Results 61 - 80 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184332 | ||
Hi stj Thank you for your previous note of support and your present note. With regard to Genesis 1.26 I had only cited it as an example. I am very happy for anyone who sees it in that way to take it as indicating the triunity of God as I said to CJBD. It is clearly a subject on which there is wide disagreement. In such a case it is only The Yorkshireman who said to his friend, "Only thee and me is right, and even thee's a bit wrong sometimes' who would argue about it. Dr Constable commenting on 1:26-27 puts it this way, "Us" is probably a plural of self-deliberation (cf. 11:7; Ps. 2:3), though possibly God was addressing His heavenly court (cf. Isa. 6:8). This word involves "in germ" the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we should not use it as a formal proof of the Trinity since this reference by itself does not prove that one God exists in three persons.77 "Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage."78 The theological controversy in Moses' day was not between trinitarianism and unitarianism but between one self-existent, sovereign, merciful God and many limited, capricious, often immoral gods.79 Perhaps it is best if we leave it like that? Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
62 | study notes on the woman at the well? | John 1:1 | jonp | 184320 | ||
Hi, You can access commentaries on John by IVP and Dr Constable at http://www.geocities.com/petepartington/ | ||||||
63 | What about physical attraction? | 1 John 2:16 | jonp | 184318 | ||
Hi, I am going to speak very plainly for I can see that you are eyeing up the tree of knowing good and evil and I am a little concerned for you. The first thing that we have to recognise is that Jesus clearly taught that when a man and woman marry they are one for life unless there is adultery, and that regardless of their sexual attraction for each other. Of course in Jesus' day men and women were often not able to choose their partners. They had to put up with what they got. But this made no difference to God's requirement. While I consider that your wife should be in Christian submission and should thus seek to do what pleases you, just as you should be seeking to do what pleases her, nevertheless we cannot allow, a failure to do this to cancel out the greater commandment. To let your eyes wander will be to make you a spiritual adulterer. That is unquestionable. Modern man lays too much emphasis on his rights to this and that. But as Christians we have no rights. We have handed them over to Jesus Christ. What about Jesus' rights? Being attracted to each other in marriage is a bonus. But not being so does not affect the underlying priciple that two have been made one in God's eyes for life. Building up theories which Scripture knows nothing about will not countermand that, and however soothing they may sound they are clearly wrong if they go against God's clear commandment. As the text which you began with points out what you are talking about is not of the Father but is of the world. You talk as though being attracted to women who are fit is OK. But it is not of the Father, but is of the world. What is of the Father is that you should be wholly given over to serving Him and that includes ensuring that you maintain your Christian love for the woman you have married, even if the 'attraction' fails. If she sadly lets herself go, and you have my full sympayhies, that does not affect God's spiritual requirement for you which is paramount. So no excuse or web of clever thinking can release you from your basic obligation in God's eyes. That way leads to shipwreck. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
64 | what will happen to all of israel | Rom 11:25 | jonp | 184317 | ||
Hi All the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6.16; John 15.1-6), will be saved Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
65 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184307 | ||
Hi I'm afraid I must be a bit thick but I fail to see how the verses you have cited reveal the triunity of God. My answer would be 'Almighty God'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
66 | word saved definition in Romans 10:9 | Rom 10:9 | jonp | 184305 | ||
You said that you would like to know more about ‘salvation’, so here goes. Salvation is both the act by which Jesus Christ accepts those who come to Him through the cross, accepting them on the basis of His sacrifice for them when they come to Him in faith for salvation, and the resulting process through which He works in that person in order that He may present them perfect in Himself. That is why the Bible teaches different aspects of 'salvation'. It speaks of someone as ‘having been saved’ (Titus 3.5; 2 Timothy 1.9). These verse are in the aorist tense, and indicate something that has happened once for all. This occurs when a person turns to God from sin and commits himself to Jesus Christ in faith that Christ will save him. He is ‘saved’ once for all. And because the work is totally dependent on Christ it is guaranteed. It also speaks of those who ‘have been saved and are therefore now are saved’ (Ephesians 2.5; 2.8). These are in the perfect tense and and indicate something that has happened in the past the benefit of which continues to the present time. These two definitions are what is in mind when we say a person has been ‘saved’ and is therefore now saved. But the Bible also speaks of those who “are being saved” (1 Corinthians 1.18; 2 Corinthians 2.15). These references are in the present tense and indicate a process that is going on. God is at work in them to will and do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). And then the Bible speaks of those who will be saved (1 Corinthians 3.15; 5.5; 2 Corinthians 7.10; 1 Thessalonians 5.9; 2 Thessalonians 2.13 ). These are in the future tense and indicate something that is yet to happen - and equivalents. In other words, when God ‘saves’ someone they are from one point of view saved once and for all, and it is fully effective. But if it is genuine it will then result in a process by which they are being ‘changed from glory into glory’(2 Corinthians 3.18), with the final guarantee of a completed process. If the salvation is not progressing, even though slowly, then its genuineness must be questioned. The Saviour does not fail in His work. Consider a man drowning at sea, in a fierce storm, clinging to a life raft with one hand, his other arm broken and trailing behind, and both his legs paralysed, having been many hours in the freezing water and suffering from hypothermia, more dead than alive. Then along comes the life boat and drags him out and he gasps, hardly able to speak because of the seriousness of his condition, “I am saved”. Well, it is true. He is no longer doomed. But he has a long way to go. He would not have much confidence in his salvation if they put him to one side in the bow of the boat, with the waves lashing over him, and said to him, “Well, you’re saved now”, and then went off and played cards and then practised turning the lifeboat over. His confidence and dependence lie in a fully trained and capable crew who are dedicated to warming him up, treating him and getting him to hospital so that he can be fully restored. So as they get to work on him, wrapping him in a blanket and gently warming his frozen limbs, trying to set his broken arm and doing everything else necessary to restore him to some kind of normality, he can begin to have hope and think gratefully to himself, “I am being saved”. But he may well still be aware of the winds howling round, and the boat heaving in the heavy seas, and the pain and agony of his limbs, and he may then look forward and think, “I will soon be saved”. If those crewmen, and the ambulance waiting for him on shore on that terrible night, can be so dedicated, can we think that the One Who died on a cross for us on an even more terrible night, will be less dedicated? He does not just want us in the lifeboat. He wants us fully restored. And that is what He is determined to have. And if we want to be saved that is what we must want! We cannot say, ‘Lord, save me, but leave me as I am’. This salvation is entered into by an act of faith and commitment. As we genuinely recognise our need to be saved (in every way) from sin we commit ourselves completely to the One Who Saves (the Saviour), and trust Him to carry out the work, knowing that once He has begun the good work He will carry it out to the end (Philippians 1.6). We are then ‘saved’, and have entered the process of ‘being saved’. |
||||||
67 | word saved definition in Romans 10:9 | Rom 10:9 | jonp | 184295 | ||
Hi An appreciation of the significance of the word 'saved' in this verse is better discovered by a study of the whole letter to the Romans which defines and expands on it. What it is declaring is that God's salvation in Jesus Christ is available to everyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord (both God and Master) and believes that God raised Him from the dead, thus vindicating Him and revealing Him as God's saving solution for the world. Through Him is offered the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Romans 1.16). And Paul then goes on to demonstrate that it is effective in two ways. First of all in having us 'declared righteous' before the court of Heaven through faith in His sacrifice for us on the cross (3.24-25), and secondly through the imparting of the Spirit of God to work mightily within us delivering us from sin (Romans 5-8).And all this as a result of our putting our trust in Jesus Christ as our Saviour. The word sozo means to make whole, whether physically or spiritually. Here it is in the future indicative passive indicating that for the person in question who has not yet confessed Jesus as Lord, or believed in the resurrection, that is the way in which he can enter into and experience God's salvation from sin and its consequences. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
68 | woman at the well impact women today | John 4:10 | jonp | 184294 | ||
Hi Only in that it brings home three of the most vital factors which can affect the world today. Firstly because in it Jesus reveals Himself as the spring of eternal life of which he who drinks will never thirst again (John4.10-14), secondly because it reveals that those who worship God do not have to go to any special holy place but can worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4.20-24) and thirdly because it reveals that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world (John 4.42). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
69 | What is Glory of the Lord? | Ps 19:11 | jonp | 184291 | ||
Hi Something of the meaning of this is brought out by the glory Psalm (29). In that Psalm the glory of the Lord is depicted in terms of a huge, violent and memorable storm that shook the whole of Palestine and its surrounds. It was so powerful that it reminded the Psalmist of both creation ('the voice of the Lord' repeated seven times, compare 'and God said') and the Flood (the Lord sat enthroned over the Flood). He opens by calling on the angelic court to witness it and through it proclaim the glory of the Lord (verses 1-2), and that glory is then revealed in awesome fashion. And the idea is that it reveals that the Lord of glory still reigns in the heavens. But it is the final verse that is especially relevant. For this mighty storm was not to be seen as a judgment (lthough it no doubt was that), so much as an indication that God would strengthen His people and would (paradoxically) give them peace (verse 11), while they in the Temple cried 'glory!' (verse 9). This was the glory of the Lord falling on them indeed. But for us the glory of the Lord falls on us in another way, for in 2 Corinthians 3.18 we, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from glory into glory, even as by the Lord, the Spirit. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
70 | Matthew 18:18 | Matt 18:18 | jonp | 184281 | ||
Hi The power of binding and loosing was given to a Rabbi when he received 'the key of knowledge' on graduation. It meant that in interpreting the Law, for which he was now seen as qualified he could either bind people to the strict letter of the Law or could loose it a little by giving it a different interpretation. Thus Hillel loosed the Law when he said that a man could divorce his wife if she displeased him. Shammai insisted that it could only be for uncleanness found in her. Thus here the Apostles were being given the authority to make binding regulations for the Christian church and interpret the Scriptures in term of God's requirements with their interpretations being binding on the church because they would be confirmed by Heaven. But this did not of course entitle them just to decide what they liked. In order to fulfil this role they were given a special enduing of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room (John 20.21-23) when their minds were opened to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24.45) in accordance with Jesus' promises to them earler (John 14.26; 16.13). It was not an authority that was ever passed on. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
71 | What is tithing? | OT general | jonp | 184268 | ||
Hi. The paying of a tenth to kings to whom one owed dues in the ancient world was standard practise (Genesis 14.20). It is testified to archaeologically. God applied the practise for the purpose of maintaining those who served Him. On top of the stipulated offerings and sacrifices that the people had to make to God, and the offering to Him of all the firstfruits, together with abundant freewill offerings, the people of Israel had to set aside one tenth of all their yearly produce, both of cattle, sheep and goats, and of what was grown. This was then (putting it simply) used as follows. Each year the tenth went to the levites. One tenth of that tenth was given to the priests. The remainder maintained the levites. But every third year the tithe was set aside for the poor of the land (Deuteronomy 14.28-29). This was probably stored by the levites and distributed on application. The levites would also probably help the people in their understanding of God and ensure the fulfilment of God's laws in various ways. For that reason they were scattered throughout the nation. The gathering of the tithes and ministering of them would have taken up a great deal of their time, and not a little tact. There would no doubt be many attempts by people not to pay their dues. But the huge benefit that resulted from it both religiously and socaially cannot really be doubted Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
72 | lake of fire and hell..difference? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184266 | ||
Hi, The Lake of fire is a human representation of the awfulness of God's judgment. Clearly a literal Lake of fire would be of no problem to Satan at all. For Satan is a spirit being. What it is depicting is God's ultimate punisment which is actually beyond man's conception. Hell or Gehenna is depicting the same idea in a different way, in this case using as an illustration of unbelieving man's awful spiritual destiny, the burning piles of rubbish outside Jerusalem in the valley of Hinnom. To look over the walls of the city at night and see the never ceasing flames consuming the rubbish must have been an awesome sight. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
73 | why is solomons reign seen as a tragedy? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184265 | ||
Hi Because in spite of beginning well he allowed his riches, his power and his wives to lead him astray from God thus fulfilling the warnings that God had given in Deuteronomy 17.16-17) and eventually (after his death) causing the break up of the kingdom. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
74 | Lasting efects of Assyrian deportation | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184263 | ||
Hi, The lasting effects on Northern Israel was a country emptied of the cream of its population with resulting chaos and devastation. Eventually peoples from other nations were introduced and this resulted in a watered down form of Yahwism. Some see the Samaritans as resulting from this but that is in fact now seriously questioned. For Southern Judah it resulted in a decimated land and the limitation of the country to a few square miles. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
75 | the conflict between Baalism And Yahwism | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184262 | ||
Hi The conflict was between the true and living God and the fantastic absurdities that man had invented about a world of gods. The One was worshipped from the heart and required righteous living. The others were 'worshipped' by indulging in illicit sexual activity, and even occasionally offering human sacrifices, and paid little heed to how you lived. They were too busy (in theory) sinning themselves. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
76 | Test the spirits | Luke 8:28 | jonp | 184261 | ||
Hi, 1 John 4.2 is referring to testing the spirits of the prophets. The point is that when a prophet speaks you can test his spirit by what he says about Jesus Christ. That is a very different thing from a testimony wrung out from a tormented spirit face to face with the Master and unable to deny Him. Behind His back he would almost certainly have denied Him. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
77 | what are the 5 crowns and scripture? | James 1:12 | jonp | 184260 | ||
Hi Perhaps the incorruptible crown (1 Cor. 9.25), the crown of rejoicing (1 Thess 2.19; the crown of righteousness (2 Tim 4.8); the crown of life (James 1.12; Rev 2.10); the crown of glory (1 Pet 5.4). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
78 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184258 | ||
Hi Steve. May I say that I have no objection to entrenched positions. I have a number myself and two of them are concern for the glory of God and a recognition that Scripture is the sole authority for our knowledge of God as it shapes our inward awareness of God. But I am unable to agree that we should not use 'worldly' illustrations. I have often been blessed by a good 'worldly' illustration, and Jesus used them often. Perhaps my illustration could be interpreted in the wrong way. Unfortunately this is true of all illustrations. Someone will always pick up the wrong angle. It is even a problem for our Lord Himself. You only have to read commentaries on the parable of the Unjust Judge to realise that. The point behind my illustration was that when someone says 'let us --' it does not necessarily signify that all are going to take part in the action. Perhaps a better illustration might have been a committee. All the committee may be called on to back a proposal but it does not involve them all in the action. Quite regularly the proposer is left to carry out the action with the full agreement of the committee. (And please do not come back at me because you do not like the idea of God being on a committee :-))). It is simply the principle which is involved, not the fine details). And I am quite happy to exchange 'heavenly court' for 'heavenly companions' or heavenly escorts' or 'heavenly servants'. All I really wished to say was that God wanted to involve His heavenly servants in the same way as He seeks to involve us. There does not seem to me to be anything degrading about that. Indeed it appears to me to reveal infinite condescension and love. But I may be alone in this (although actually I am not as a vast number of commentatotors agree with me) but I really cannot see how 'the man has become like ONE OF US' can be seen as simply indicating the triunity of God. It would be exalting man to far too high a plain, especially as it was very much sinful man who was in question. I had not intended to say anything more on the subject, (although not for the reason that you gave), but thank you for giving me the opportunity just to add these final explanations Cordial best wishes Jonp | ||||||
79 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | jonp | 184254 | ||
Hi In fact the Gospels regularly depict Jesus as a prophet, for that is regularly how the people saw Him. Indeed He made clear in Luke 4.18-21 that that was one way in which He saw Himself, as the Anointed Prophet of Isaiah. Thus He did initially introduce Himself as a prophet (compare also Matthew 13.57 and parallels; 14.5; 21.11; Luke 24.19), although this would gradually build up into the recognition that He was the Messiah, and indeed the very Son of God. Do you not think that prophets were purposeful? Psalm 69.9 originally had in mind a mere Psalmist. Of course Jesus was totally purposeful, but He responded to situations and it is quite clear that initially He did not press His Messiahship. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
80 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184206 | ||
Hi Jeff, A good principle in Scripture is to commence with what is clear, and then to move on to what is not clear, and finally to interpret what is not clear by what is clear. So much false teaching arises because people speculate on what is unclear without measuring it against what is clear, and then try to fit what is clear into it. Let us now apply this principle to the Genesis 1.26. Of course if this verse stood on its own we would not have too much to go on. But the Scriptures in fact do provide us with another similar verse where the issues are much clearer. If you turn to Genesis 3.22 you will find another reference to ‘us’. And in a similar way to 1.26 the ‘us’ remain unidentified. So by all laws of reasonable exegesis, being in the same general context, we must surely see it as referring to the same ‘us’. However I would suggest that in this example the situation is clearer. In 3.22 God says, ‘Behold the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil. And now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever --’ therefore the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim --- to guard the way to the tree of life.’ Here there is specifically a reference point for ‘us’. It is the Cherubim to whom He gave the task of preventing access to the tree of life. But we do not just have to rest on that connection, although it helps. We can also consider God’s words. Here a change has taken place in man. He has now begun ‘to know good and evil’, and the verb used suggests to know by experience. And furthermore by this he has become ‘like one of us’. Now we can of course argue that the triune God knows good and evil, having experienced it not in Himself, but in His wider creation. And that is true. But ‘like one of us’ here gives a decided suggestion of plurality far in excess of what we would expect to find in a book which emphasises the oneness of God, if God alone was in mind. Indeed if its reference is to God alone then it leaves itself wide open to being interpreted as signifying more than one God. And it would surely be a really strange way of speaking. For the Hebrew is very clear and specific. It is not ‘like us’ which could just possibly be explained as signifying the triunity of God, but ‘like ONE of us’. So we must ask, who else ‘knows good and evil’?. Clearly not someone in this world for up to this point good and evil were experientially unknown. Thus it makes us look to those beings who had seen for themselves what evil as evidenced in the behaviour of the sinister figure who lay behind the snake. They had seen Heaven rent by good and evil. Thus I would suggest to you that in this case the ‘us’ clearly has in mind those heavenly beings who surround the throne of God, including the Cherubim who are at each corner of His throne (note the cherubim on the Ark, which represents the throne of God, and the Cherubim who accompanied the throne of God in Ezekiel 1. See also the four living creatures in Revelation 4). And when we see its connection with the Cherubim in what follows the answer appears to be even more certain. But if this unusual and unexpected ‘us’ means the angelic hosts in 3.22 I personally do not see how it can mean any other in 1.26. That would be to make two mysteries, and to fail to accept the guidance of Scripture. For it is my experience that if we look carefully Scripture always explains itself. Thus we now come to Genesis 1.26 with a recognition that ‘us’ in the opening chapters of Genesis has in mind the heavenly court. But Genesis 1.27 makes clear that it was God Himself Who was involved in creating man, just as He alone created all things. Why then a reference to His court? I would suggest that the answer is because He wanted them to feel involved in what He was doing, for once He had done it He had a special purpose for them in it. They were to serve the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1.14). And every now and again throughout the Old Testament and then throughout the New we find them performing those services. Who was it who guarded the prophets? Elisha’s answer was that it was the hosts of God (2 Kings 6.17). Compare also Joshua 5.14. Often as a father I have said to my children, ‘let us do this’, even though I know that it is I who am going to do it, simply because I want them to be involved in what I am doing. And it gives them a far greater interest in it. They feel as though they have a part in it. And that is what God wanted His court to feel. Thus to me this verse in 1.26 indicates the graciousness of the Creator in involving in His creation, those beings who surround His throne, so that they have an interest in what He is doing. For He wants them to be involved in it and to be interested in it and His final purpose is the unity of all things. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |