must sometimes be used to translate several Greek words. Thus, a discussion of the Greek words can help us to understand this subject.

The English word 'propitiation' refers to something that makes peace by satisfying a demand. In reference to religion it refers to an atonement for sin to regain God's favor. Thus these passages teach that God gave His Son as an atonement for our sins because He loves us.

The Greek word here, ‛ιλασμός, is a noun, defined as atonement, expiation, propitiation, a means of appeasing.

Two other words in the same family are also used to describe what Jesus has done for us.

"Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17).

Here we have the verb form of the same word, ‛ιλάσκομαι, defined as 'to atone for (sin) or to make reconciliation'. Notice that this 'making amends for sin' relates to the activity of a priest and that the Messiah had to be a man to accomplish this task.

Another word in the same family is ‛ιλαστήρον that refers to the 'mercy seat', a place of atonement in the Old Testament temple (Hebrews 9:5) or to an atoning victim, an expiatory sacrifice.

This word is found in Romans 3:25. How Christ serves as a propitiation for our sins is explained by Paul in Romans 3:21-26. "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:21-26).

We all sin and fall short of the glory of God, which separates us from God. Because God is righteous, He cannot condone sin. Thus, amends must be made for our sin before we can be reconciled with God. God accomplished this by sending His own Son to atone for our sins.

"The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Although we deserve to die because of our sins, God sent His Son to die in our place so we can be saved.

In verse 24 we find a word from a different family with a related meaning: redemption. We are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith" (Romans 3:24, 25).

Five words from this family are used in the New Testament to describe redemption through Christ. The root meaning of these words is 'ransom'. A ransom is what is paid so someone can be set free.

Here we have the word απολύτρωσις. The prefix απο gives this word the added force that the ransom has been paid in full. It is defined as 'redemption, deliverance, a liberation accomplished by the payment of a ransom'. This word appears in the following passages to describe what Jesus has done for us.

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Corinthians 1:30 NASV).

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7).

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:13, 14).

"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Hebrews 9:11-15).

This word, as used in verse fifteen, indicates that the blood of Christ also cleansed those who served God under the Old Covenant. The thousands of animal sacrifices were not in and of themselves effectual, but sins were forgiven because they were representations of the true sacrifice that would be made later by the Lamb of God.

In verse twelve a different word is used for redemption, λύτρωσις, defined as 'redemption, a ransoming, deliverance from the penalty of sin': "With His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

We notice that this word is related to the work of a priest who offers a sacrifice for the sins of the people.

Remember that this word family is based on the root word for ransom. The basic verb is λυτρόω which means 'to ransom, to redeem, to liberate by payment of a ransom'.

Paul uses this word to describe our purification by the sacrifice of Christ: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works" (Titus 2:11-14).

This word is also used by Peter: "And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:17-19).

The basic noun for ransom is λύτρον which is used in Mark 10:45. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45 // Matthew 20:28).

To whom is the ransom paid? This question has been hotly debated. Some even claim that the ransom was paid to the devil! But the devil is owed nothing. His power is solely negative. We are in the power of the devil only because we have chosen to sin and rebel against God. When God forgives our sins and transfers us into the kingdom of His son (Colossians 1:13) the devil no longer has us in his grip.

The ransom is paid to satisfy the justice of God. God's righteousness requires that sin be punished. Because of His love for us He sent His Son to become a man, to live without sin, and to take upon Himself the punishment for our sins, He "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed" (1 Peter 2:24).

The word αντίλυτρον, that also means 'ransom: what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption', is found in Paul's first letter to Timothy. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:5, 6).

Two other words used to describe the atonement of Christ have the basic meaning 'to buy'.

The word εξαγοράζω means 'to buy up, to buy back, buy off, to ransom, to redeem'. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree')" (Galatians 3:13). "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Galatians 4:4, 5).

The word αγοράζω is simply the common word for 'buy'. God has bought us with the blood of His Son!

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20).

"You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23).

Certain false teachers "will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1).

The 'new song' is sung in heaven by those who have been purchased by the blood of Christ. "And they sang a new song, saying: 'You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation'" (Revelation 5:9). "They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb" (Revelation 14:3, 4).

Another word family has the basic meaning of 'restore a relationship, reconcile'.

One form is αποκαταλλάσσω which means 'to reconcile, to restore to favor'. Paul explains how God reconciled us to Himself by Christ.

"For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight" (Colossians 1:19-22).

"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16).

This word family has the verb καταλλάσσω and the noun καταλλαγή: 'to reconcile' and 'reconciliation'. The basic meaning is 'reunite after separation'.

"For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" (Romans 5:10, 11).

"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).

Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins! We have all sinned and deserve to die. But God loves us so much that He sent his Son to undergo the penalty for our sins. He redeemed us by His blood. He bore our sins in His body on the cross. He paid the price for our sins so God could forgive us without violating His own righteousness.

If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, if you are willing to turn away from sin and dedicate your life to God, if you are willing to confess Christ, and if you are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the remission of your sins (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38), you will be redeemed by the blood of Christ. Your sins will be washed away (Acts 22:16) and you will be reconciled to God (Romans 5:10).

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

Intertwining love by Gary Rose




Now this picture does indeed say a thousand words. For how do you really explain the bond that exists within a family; especially that which exists between a mother and her child?

Familial love encompasses so many emotions and actions, which vary from family member to member. The love between husband and wife is different in type than between a child and a parent. The love between siblings is different as well. And, family love is different than the kinship you may have towards someone outside the family. “Family” means a commitment in a deeper sense, a no “matter what happens” sort of thing that is quite often sacrificial.


In the original Greek, the deepest sacrificial love is called agape (αγαπας). The love between friends, phileo (φιλω) is more like “an affection for”. This will be important later on...


After Jesus’ Resurrection, the apostles went back to their prior occupation of fishing. Jesus encounters them at the sea of Tiberias and helps them get fish; almost more than they can handle. The apostles bring them to shore and Jesus prepares a meal (John 21:1-14) Then, after the meal, this interesting exchange occurs…


John 21 ( World English Bible )

15 So when they had eaten their breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "“Simon, son of Jonah, do you love (αγαπας) me more than these?”"

He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection (φιλω) for you.”


He said to him, "“Feed my lambs.”"


16 He said to him again a second time, "“Simon, son of Jonah, do you love (αγαπας) me?”"

He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection (φιλω) for you.”


He said to him, "“Tend my sheep.”"


17 He said to him the third time, "“Simon, son of Jonah, do you have affection (φιλεις) for me?”"

Peter was grieved because he asked him the third time, "“Do you have affection (φιλεις) for me?”" He said to him, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I have affection (φιλω) for you.”


Jesus said to him, "“Feed my sheep. "


Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agape in Greek, above) him (more than these [the fish they just caught]). Peter keeps on saying the he “has affection for” (the word for friendship, above in Greek phileo) Jesus. This repeated question irritates Peter, as I imagine the call to feed or care for the lambs of Jesus does as well.

The point here is that if you really love with the greatest love (that is the sacrificial kind embodied in the word agape) then you will not ignore other family of God members and do what real family members do (take care of one another and build them up). Occupations are important, but family is MORE important!


As Christians, we are not alone, we are part of the body of Christ and therefore members of one another. We are to love and build one another up because we love with the highest love that there can be. We learn (and keep on learning this) this love from Jesus and express that love to the world and especially to our brethren, Galatians 6:10. Our lives are as intertwined with our brethren in Christ. We may not express it in quite the same way as the picture at the top (because we do not have a trunk) but, there is no doubt; CHRISTIANS ARE FAMILY, REAL FAMILY!