Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: maxpower Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193709 | ||
Jim, I can appreciate your dilemma with the ‘land of Moab’. Indeed the references regarding the land or plains across from Jericho are not what the scripture indicates as Moab in other passages; most especially that which was not given Israel as a possession. The reference to the Amorite kingdom which was given to Rueben and Gad as the ‘land of Moab’ in Deuteronomy 32:49, et al is likely due to the history noted by Moses in Numbers 21:26-31. Here he speaks of a previous war where the Moabites lost part of their land to the Amorites; this is the land between the Arnon and Jabbok rivers. That noted, it is generally accepted that the story of Ruth occurred at a point in history shared by the timeline covered by the book of Judges. Now, the book of Judges records a dispute between Israel and Ammon which notes the following: Speaking of Israel at the time of the Exodus the author notes, “Then they [Israel] went through the wilderness and around the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came to the east side of the land of Moab, and they camped beyond the Arnon; but they did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab.” When the scripture says here, ‘they did not enter the territory of Moab,’ it is plain that the people of the day considered the ‘land of Moab’ to be what was at that time the nation of Moab and not what was previously the Amorite kingdom; that is the land taken from Moab. So when the book of Ruth refers to the land of Moab, it is reasonable to accept that the author refered to the nation, not the previously owned territory. As for Ruth’s lineage; to begin with it generally accepted that she was of Moabite descent. From the text, as the ‘Moabitess’ she must be considered descendant of Moab. And when she said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God,” (Ruth 1:16) she removes all doubt. For certainly no Israelite would deny that her god was the God of Israel and swear Him allegiance with the same breath. As for the ordinance of Deuteronomy 23; God’s love for David appears to have leapt forward to James’ proclamation, where he notes in chapter 2 verse 13; “mercy triumphs over justice.” How fortunate for us, lest the Son of David not be welcome in the assembly of the LORD… MP PS - Thanks that was fun... |
||||||
2 | Why did God hate Esau? Romans 9:13 | Mal 1:3 | maxpower | 193688 | ||
The simple answer is found in the book of Hebrews; “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; … that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.” (Heb 12:15-17) Looking at it more deeply we see, this passage refers to Genesis 25:30-34; Esau selling his birthright, and 27:30-40, where we find the consequences of that faithless transgression. For, after Jacob had obtained the blessing Esau came to Isaac and said, “Let my father arise and eat of his son's game, that you may bless me.” But Isaac’s reply regarding the blessing Jacob obtained by deception was, “Yes, and he shall be blessed.” So, “When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, ‘Bless me…’ But Isaac replied to Esau, ‘Behold, I have made him your master… Now as for you then, what can I do, my son?’ Esau said to his father, ‘Do you have only one blessing, my father?’ …So Esau lifted his voice and wept. Then Isaac his father answered and said to him, ‘Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, And away from the dew of heaven from above.’” We see here that the repentance Esau sought for, ‘with tears,’ was not his own but that of his father, that he might obtain the blessing. So a millennium and a half later when God looked back on the outworking of both this blessing and curse, He spoke these words through Malachi, in response to Israel’s transgressions; “But you say, ‘How have You loved us?’ ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ declares the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.’ … Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever.’” (Mal 1:2-4 Paul has used this example as evidence of God’s sovereign choice, that of believers whom He loves, and the unbeliever whom in the hindsight of His judgment, He has hated… Scary but none the less true, especially in light of Rom 11:17-24 MP |
||||||
3 | Is demonic possession relevant today? | Acts 19:13 | maxpower | 193659 | ||
Michael, Proof that demons were still present on the earth after the ascension and that they inhabited people There's the slave girl in Acts 16:16-18; The "man in whom was [an] evil spirit" Acts 19:13-16; Those confronted by Phillip Acts 8:5-7; by Paul Acts 19:12; by Peter Acts 5:16 I'd say your friend doesn't have a leg to stand on... MP |
||||||
4 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | maxpower | 193451 | ||
While it is well argued that the moral law has an application as a sentry for believers, the ceremonial law has no application (for righteousness sake) to those who have placed their faith in Christ. For this reason the writer of the book of Hebrews indicates, “For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.” (Heb 7:18) Further, Paul wrote to the Colossians, “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch’,” (Col 2:20-21) insisting that, “these are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom ...but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Col 2:23) This further illustrates, that adherence to rules of the flesh, no matter the source of rule, do not convert the ungodly to the godly. Further, Mark writes, regarding Jesus, “And He said to them, ‘Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ Thus He declared all foods clean.” (Mar 7:18,19) By this He set the foundation for what Paul clearly taught; that, “…we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom 3:28) In short, ‘Yes, any time,’ since this command has no application to believers in the way of righteousness. For what reason would we be seeking to observe these statutes, other than for the sake of righteousness. If, therefore, we are seeking to be justified by the observance thereof, then "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Gal 5:4) So, in this sense the Law of Moses ‘is not’ still valid, given that Paul also wrote, “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘the righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…” (Gal 3:11-13) |
||||||
5 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | maxpower | 193254 | ||
Wow, all these responses and yet no real answer that I could see. I'll give it a shot, despite the inauspicious warning below. I think you could look at this question two ways and benefit from both. First, from the tempters point of view. Of course his point is simple; to destroy our Lord, just as he did with Adam. In other words his point was just to get Him to sin. Given that Peter wrote, “the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour,” I believe he would, for obvious reasons, especially target our Lord. In fact, the book of Job indicates quite well, that the devil’s tempting ways are not daunted, even by the impeccable nature of our God. Since, God Himself, testified against him saying, “…although you incited Me against him to ruin him [Job] without cause” [Job 2:3] By way of commentary, although I may get my wrist slapped for this, I’d like to add this. I heard a line in a movie once that described our adversary so well I’ve never forgotten the gist of it. A couple of screenwriters, James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd wrote this, about the antagonist in one of their films. “He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!” [Paraphrased] I think that sums his (the devil) mind set up pretty well. In summation, given that the only weapons of his warfare are the temptations that achieved our demise, quite naturally he would assail our Lord with them, for the same purpose. Now, since the adversary is just a tool in the hands of the master craftsman, another way to look at it would be, from the Almighty’s point of view. From here we might gather, that He suffered this temptation for our benefit. The writer of the book of Hebrews said, “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” [Heb 2:18] A purpose for His temptation could not be clearer; since He was tempted, he can come to our aid. Also it was written, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin,” [Heb 4:15] indicating clearly that He can “sympathize with our weaknesses;” thus the benefit to us is more than just aid or empathy; its identity. So, “He Himself was tempted.” What an agony that must have been for Him; to go from one who “cannot be tempted by evil,” [Jas 1:13] to the one “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant.” [Phil 2:6,7a] For what reason? Again, for our benefit. |
||||||
6 | # of times Forgiveness is in bible | Bible general Archive 3 | maxpower | 193239 | ||
Kelli Jo, As Makarios wrote the word appears seven times. However, you may be interested to know that the Hebrew word translated forgiveness appears three times - translated forgiveness, forgivenesses, and pardon. While the Greek word appears sixteen times as - forgiveness, remission, deliverance, and liberty. At least that's as near as I can tell. |
||||||
7 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | maxpower | 193224 | ||
Hi Cheri, This is a great topic; perhaps the reason you hear people speaking that way comes from statements like Paul’s, in 1Timothy, It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (ch1:15) Notice he wrote ‘among whom I am’, not I was. So, you will have to change ‘never’ to ‘hardly’ ;) Also, I like to look at it in this way: for the most part the Holy Spirit in the scriptures speaks prophetically, that is looking forward to our destination. For instance, when the angel spoke to the cowering Gideon, calling him ‘mighty man of valor’ he did so seeing the deliverance that was coming by Gideon’s hand. But, Solomon in Ecclesiastes warns us, “Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself? Do not be excessively wicked and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time? It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them.” (Ecc 7:16-18) From this, we see he is not speaking so much about our behavior, as how we view ourselves, especially when we approach God, if you will. So when Peter begins his second letter, “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” (2Ptr 1:1) it seems that he is, in fulfillment of Solomon’s words, remembering both the sinner, signified by Simon, his mother’s son, and the saint, signified by the new name given him by his Lord, which of course was Peter. So I don’t think we a calling Him a liar when we remember how much we depend on Him to remain in His grace. |
||||||