Correct Me If I Am Wrong

"The first one to plead his cause seems right, 

Until his neighbor comes and examines him." 

(Proverbs 18: 17 nkjv) 

I have previously written on this wise proverb in the posting titled "A Wise Proverb - Invite Criticism" (See here). This time I have titled this follow up as "Correct me if I am wrong," which is a common request that speakers make when stating a presumed fact. Oftentimes this is said regarding some minor detail as when one says "the meeting time is Sunday at 9 A.M. at the public library; correct me if I am wrong." Rarely however does a bible teacher or politician, or other such persons, ask for such correction on more important issues. That is sad and not healthy. I contend that we should all invite examination of our beliefs, desiring "constructive criticism." In another posting titled "Again, I Am Befuddled" (See here) I wrote on this subject. In that posting I said:

"I do not think that my attack upon erroneous interpretations is wrangling. I try to avoid all logomachies and disputes over tertiary issues. What I am trying to do with erring brethren is to persuade them. I am also at the same time testing my interpretations. We are called of the Lord to "correct" those who are in error, especially about fundamental doctrine. Correcting is a delicate business. People don't like to be corrected. I used to often correct the grammar of others and I found most of them do not like it, although some don't mind at all, especially those who want to speak correctly. People don't like to be told that they are wrong. Many take a challenge to their ideas and interpretations as a personal attack." 

Maybe I am an oddball, but I invite criticism. Why? Because I don't want to be wrong. I want to be right and therefore if anyone can correct me, he or she does me a great favor. Not only that, but I also find it beneficial for my preacher brethren to sometimes tell me they agree with what I have written. I wrote on this in another posting titled "The Need For Colleagues" (See here), affirming that bible teachers and students need to collaborate on interpretations of scripture. Paul told the Corinthian brothers to "examine yourselves whether you be in the faith" and to "prove your own selves" (II Cor. 13: 5). I don't think that means that the only ones who are authorized to examine ourselves are our own selves, that no one else has the right to examine me. However, the text in Proverbs above tells us differently. 

How do you think a bible teacher or preacher would react if he or she was challenged regularly on his or her interpretations of scripture, whether they be on minor or major points? Some would no doubt say to themselves "this  person is a nitpicker?" or "why is this person on my case all the time?" I am happy to say, however, that this has not been the case with me and I believe that one of the commendations that I will receive from my Lord in the judgment of believers will be in regard to this character trait. I don't believe it is generally a good thing to toot one's own horn; But I don't think it is wrong to see yourself as you really are nor to put on a false show of humility. 

We are to judge ourselves, or be critics of ourselves. So the apostle advised, saying "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." (I Cor. 11: 31 kjv) Of course, as many wise men have testified, we are often our own worst judges. We are either too hard on ourselves in judgment and self criticism, or we are too lenient, often becoming defensive when someone challenges our beliefs. Like the apostle James we may well say "brothers, these things ought not so to be." (James 3:10) 

We should be honest judges and critics, both of ourselves and of others. We must realize that most people are like the people described in the days of the Judges of Israel - “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21: 25) The fact is, however, most people are right in their own eyes even when they are wrong. Therefore we ought to seek the judgments of others concerning our behavior and beliefs for they often give us a perspective that we are blind to see. Solomon also said: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice." (Prov. 12: 13 esv) Here "advice" includes hearing other's opinions, judgments and criticisms of ourselves. Notice these words of the wise king Solomon on the importance of being willing to listen kindly to honest criticism from others: "Whoever heeds life-giving correction will be at home among the wise." (Prov. 15: 31 niv)

A new testament example of how honest criticism and correction is a good thing is in the case of Apollos, an eloquent and mighty preacher. Luke writes: 

"He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 18: 26 esv)

I want my brothers to give me feedback on what I write. I covet it. I also think that it is a duty that our brothers and neighbors owe to us. Parents owe it to their children to correct them. Teachers owe it to their students to correct them. We ought to be open to correction and not become defensive when criticized.

Of course there is a proper way to judge, examine, appraise, and correct our friends and neighbors. Notice Paul's words on this point:

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition." (2 Tim. 2:24)

What think ye? Can I get an amen?

Why Did Christ Forbid Preaching To Gentiles?

Why did Jesus command his evangelistic apostles to not go to the Gentiles during his three and a half year ministry and to only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? For many believers, and even for many bible teachers, they will stumble to answer this question. It can be a hard question for many to explain why, to discern God's purpose in this restriction. Before we answer that question, let us put before the readers the leading texts that deal with that question.

"21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” 23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” 27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour."  (Matt. 15: 21-28 nkjv)

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt. 10: 5-8 nkjv)

Next, let us notice a couple commentaries. Barnes Commentary on Matthew 10: 5 says:

"Into the way of the Gentiles - That is, among the Gentiles, or nowhere but among the Jews. The full time for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was not come. It was proper that it should be first preached to the Jews, the ancient covenant people of God, and the people among whom the Messiah was born. Afterward he gave them a charge to go into all the world, Matthew 28:19."

Notice that Barnes does not explain why the evangelists were forbidden to go to the Gentiles. All he says is that "the full time for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was not come." But why was it not come? Why must the Gentiles wait until the Jewish people had been preached to first? 

John Gill wrote in his commentary:

"they were not, as yet, to go among them, and preach the Gospel to them; the calling of the Gentiles was not a matter, as yet, so clearly revealed and known, nor was the time of their calling come: besides it was the will of God, that the Gospel should be first preached to the Jews, to take off all excuse from them, and that their obstinacy and perverseness in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, might manifestly appear; and since Christ himself was the minister of the circumcision, he would have his apostles, for the present, whilst he was on earth, act agreeably to the character he bore, that there might be an entire harmony in their conduct."

About "the calling of the Gentiles" not being "a matter as yet so clearly revealed and known" I will have more to say later when we address the question as to whether the new testament church was a subject of old testament prophecy. I do agree with Gill in affirming this. However, Gill was often inconsistent on this point. Further, Gill does not tell us why the calling of the Gentiles (and by extension the creation of the new covenant 'church') was not very clearly revealed in the old testament. Further, there was no doubt more than one reason or purpose behind God's limiting the announcement of the good news of the kingdom to the lost sheep of the house of Israel than the ones mentioned by Gill in the above commentary. Yes, a secondary purpose was "to take off all excuse from them," and in order that "their obstinacy and perverseness in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah might manifestly appear," but the greater reason he does not mention. 

Some say that it is because Christ did not want to incite prejudice from the Jews by going to the Gentiles (Broadus). Some say it was because the apostles needed to be trained first by going only to Israel before they were equipped to go to the Gentiles (Carson). Though there might be some truth in these answers, they do not give us the main reason or purpose. Before we delve deeper into these questions, let us note some other scriptures that speak of the superiority of the Jews in regard to the good news of the kingdom of God. "Why Did Christ Forbid Preaching To Gentiles?" Or, a similar question "why to the Jew first?"

To The Jew First?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." (Rom. 1: 16 nkjv)

"but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Rom. 2: 8-10 nkjv)

“You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3: 25-26 nkjv)

"But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 45-46 nkjv)

So, why was it "necessary" that the word of God, or the gospel of the kingdom be first preached to the Jews when Christ appeared and began his ministry?

The Offer of the Kingdom to Israel

J. Dwight Pentecost in his famous book "Things To Come" (See here) wrote (emphasis mine):

"It is a well established fact that the Jews at the time of Christ were anticipating a literal fulfillment of the Old Testament theocratic kingdom promises. It has been stated: 

It has been universally admitted by writers of prominence (e.g. Neander, Hagenbach, Schaff, Kurtz, etc.) whatever their respective views concerning the Kingdom itself, that the Jews, including the pious, held to a personal coming of the Messiah, the literal restoration of the Davidic throne and kingdom, the personal reign of Messiah on David’s throne, the resultant exaltation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and the fulfilment of the Millennial descriptions of that reign. It is also acknowledged that the utterances of Luke 1:71; Acts 1:6; Luke 2:26, 30, etc., include the above belief, and that down, at least to the day of Pentecost, the Jews, the disciples, and even the apostles held to such a view.…they regarded the prophecies and covenanted promises as literal (i.e. in their naked grammatical sense); and, believing in the fulfilment, looked for such a restoration of the Davidic Kingdom under the Messiah, with an increased power and glory befitting the majesty of the predicted King; and also that the pious of former ages would be raised up from the dead to enjoy the same." (Chapter xxvi - "The Kingdom Program In The New Testament")

This is a truth that must be recognized if we are to answer our question. All prophecies have been literally fulfilled. We will demonstrate this when we publish our planned series on how to interpret the prophecies of the Bible. 

Pentecost, under the sub-heading "THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM OFFERED AT THE FIRST ADVENT OF CHRIST" writes:

There are different views currently held as to the kingdom that was announced at the first advent of Christ. The liberal view is that Jesus adopted the social and political aspirations of the people of His day and announced a kingdom in close conformity to that expected by Israel on the basis of the Old Testament prophecies. However, during the course of His life it became apparent that Israel would not receive His offered kingdom and therefore He abandoned that expectation because of the opposition and subsequent discouragement. The spiritualized view is that Jesus adopted the spiritual elements of the Old Testament prophets, abandoning all the political and national aspects, and offered a spiritual kingdom to all who would believe. The literal view, supported by the study of the New Testament, is that the kingdom announced and offered by the Lord Jesus was the same theocratic kingdom foretold through the Old Testament prophets."

The kingdom of God was to be spiritual, yes, but it was also literal and involved a new age in a new heavens and earth, and a theocracy.

Pentecost writes further:

"A. The Old Testament theocracy was offered. The kingdom offered to Israel was the same theocracy anticipated in the Old Testament. Bright says: But for all his repeated mention of the Kingdom of God, Jesus never once paused to define it. Nor did any hearer ever interrupt him to ask, “Master, what do these words, ‘Kingdom of God’, which you use so often, mean?” On the contrary, Jesus used the term as if assured it would be understood, and indeed it was. The Kingdom of God lay within the vocabulary of every Jew. It was something they understood and longed for desperately."

The same observation is stated again: 

"The New Testament begins the announcement of the kingdom in terms expressive of its being previously well known…The preaching of the kingdom, its simple announcement, without the least attempt to explain its meaning or nature, the very language in which it was conveyed to the Jews—all presupposed that it was a subject familiar to all. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Seventy, all proclaimed the kingdom in a way, without definition or explanation, that indicated that their hearers were acquainted with its meaning."

No Jew in the time of Christ, and no apostle, defined the kingdom as being the church, or a spiritual reign in the hearts of believers merely. Later on we will look at some of these prophecies and see that it included what is physical, earthly, and related to the new Jerusalem and the new heavens and earth and Christ' rule on earth along with the nation of Israel and the new testament church.

Pentecost continues:

"By the term “at hand” the announcement is being made that the kingdom is to be expected imminently. It is not a guarantee that the kingdom will be instituted immediately, but rather that all impending events have been removed so that it is now imminent."

This is a very important fact to understand. Had the nation of Israel accepted Christ their king, then the kingdom would have then been realized. But, since they rejected it, it was postponed and will not be realized until Christ returns again. That the words "at hand" may mean just what Pentecost says, consider the words of Peter who said "the end of all things is at hand." (I Peter 4: 7 kjv) The same word in the Greek for "at hand" is used in verse five but is translated by the word "ready," saying "They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." Further, Paul says "the Lord is at hand" (Phil. 4: 5). In all these instances the meaning is that the Lord or the kingdom is near. 

Pentecost continues under "The theocratic message limited to Israel. The kingdom that was announced was announced only to Israel" saying: 

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand [Matt 10:5-7]. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Matt. 15:24]."

Affirmed Pentecost:

"There could be no universal blessings of the Abrahamic covenant applied to the Gentiles until Israel had experienced the realization of the theocratic kingdom, in which kingdom and in whose King the nations would be blessed."

Pentecost continues under "The theocratic message confirmed" saying: 

"The authenticity of the kingdom offer was substantiated by signs and miracles. When John the Baptist asked Christ, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3), doubtless because John felt the Messiah could not be received if the forerunner had been rejected, the Lord replied: Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me [Matt. 11:4-6]. The signs given by Christ were evidences of the power that would reside in the theocratic king and manifestations of the blessings that would exist in the kingdom. Peters well states:

[The miracles of Christ] are so related to the kingdom that they cannot be separated from it without mutual defacement. Thus it is represented by Jesus Himself (Matt. 12:28), “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto (or as some, upon) you”. Here we have, 1. The relationship existing between the kingdom and miracles; that without the latter the former cannot be revealed. 2. That miracles are a manifestation of possessed power, which Jesus will exert when He establishes His kingdom. 3. That the miraculous casting out of devils, or Satan, is an event connected with the kingdom, and its accomplishment through Jesus is thus verified as predicted, e.g., Rev. 20:1- 6. 4. That the miraculous casting out of devils by Jesus is a premonition, anticipating, foreshowing, or foreshadowing…like the transfiguration, of the kingdom itself. The miracles then are assurances vouchsafed that the kingdom will come as it is predicted. The miracles of Jesus are so varied and significant in the light of the kingdom that it can be readily perceived how they give us the needed confidence in its several requirements and aspects. The resurrection of dead ones is connected with the kingdom; that the keys of death hang at Christ’s girdle is shown in the miracles of [raising the dead].…Sickness and death are banished from the inheritors of the kingdom; the numerous miracles of healing various sicknesses and of restoring the dying, establish the power existing that can perform it. The utmost perfection of body is to be enjoyed in the kingdom; this is foreshadowed by the removal of blindness, lameness, deafness, and dumbness. Hunger, thirst, famine, etc., give place to plenty in the kingdom; the miracles of feeding thousands attest to the predicted power that will accomplish it. The natural world is to be completely under the Messiah’s control in that kingdom; the miracles of the draught of fishes, the tempest stilled, the ship at its destination, the walking on the sea, the fish bringing the tribute money, the barren fig tree destroyed, and the much-ridiculed one of water changed into wine, indicate that He who sets up this kingdom has indeed power over nature. The spiritual, unseen, invisible world is to be, as foretold, in contact and communication with this kingdom; and this Jesus verifies by the miracles of the transfiguration, the demoniac cured, the legion of devils cast out, passing unseen through the multitude, and by those of His own death, resurrection and ascension. Indeed there is scarcely a feature of this kingdom foretold which is to be formed by the special work of the Divine, that is not also confirmed to us by some glimpses of the Power that shall bring them forth. The kingdom—the end—is designed to remove the curse from man and nature, and to impart the most extraordinary blessings to renewed man and nature, but all this is to be done through One who, it is said, shall exert supernatural power to perform it. It is reasonable therefore to expect that as part of the developing of the plan itself, that when He first comes, through whom man and nature are to be regenerated, a manifestation of power—more abundant and superior to everything preceding—over man and nature should be exhibited, to confirm our faith in Him and His kingdom."

In view of this Pentecost well concludes:

"Every miracle which the Lord performed, then, may be understood to be not only a demonstration of the theocratic power of the Messiah, but also that which depicts the conditions which will exist in the theocratic kingdom when it is established."

The kingdom does not now exist since those conditions do not now exist in Israel or in the world. When the kingdom does come, when Christ comes again, these will be the conditions.

In the next chapter we will continue in this line of thought.

I Speak As A Man

"But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"?--as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just." (Rom. 3: 5-8 nkjv)

In this text I want to focus on the words in bold above where Paul says in parentheses "I speak as a man." 

Many bible students stumble at some things stated in the book of Ecclesiastes, such as when he says "the dead know not anything." (Eccl. 9: 5) However, what they fail to understand is that Solomon in that book often speaks as a man, that is, as it appears to men apart from divine revelation. 

Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:

"I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind. It does not mean that the language was such as wicked people were accustomed to use; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view would seem to follow from what had been said."

That is correct. Notice some other instances where Paul said the same thing.

"I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh." (Rom. 6: 19 nkjv)

"Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also?" (I Cor. 9: 8 nkjv)

Or, as another translates the verse:

"I am not just asserting these things according to human judgment, am I?" (nasb) 

"Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it." (Gal. 3: 15 nkjv)

So, in conclusion, when you read the book of Ecclesiastes keep in mind that Solomon speaks as a man, seeing things as a man sees them outside of the context of God and providence. This is similar to "looking on things after the outward appearance." (II Cor. 10: 7) But, as any wise person should know, things are not always as they appear. It is in the conclusion of Ecclesiastes that Solomon puts things in context, God and his providence being that context. 

Things are not always as they seem. Wisdom and experience demonstrate this. Perspective is very important. Things are not always what they look like. People are often guilty of "jumping to conclusions." So Christ advised - "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7: 24 nkjv) The Amplified translates this way: "Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance (superficially and by appearances); but judge fairly and righteously." 

The Walking Dead

In the movie "Sixth Sense" we have the famous line "I see dead people and they don't know they're dead." This is certainly true of those who are spiritually dead, i.e. those who are lost in sin. Many of them do not know that they are dead to God and righteousness. Or, we may say that they are in a "stupor," which is defined as "a state of near-unconsciousness or insensibility," wherein a person is unresponsive to stimuli, being in a kind of coma or where they are numb. 

Another genre of movies that has proliferated over the past few decades deals with zombies, or "the walking dead." Again, as we will see, every lost sinner may be viewed as one of the walking dead, spiritually speaking. 

Jesus said to several would be disciples “Follow me" and we find three responses to that counsel in Luke chapter nine. One of those said "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." Jesus responded to him saying, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:59–60). As nearly all bible teachers affirm, by "the dead" is meant not the physically dead, but the spiritually dead. In other words, he is saying "let the spiritually dead bury their own (physically) dead." 

We also read of some professing Christians whom Paul described in the following words: "But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives." (I Tim. 5: 6 nkjv) Again, we have spiritual zombies or the walking dead. Likewise we read these words of the risen Lord to the church of Sardis:

"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, 'These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead." (Rev. 3: 1 nkjv)

By being dead we are to understand not only being cut off or separated from God and life, but cut off from all that pertains to life. But, on that we will have more to say shortly. First, let us notice these words of the apostle Paul:

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world" (Eph. 2: 1 nkjv)

Notice that! The walking dead! God is life. So, to be separated from him is death. Eternal hell is for this reason called "the second death" because they are forever separated from God and from all good. (Rev. 2:11, 20:6, 20:14, and 21:8)

This spiritual death is further described in these verses:

"Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed." (Eph. 4: 19 niv)

"Just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.” (Rom. 11: 8 nkjv)

"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." (Rom. 5: 6 nkjv) 

A dead person does not see, hear, or feel. So, those who are spiritually dead are likewise without feeling for God, unable to hear or see him because this death has made them blind and deaf and possessed of a cauterized conscience which can no longer feel sensation. (See I Tim. 4: 2) Dead skin, or scarred tissue, no longer has feeling, being calloused. Also, that which is dead lacks ability or strength. So, sinners are impotent and need the grace of God to become sensitive to God and his stimuli towards them. They need to be awakened or quickened. So the apostle writes: "Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light." (Eph. 5: 14 nkjv) Sinners therefore need to be aroused from their slumber, to be made sensible of their sins and of their standing before God. 

There is of course a difference between being "dead in sin" and being "dead to sin." Concerning the latter Paul wrote: "Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6: 11 nkjv)

To be dead in sin is to be dead to God, dead to righteousness, dead to life, etc. On the other hand, to be dead to sin is to be alive to God and righteousness. A person then may be dead to one thing while at the same time being alive to another thing, death being relative to a particular thing. Those who are dead in sin are very much alive to sin. They are dead to God, to spiritual things, to righteousness. 

In the state of spiritual death the sinner needs to be aroused by the Spirit and word of God. Many scholars call this "prevenient grace," a grace that goes before actual salvation, being a means of awakening the conscience and spirit so that a transformation of spirit may occur. Such convenient (or preceding) grace puts the dead sinner in a state wherein he becomes aware of God and his lost condition. It is when God gets the attention of the sinner. So we read of the conversion of a woman named Lydia:

"A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14 kjv)

By "opening" the heart of this woman simply means that God made her attentive to the things Paul was preaching. We are dependent upon God to open hearts, carnal minds, to him, his word, and his salvation. Remember that Paul said "to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life" (Rom. 8: 6).

Friend, are you one of the walking dead? Are you dead and don't even know it?

Is Satan Bound Now?

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while." (Rev. 20: 1-3 nkjv)

Amillennialists tell us that this Apocalyptic scene has already occurred, or is now the case, affirming that Satan was bound when Christ came the first time and defeated him at the cross and by his resurrection. There are various schools of thought among Amillennialists about the nature and extent of this binding; And about the place where the effects of Satan's binding are realized. Some believe that the reign of Christ with his saints is now occurring in the church age but that this reign is not by saints on earth but by dead saints in heaven in the intermediate state. Others say that the reign is by saints on earth, but that it is a spiritual reign in conjunction with living a Christian life. So, that is the first issue to decide. Who is directly benefited by the imprisoning of Satan, the inhabitants of heaven or earth?

Is Satan being bound in order to keep saints in heaven from being deceived by Satan? Surely not, for that would imply that saints in heaven were deceived prior to this binding of Satan. That is totally untenable as all should confess. 

Further, not only is Satan bound or chained so as to limit his activities (such as deceiving the nations) but he is also "shut up" in prison so that not only is his ability to deceive people on earth prevented but his very presence is removed from the earth. He is not being shut out of heaven but shut out of the world of human beings. So, Amillennialists must affirm that Satan is not only prevented from his activities, such as deceiving people, but his ability to tempt them, oppress them, or influence them in any way is also prevented. The binding and imprisoning of Satan is in relation to this world. 

Amillennialists say that Satan was bound and imprisoned in the bottomless pit sometime during the earthly career of Christ. They will say that some, but not all, of the activities of Satan are prevented. But, what was he able to do before the coming of Christ that he could not do after? Some agreeably say it is his being unable to deceive but will contend that he is 1) only prevented from deceiving the elect and 2) not a hindrance from any and all deception. But, in response we ask "so Satan could deceive the elect before the coming of Christ?" Some Amillennialists will say that the binding is a mere restraint or limitation placed upon the work of Satan via God's providence. But, that has always been the case. The case of the prophet Job demonstrates the fact that Satan could only do what God suffered him to do. Is that, however, the binding of Satan of the text in Revelation chapter twenty? 

The bottom line is simply this: Satan is deceiving the nations, or the peoples, as much now as he has ever done and this is proof that the binding and imprisoning of Satan has not yet occurred. Satan still has a presence in this world and is affecting it in many ways and this is further proof that he has not yet been cast into the bottomless pit.

John Walvoord in "Is Satan Bound?" (At Bible.org - See here; emphasis mine) wrote:

"The Scriptures present, then, on the one hand the great power of Satan and on the other hand that this power is limited and under the sovereign control of God. It is important to note that the premillennialist, seeking as he does to honor the Word of God, does not for one moment deny that the power of Satan is limited in the present age, in fact, in any age. Strangely, some amillennial writers have attempted to demonstrate that the premillennial view is erroneous by pointing to Scriptures which speak of Satan’s limitation. Both the Old and New Testaments bear a clear revelation on this point, and all millennial views must accept what the Scriptures teach. Whether this limitation should be identified with the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 is quite another issue. While all agree that Satan is limited, all do not agree that Satan is bound."

Exactly so. Walvoord writes further:

"Whatever view may be taken of the nature of the millennium, it is obvious from the passage whether taken literally or symbolically that Satan is bound before the millennium. If, then, the millennium is still future, it follows that Satan is not bound, but if the millennium has already begun and is now in progress, as the amillennialist believes, then Satan must be bound now. The usual amillennial approach to this passage points out the fact, which all recognize, that the book of Revelation uses symbols, that its chronological scheme is that of recapitulation, and that it is therefore difficult to determine dogmatically what the exact meaning of any symbol may be and the exact place in the chronological plan of the book in which to fit each new revelation. It is the opinion of the writer, however, that the events of the nineteenth and twentieth chapters are progressive and successive and that this is plain in the nature of the narrative, but it is not necessary to assume this in order to determine the meaning of the binding of Satan."

Again, this is spot on. I plan to write against the idea that the things in the Apocalypse are not given in the order of their occurrence, against the idea that the events connected with the seals, trumpets, and bowls are instances of recapitulation. If we do see things chronologically in the Apocalypse, then we will see how the binding and imprisoning of Satan occurs after chapter nineteen and the coming of Christ. 

Walvoord writes further:

"A fact apparently overlooked by the amillennial interpretation is that the binding of Satan is not the total of his limitation. According to Revelation 20:3, Satan is not only bound but the angel “cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him....” This is not even a symbolic picture of partial limitation, but of total limitation. Only the premillennial interpretation can fit such a description." 

Agreed. Satan is not only imprisoned in the bottomless pit, but he at that time has no presence in the world. Let the Amillennialist who believes Satan is now in the bottomless pit come forward and explain how he can now be in the pit and yet be free to roam the world.

Every evil spirit that Jesus and his apostles cast out of people was a prelude to the time to come when not only Satan, but every evil spirit, will be cast out of this world so that there will be no evil spirits present in the world during the thousand years. So Jesus said: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you." (Luke 11: 20 kjv) The kingdom of God will have fully come when Satan and his evil demons have been cast out of the world. 

Walvoord writes further:

"As has been previously stated, one of the peculiarities of the amillennial position is that they cannot agree among themselves as to the extent of the binding of Satan." 

That is true. Amillennialists have a difficult time proving to us that Satan is now chained in the bottomless pit and is not able to deceive the people any longer. I heard one Amillennialist say that Satan, though imprisoned in the bottomless pit, is still able to run his criminal enterprise from prison like other inmates have done. That is quite ridiculous. The prison where Satan will be confined is a God built prison and such will not be possible. 

Walvoord writes further:

"What is the testimony of the Scriptures? Can Satan deceive the nations now? Is he totally inactive? We need only quote Scripture." 

After saying this, Walvoord cites several scriptures that show that Satan is very active in this world at present and very active in deceiving people. But, we will cite one. Peter writes: “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (I Peter 5:8 kjv) If Satan is now walking about on the earth and in the world, then obviously he is not confined to the pit. If he is on the hunt for prey, then he is not confined in the pit. 

Satan is called "the god of this age" (II Cor. 4: 4) and is blinding the people. But, such language is against the idea that he is now bound with chains in the bottomless pit and unable to deceive anyone. Jesus also referred to Satan as the "prince" (Grk. "archon" or ruler) of this age. Said Jesus: "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." (John 12: 31 nkjv) This was a prophecy of the binding and imprisoning of Satan that we read about in Revelation 20: 1-3. Some Amillennialists will argue that the above text shows that Satan was "cast out" of the world shortly after Jesus spoke those words and that this is inferred from his twice use of the word "now." But, that is a false inference. What Jesus is saying is that his victory over sin and death removes the only thing preventing his casting out and his imprisonment, and it is the Lord's prerogative to choose the exact time when that happens and that time is when Christ comes the second time.  That event is now next on the divine agenda.

Walvoord writes further:

"Satan is seen to tempt, to deceive, to blind, to buffet, to hinder, to work signs and lying wonders, to have children (i.e., unbelievers), to walk about seeking whom he may devour. Is this a picture of Satan bound? Is this in harmony with the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3? The obvious answer is that Satan is not bound, that he still deceives, that he still has great power, and that in respect to the earth he can severely attack both the Christian and the unsaved-howbeit in the will of God."

Satan is obviously not bound now nor excluded from our world. The Amillennialist who argues that Satan is now in the bottomless pit is taking that view to scripture and not deriving it from scripture. 

Walvoord writes further:

"Compare these Scriptures with the following statement of the amillennial view by William Masselink: “The binding of Satan for a thousand years is the symbolical figure used to teach us that his power is completely broken for a season... From this passage in Revelation we learn that Satan is bound in a two-fold sense: in the relative sense and in the absolute sense. With respect to the nations he is not bound completely. The result of this binding is that he can deceive the nations no more. In regard to the saints he is bound in the absolute sense. The glorified souls are entirely beyond his dominion?” 

 

Revelation 20:1-3 teaches, in contrast to William Masselink, that Satan will be completely bound, that he will be totally inactive. At the present time, the Scriptures themselves indicate the continued activity of Satan, his attacks upon saints in the earth, his deceiving of men."

Amillennialists may talk about how Satan is bound but with a "long chain" but it is however a view that is forced upon the text. The plain faced reading of the text tells us that Satan is cast out of this world, and is placed in the pit where he can no more have influence in the world. There is no need, however, to "water down" all that is involved in the binding and imprisonment of Satan. Just as the Book of Genesis began with Satan entering into the world to tempt Adam and Eve so the Book of Revelation ends with Satan being excluded from the world. 

Walvoord writes further:

"Floyd Hamilton’s argument from Matthew 12:24-29 that Satan was already bound at that time is refuted by the plain facts of the context. In the first place, Christ does not say that Satan is bound-he uses the word only in the illustration. Obviously, Satan was not bound in the sense of Revelation 20:1-3 as demon possession abounded. Even Mr. Hamilton would be loath to state that the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Christ were not deceived by Satan. Yet his hypothesis demands that Satan can no longer deceive the nations. He states, “The way of salvation has been opened to all nations and there is nothing that Satan can do to block that way.” Does not the Scripture reveal that the reason for the unbelief of the world in relation to the Gospel is due to Satan’s deceptive and blinding work (2 Cor 4:3, 4)? How is it that after nineteen centuries of proclamation, the Gospel has yet to win even a majority of those who have heard it? How is it that in contrast to the Christian faith with its Spiritual power the heathen religions such as Mohammedanism are actually gaining converts faster than Christianity? How is it that apostasy has overtaken the church to-day? There can be only one answer, and that is that Satan is working, deceiving, hindering, blinding, devouring. If so, then Satan is not bound, nor is he shut up where he cannot deceive the nations. If Satan is not bound, then the millennium is yet future and our hope is for the coming of the Lord."

Does Matthew 12: 24-29 teach that Satan was bound when Christ came the first time?

"Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.” 25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad."

There is no question that Satan is "cast out" of a person when demons are exorcised from the bodies of people. But, that is not the same casting out of Satan from the world that Jesus spoke about in John 12: 31 or John wrote about in Revelation 20: 1-3. That Satan is bound when a person is liberated from demon possession is not denied, nor is it denied that he is in some sense bound when a sinner is saved. But, that is not the binding or casting out of John 13: 31 or Revelation 20: 1-3. That it is a miniature of it is not to be doubted. But it is not the thing itself. Satan is not imprisoned in the bottomless pit every time a demon is exorcised. Satan's deceiving of people does not cease when a person is saved. 

Amillennialists say that "a strong man's house" is a reference to the world of human beings and that Jesus is saying that in order for him to enter Satan's house he had to first bind Satan. But, that is reading too much into the text. Further, we may ask "when did Christ bind the strong man?" By this interpretation he would have bound Satan even before he entered the world via his incarnation and cannot be interpreted to mean that he bound Satan by his later death and resurrection. It is a far-fetched idea to say that Satan was chained in the bottomless pit all through the life of Christ. So, did he come to Christ in the temptation in the wilderness or not? 

Walvoord writes further:

"A study of all the factors which enter into the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 leads to three conclusions: (1) Satan is not now bound and shut up in the abyss in relation to heaven, though his power has always been limited. (2) Satan is not now bound and shut up in the abyss in relation to the earth, though here too his power is limited; Satan stands judged and defeated; and Christ is victorious. (3) The binding of Satan and his period of total activity are still future and will constitute a major feature of the future millennium on earth. There is not now nor ever will be a fulfillment of the prophecies of a righteous rule upon earth until after Satan is bound-an event coincident with the return of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom."

That is correct. Prophesied the Lord Jesus Christ:

"Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." (John 12: 31 nkjv)

Commentators at Precept-Austin (See here) give us these comments (emphasis mine):

"Clearly Satan is still active and powerful today in the world (1Pe 5:8-10+, Eph 6:10-20+) so that the words he will be cast out is a prophecy to be fulfilled in the future and will be progressive or in stages (see note below). It reminds me of the term "prophetic aorist" (although I realize cast out is future tense in this verse), which describes a future, unfulfilled event in the past tense, because it is so sure to be fulfilled. By analogy, the future casting out of Satan is as we sometimes say "a done deal!" Why? Because at the cross Jesus defeated the ruler and sealed his future doom forever. Satan now operates as a defeated foe with a finite amount of time left to operate."

That is also correct. Even in Revelation 12: 9 Satan is still called "the deceiver of the whole world" and that is what he is throughout the Book of Revelation until we get to Revelation 20 when he is cast out of the world and imprisoned in the bottomless pit and not able to deceive anyone any longer. 

In closing let me say that the Amillennial view that affirms that Revelation 20: 1-3 or John 12: 31 has been fulfilled already has no legs to stand on. People who do not have a bias will admit that Satan is not now bound nor cast into the pit.

Beliefs about the Afterlife (LXXXXV)

This chapter will be the conclusion of this long series on the afterlife and life in eternity. Like the apostle said "now of the things we have spoken this is the sum" (Heb. 8: 1) or as the wise king Solomon said "let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter" (Eccl. 12: 13), so we now say. Over the previous ninety four chapters we have given what the bible says about the afterlife and about life in the eternal ages to come. We first looked at what is called "the intermediate state," the place where those who have died go in spirit. We looked at the meaning of the Hebrew concept of "sheol" and of the three new testament words translated as "hell," which are Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. We looked at the state and condition of people who occupy those places. We also looked at what the bible says about the next age, the age that will last exactly one thousand years, and of the new heavens and earth and about what life will be like for those who inherit it. 

We also addressed some of the thousands of questions that people have about the afterlife and about life in the ages to come. We also spoke of how there are so many questions that are not so easily answered and how in these there is some "speculative theology." 

I have enjoyed doing this series. It helped me to fine tune my own beliefs. It involved a lot of research, time, and energy and I can only hope that it will be of some help to others who perchance will read some or all of these chapters. I am sorry that I got so few comments on these chapters, either publicly or privately, even though the statistics show that many people read the chapters, some more than others. All writers want feedback, especially what may be called "constructive criticism." 

I don't know how many such series I will be doing in the future, seeing my age and health problems are what they are. I have written many such series over the past sixteen years and each of them could be put into book form (whether e-book or otherwise). I think I will be doing more single postings or short series on topics and texts. 

Heaven, the new heavens and earth, the New Jerusalem, Paradise, will be all joy and pleasure. No more death, no more pain and suffering, no more worry and stress. Glorious things to contemplate!

Beliefs about the Afterlife (LXXXXIV)

There is coming a day when there will be no more death, with the exception of the second death where all those condemned will spend eternity. But, for those who will dwell in the eternal city of God and who are members of the ongoing human race there will be no more death. By a necessary implication we can affirm that there will also be no more sin. Wherever there is sin there is death, for "the wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6: 23) If there is a time coming when there is no more death, there must be no more sin. Sin will be impossible. In the previous chapter we saw how God will ensure that sin, either indwelling sin or overt transgression, will one day no longer be possible. But, what about "original sin"? Consider this question in light of three statements in the Apocalypse: 1) there will "be no death" (Rev. 2: 4), 2) "there will be no more curse" (Rev. 22: 3), "behold I make all things new." (Rev. 21: 5). 

For those who believe that there will no longer be a self propagating human race after Christ comes, or after the millennial reign, the problem of original sin is no problem. With the end of the human race being what it was originally constituted, there is of course no one being born, and thus no one being born in sin or guilty of the sin of Adam. But, in the earlier chapters we took the position, in agreement with Seiss, that the human race will continue throughout the ages to come. If that is true, then we must address the question as to whether people will continue to be born in sin, whether they will be "shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin" (Psa. 51: 5). 

When Paul affirms in Romans chapter five that "all die" as a result of being condemned by Adam's sin, does he not mean all his offspring? If that is so, then it seems that the human race, if it continues on indefinitely generation after generation will not be free of sin, and if not free of sin, then not free from death. One of two things must ensue at this point. Either original sin must be eliminated, no longer being reckoned or imputed to men, or the idea of an ongoing human race must be denied. Here we see how eschatology (doctrine of last things) effects both hamartiology (doctrine of sin) and soteriology (doctrine of salvation). 

I believe that when it is affirmed by the apostle that "in Adam all die" (Rom. 5 and I Cor. 15: 22), he means all that Adam represented, which would include every human being born of his seed up until the time when he "makes all things new" and when "there is no more curse" and "death no more." Further, the fact that Christ was not born with original sin shows that not all the seed of Adam are condemned by the sin of Adam. Adam did not represent Christ. This shows that God is at liberty to impute or not impute the sin of Adam whenever it pleases him. Some believe that original sin is accounted to children when born through the human father's seed, and Christ not having a human biological father did not have original sin reckoned to his account. Both ideas seem to be true. 

Further, a good case can be made for the proposition that Christ sacrificial death for sin actually canceled man's debt of original sin. The only thing remaining relates to the time when this cancellation will occur, when God will no longer account humans sinners at birth. That seems to occur following the millennial age when all things are made new and there is no longer curse or death. If the human race, as a race, is "redeemed," then this must include the eradication or non imputation of the sin of Adam. 

Some bible scholars think that John 1: 29 affirms that Christ atoned for original sin so that no one is condemned for it any longer. That text reads as follows: "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (nkjv) The word "sin" is singular and not plural (sins) and may well indeed be "the sin of the world" of the text. 

Surely "original sin" is a "curse" reckoned against the entire human race. But, a day is coming when there will be "no more curse," therefore there will no longer be any imputation of the sin of Adam. So also will other consequences of sin be no more. Women will no longer bear children in pain and travail. They will no longer be dominated by men. Men will no longer toil the ground or work by the sweat of their faces, the ground no longer being cursed. 

If all things are to be made new, why would this exclude the human race as a race? Surely making the human race new would involve the elimination of original sin. 

Alexander Campbell on Ordo Salutis

Alexander Campbell, one of the leaders who started the "Restoration" movement in the early 19th century, which later spawned those sects who call themselves "Church of Christ," or "Christian Church," or "Disciples of Christ," etc., battled the Hyper Calvinism he saw in both Presbyterian and Baptist circles, and one of those elements of Hyperism is the idea that sinners are regenerated or born again before faith and repentance. Ironically, however, he agreed with many Hyper Calvinists in opposing many of the things those in the "anti mission movement" (which later spawned the Two Seed, Hardshell, sects) believed, such as opposition to mission societies and to theological education (although he later espoused seminary instruction). 

I agree with Campbell in opposing Hyper Calvinism and the view of some who say that a man must be regenerated or born again before he believes and repents. Here is what Campbell said about the controversy:

Alexander Campbell (12 September 1788 – 4 March 1866) wrote (as cited by me here; emphasis mine):

"The popular belief of a regeneration previous to faith, or a knowledge of the gospel, is replete with mischief. Similar to this is a notion that obtains among many of a "law work," or some terrible process of terror and despair through which a person must pass, as through the pious Bunyan's slough of Despond, before he can believe the gospel. It is all equivalent to this; that a man must become a desponding, trembling infidel, before he can become a believer. Now, the gospel makes no provision for despondency, inasmuch as it assures all who believe and obey it, upon the veracity of God, that they are forgiven and accepted in the Beloved.

A devout preacher told me, not long since, that he was regenerated about three years before he believed in Christ. He considered himself "as born again by a physical energy of the Holy Spirit, as a dead man would be raised to life by the mighty power of the Eternal Spirit." Upon his own hypothesis, (metaphysical, it is true,) he was three years a "godly unbeliever." He was pleasing and acceptable to God "without faith;" and if he had died during the three years, he would have been saved, though he believed not the gospel. Such is the effect of metaphysical theology." (MARCH 1, 1824 - "Address to the readers of the Christian Baptist")

Though I cannot agree to Campbell's views on several points in his soteriological system, yet I agree with him in denying that regeneration or the new birth precedes evangelical faith and repentance. See this posting where I cite extensively from Jeremiah Jeter who overthrew the mistakes of Campbell in his ordo salutis. (here)

In my posting titled "Why Alexander Campbell Left The Baptists?" (See here) Campbell writes to J.M. Peck, Baptist leader and missionary:

"You next enter upon the dogma that the Spirit, Without The Word, regenerates the soul of the sinner. My controversy with the Baptists began on this dogma. You admit it was the dogma of some of them; but you say they were of an antinomian cast: yet you only except Andrew Fuller. Well, if the old Baptists were all or chiefly antinomians—and especially all those with whom I was associated; and if the new Baptists since Fuller's time have discarded this antinomianism, is it not time that, at least on this point, there should be an end of the controversy between the good Fullerite Baptists and us?

In my long series on "Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts" I showed how the bible shows rather clearly that sinners are born again, regenerated, converted, and renewed by faith, by a faith union with Christ. This was the view of the Protestant Reformers, men like John Calvin and Martin Luther.