Bible Hermeneutics

There is a rule in bible interpretation, or hermeneutics, which says "If the Literal Sense Makes Sense Seek No Other Sense." This is the rule I believe the bible writers themselves seemed clearly to adhere to. Does that mean that everything in the bible is literal? That there are no figures, types, parables, metaphors, similes, and such like? No; The literal interpretation of the bible accepts all these. So, how do bible students determine what is literal and what is non-literal (or what is figurative or symbolic)? 

We get our word "hermeneutics" from the Greek word that is translated into English bibles as "interpret," "interpreted," or "interpretation." The verb form of the Greek word is "hermēneuō" and may mean either to translate or to interpret. 

I believe that the bible is to be interpreted literally. I also believe that this is true in regard to bible prophecies. That is my thesis for this short series. 

I have previously written on this in my posting "Thoughts On How To Interpret Prophecy" (here) and I would encourage all to read it in conjunction with what I now write. In that previous posting I wrote, citing Bernard Ramm:

"To treat figurative language as if it were literal, and to treat literal language as if it were figurative, constitute two of the greatest hindrances to understanding the meaning of the Bible."

One example to consider in regard to this issue has to do with the Communion Supper, often called the Eucharist, and whether the words of Christ are to be interpreted literally or figuratively, the words "take eat for this is my body (or flesh)" and "drink, for this is my blood." Though I take the bible literally, that does not mean that there are no figures or figurative language in the bible, for the bible is full of figures, types, likenesses, similes, metaphors, etc. 

We should take the bible literally unless there are reasons in the context or in reason to not do so. It is possible that the words of Jesus about the bread and wine being his body and blood are literally true, context however and common sense leads us not to do so. If I hand a photograph of my daughter to a friend and say "this is my daughter" it is well understood that the photograph is not my literal daughter, but is rather a figure of her. This is how the words of Christ are to be interpreted. They all understood that Jesus meant "this is a symbol or figure of my body and blood." The same thing may be said about the washing, or salvation, that is connected with the rite of Christian baptism (Acts 22: 16; I Peter 3: 21). This ritual, like the rite of the Eucharist, is a picture, a figure, a type, a symbol. In Romans 6: 5 it is called a "likeness" which is from the Greek word "homoiōma" and means likeness, figure, or symbol. Peter says that baptism in water is a "like figure" of salvation. So, when the bible tells us something is a figure, we ought not to take it literally. 

Another example are seen in these words of the apostle Paul:

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (I Cor. 10: 1-4 nkjv)

It is generally conceded by bible teachers that the words "that Rock was Christ" are not to be taken literally but figuratively. In other words, "that Rock" was a picture or type of Christ. Many scriptures refer to God as "the Rock." Wrote the Psalmist for instance:

"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." (Psa. 18: 2 niv)

However, figurative language is used to convey literal truth. God is literally all the things we attribute to being rock. A rock is solid strength, hardness, and endurance. God is literally these things. In the above Psalm God is literally a fortress and deliverer, a refuge, a shield, a stronghold, and all this is connected with rock. 

Next I want to cite from J. Dwight Pentecost and his famous book "Things To Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology." This classic book can be read online (here). In Chapter One - "Methods of Interpretation" Pentecost writes (emphasis mine):

"No question facing the student of Eschatology is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. The adoption of different methods of interpretation has produced the variant eschatological positions and accounts for the divergent views within a system that confront the student of prophecy. The basic differences between the premillennial and amillennial schools and between the pretribulation and posttribulation rapturists are hermeneutical, arising from the adoption of divergent and irreconcilable methods of interpretation."

I believe it is true that those who take the prophetic scriptures literally become Premillennial and that the chief tenets of Premillennialism are a result of taking the prophecies literally. Most scholars acknowledge that this is the case. If so, then we should be very concerned on the question of the mode of interpreting both scripture and the prophecies thereof. However, I disagree with Pentecost when he affirms that the pretribulation and/or posttribulation views are a result of one side not taking the prophecies literally. I am a classical Premillennialist, and as such believe the rapture and resurrection of saints follows the time of "the great tribulation" and yet I take the prophecies literally. 

Pentecost continued:

"The basic issue between premillennialists and amillennialists is clearly drawn by Allis, who writes: One of the most marked features of Premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the literal interpretation of Scripture. It is the insistent claim of its advocates that only when interpreted literally is the Bible interpreted truly; and they denounce as "spiritualizers" or "allegorizers" those who do not interpret the Bible with the same degree of literalness as they do. None have made this charge more pointedly than the Dispensationalists. The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset [italics mine]."

"When Allis acknowledges that "Literal interpretation has always been a marked feature of Premillennialism" - he is in agreement with Feinberg, who writes: ...it can be shown that the reason the early Church was premillennial was traceable to its interpretation of the Word in a literal manner, whereas the cause of the departure from this view in later centuries of the history of the Church is directly attributable to a change in method of interpretation beginning with Origen in particular."

I hope to show in this short series how the new testament writers interpreted the old testament prophecies literally and that this is our guide in doing the same. One of my other theses in this series affirms that "all fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled literally." If I can demonstrate that truth, then there is no validity for any to show that prophecy has been or will be fulfilled in a figurative sense, i.e. non literally. Whether it be true that some Dispensational Premillennialists go too far in interpreting prophecy literally, being overly literal, is a matter of opinion. We have already seen where some take things literally that were not intended to be taken literally. 

Pentecost cites Hamilton who says: 

 

"Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of a Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament promises. That was the kind of a kingdom that the Sadducees were talking about when they ridiculed the idea of the resurrection of the body, drawing from our Lord the clearest statement of the characteristics of the future age that we have in the New Testament, when He told them that they erred "not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29)...the Jews were looking for just such a kingdom as that expected by those premillennialists who speak of the Jews holding a preeminent place in an earthly Jewish kingdom to be set up by the Messiah in Jerusalem."

Again, there is no question that the Jews in the time of Christ interpreted the old testament prophecies literally. There is no question that the apostles continued to do so after the ascension of Christ. None of the new testament inspired writers interpreted old testament prophecies any other way than literally. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"Therefore, the antecedent to any discussion of the prophetic Scriptures and the doctrines of Eschatology is the establishment of the basic method of interpretation to be employed throughout. This is well observed by Pieters, who writes:

The question whether the Old Testament prophecies concerning the people of God must be interpreted in their ordinary sense, as other Scriptures are interpreted, or can properly be applied to the Christian Church, is called the question of the spiritualization of prophecy. This is one of the major problems of biblical interpretation, and confronts everyone who makes a serious study of the Word of God. It is one of the chief keys to the difference of opinion between Premillenarians and the mass of Christian scholars. The former reject such spiritualization, the latter employ it; and as long as there is no agreement on this point the debate is interminable and fruitless [italics mine]."

When I was with the Hardshell (or "Primitive") Baptists I saw them spiritualize most prophecies in the old testament. Being Amillennial, they would apply nearly all old testament prophecies to the present age, to life in the church, rather than to the age to come, or to the future millennium. The prophecy of the lion lying down with the lamb (Isa. 11: 6) was figurative language to describe the peace within the church family. The prophecy of the desert blossoming as a rose (Isa. 35: 1) was also figurative of the prosperity of the church. I always had a reluctance to follow them in this kind of hermeneutics. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"Since the interpreter is not handling a book of human origin, but the Word of God, he must be equipped with an accurate method of interpretation or error will be the necessary result of his study. The fact that the Word of God cannot be correctly interpreted apart from a correct method of and sound rules for interpretation gives the study its supreme importance."

This is so true. Just ask people the simple question "do you take the bible literally" and see the answers you will get. Again, to take the bible literally does not mean that everything said in the word of God is to be taken literally. There are figures and similes and metaphors galore in scripture. I expect people to take what I say literally as a rule, but there are exceptions to the rule, and yet people do not generally take me literally when I speak in a metaphor or simile. Jesus told some to go to Herod with these words - "go and tell that fox" (Luke 12: 32). Clearly Herod was not a literal fox. Common sense tells us that. We take words literally unless context or common sense dictate otherwise.  

Sarcasm in the bible is another problem with interpreters of the bible. As all know, when we speak sarcastically, we don't want to be understood literally or as stating a truth, for it is understood that what we are saying is not literally true, the truth being the opposite of the literal. I could say sarcastically to a fool - "you are such a genius" when I really mean that you are not a genius at all. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"While many diverse methods of interpreting the Scriptures have been propounded during the course of the history of interpretation, today there are but two methods of interpretation which have a vital effect on Eschatology: the allegorical and the grammatical-historical methods. The literal method is generally held to be synonymous with the grammatical-historical method and will be so used throughout this discussion. These two methods will be considered in detail."

The method of interpretation employed by Christ and the new testament writers was clearly the grammatical or historical method.

Wrote Pentecost:

"It would seem that the purpose of the allegorical method is not to interpret Scripture, but to pervert the true meaning of Scripture, albeit under the guise of seeking a deeper or more spiritual meaning."

This is so true. When we throw away the literal method of bible interpretation, then we leave it up to each person's whim to interpret the figurative meaning. The prophecy of the lion lying down with the lamb could be made to fit any experience or state the interpreter wishes.

Wrote Pentecost:

"The allegorical method is fraught with dangers which render it unacceptable to the interpreter of the Word."

Amen.

Wrote Pentecost:

"The first great danger of the allegorical method is that it does not interpret Scripture. Terry says: ...it will be noticed at once that its habit is to disregard the common signification of words and give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author's language, but foists into it whatever the whim or fancy of an interpreter may desire. As a system, therefore, it puts itself beyond all well-defined principles and laws."

Excellent counsel! In Amillennial circles we see all kinds of examples where such whims and fanciful interpretation are common.

Wrote Pentecost:

"Angus-Green express the same danger when they write:

There is...unlimited scope for fancy, if once the principle be admitted, and the only basis of the exposition is found in the mind of the expositor. The scheme can yield no interpretation, properly so called, although possibly some valuable truths may be illustrated."

Again, all I can say is "amen." 

Wrote Pentecost:

"The above quotation suggests, also, a second great danger in the allegorical method: the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter. The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter's doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, or a host of other factors."

This is so true, especially when it comes to interpreting bible prophecy and the book of Revelation. God is his own interpreter. The scriptures interpret themselves, i.e. we see how later inspired writers interpreted prophecy.

Citing Farrar Pentecost writes: 

 

"...When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter."

Agreed. Prophecy cannot be interpreted to mean anything that comes into the mind of the interpreter. Even the symbols used in prophetic utterances are common symbols used elsewhere in the bible and have a clear usage and meaning. 

I find it interesting that those Amillennialist commentators who read of the plagues sent by God upon the land of Egypt in the Exodus will interpret them literally but when they read of similar plagues in the book of Revelation they are often interpreted non literally. The plague of locusts in the Exodus or in the prophecies of Joel are literal locusts, but not the locusts of the Apocalypse? 

Wrote Pentecost:

"A third great danger in the allegorical method is that one is left without any means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested."

Again, this is another point to remember. It is also an unanswerable objection to the allegorical method of interpretation.

Citing Ramm Pentecost adds: 

" ...to state that the principal meaning of the Bible is a second-sense meaning, and that the principal method of interpreting is "spiritualizing," is to open the door to almost uncontrolled speculation and imagination. For this reason we have insisted that the control in interpretation is the literal method."

I heard many sermons among the Hardshell Baptists that fit this description. They spiritualized many literal prophecies. For instance, Elder C.H. Cayce, one of the foremost leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" church, and who edited the paper "The Primitive Baptist" (the second one by that name) in the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th century, wrote the following in his editorial writings (see here) for March 5th, 1918 (emphasis mine):

"Brother Enoch Bledsoe, of Blackwater, Va., requests our views of (Revelation 16:13), which reads: "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." We do not feel an inclination, or desire to offer more than a few remarks in connection with the text.

The unclean spirits were like frogs; they were not frogs, but they were like them. Frogs usually make more noise as spring approaches. As you travel along, and come near a low, swampy place, in spring time, you can usually hear a great noise. So, there are some spirits which make a great noise as spring approaches. As the weather turns warm, and there are signs of approaching spring, the noise of the "big meetings" begin (an allusion to Spring revival meetings by Missionary Baptists). Frogs are amphibious-they live in water or on land. Yet they are usually more often found in low, marshy places; that is, some of them are. Others (as toads) usually hide during the day and come out to feed at night. Some species of them are hatched in the water-perhaps most of them. At first they are tadpoles. They change from tadpoles to frogs when the tail disappears. As tadpoles they live in the water. As frogs they live in water or on land. Some spirits say you can't have Christians without water (an allusion to Campbellites who say you must be baptized in water to be Christian). They have to gather 'round the water to make Christians, or rather, to make children of God. That's like the frog. 

There is another kind of frog called the tree frog. It turns the same color as the article it is on. If it is on a gray bark it will turn gray. Put it on a brown leaf, and it will turn brown. Put it on a white article, and it will turn white. Put it on a black stump, and it will turn black. Put it on a green leaf, and it will turn green. There is a spirit like that. Some folks are always of your opinion when they are with you. Put them with others whose opinion is different, and their opinion will be different. They always agree with those they are with. They can shift in opinion as quickly and as conveniently as the tree frog can change in color. Some frogs will hide under bushes and leaves, and will come out readily when it rains. The sprinkle suits them all right; but they seldom get in the water. So, there are some who like sprinkling all right; they seldom get in the water. Comparisons might be made still farther. Study the nature of frogs, and compare the same with the spirits, and you will find that these are only a few that may be correctly made."

That is a perfect example of interpreting bible prophecy by a whim, of fanciful interpretation. If the literal is not true, then its anyone's guess as to what the prophecy says. 

Wrote Pentecost:

"That these dangers exist and that the method of interpretation is used to pervert Scripture is admitted by Allis, who is himself an advocate of the allegorical method in the field of Eschatology, when he says: Whether the figurative or "spiritual" interpretation of a given passage is justified or not depends solely upon whether it gives the true meaning. If it is used to empty words of their plain and obvious meaning, to read out of them what is clearly intended by them, then allegorizing or spiritualizing is a term of reproach which is well merited."

Amen. The example given by Cayce is case in point.

Wrote Pentecost:

"Thus, the great dangers inherent in this system are that it takes away the authority of Scripture, leaves us without any basis on which interpretations may be tested, reduced Scripture to what seems reasonable to the interpreter, and, as a result, makes true interpretation of Scripture impossible."

Exactly! So, how could anyone check the interpretation of Cayce? 

Wrote Pentecost:

"It must be carefully observed that in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul is not using an allegorical method of interpreting the Old Testament, but was explaining an allegory. These are two entirely different things. Scripture abounds in allegories, whether types, symbols, or parables. These are accepted and legitimate media of communication of thought. They do not call for an allegorical method of interpretation, which would deny the literal or historical antecedent and use the allegory simply as a springboard for the interpreter's imagination. They do call for a special type of hermeneutics, which will be considered later. But the use of allegories is not a justification for the allegorical method of interpretation. It would be concluded that the usage in Galatians of the Old Testament would be an example of interpretation of an allegory and would not justify the universal application of the allegorical method to all Scripture."

Again, we see this to be true in the allegorical, figurative, or spiritualized manner that many Amillennialists are seen putting into practice.

Wrote Pentecost:

"In reply to the accusation that because one interprets types he is using the allegorical method, it must be emphasized that the interpretation of types is not the same as allegorical interpretation. The efficacy of the type depends on the literal interpretation of the literal antecedent. In order to convey truth concerning the spiritual realm, with which realm we are not familiar, there must be instruction in a realm with which we are familiar, so that, by a transference of what is literally true in the one realm, we may learn what is true in the other realm. There must be a literal parallelism between the type and the antitype for the type to be of any value. The individual who allegorizes a type will never arrive at a true interpretation. The only way to discern the meaning of the type is through a transference of literal ideas from the natural to the spiritual realm." 

Amen. Brothers, these are important observations to keep in mind as we study the bible, and especially study prophetic oracles. In the next chapter we will continue to look at further things Pentecost and others had to say about the interpretation of prophecy in eschatology.

By Faith = By Works?

A common argument by Hardshell Baptists says that "if salvation is by faith then it is by works." And, since salvation is said to be "not of works," then it is also not by faith. However, the following verse shows this argument is invalid.

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Rom. 4: 5 nkjv)

That shows us that a person is saved by faith and not saved by works. Ergo, faith is not a work. In the same chapter the apostle Paul also says:

"Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace" (vs. 16).

When I was a Hardshell this verse caused me all kinds of problems. I wanted the text to say "therefore it is of grace that it might be according to faith." But, it did not read that way. The same apostle wrote "for by grace are you saved through faith" (Eph. 2: 8). 

These verses uproot all the argumentation of the Hardshells about how faith is a work and destroys their contention that salvation cannot be "by faith." 

See my posting "Hardshell Anti Faith Preaching" (See here) for more on this denial of the role of faith in salvation.

Satan's Usurpation of the Political World

Satan is the ruler of this age (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). Satan is the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). Satan is the prince of the power of the air, who now works in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2) Satan and his agents are the rulers of the darkness of this age (Ephesians 6:12). These verses, together with the text in Matthew chapter four, tell us that Satan is a political leader. Also, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are oracles against earthly kings (Babylon and Tyre) and yet it is clear that they are puppets of Satan. In the temptation of Christ, Satan offers Christ political rule over the nations of the earth. Christ does not refute that assertion. Further, Satan says that his political rule was "given" unto him. Given by whom? Well, first by God, who by his providence suffers Satan to rule. Second, by the nations who give their sovereignties over to Satan. So we read these texts in the Apocalypse:

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast." (Rev. 17: 12 nkjv)

"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." (Rev. 16: 13-14 nkjv)

Notice how Satan through his demons are able to "go out to" the kings and rulers of the world and to control what they do, even to gather them together for "the battle of that great day of God Almighty."

Satan's influence in world politics is also alluded to in several other bible texts. The apostle John testified:

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." (I John 5: 19 niv)

"So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Rev. 12: 9 nkjv)

The fight for political power is seen in the book of Daniel in these words:

"Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia...Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come." (Dan. 10: 12-13, 20 nkjv)

Bible scholars agree that by "prince of the kingdom of Persia" is a spiritual or demonic being. This text shows that Satan, through his demons, exercises political power.  

Bible prophecy tells us that there is a coming "Antichrist," who is "the son of perdition," or son of the Devil, and who will be ruler over a one world government or as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation where he and his empire are called "the beast." 

How much influence does Satan have in our government? How much in other governments today? If we are to keep an eye on Satan's workings, we will certainly be keeping an eye on global politics in the very last days. Of course, God will also be at work among the nations as he has always been. 

United To Christ by Faith (Spurgeon)

From Charles Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" on "fellowship with him." (for November 23rd)

"When we were united by faith to Christ, we were brought into such complete fellowship with him, that we were made one with him, and his interests and ours became mutual and identical."

What do these words tell us about the "ordo salutis" of Spurgeon? He put faith in the first place, for he believed as did John Calvin, that faith is the means for being united to Christ and that all spiritual blessings come as a result of such union.

What think ye?

Study To Be Quiet?

"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you." (I Thess. 4: 11 kjv)

JBF commentary comments:

"study to be quiet—Greek, "make it your ambition to be quiet, and to do your own business." In direct contrast to the world's ambition, which is, "to make a great stir," and "to be busybodies" (2Th 3:11, 12)."

On this verse Dr. John Gill wrote in his famed commentary:

"And that ye study to be quiet,.... To live peaceably in their own families, and to give no disturbance to other families, by talebearing, whispering, and backbiting; to behave with quietness in the neighbourhood, town, or city, they dwell in, and to seek the peace thereof; and to lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, in the commonwealth, and under the government to which they belong; and not to create and encourage factions, divisions, animosities, and contentions, in their own church, or in any of the churches of Christ; and it becomes saints to make this their study, to be very solicitous for it, to strive for it, and pursue after it: the word used signifies to be ambitious of it, as what is a man's glory and honour, to emulate and strive to outdo each other, as who shall have the honour of being the quietest person, and the most peaceable member in the community..."

I think that is good commentary on what the text means. I think it means not to be a busybody, or meddler in the affairs of others; in other words, to mind your own business. Paul does follow the words "study (or be ambitious to be) quiet" with the words "do your own business." I think involved in this is to do as the following verses say (some of which are alluded to by Dr. Gill).

"quiet and secure" (Judges 18: 7, 27).

"And they found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable." (I Chron. 4: 40)

"So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. In his days the land was quiet ten years." (II Chron. 14: 1; See also II Chron. 14:5; 20:30; 23: 21)

"For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land." (Psa. 35: 20)

"He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven." (Psa. 103: 29-30)

"But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil." (Prov. : 33)

"The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing." (Isa. 14: 7)

"Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation..." (Isa. 33: 20)

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." (I Tim. 2: 1-2)

"...the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." (I Peter 3: 4)

From these verses we can fully understand what it means to live quietly. It is opposed to a noisy life. What is that? It is a home where people are shouting at one another. It is a life where the noise of evil partying is heard. It is the noise of battle, and of tumult, of those in riotous living. Of the whore described by Solomon in the Proverbs we read these words: "She is loud and wayward;her feet do not stay at home" (Prov. 7: 11). This type of noisy life is seen in a life full of revellings and riotous living. Notice these texts:

"For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." (I Peter 4: 3 kjv)

Note that the word "revellings" is from the Greek word "kōmos" and means: 

"a revel, carousal a nocturnal and riotous procession of half drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the streets with torches and music in honour of Bacchus or some other deity, and sing and play before houses of male and female friends; hence used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry." (Outline of biblical usage by Strong)

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." (Rom. 13: 13)

Here "rioting" is from "kōmos" and it and the word "reveling" cannot be thought to be a quiet affair, but rather loud and noisy. Such kinds of wicked parties are not examples of living a quiet life. James speaks of the noise of war and conflict when he writes:

"Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?" (James 4: 1 nkjv) 

You are not seeking a peaceable and quiet life it you are in riotous parties, or when you are involved in strifes, wars, and conflicts. 

I also think that striving to be quiet not only means a quiet life, but a quiet mouth. In other words we could say they include the common exclamation uttered by many to others, i.e. "keep your mouth shut." So one translation gives us these words from king Solomon: "Watch your tongue and keep your mouth shut, and you will stay out of trouble." (Prov. 21:23 NLT) The same translation gives us this proverb: "Too much talk leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut." (10: 19)

Bible verses that encourage learning to be silent include: Proverbs 17:27-28 (the wise use words with restraint), James 1:19 (be quick to listen, slow to speak), Ecclesiastes 3:7 (a time for silence), and 1 Timothy 2:11 (women should learn in quietness and submission).

Of course, studying to be quiet and minding our own business does not mean that we do not look out for each other and seek to help and advise, and even correct, our brethren and our neighbors. There is a delicate balance here in knowing when to not be quiet and when to be quiet, or when to speak loudly and when to keep one's mouth shut. So Paul exhorts - “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor” (Eph. 4: 25 nkjv)

In Baptist church covenants we often have the words "looking out for each other." This refers to the commitment among members to actively care for one another spiritually, emotionally, and practically, including offering support, encouragement, accountability, and sometimes gentle correction when needed, all based on the principle of Christian love and fellowship within the church community; essentially, acting as a supportive network for one another. (AI search)

This does not mean that we spy on each other, looking for opportunities to point the accusing finger, a thing God says he hates. (Isa. 58: 9) It also doesn't mean that we become busybodies and gossipers, but does mean that we are not prying into the lives of others in order to spread rumors. 

Friend, do you need to study to be quiet? Do you not want a "quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty"? Well, our text says to make it your ambition or your study to live that kind of life, a life where you do not call undue attention to yourself and not be a quarreler or a cause of commotion, nor be a loud and boisterous reveler, i.e. a "loud mouth."  

"Being quiet can be a struggle, but it can also be a good virtue to have. The Bible commends those who are able to keep the peace and listen, however, discourages being quiet due to timidness." (AI)

There are lots of texts in the Bible that encourage us to appreciate silence. Oftentimes we are talking, often loudly, when we ought to be quiet and other times we are silent when we ought to be speaking. We need wisdom in judging each circumstance. 

Expository Preaching Postscript

I have noticed that some who define "expository" preaching as going through a book of the bible and lecturing on each verse do shallow exposition while others go to the other extreme and do too much exposition. Some preachers who do this will read a few verses from the chapter they are in and make general comments about the verses and then move on to the next chapter or next few verses. Others however can take one verse and preach sixteen sermons on one verse such as the preacher who did so when explaining John 3: 16. So, how much exposition is needed? I find that the shallow exposition of some is short on real exposition for they fail to unpack much of what is in the text. This is why I do not favor this type of preaching. Yes, I do believe in giving exposition but those who preach on specific texts do that as well as those who preach on topics. 

As those of you who have been following this blog know, I have written other articles on this topic several times. Just use the search engine by putting in the words "expository preaching" and you will see. 

Deception By Sorceries

"for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; 

for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived" 

(Rev. 18: 23b)

In the above passage the English word "sorceries" is from the Greek word "pharmakeia." The word primarily meant “dealing in poison” or “drug use” and was applied to divination and spell-casting because sorcerers often used drugs along with their incantations and amulets to conjure occult power. Many drug users acknowledge that it is by using such narcotics that they are able to get in contact with the spirit world. The KJV translates the Greek word twice as sorcery and once as witchcraft. 

Drug use does often put a user in an "ecstatic" state (there is even a drug called "ecstasy"), into an hallucinogenic or psychedelic state. Some call this state a "God-moment," or a time of spiritual awakening. Drug users often get into a trance or dream state where they seem to experience contact with the spirit world. From ancient times such drug use has often been a part of religious ritual. It certainly was in use by the women channelers at the famed Oracle of Dephi in Greece. Witches and Warlocks also used it in their rituals and incantations and has long been associated with witchcraft and casting of spells.

Peyote is considered sacred and sacramental in the Native American Church, also known as Peyotism. It's used in rituals in order to commune with spirits and God or the gods, and in order to receive spiritual guidance, healing, power, and to gain a deeper understanding of the spiritual world. It was also a way to gain magical powers. Many people have become possessed of the spirits of the dead, or demons, by the use of narcotics and psychedelics. 

In the bible we read of these instances about sorcery and its effects:

"But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries." (Acts 8: 9-11)

In this passage the Greek word for "bewitched" is "existēmi" and means "to put (stand) out of wits, i.e. astound, or (reflexively) become astounded, insane:—amaze, be (make) astonished, be beside self (selves), bewitch, wonder." (Strong) It is similar to the word "ecstasy" which itself is from the Greek word ekstasis, meaning “to stand outside of or transcend oneself.” In mysticism, it is to experience an inner vision of God or of one's relation to or union with the divine. Various methods have been used to achieve ecstasy, which is a primary goal in most forms of religious mysticism. The problem is, when you stand outside of yourself, or when your spirit leaves your body, you become vulnerable to having another spirit enter into you.

The word trance (ekstasis, from which the word "ecstasy" is derived) denotes the state of one who is "out of himself." Interesting is the fact that we read in the Bible of the trances of Peter and Paul, Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17, but in such cases the ecstasies were not drug related but were rather "a preternatural, absorbed state of mind preparing for the reception of the vision." (Compare 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 ). In Mark 5:42 and Luke 5:26 the Greek word is rendered "astonishment," "amazement" (Compare Mark 16:8 ; Acts 3:10 ). Christians experience ecstasy in worship when they are raptured in mind and spirit but it is of a different nature than that caused by drug use. 

In the old testament we read these texts on sorcery:

"the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments" (Isa. 47: 9).

"Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail." (vs. 12)

King Manasseh is condemned for his many evil practices, including sorcery: 

“And he burned his sons as an offering in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and used fortune-telling and omens and sorcery, and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger.” (II Chron. 33: 6)

In these texts we learn more about what sorcery is by the company it keeps, by the things connected with it, i.e. enchantments, fortune telling, omens, augury, mediums and channelers, and necromancers. Such things will proliferate in the very last days. Such is the case in our day as anyone who keeps up with the news can testify. 

The text in the heading above, in Revelation 18: 23, shows that in the very last days of this age that Satan will be behind the spread of drug use and by this will increase his deception over the nations and will increase demon possession and oppression. 

"The drugs used by cults for their hallucinogenic effects were adopted for explicit and implicit religious functions and purposes. The drugs were and are reported to enhance religious experience." (Britannica - here) It is also by such ecstatic means that a person finds what he thinks is a "union with the divine or sacred." 

Said the same source:

"The loftiest aim of the cultic use of drugs is the pure delight in what is described as a direct experience of God, ultimate reality, the spirits that preside over one’s destiny, or whatever the worshipper may conceive as his object of worship. As a consequence of such worship experience there may ensue a feeling of self-transcendence, sometimes through a melting away of the ego boundaries (with consequent loss of sense of self) and even through the terror of death, resulting in a psychological rebirth that gives a feeling of power and freedom and releases creative energies. Drugs have been used ritually to enhance the puberty ordeal through which, among many peoples, a youth is ushered out of childhood and is certified an adult. The functions of the drugs as teachers, leading participants through experiences of spiritual growth, are attested by many members of contemporary drug cults."

No wonder that alcoholic beverages have been called "spirits"! 

The same source continues:

"As a means of appropriating such experiences, the rites surrounding the assimilation of the drugs become types of sacraments in which the qualities and the gifts of the gods are appropriated. The visions, self-knowledge, energy, power, and direction reported to be secured from the rite confirm the feeling of the worshipper that he has been in the presence of God or has assimilated some of God’s powers. Some pharmacological cults do not rise much above the level of witchcraft, with ceremonies expressing the participants’ insecurities, anxieties, and hostilities."

Further, there are what are called "psychological goals." The same source says: 

"The literal meaning of the term psychedelic (“mind-manifesting”) suggests the vast amount of material (feelings, images, etc.) released by these drugs from the unconscious. 

Because hallucinogenic drugs, both natural and synthetic, tend to evoke an experience spontaneously recognized by many as religious and therefore of supreme value to the user, small communities of seekers have grown up wherever the drugs are generally used..."

So, in conclusion we say that the proliferation of sorcery today is a sign that we are nearing the time of the end and the onset of the judgments of the Apocalypse.

"Neither repented they of their murders, 

nor of their sorceries, 

nor of their fornication, 

nor of their thefts." 

(Rev. 9: 21)

If you are involved in sorcery, seek God and his salvation. He is the only one who can deliver you from it and from the demon possession that often is associated with it. Ask God to give you repentance.

Why Did Christ Forbid Preaching To Gentiles? (iii)

Pentecost writes further under "THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM OFFER WITHDRAWN AND POSTPONED AFTER THE REJECTION BY ISRAEL":

"It has been shown in tracing the theme of the Gospel of Matthew that the pivotal point in the Lord’s ministry to Israel was reached in the twelfth chapter, where the rejection of Israel by Christ, because of their announced rejection of Him, and the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom is recorded. Gaebelein, speaking of the events in chapters eleven and twelve, says: “It is the great turning point in this Gospel and with it the offer of our Lord to Israel as their King, as well as the offer of the Kingdom ceases.”  Barnhouse notes the importance of the event recorded in Matthew 12:14- 15:

The hatred in the hearts of the religious leaders had come to the point where they held a council against Him, how that they might destroy Him (Mt. 12:14). It was then that there occurred an act, so dramatic and so significant that we must not fail to see it. We read that “when Jesus knew it”—knew that they were holding a council against Him—“He withdrew Himself from thence” (v. 15). It was a sad day for Israel. When the Messiah of Israel withdrew Himself from His people, there could be nothing but bitterness left in their cup."

The rejection of Jesus as Israel's King and Messiah was a rejection of the kingdom promised in the old testament scriptures. Further, as we have seen, their acceptance of Jesus as Lord and King will occur in conjunction with Christ' second coming. 

Pentecost continues:

"Because the nation has rejected Him, the Lord announces the severance of every natural tie by which He was bound to the nation (Matt. 12:46-50).

From this announcement of the Lord concerning the rejection of the nation a definite movement may be traced in the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom. In the parables (Matt. 13: 1-50) the Lord outlines the program in the development of the theocratic kingdom during the period of the King’s absence, and announces the inception of an entirely new, unheralded, and unexpected program—the church (Matt. 16:13-20). He prepares the disciples for a long delay in the kingdom program as it relates to Israel (Luke 19:11-27). He promises the second advent, at which time the kingdom program with Israel will be resumed (Matt. 24:27-31), and gives the nation signs that will herald His second advent (Matt. 24:4-26). He prepares the disciples for their ministry in the new age (John 14-16), but promises them participation in the kingdom, despite its delay (Matt. 19:28-30; Luke 22:28-30). The Lord even gives to the disciples a miniature and premature picture of the second coming of Christ to establish His kingdom (Matt. 16:27-17:8). Thus we see the Lord is preparing the disciples for the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom and the institution of a new program and age before the kingdom program is consummated."

We are in the time of Christ' absence and in the time when his kingdom has been delayed until his second coming. His kingdom is to some extent realized by every individual Jew or Gentile, or by the church, but the full realization will occur when Christ comes. So Paul connects Christ future appearing with the coming of the kingdom. (II Tim. 4: 1) 

Pentecost continues:

"In the Lord’s public ministry there is a progression of announcements that assert the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom. The announcement of the woes upon the leaders of the nation (Matt. 23) signifies that they have no expectation but that of judgment. The statement of the Lord is final:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord [Matt. 23:37-39].

If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation [Luke 19:42-44]. …Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled [Luke 21:24].

The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof [Matt. 21:42-43].

There are two explanations of the “nation” to whom the kingdom of God was now to be given. (1) The first explanation understands the word nation as “generation” and would interpret the passage thus: the kingdom of God, which is being offered to this generation, will no longer be offered to this generation of Israel, but will be offered to that generation of Israel living in a future day before the advent of Christ, which manifests belief in the coming of Messiah by their works. This is to say that the kingdom, then being offered, will again be offered to Israel prior to the second advent. This is in keeping with the promise that the gospel of the kingdom will be preached again and accepted by a remnant in Israel (Matt 24:14). (2) The second explanation interprets the word nation in reference to the Gentiles, to whom the good news would go after the death of Christ and through whom the kingdom program would be developed (the mystery program of Matt. 13) until its final realization at the second advent. 

Whichever of these two views be adopted, the Lord’s word still constitutes the announcement of the withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom to Israel at that time because of their rejection of Him as Messiah."

First, let us notice two times in the above texts where our Lord uses the word "till" or "until" in regard to the time when the kingdom will be restored to Israel. The kingdom will not be restored to Israel "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." The kingdom will not be restored, and Christ will not come again, until the nation is converted, until they say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." 

Pentecost continues in Chapter XXVII titled "THE KINGDOM PROGRAM IN THE PRESENT AGE": 

"That God is continuing the development of His over-all theocratic kingdom program has been presented previously in the study of the parables in Matthew 13. It was entirely unknown in the Old Testament that a great interval of time would intervene between the offer of the kingdom by Messiah at His coming to the earth and the reception of that offer. The parables of Matthew 13 reveal the whole course of the development of the theocratic kingdom from the rejection of the King by Israel during His first advent until His reception as Messiah by Israel at His second advent. In commenting on Luke 19:11-27, Peters develops the whole program. He writes:

Jesus uttered this parable “because they thought that the Kingdom of God should immediately appear.” In His reply there is no intimation…that the Jews were mistaken in their idea of the kingdom, and that, if modern notions are correct, the Kingdom had already come and was established. If this had been so, then the answer of Jesus would be cruelly irrelevant; but with the proper conception of the Kingdom it is finely consistent and forcibly expressed. For there is (as there could not be) no declaration that they were wrong in believing that the Kingdom which they expected, the Messianic, was still in the future. They were only mistaken in the opinion, carefully announced, “that the Kingdom of God should immediately appear.” Now the parable is given to correct this belief in the immediate setting up of the Kingdom, but only after an undefined period of time had elapsed. For He represents Himself as a nobleman, who, having a right to the Kingdom, goes “into a far country to receive” (to have His title confirmed) “for Himself a Kingdom, and to return.” During His absence His servants “occupy till I come.” Then after an interval of time, not definitely stated, the period having come to enter upon His reign, having received the Kingdom, He returns, judgment follows, and those who rejected Him (saying, “we will not have this man to reign over us”) are destroyed. Here we have: (1) the Jews thought that the Kingdom would now appear; (2) but it was not nigh, for (a) He would leave, (b) they had refused His proffered reign, (c) those, however, who were devoted to Him should “occupy” until He returned, (d) during His absence there was no Kingdom, being gone to receive the power to reign; (3) He would return and then manifest His acquired power…in the establishment of His Kingdom. Thus we have the absence, and then “the appearing and Kingdom” of Christ."

Why did Jesus in Acts 1: 6-7 not answer the question of the apostles by saying "there is to be no restoration of the kingdom to Israel"? Or why did he not say "the kingdom is being replaced by the church"? Amillennialists say that the question by the apostles manifested their misunderstanding about the nature of the kingdom and that the reason why Christ answered the way he did was because he was in a hurry to depart into the heavens and would save correcting them to another time and by the later teaching of the Holy Spirit. I find that totally untenable however for several reasons. Let us notice these comments from the commentaries of Albert Barnes and John Gill:

"It is not for you to know - The question of the apostles respected the time of the restoration; it was not whether he would do it." (Barnes)

"...when should be the time, the day, and hour of the coming of the son of man, when he shall set up his kingdom in a more glorious manner, and the kingdoms of this world shall become his; or when the kingdom shall be restored to Israel." (Gill)

I believe these two comments are spot on.

In concluding this short series I want to address a common objection by Amillennialists about the nature of the promised kingdom of God. One of the adjectives they use to deny a literal kingdom on earth is the word "political." They deny that the kingdom of God will be a political rule on earth, believing that such a description denies that the kingdom is spiritual. But, nothing could be further from the truth.

Political (or governmental) Rule

The Kingdom that will be realized when Christ comes again will see a mass conversion of the Jews and the destruction of those Jews who refuse to submit to him. This kingdom will also involve the Jewish nation becoming leaders over the Gentile nations in the next age to come (or the millennium). It will be a literal kingdom and political, and involve the elimination of sickness and disease, and of death for many, and also a new heavens and earth. The church also will be in a leadership position in that age. So we read in the Book of Revelation:

"The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father." (Rev. 2: 26-27)

We see this repeated in the twentieth chapter where we read where the resurrected saints are seated on thrones. We also see it in connection with the second coming of Christ in Rev. 11: 5 where the text reads:

"Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.'"

That shows that the reign of Christ and that of his people is 1) yet future, and 2) involves political rule over the nations of the earth in the millennial age of the kingdom.

Another verse that shows us the political aspect of the reign of Christ and his people is seen in the prophecy of Daniel who wrote:

"Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him." Dan. 7: 27)

Though some Amillennialists want to say that this prophecy has been fulfilled in the church institution, it is clear that it is not. The "kingdoms under heaven" denotes every nation and its governments and its fulfillment is seen in Rev. 11: 5 and occurs in the time of Christ' coming again (or his Apocalypse). This taking over the political rule or government of the nations of the world is also described by the prophet Isaiah when he wrote:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end." (Isa. 9: 6-7)

Why Did Christ Forbid Preaching To Gentiles? (ii)

The above chart gives my understanding of the kingdom program in the bible, with minor changes. The kingdom promised in the old testament to Israel was offered (or presented) to Israel in the person of the Messiah the King, but they having rejected him rejected his kingdom (the nation as a whole) and thus we now in the church age have the kingdom in mystery form, the theocratic kingdom of the prophecies being postponed until the second coming. Many scriptures need to be studied that relate to this question. 

Some Amillennialists that I heard when I was a Hardshell Baptist would denounce as ridiculous the idea that the kingdom was offered to Israel and that it was postponed. But, to this we may look at other such things that were postponed due to the unbelief and impenitence of people. The Israelite nation that came out of Egyptian bondage could have entered into the land of promise within two years but its entering was postponed for another thirty eight years. Other examples we could give but will let the above suffice. Perhaps a better word than "postponed" would be "delayed." There are delays in God's program. In Revelation we have the words "delay shall be no more" (Rev. 10: 7) We also have the words of Christ who said:

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matt. 24: 22)

"Those days" may be shortened or lengthened, i.e. delayed. So the apostle Peter also spoke of how believers are "looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God" (II Peter 3: 12). So, some things in God's program for the ages may be hastened and some delayed. 

Now let us proceed further in addressing the question as to whether the kingdom was offered to the Jewish nation. In doing this let us continue with our citations from Pentecost on this point. Keep in mind that there are several central questions involved in this subject: 1) what is the kingdom of God announced by John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles? 2) was it postponed or delayed until the second coming? 3) was the type of kingdom altered so that the kingdom is now purely spiritual? 4) was the creation of the new testament church the kingdom of God promised by the old testament prophets?

Pentecost says under the sub-heading "The relation of Christ to the offer": 

"The kingdom was offered in the person of the king. The Lord’s statement is: “behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). The Lord is not asserting that His kingdom was to be a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men. Such is contrary to the entire tenor of the Word of God. He is asserting that the kingdom to which they were looking was already “at hand” in the person of the king. The rightful king was present and all that was required was repentance on the part of the nation and a reception of Christ as the theocratic Messiah."

That is true. A bible student should read how Pentecost traces the various movements in the Book of Matthew which show how and when the kingdom was offered, when it was rejected, and when the Lord announced how the kingdom would be postponed and the kingdom would exist only in mystery form throughout the age of the church.

Pentecost writes further under the sub-heading "The contingency of the offer": 

"The offer of the kingdom was a contingent offer. God knew full-well the response of the nation Israel to the offer of the kingdom, yet the establishment of the theocratic kingdom depended upon the repentance of the nation, the recognition of John the Baptist as the promised forerunner, and the reception of Jesus Christ as the theocratic king. McClain says:

More than one expositor has stumbled over the ultimatum of Christ, “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The only adequate explanation is to see, what our Lord understood clearly, the contingent nature of His message of the Kingdom. To put the matter in a word: the immediate and complete establishment of His Kingdom depended upon the attitude of the nation of Israel, to whom pertained the divine promises and covenants.…That our Lord clearly understood the contingent nature of His Kingdom message is plain from His evaluation of John the Baptist and his meteoric career. Every intelligent Jew knew that the final word of the final Old Testament prophet predicted the appearance of Elijah as the precursor to the establishment of the Kingdom. And Jesus declares, in Matthew 11, concerning John, “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah, that is to come.” Still later, when historical events have demonstrated the certainty of His rejection and death at the hands of the Jewish nation, our Lord again refers to John, but now the die is cast, “Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things,” He assures the disciples; but He adds, “I say unto you that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not.” I do not hesitate to say that you have here the key to one of the most puzzling problems of New Testament eschatology in relation to the Kingdom: The immediate establishment of the Mediatorial Kingdom on earth was contingent upon the attitude of Israel."

The rejection of Israel's Messiah and King by its leaders and by the general population was not a surprise to the Lord. He knew in advance that this rejection of the King and kingdom would occur. Even the old testament prophets spoke of this rejection such as in Isaiah chapter fifty three. Joseph being rejected by his brethren and sold into Egypt foreshadowed it. His plan in regard to both the kingdom of God and the salvation of Jews and Gentiles had this rejection included in it. What Pentecost points out in the above citation affirms that Christ pushed the establishment of the kingdom to his second coming, and to a future coming of Elijah the prophet. 

Under the sub-heading "The bona fide offer" Pentecost wrote: 

"This offer of the kingdom was, nevertheless, a bona fide offer. It would be a mockery for God to present the theocratic kingdom if it were not a genuine offer. Peters says: This Kingdom was offered to the nation in good faith, i.e. it would have been bestowed provided the nation had repented. The foreknown result made no difference in the tender of it, so far as the free agency of the nation is concerned; that result flowed from a voluntary choice. The national unbelief did not change God’s faithfulness, Rom. 3:3 (did not change God's plans or his word of promise- SG). It would be derogatory to the mission of Christ to take any other view of it, and the sincerity and desire of Jesus that the nation might accept, is witnessed in His tears over Jerusalem, in His address to it, in His unceasing labors, in sending out the twelve and the seventy, and in His works of mercy and love. It follows, then, that the Jews had the privilege accorded to them of accepting the Kingdom, and if the condition annexed to it had been complied with, then the Kingdom of David would have been most gloriously reestablished under the Messiah."

God's foreknowledge that the Jews as a whole, with only few exceptions, would reject Jesus their King and the kingdom of God, did not prevent him from sincerely offering himself and the kingdom. We could say the same thing about the gift of salvation. God knows who is going to accept the gift and who will refuse it, yet he still sincerely offers salvation to all. 

Pentecost writes further:

"There are many who argue that the bona fide offer of a kingdom at the first advent minimizes the cross and leaves no place for the accomplishment of the redemptive program of God. In reply to this contention it may be said that the offer and the rejection of the theocratic kingdom was the design of God by which His eternal purpose was actually accomplished. That which accomplished the divine purpose of salvation through Christ’s death was the rejection of a kingdom offered to Israel. Peters well observes:

The question, How, then, would the atonement have been made by the shedding of blood? has nothing whatever to do with the sincerity of this offer, for “the manifold wisdom of God” would have been equal to the emergency, either by antedating to some other period, or by providing for it previously; or in some other, to us unknown, way. As it was, God’s purposes, His determinate counsel, are shaped by what was a foreseen voluntary choice of the nation. God’s mercy was willing to bestow, but the nation’s depravity prevented the gift. That the Kingdom would have been established had the nation believed, is evident from Deut., ch. 32; 2 Chron. 7:12-22; Isa. 48:18; Ps. 81:8-16, etc. …Paul’s argument in Romans proceeds on the supposition that the nation had the power of choice, that it wilfully chose the evil, and that God in mercy overruled its fall for the salvation of the Gentiles. They stumbled and fell, not through necessity, and not because God’s Purpose required it, but solely through their own unbelief; and God’s plan, as the Omniscient, embraced the same as a foreknown result, and made provision accordingly."

Recall the words of the apostle John - "he came unto his own and his own received him not." (John 1: 11) This rejection of "the King of the Jews" by the Jews generally (with few individual exceptions of course) was a rejection of the promised kingdom of God by the Jewish prophets and on this Paul has much to say in the eleventh chapter of his Roman epistle. There he writes:

"11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Vss. 11-15 nkjv) 

The rejection of the Messiah by Israel was foreknown and God's plan was circumscribed by that fact. It was included in his plan. Because Israel rejected him and his kingdom, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Further, salvation coming to the Gentiles will work to provoke Israel to one day realize their error and turn to Christ in repentance and faith. Recall the words of Jesus to the nation of Israel: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. (Matt. 21: 43 nkjv) This nation is described by Peter when he writes to the members of the church (or body of Christ):

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (I Peter 2: 9 nkjv)

Though the Jews and their leaders rejected Christ, yet there was an exception. Some individual Jews and Gentiles did accept Christ and they are addressed as being that nation or people to whom the promises of the kingdom belong. But, that does not negate the truth that one day the entire nation of the Jews will become believers in their Messiah and when God will fulfill all his covenant promises made to them. Notice these words from the Gospel of Luke:

"Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." (Luke 19: 11-12 nkjv)

This is another decisive text. Rather than affirming that the kingdom of God promised by the old testament prophets was now fulfilled, was not set up and established on earth, the text says the kingdom of God did not immediately appear but that Christ left this world and went into heaven (far country) in order to there receive the kingdom and to return, at which time of his coming the kingdom of God will be fully realized.

In the next chapter we will continue with these things.

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.