thilipsis

Listened to your podcast #5 this afternoon, a disturbing and very practical guide to apologetics and evangelism. So have you done any follow up with this guy, 'Critter', I forget his given name at the moment. How did it go for him when he got out, I know the recidivism rate is almost half for prisoners. Grace and peace, Mark

Just a little background here, how the church responded to these Old Testament convocations. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). The Sabbath was part of the Mosaic Law (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). The church has never been obligated to observe Old Testament convocations, instead the early church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The yoke of the Law was decided, as expressed by Peter at the Jerusalem Council to be unbearable. Paul rebukes the Galatians for trying to observe them But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. (Gal. 4:9-11) That said I'm not seeing anything directly related to eschatology, here are the references to the holy convocations of Leviticus: The Sabbath (Lev. 23:3) - The Sabbath was a shadow, the substance is in Christ (Col. 2:16-17) The Passover and Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4-8) - Christ entered Jerusalem on this day and the Lord's Supper commemorates it. The Feast of Firstfruits (Lev. 23:9-14) - Related figuratively to the rise of the early believers, especially the Apostles (James 1:18) The Feast of Weeks (Lev. 23:15-22) - The only significant even I see in the New Testament was the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) The Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:23-25) - The Day of Atonement is revealed as the cross, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 3:19-21) The Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:26-32) - the Trumpet blasts as Levitical imagery is an important literary feature, little more. The Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 33-43) - Not really seeing anything unless you wanted to relate it to the Jews fleeing the Antichrist. I really don't see any direct connection and I'm not a big fan of allegorizing. There is ample reason to explore Trumpets and Tabernacles but more as an exposition rather then a means of interpretation. I don't think you could really template this over the Revelation per se but there does seem to be a pretty interesting analogy here for redemptive history and the rise of the New Testament church. I'm not adverse to trying to find some eschatology in all of this but watch your New Testament theology on this. There are shadows of things found in Christ not limited to an end times scenario. Still, I'm intrigued a little, are you seeing something deeper here? I find it interesting that there are seven, there are also seven laws related to Levitical sacrifice. I've explored this from time to time but the insights seem limited to the significance of numbers in Scripture and I can draw only the most general inferences. Grace and peace, Mark

The last couple of chapters of Scripture in the most futuristic prophecy of the New Testament and trust me I do take all Scripture into account. In fact I have done a pretty extensive exposition of the Revelation and now you want me to revisit something in 1 Cor. 15 which is talking about the resurrection. Are you kidding me? I know about the fall feasts and you have not managed to tie this to anything eschatological in these brief two chapters. Do you have a point? Grace and peace, Mark

Of course that's our, 'blessed hope': while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13) The most important prophecy in redemptive history still hasn't happened. We live in anxious expectation of the soon return of Christ at the end of the age. Even the prophets, apostles and all the believers who went before us are awaiting this day, the Day of the Lord as it is known in Old Testament prophecy. We do know that when that happens we will be changed, those who died in Christ will be raised and those who have never actually died will be changed, basically being resurrected without ever having actually died. That's why they call it the Rapture, it's one of those theological words that is unique because it's a unique event, still as yet unfulfilled promise and prophecy that all of creation awaits (Rom. 8:22,23) We don't really know the hour or the day but we do know somethings about what the prelude to the second coming is: Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matt. 24:29,30) The abomination that causes desolation happens, or at least is described, 15 verse earlier. This occurs 3 1/2 years into the Tribulation: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand. Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: (Matt. 24:15,16) We will know when Christ is going to return, throughout the tribulation they know the judgments are coming from God and that this is the, 'wrath of the Lamb'. And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: (Rev. 6:16) The resurrection is clearly described as happening at the end of the Tribulation. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. (Rev. 20:5) The resurrection, the rapture as it's come to be known isn't mentioned in connection to the seals, it's not mentioned until the second coming just prior to the Millennial kingdom. As far as the first five seals being opened there are no historical sequences of events that could match the description of the four horsemen. Those are a description of the rise of the Antichrist and the fifth seal are the earliest victims of his bloody infamous rampage that lead to the wrath that falls on them as a result. There is another multitude no one can number from every nation on earth as he spreads his reign of influence just prior to the Trumpet blasts. I'm not making this up, just following the narrative as it's written and there is nothing historically to compare to the scale of this. I think your allegorizing, that's not the same thing as an exposition. Grace and peace, Mark

It's future, the last seven years of the seventy weeks of Daniel. I was always mid to late tribulation rapture early on but I've studied so many dispensational scenarios I'm comfortable with pretribulation. Revelations is an exposition to me and a cascade of Old Testament prophecy and Levitical imagery. If all that interests you is when the rapture happens your going to miss one of the most panoramic books in Scripture.

I don't think any of the seals have been opened. From the opening of the first seal to the return of Chris us seven years. The abomination that causes desolation right at the three and a half year mark toward the enb of the trumpet blasts. The distinction between Buddist, Muslim, Jewish, pagan along with denominationalism down to Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant will fade into oblivian never to be revisited. Even secular atheists, agnostics, humanists and others will finally have no way of denying God. These titles and pretenses will be erased by the final revelation where all must decide and none remain neutral. Armaggedon is called the valley of decision, the entire tribulation period forces all to decide. The beast and his ultimate destruction of refuse the mark and die a witness for Christ.

Well we see a host of martyrs at the opening of the sixth seal and prior to the seven trumpet blasts it says a countless multitude. People die for not submitting to the Antichrist and the vials of wrath appear to be pure retribution. That's why God turns the water to blood, the primary sin of the tribulation is mass murder.

I know, a lot of people feel that way because of the grammar of the first sentence where the book gets Its name. I like the plural because sometime I want to differentiate between the doctrine of revelation or a particular revelation. And frankly book of revelation sound right to me even though technically it's more correct.

Let's see what we have here. The closing of the letters to the churches in Asia Minor: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Rev. 3:22) This appears to be the transition your talking about. There also appears to be some change with the church because it goes from correcting problems to the lamps (Menorah) blazing before the throne: After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." (Rev. 4:1) The view does change from the 7 churches in Asia Minor to the Throne room in heaven: And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. (Rev. 4:5) This one is some kind of a proof text for a pretribulation rapture, apparently some think this means the church is in heaven. This is after the opening of the sixth seal: And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, (Rev. 7:1) The aftermath of the seal judgments, the atmosphere goes from receding like a scroll to deadly calm. Interesting. The view does change from the 144,000 who are on earth to the multitude before the throne: After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (Rev. 7:9) This is reminiscent of the martyrs beneath the throne, appear to be the same white robes and perhaps more victims of the army of the Antichrist. They were told to wait until their brothers are added the same way they were. The interim before the seven trumpet blasts: And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened (Rev. 15:5) I assume that last reference is chapter 18 The climactic fall of Babylon and a clue to the reason for the destruction of that city, spiritual and physical. And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth. (Rev. 18:24) Interesting insight into a literary feature, thanks for pointing that out to me. It's clearly a series of visions but the scene keeps changing from the earth to heaven and back again. It seems reasonable that this is indicated by, I 'looked', 'saw' and 'heard'. I'd never noticed that before but it does seem to come at major times of transition of John's view and the narrative of the Revelation. This is one of the more detailed visions to include a narrative in the tradition of the prophets. Profoundly Hebrew in it's imagery yet Hellenistic (Grecian) in it's drama. It's always interesting to explore these aspects of the text. It helps to track the flow of the narrative when learning to decipher the details of the visions. Grace and peace, Mark

I think probably what happened is the Levites liked what Isaiah wrote and just included it. They probably just saw it as an important historical narrative, the books of the Kings were written over hundreds of years, they used various sources from what I understand. It was normal Hebrew scholarship.

First of all I don't disagree with most of what you say, it's just that justification by faith is a core doctrine for me. It extends throughout the Scriptures and Jesus saying you must be born again is true of everyone from Adam to the last sinner to repent during redemptive history. There was no plan B, that is how the righteousness of God is communicated to us. Jesus telling Nicodemus you must be born again is universal in it's scope, sometimes we forget that Jesus taught us things no one else ever could and certainly never did. Salvation always required justification and sanctification. I hope you understand I have studied this a lot so I tend to dump a truck in these discussions. I'm not trying to confuse you or overwhelm you, I'm just trying to point out the Scriptures are pretty clear on this as a point of doctrine. Be patient with yourself, a lot of scholars have struggled with this as well. My New Testament professor was involved in studying Romans again when he was teaching us about the New Testament. You never seem to get to the bottom of it no matter how simple it is in principle. Grace and peace, Mark

I don't know if your still following the thread but I'm always happy to discuss the gospel and the Scriptures with those interested in learning more. I was what they call 'unchurched' when I became a Christian, learned a lot about the Bible simply from reading it. In my mind there are two requirements for being a Christian, first God must bring you under conviction for sin. Once that is established then you must hear, understand and receive the gospel. Someone advised you to try Ephesians 1 and that is perhaps the best doctrinal statement in a concise form, John 3 is commonly understood as the gospel in a nut shell. There is just one thing I would advise and this is from personal experience, you should simply pray God if this is real I need to you show me. If you wholeheartedly want to know the truth God will show it to you. I would suggest that the best introduction to the life and work of Christ that John's Gospel is perhaps the most personal and direct. It's mostly discussions of Jesus with individuals and groups. Admired for it's theology John's Gospel is about as close as you going to get to a dialogue with Jesus. Books like the Psalms and Job have some pretty interesting things for someone new to the Scriptures but Esther and Daniel have some pretty straightforward story lines, fairly interesting reading and loaded with all kinds of insights into the work of God during redemptive history. Any questions or concerns feel free to contact me, it's always very interesting to get a new perspective on Scripture from someone being exposed to it for the first time. Grace and peace, Mark

I saw that to before I posted the first time. Then the subject turned to justification by faith. I never get tired of that one.

There was only direct revelation and he Law in the OT. There was the same heaven and Hell but little was known. Apparently Rabbinical teaching had a concept of the afterlife but the abode of the dead was Sheol. Jesus atonement saves all who believe past, present and future. There is actually nothing indicating Old Testament saints got an upgrade as the result of the cross. Jesus is described in the Revelation as the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. That means that salvation is guaranteed before the world was created and before Adam ever sinned. It has always been based on a promise partially fulfilled at Calvary. The redemption of the purchase price doesn't happen until Christ returns so no one is perfect until then.

Hi Dylan, Great podcast, I had heard of Ravi Zacharias before but the part where dialectic thinking was discussed I found very enlightening. I had no idea it was eastern thinking, the way I got it was it was based on a formula 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis'. You have two opposing views, lets say there are two schools of thought, one group believes I'm an idiot and another group that thinks I'm a genius. Just an absurd for instance but lets say someone else comes along and says both are right, all true genius is idiotic because the word actually means 'self' so their thinking would be unique which makes them effectively idiotic. That would be the synthesis and it invariably comes down to semantics. Personally I think these so called 'synthesis' is producing equivocation fallacies, the Modern Synthesis aka Neodarwinism is a prime example. Paul Tillich's 'god above god' is another one, it turns theistic reasoning into little more then pantheism. What you saying about the law of non contradiction makes sense especially with regards to historicity. I read Josh McDowell's, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was the first book on Apologetics I was first exposed to. At the time I was struggling with the deity of Christ, I didn't see it in the New Testament for a while. Eventually Jesus testimony before the High Priest put that to rest for me and the rest of the New Testament finally started to get through to me. Over the years I came to realize this has been one of the most important doctrinal issues for the church. A denial of the Trinity is enough for Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox alike to conclude what you are dealing with is strictly non-christian. Anyway, enjoyed the podcast and I've been looking into the Ravi Zacharias podcasts as well. Grace and peace, Mark

I recognized that immediately as Benjamin Franklin's address to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The delegates had nearly given up when Ben Franklin made that speech, called for prayer and as a group they all attended church, not one but several. It wouldn't be long before the Constitution was ratified, many people, myself included, think this moment in history was a miracle that resulted from prayer. The expression that 'we hold these truths to be self evident' did not originate in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was quoting John Locke, a contemporary with and close friend of Sir Isaac Newton. While Newton was turning natural science upside down Locke was proposing a new kind of Constitutional Republic that would be built from ground up, the power behind the authority would be the people not a hand full of aristocrats. The American Revolution was sandwiched between to profoundly Christian revivals, the Great Awakening 1 and 2. The colonies had been founded by eight charters signed by William and Mary and they were unanimously protestant. While not always godly the colonies and the newly formed states were profoundly Christian: This is especially true of men living in free countries. When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them. (Tocqueville, Democracy in America) People don't really know US history because the role of religion in the rise of Democracy in America is deprecated by unbelieving secular academics. The fact is America was founded on profoundly Christian principles that remain safe and sound to this day. I went through the culture wars on discussion boards where the secular fanatics ranted and raved about abortion, creationism and gay rights. Abortion on demand is declining, creationism has given rise to a number of ministries with global reach and the gay rights agenda is being imposed judicially, which means they will never have the moral consensus they need to be accepted as normal. The Pew has been running a poll on Creationism vs. Evolution and those who believe man was created 6000 years ago pretty much like he is now has remained between 42% and 44% for the twenty years the polls has ran. That is even in spite of the fact of a wholesale full court press. Christian conviction is resilient, just because you don't hear about the nice little church people who work and pray and take care of their families doesn't mean their not still out there in strong numbers, they just don't go on TV and radio to promote their lifestyle. Grace and peace, Mark

I think that how Old Testament saints were sanctified was different somehow but perhaps only with regards to how much they actually knew. We sometimes take for granted that Jesus is the only one in the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter, that teaches anything about hell. One thing we do know for sure is that being 'born again' is a reference to the divine nature. No one can be saved without it, how that actually worked then might be hard to say but the need for it isn't in question. Grace and peace, Mark

There is no such thing, if Abel was righteous then why was he offering up a sacrifice? God said Abel's blood cried out from the ground, I don't think we should take that too literally. Martyr didn't originally mean someone who suffers and dies for their faith, it's the normal Greek word for a witness. His death is part of his testimony, it's really that simple. No he was not self righteous, there is no such thing, how many times have we been over this? Abel inherited Adam's sin just as we all did. According to Paul: Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). Abel was a sinner just like everyone else, by faith he offered a better sacrifice. Cain knew what God required but for some reason offered an unacceptable sacrifice, when Abel's offering was accepted he was jealous. But there is no indication the Abel was sinless, I think you have a fundamental misconception about what sin is, it's not just offenses you commit, it is. But it's a lack of something God requires and that is called righteousness and it only come from God as a free gift. That is not the position I've taken, I've argued justification by grace through faith throughout the thread. I would never make that argument, I'm an evangelical, we don't do that. That's not just a big statement, it's a defensible position with regard to essential doctrine. It's called justification by grace through faith. It is the issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation and exactly what they decided at the Jerusalem Council. Paul discusses it at length in Galatians and in the book of Romans he does the most extensive exposition of the doctrine in the New Testament. You may need to think about it. Grace and peace, Mark

If Adam had trusted God, and not disobeyed, the righteousness of God would have still been by faith. There is no other way, the righteousness of God must come from God himself, it is always a free gift. We actually dealt with two issues here, justification by grace through faith and sanctification. Now the question of the afterlife is coming up and whether or not it's different for Old Testament believers, then it is for us, and frankly, I don't think it is. Abel was righteous, he died because his brother was jealous so it looks like Abel was the first martyr. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous when God gave approval to his gifts. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. (Heb. 11:4) He is in heaven of course, waiting for the redemption of the purchase price (Eph. 1:13,14), just as all believers do in this life and the life to come. Until the resurrection. Maranatha Grace and peace, Mark

Right so if that is true of New Testament believers what does that say about Old Testament believers? We have been through the Scriptures on this matter, you draw your own conclusions but righteousness was never a product of the Law, by observing the Law no one was ever justified. But that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about sanctification, because the Scriptures are clear that we are justified by faith just as Noah, Abraham and every single one of the Old Testament believers. There is no other way, what we are talking about is sanctification which is the sole responsibility of the Holy Spirit of promise. Were they saved before Christ differently then we are after Christ, it's an interesting question, but it's more about revelation then it is about a change in process. Indeed you must be born again, that was necessary before the cross and after. Do we really know enough to say they were not born again in the same sense Jesus meant it when talking to Nicodemus? I don't think so. Opinions vary. Grace and peace, Mark

Abraham's family were idolaters: Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods. (Joshua 24:2) There is a reason Abram was separated from them. The New Testament mentions Noah several times, usually in connection with the conditions before the flood and some genealogical information (Matt. 24:37-30; Luke 3:36; Luke 17:26-27; 1Pet. 3:20). Specifically, Noah, 'became heir of the righteousness that is by faith': By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb. 11:7) Noah was also a prophet, an Old Testament preacher of righteousness: And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. (2 Pet. 2:5) The righteousness that is by faith did not begin with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it was revealed indicating it was always justification by grace through faith: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. (Rom. 3:19-22) The Law makes everyone, 'guilty before God', and, 'by the Law is the knowledge of sin'. The two most important words in Romans marking the turning point both of redemptive history and the doctrinal foundation of the book, 'But now', something is, 'manifested', (Rom. 3:21): Manifested (G5319 φανερόω phaneroō): to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way. (Outline of Biblical Usage) What has been manifested, made 'visible or known', is the righteousness that is by faith. They waited for the appearance of Christ just as we wait for the return of Christ. It is all focused on the atonement of Christ and they looked forward to it just as we look back. They were building the Tower of Babel, which was actually a city, so they wouldn't be scattered as God commanded and to make a name for themselves. If they were looking for God they could have called upon his name. They did go on to build another city after God destroyed that tower, they founded Babylon, the first pagan empire of antiquity. Certainly not the last and the seeds of that pagan enterprise is with us to this day, both secular and spiritual Babylon still tries to exalt itself to the heavens and God will bring them to the dust. You had me until: We simply don't know that, 'Abraham's bosom' in the New Testament is heaven: 16:22 Abraham’s bosom. This same expression (found only here in Scripture) was used in the Talmud as a figure for heaven. The idea was that Lazarus was given a place of high honor, reclining next to Abraham at the heavenly banquet. 16:23 in Hades. The suggestion that a rich man would be excluded from heaven would have scandalized the Pharisees (see note on Matt. 19:24); especially galling was the idea that a beggar who ate scraps from his table was granted the place of honor next to Abraham. “Hades” was the Gr. term for the abode of the dead. In the LXX, it was used to translate the Heb. Sheol, which referred to the realm of the dead in general, without necessarily distinguishing between righteous or unrighteous souls. However, in NT usage, “Hades” always refers to the place of the wicked prior to final judgment in hell. (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Luke 16, Grace to You) This was not really known in the Old Testament and we have limited knowledge, but the New Testament represents a fuller revelation. The idea that everyone was somehow, 'captive', doesn't dovetail very well with Scripture. Most of that was fine, no real issues, then we are back to this I'm not so sure, nor am I going to pontificate anything the Scriptures are silent about. We know the righteousness of God that is by faith was how salvation and redemption worked in the Old Testament and was revealed and fulfilled in the New Testament. Abraham was the first to start receiving revelation after the Flood, he was promised an inheritance and descendants but it included far more then lineal physical descendants. His children became the nation of Israel and the covenant of the Patriarchs and inevitably the Sinai Covenant were and are embodied in the New Testament promise of regeneration. The Law never made anyone righteous, righteousness is by grace through faith. Abraham heard the gospel: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:8-9) In the interim between the first promise of the gospel and the later fulfillment of the promise God, the sins previously committed were passed over by the forbearance of God: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. (Rom. 3:25) The Old Testament saints were not waiting in some dark nether world waiting for the atonement of Christ. Judgment for sins was suspended based on the promise of the righteousness of God in Christ revealed in the person and work of Christ. While the regeneration of Old Testament saints remains something of a mystery we know that they were justified by grace through faith. Further we know that being sanctified (set apart) was key to the Old Testament relationship with God through the covenants and promises. They were justified, they were sanctified and we know that God's righteousness and holiness do not change. We have a fuller revelation, that doesn't mean God's promise has every changed or how that worked out in the lives of the Old Testament believers. Were they 'born again', I'm not entirely sure but the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit is the key to New Testament salvation. Let's not jump to any conclusions about what that looked like in antiquity. Grace and peace, Mark

That's always bothered me to, we are supposed to have made peace with God through Christ but we tend to beat one another up over doctrinal issues. Conviction is a deeply personal thing, it's always from the inside out so it will look different to each of us. If we are submitting to Jesus as Lord then we are required to submit to one another, the New Testament is crystal clear on this point: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Eph. 5:21) In the passage that follows it shows how we submit to one another, husbands to wives, wives to husbands, slaves to master and even masters to slaves. Submitting is implied throughout which is why when it says, 'wives submit to your husbands' it simply uses the word submit. There is a reason for that, in that sentence there is no verb or specific instruction. Submission is meant to be mutual, we are to serve the body of Christ as we would him and as he served us. The night that Christ was betrayed he washed their feet, Judas was even sitting at the right which was a seat of honor. Standing on doctrine is important but none so important as the greatest of us is servant to all. It wouldn't hurt us one bit to keep this in mind when we run into some point of doctrine no matter how important we think what we are sharing might be. Grace and peace, Mark

I just wanted to mention, there really isn't that much difference between the KJV and the modern translations. The King James is based on Texus Recepticus which was the first printed Greek Manuscript. Erasmus was the priest, actually a leading scholar, who put it together from the Byzantine text and back edited it using the Latin Vulgate. After six revisions there were still problems with it. The modern translations are based on Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, a much more collaborative work and the translations lack some of the old English elegance. There really are not that many differences and I've found it helpful to compare different translations. There is a really good discussion of this in Soap Box debate: The King James Bible controversy Like any scholarly debate there are a lot of tedious details so if your interested that thread was very helpful to me. Grace and peace, Mark

Well justification seems straightforward enough, Paul discusses that at length. I think what we are struggling with here is sanctification. The question is simple enough, since we must be new creatures in Christ and born again of the Spirit of God, what about Old Testament believers. We know that sanctification was part of the Mosaic Law and the Levitical system but how was it different for them? I really don't know what salvation was like for them with regards to the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The process had to be different but the underlying principles had to be very close. The question in essence is were they born again, Jesus did seem to think Nicodemus should have known about this. Grace and peace, Mark

Certainly the New Testament does represent the fullness of God's redemption and of course things changed dramatically since the time of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God's revelation to them was direct, it changed in the time of Moses as they entered into a new covenant: I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (ʼêl, ale אֵל H410), but by my name the LORD ( יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah H3068)I did not make myself fully known to them. (Ex. 6:3) It would change again with the rise of the prophets, particularly the eighth century prophets and again at the time when they returned from Babylon. During the time of the Patriarchs God enters into a covenant with them individually as God Almighty, during the Exodus God enters into a new covenant with the nation as Yĕhovah. With the prophets the covenant was broken and during the time of Ezra the covenant is reestablished. Sure it changes but fundamentally salvation isn't going to change. We know that they were justified by faith and that was followed by sanctification, perhaps the term 'born again' represented something more extensive, certainly as a promise to all believers but what it represents in the Old Testament isn't all that different, just a fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. When we are talking about Sheol in the Old Testament it's usually death and the grave, that was pretty much the end as an ancient Hebrews understood it. They had some concept of life after death but it wasn't until Jesus came that anything was really known about it. Certainly heaven and hell were major revelations but Jesus made the clear difference in the condition of the saints and the children of perdition here: “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. (Luke 16:22-23) Abraham and the beggar are obviously not in hell. The word for where the rich man was is Hades which corresponds with Old Testament Sheol: "the region of departed spirits of the lost" (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ). It has been thought by some that the word etymologically meant "the unseen" (from a, negative, and eido, "to see"), but this derivation is questionable; a more probable derivation is from hado, signifying "all-receiving." It corresponds to "Sheol" in the OT. (Vines Dictionary, Hades G86) There's just no Scripture supporting the idea that Old Testament saints did not go to heaven, certainly they were not in Sheol. Sheol was the abode of the dead and God is the God of the living: And regarding the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” You are badly mistaken! (Mark 12:26-27) I think Old Testament saints where sanctified spiritually but actually being a new creature in Christ, that's largely a matter of conjecture. I certainly see nothing in Scripture indicating that the departed, saved or unsaved, where anywhere other then heaven or hell. Grace and peace, Mark