Archives For Interpretation

Luke 1 and the Abortion Debate

June 27, 2016

Many supporters of abortion say that unborn babies are not persons; some even say that they are not human beings. The Holy Spirit’s use of a specific Greek word in Luke 1 provides believers with revelation to address these views.

John the Baptist in the Womb

The Holy Spirit speaks of John the Baptist in the womb by twice using the Greek word βρέφος , which  is not used at all in the Septuagint:

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Luk 1:41 καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν ἡ Ἐλισάβετ τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας, ἐσκίρτησε τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς· καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ,

Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Luk 1:44 ἰδοὺ γάρ, ὡς ἐγένετο ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ σου εἰς τὰ ὦτά μου, ἐσκίρτησεν ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ μου.

These verses show that the Spirit uses this word to communicate that John was a person in the womb who expressed emotion upon the sound of Mary’s voice being heard by John’s mother Elizabeth.

Jesus as a Very Young Child

In the next chapter, the Spirit uses the same Greek word to speak of Jesus as a very young child after He had been born:

Luk 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Luk 2:12 καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον· εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον, κείμενον ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ.

Luk 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

Luk 2:16 καὶ ἦλθον σπεύσαντες, καὶ ἀνεῦρον τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τὸν Ἰωσήφ, καὶ τὸ βρέφος κείμενον ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ.

Based on the Spirit’s use of the same word to designate John in the womb and Jesus as a very young child, Christians have revelation that supports their holding that God views unborn babies as persons who are human beings in the womb in the same way that He views them as persons after they have been born!

Additional New Testament Corroboration

All four of the other occurrences of βρέφος in the NT show that the Spirit teaches the same truth by using this word to refer to newborn babies, infants, and children, all of whom are persons and human beings, even as John was in the womb:

Act 7:19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

Act 7:19 οὗτος κατασοφισάμενος τὸ γένος ἡμῶν, ἐκάκωσε τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν, τοῦ ποιεῖν ἔκθετα τὰ βρέφη αὐτῶν, εἰς τὸ μὴ ζωογονεῖσθαι.

1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

1Pe 2:2 ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη, τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε,

Luk 18:15  And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

Luk 18:15  Προσέφερον δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ βρέφη, ἵνα αὐτῶν ἅπτηται· ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ ἐπετίμησαν αὐτοῖς.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Conclusion

The New Testament teaches Christians that unborn babies are persons who are human beings. Asserting that unborn babies are not persons and are not human beings is a false basis for supporting abortion.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Biblical Greek, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

What the Bible Does Not Say about Abortion

June 20, 2016

Some skeptics assert that the Bible says many things about abortion that support the practice of abortion. Through the responses that I provide below to their assertions, this post presents what the Bible does not say about abortion.

The quotes below are from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

I have added numbers to the points to make them easier to follow. My responses (in italics) follow each point quoted from the article.

“What the Bible says about Abortion”

[1.] “Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. –Exodus 21:22-23”

How this verse supports this point is a mystery to me. This point needs no rebuttal because it is patently false. The text is plain that if any harm follows, the guilty party must be punished. The passage does not specify that the harm was only to the mother; if she is harmed or the prematurely born baby is harmed or both of them are harmed, the person(s) causing the harm must be punished.

[2.] “The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6”

This verse is part of a passage about the valuation that is to be made when persons of certain ages were consecrated by a vow to the Lord (Lev. 27:1). Lack of mention of vowing infants less than one month old does not prove that the Bible places no value on them; this omission of infants being vowed can be explained as God’s not allowing children younger than a month to be vowed.

[3.] “Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16”

This numbering was specifically only of males. If the reasoning used here were valid, all women would also not be considered persons because they were not numbered.

Furthermore, points 2 and 3 are also rebutted by passages that state that all Israelite males were to be circumcised when they were eight days old as a sign of God’s entering into a covenant with them (Gen.17:10-12; Lev. 12:3; Acts 7:8), which proves that God viewed them as persons in the same way that he did all the rest of the males who were older with whom He also entered into a covenant through their being circumcised.

Moreover, Genesis 25:21 relates that Isaac prayed for Rebekah and the Lord answered him and she conceived. Genesis 25:22 then says,

And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

The unborn babies in Rebekah’s womb are not called fetuses; the Hebrew text uses the standard word for “children,” which shows that these unborn twins were persons in the womb.

In addition, John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in the womb; the Bible never speaks of anything other than people being filled with the Spirit. His leaping for joy in the womb when Mary came while bearing Jesus in her womb shows that John was a person in the womb who expressed joy when he encountered the yet-unborn Jesus!

[4.] “God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. — Numbers 31:15-17

(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. — Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. — Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. — Hosea 13:16”

God’s punishing sinful people, including women who may have been or were pregnant does not provide any justification for abortion. God’s judgment resulted in the deaths of both the women and their babies, which is not what abortions do.

[5.] “God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. — 2 Samuel 12:14”

God is the sovereign Judge over the lives of all human beings. His judging these sinful parents through the death of their baby does not justify sinful humans aborting babies at their own discretion.

[6.] “God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. …

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28”

This is a false representation of what the passage is about. The passage gives no evidence that the woman was pregnant.

[7.] “God’s law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. — Genesis 38:24”

This passage reports what Judah said should be done. It does not say that God authorized him to do so. God’s laws through Moses were not given to the Israelites until many years after this incident took place. There is no evidence that Judah was following God’s law when he said that she should be burned.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

What Abortion is In the Eyes of Jesus

June 13, 2016

I believe that abortion is an act of horrific cruelty that puts to death an innocent unborn human being. More importantly, key passages point to a proper understanding of what abortion is in the eyes of Jesus.

Abortion is a Breaking of the Greatest Commandment

Jesus taught that the greatest commandment is to love God with all one’s being (Matt. 22:37-38). Putting to death an innocent unborn child is an egregious failure to love God with all one’s being because to do so is to attack unjustly a helpless human being made in the image of God (cf. James 3:9).

Abortion is a Breaking of the Second Greatest Commandment

Jesus taught that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39). No one is a closer neighbor to another human being than an unborn baby is to his mother.

A mother who arranges to put to death her innocent unborn baby through abortion profoundly fails to obey God’s commandment that she love her neighbor as herself.

Abortion is a Breaking of the Sixth Commandment

Jesus confirmed the sixth commandment that God gave to man when He said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment (Matt. 5:21). Those who put to death an innocent unborn child who has done no wrong to anyone are guilty of breaking God’s commandment not to murder.

Abortion is a Breaking of the Golden Rule

Jesus taught that we are to do to others whatever we would want done to us (Matt. 7:12). Those who abort unborn children break the Golden Rule that Jesus gave because none of us would want to be put to death in the merciless manner that helpless children are killed when they are aborted.

Abortion is a Sin for Which Jesus Died to Provide Forgiveness to All Who Repent and Believe

The Father sent His Son Jesus into the world to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:15). Jesus laid down His life to save sinners from their sins (Matt. 1:21; 1 John 3:16).

Jesus offers forgiveness to all those who repent of their breaking the two greatest commandments, the sixth commandment, and the Golden Rule through the sin of abortion. Anyone who repents toward God and believes in Jesus Christ will receive forgiveness of this sin (and all his other sins).

Abortion is a Sin for Which Jesus Will Judge All Who Refuse to Repent and Believe

God raised Jesus from the dead and gave Him glory that the faith and hope of people might be in God (1 Pet. 1:21). God has appointed Jesus to be the Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42).

As the God-appointed Judge, Jesus will forgive all who repent of the sin of abortion and believe in Him (Acts 10:43). He is the Judge who will condemn eternally all who refuse to repent of their sins and believe (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Conclusion

God does not want anyone to perish—He wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). Believe in God and believe in Jesus and you will be saved and find rest for your soul (Matt. 11:28-30), no matter what sins you have committed!

Jesus does not want anyone to go on being heavy laden with the burden of the sin of abortion. If you are guilty before God in this way, acknowledge what abortion is in the eyes of Jesus.

Confess your sinfulness before God and forsake it and you will receive mercy from God (Prov. 28:13). Believe that Jesus died for that sin and all your other sins (1 Cor. 15:3), believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10), and call on His name as Lord (Rom. 10:13), and He will give you rest for your soul that no one else can or ever will (Matt. 11:28-30).

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Why Christian Women Should Have Long Hair

June 11, 2016

It seems that it has again become fashionable for women in the US to have long hair. Scripture presents Christian women with clear revelation for why they should have long hair regardless of what the current fashion trends may be.

Divine Commendation

In figurative language, God commends a woman’s having long hair when He includes a statement about Jerusalem’s hair having grown as part of her natural beauty that He had bestowed upon her as a grown woman:

Eze 16:7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

Feminine Excellence

The Apostle Paul challenges the Corinthian believers about proper practice in public worship partly by reasoning with them from the instruction that they innately receive concerning what is excellent for a woman:

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

From divine viewpoint, long hair is a uniquely excellent1 attribute that God has given to women. It is not incidental that God here extols one of the same things to which He directed attention to about Jerusalem when she had grown up.

Conclusion

Although fashions frequently change in human cultures, God’s truth remains unchanged. Christian women should have long hair because their having long hair is a unique excellence that God has bestowed upon them and commended to them in His perfect Word.

1 This terminology is based on the excellent explanation provided in preaching and teaching by Pastor Mark Minnick that the glory of something may best be understood as its unique excellence.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Does God Care about the Length of Hair a Christian Man Has?

June 6, 2016

Two key passages reveal what God wants men whom He has redeemed to believe about whether He cares how long their hair is.

First Corinthians 11:13-15

Paul’s teaching in First Corinthians 11 is likely the most well known passage about divine perspective concerning the length of a man’s hair. In the midst of extensive teaching about head coverings in public worship settings, Paul states,

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

This divine revelation makes clear that God does care about the length of a man’s hair. According to Paul, even nature instructs believers that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

What Paul teaches here is corroborated by revelation in a second passage given by God through the prophet Ezekiel, which although it was given prior to Paul’s statement, pertains to divine perspective about the hair length of his ministers in the future Millennial reign of Christ on the earth.

Ezekiel 44:15-27

In a lengthy passage concerning regulations for the Zadokian priests who will serve God in the Millennial temple (Ezek. 44:15-27), God makes known His viewpoint about the length of hair that his priests will have to have:

Eze 44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

Through this revelation, God teaches us that His priests in the Millennium will not be allowed either to shave their heads or to grow their long; instead, they will need to maintain their hair at an intermediate length (cf., “they shall keep their hair well trimmed” [NKJV]).

Conclusion

A comparison of these two passages shows believers that God does care about the length of hair that a Christian man has. Christian men who are devoted to walking in God’s ways in all areas of their lives should heed what He teaches about what length of hair He wants men whom He has redeemed to have.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Beware These Wrong Theological Views about Human Sinfulness and Politics

May 19, 2016

In discussions about politics, I have encountered three wrong theological views about human sinfulness and politics. These views have contributed to many believers making wrong choices about which political candidates they have supported.

All Sins are Equally Sinful in the Sight of God

—Contrary to what some believers have said, all sins are not equally sinful; Jesus testified that some sins are greater than other sins are.

Joh 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

All People are Equally Unrighteous before God

Several lines of biblical reasoning show that the view that all people are equally unrighteous before God is false.

—Chorazin and Bethsaida will experience greater judgment than will Tyre and Sidon because they were more unrighteous than Tyre and Sidon were.

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

—People who have had greater knowledge of the will of God will receive greater punishment than those that did not because those who knew more but failed to do God’s will were more unrighteous.

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

—All lost people will not receive the same punishment as every other lost person; they will be judged according to their works, with those who have sinned more being punished more.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Voting for a Civil Leader and Not a Pastor

I have heard several believers support the candidate for whom they have voted in spite of the candidate’s moral failures by arguing that they are voting for a civil leader and not a pastor. The Scriptural records of the actions of two leading men of God show that this view is not biblical.

—Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest prophet of the OT saints (Luke 7:28). John confronted the sexual immorality of an unsaved king:

Mat 14:3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.

 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

In various ways, Paul the Apostle was the leading apostle of Jesus Christ (for example, 1 Cor. 15:10). He confronted the sexual immorality of an unsaved governor in a non-Christian government:

Act 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

These two leading men of God, the former of the OT prophets and the latter of the NT apostles, showed by their dealings with unsaved civil authorities that the sexual immorality of a civil official is a vitally important matter, just as it also is for pastors.

Conclusion

Christians must base their political views and choices on a proper theology of human sinfulness. Such a theology requires the rejection of the three incorrect views treated in this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Whom Would the Apostle Paul Have Voted for in This Year’s Elections?

May 9, 2016

Scripture presents Paul the apostle as “the pattern believer” for all Christians (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17). Had Paul been a US citizen today, which candidate would he have voted for in this year’s presidential elections?

Paul as Citizen of a Non-Christian Government

Paul was a natural-born citizen of the nation of Rome (Acts 22:28). The Roman government was not a Christian government by any stretch of the imagination.

In his latter years, Paul spent much time as a prisoner of the Roman government (Acts 21-28; etc). He had several encounters with top Roman leaders in his lifetime (Acts 23-26).

From the Scriptural record of one of Paul’s encounters with a key civil official, we learn vital information about what Paul believed concerning what kind of person such a political leader needed to be.

Paul’s Ministry to a Roman Governor

While he was imprisoned, Paul had a noteworthy evangelistic encounter with the Roman governor Felix:

Act 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Stanley D. Toussaint’s comments in the Bible Knowledge Commentary help bring out what Paul displayed was important to address on this occasion:

Felix must have taken a brief trip with his wife, Drusilla. When they returned, Felix sent for Paul who spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. Felix was brought under conviction when Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come. Well he should, for his marriage to Drusilla was his third and he had to break up another marriage to secure her. His regime was marked by injustices that contrasted with the righteousness of God. And he was a man grossly lacking in self-control (BKC: NT, 422; words in italics are in bold in the original).

Paul challenged this secular civil leader in a non-Christian government about his sinful lack of self-control. The Greek word that Luke used for “temperance” (egkrateia) in his inspired summary record of this encounter highlights that Paul confronted him about his sexual immorality.

In this encounter, Paul showed that he held that the lack of moral character of a civil official in a non-Christian government was a vital matter that he had to address in his dealings with that official.

Which Candidate Would Paul Have Voted For in 2016?

Based on what we learn from Acts 24:24-25, we can be certain that the apostle Paul would have scrutinized thoroughly all the candidates in this year’s presidential elections concerning their lack of moral character. Of the candidates that he would have had to choose from, there would have been one who would have most closely and conspicuously resembled Felix in this key respect.

Had Paul had the opportunity to vote in this year’s presidential elections, he would never have voted for a man who was like Felix because Paul would have heeded what God demands of all civil leaders: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Sam. 23:3). Because God commands us to be followers of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 11:1), we must hold that the moral character of a prospective President of the US is an essential consideration upon which we must base all our decisions about the candidate (or candidates) for whom we vote.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Is Voting for the Lesser of Two (or more) Evils What We Are Faced with in All Elections?

May 6, 2016

Some Christians in this year’s Republican elections have justified their support of candidates who are known to be unjust people by arguing that none of the candidates met the biblical qualification of being a just man who rules in the fear of God (2 Sam. 23:3) because they (and all the rest of us) are all sinners. Some have also asserted that we are always voting for the lesser of two (or more) evils because all of us are evil.

These viewpoints—especially the viewpoint about always being in the position of having to vote for the lesser evil—are false because they do not account for relevant biblical data. Several passages in both Testaments provide that data:

1. In spite of Shechem’s vile raping of Dinah, God inspired Moses to record that he “was more honorable than all the house of his father” (Gen. 34:19). God thus did not want us to think even of Shechem only as less evil than the rest of those who were in his father’s house.

2. Scripture does not say that Jabez was less evil than his brothers; it says that he was more honorable than they were (1 Chron. 4:9).

3. Cornelius was an unsaved government official who is commended by both the inspired Scripture writer (Luke; Acts 10:2) and by others of his own nation who speak of him in glowing terms (Acts 10:22). If an unsaved Roman civil authority is commended in such ways in Scripture, should we approach all elections with the mindset that we are always voting for the candidate who is the least evil one?

4. Scripture explicitly speaks of Barnabas as “a good man” (Acts 11:24). Are we to believe that he is the only Christian who has ever been a good man? Have there never been any Christians who have run for public office who in the same sense truly were good candidates?

These passages show that it is valid to speak of people as good people even though they are sinners in the same sense that we all are (as spoken of in Rom. 3:23). It is wrong to say that we are always voting for the lesser of two (or more) evils when we vote.

There are elections in which we have the choice of voting for men who are or would be “just, ruling in the fear of God” even though they are still sinners in the sight of God because they have not been sinless throughout their lives. It’s a shame that we no longer have that choice in this year’s presidential race (among the major candidates) because many Christians voted for an unjust candidate by wrongly reasoning that there were no just candidates in the race.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Seven Reasons Why We Will Study the Bible in Heaven

April 30, 2016

Bible Picture

In heaven, we will see God face to face. Does that mean that we will not study the Bible anymore once we are in heaven?

Some Christians believe that the Bible will be irrelevant when we get to heaven because we will have direct access to God and learn everything directly from Him. For at least seven reasons, I disagree with that view.

1. Biblical Statements about the Eternal Permanence of God’s Word

Several statements in Scripture teach us that God’s Word is forever settled in heaven and it will endure forever:

Psa 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

These statements imply that the Bible, which is the only inspired collection of God’s words, will forever be relevant.

2. Endless Future Teaching by God

God is going to show us forever the endless wealth of His gracious kindness toward us in Christ:

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Because Scripture is the word of His grace (Acts 20:32), it makes sense that God will continue to use His inspired eternal Word to bestow unending grace upon us throughout the ages to come.

3. Divine Use of Written Records in Heaven

Some argue against the need of the Bible in heaven because they think that direct fellowship with an omniscient God obviates the use of anything that is written. Scripture, however, shows that this is invalid reasoning by informing us that God will use what is written in certain books to judge human beings even though He has no need to resort to any written records of anything:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Because God could just as readily cause each person being judged to view on a screen all their works in video form instead of basing their judgment on a written record of their works, yet He chooses not to do so, we understand that these written records will be vital in heaven. Since we know with certainty that there will be divine use of written records in heaven, arguing against the use of the Bible as a continuing source of information because it is in written form is untenable.

4. Many Saints Will Have Never Had Access to the Whole Bible in Their Lifetimes

Except for the many believers who have lived in the past two to three centuries in certain parts of the world, the vast majority of saints who have lived throughout history have never enjoyed access to the whole Bible in their lifetimes. It is unthinkable that God will not give them finally the blessedness of reading and studying the entire Word of God someday.

5. Correction of Wrong Interpretations of Scripture and Failures to Understand It

Believers in God have puzzled over how to understand and interpret many parts of Scripture throughout much of the history of their having that written divine revelation given to them (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Undoubtedly, we all have misunderstood and have misinterpreted Scripture in various ways.

God will surely correct all the failures of all His people to handle His word accurately and explain to them the truths that they have failed to understand (cf. Jesus’ dealing with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus [Luke 24:13-27]). His warning that all teachers of the Word will give a stricter accounting of themselves implies that God will especially show them where they have failed to handle His word accurately (James 3:1-2).

6. No Access to the Original Autographs in Our Day

For most of its history, the Church has not had access to the original inspired autographs of Scripture. Studying the original autographs in heaven will provide us with understanding that we are unable to have certainty about now, such as what was the original ending of the book of Mark.

Having access to the original autographs will also clear up many supposed contradictions in Scripture for which we can provide reasonable but not definitive explanations now. Such study of Scripture will heighten our eternal appreciation for the perfection of God’s eternal Word.

7. Further Illumination of the Perfect Book Authored by the Holy Spirit

Even the most devoted students of Scripture of all the ages have hardly scratched the surface of the infinite perfection of the work of the Holy Spirit in authoring His perfect Book (cf. Ps. 119:96). Holding that we will study our Bibles throughout all eternity is consistent with what fully understanding a perfect book authored by the Holy Spirit will entail.

Conclusion

For at least seven solid reasons, we can be confident that we will study the Bible in heaven. Let us devote ourselves to intensive careful study of our Bibles now in anticipation of the glorious future that we will have studying the eternal perfections of God’s eternal Word!

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Bible reading, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Did Boaz and Ruth Fornicate on the Night Before They Were Married?

April 21, 2016

I recently engaged in an online discussion with some believers who assert that it is a fairly common view among believers today to hold that Boaz and Ruth fornicated on the night before they were married. In all my readings of the Book of Ruth, I do not remember ever thinking that the language of the passage shows that they engaged in sexual immorality on that occasion.

Several considerations lead me to reject this apparently widespread contemporary view categorically.

A Virtuous Woman Would Not Go Along with an Immoral Scheme

Ruth was a virtuous woman whose excellent character was known to all the people and attested to by them (Ruth 3:11). She went to the threshing floor where Boaz was sleeping that night because Naomi her mother-in-law instructed her to do so (Ruth 3:1-5).

Ruth uncovered Boaz’s feet and lay down at his feet because Naomi told her to do so (Ruth 3:4). To hold that Ruth and Boaz fornicated that night because Ruth put herself in that situation would mean that she would have gone along with an immoral scheme that her mother-in-law had devised.

Because Ruth was a virtuous woman, she would not have knowingly gone along with such an immoral scheme. The importance of this observation is heightened by a second key consideration about this encounter between Ruth and Boaz.

Their Supposedly Fornicating Does Not At All Fit the Flow of Thought

Their supposedly fornicating on the night before they were married does not fit the flow of thought at all. There was a kinsman who was closer to Ruth than Boaz was (Ruth 3:12). Neither Boaz nor Ruth knew, therefore, at that time whether they would ever be married because they did not know what that person would choose to do about his right of redemption (Ruth 3:13; 4:4).

To hold that Ruth and Boaz slept together on the night before they were married means that they would have to have given in to their fleshly lusts in spite of their not having any surety whether there would be any future for them to be together. Their having done so would thus have been a far different matter than the situation of engaged couples who succumb to their fleshly desires before their upcoming planned weddings.

Moreover, Naomi also would have been responsible for putting Ruth in that compromising situation because she was the one who directed Ruth to do what she did. She then would have shared responsibility for the defiling of Ruth without having any certainty that Boaz would even be able to marry Ruth the next day.

Our Responsibility to Give Other Believers Every Reasonable Benefit of the Doubt

We must give Ruth and Boaz every reasonable benefit of the doubt. As discussed above, Scripture does not provide any compelling evidence that shows that they engaged in premarital intimacy.

In fact, the inspired record strongly precludes their having been immoral together on that night. It would be unrighteous, therefore, for believers to assert that Boaz and Ruth were immoral on that occasion.

Conclusion

Boaz and Ruth are alive today in the presence of God. We who are believers in Jesus Christ will spend all eternity with them.

Because we do not have irrefutable evidence to show that they fornicated on the night before they were married, we should not dishonor them by suggesting that they fornicated when they met that night. If we do so, and they testify to us someday in heaven to the purity of their dealings on that occasion, we will owe them an apology in that day.

Moreover, the biblical account of the threshold encounter of Boaz and Ruth does not provide any support for holding that premarital sex is somehow legitimate or not such a big deal because supposedly Ruth and Boaz slept together on the night before they were married. Using this account to try to excuse such immoral behavior is to misuse Scripture.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink