Category Archives: Questions and Answers

Among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander

Posted on by
7

Pastor John, but now have shipwrecked it, we must conclude that one can lose true faith in Christ.

How would you respond to this claim? Is there more that can be said about these two men, besides, “Since other Scriptures teach perseverance, then we must assume that the faith of Hymenaeus and Alexander must have been a mere profession”?

I think the last sentence in your question does indeed go a long way towards answering your own question, though I believe much more could and should be said.

The 1 Timothy 1:18-20 passage reads:

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

To fully exegete the passage would take far more space than a short blog article would allow for, but I would like to draw out a number of points from the biblical text.
Continue reading →

The Kingdom of God v. The Kingdom of Heaven

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor John, what is the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven?

The short and simple answer is “nothing at all.”

To answer this question properly, I need to provide some background. Matthew, being a Jew and writing to a primarily Jewish audience (with the purpose of showing how Jesus is the long awaited Messiah) was very reticent to use the name of God. That is because of its hallowed name in Hebrew society and religion.

This dates back all the way to the time of Moses and to the sacred name of God revealed in the Pentateuch. Most scholars believe that this name probably sounded like “Yahweh” but this is merely the best educated guess.

Why is this only a guess?

Well, being very mindful of the blasphemy of taking the sacred name of God and using it in vain (one of the Ten Commandments) when writing the name, they removed the vowels. They did this in hope that this might cause people to not speak the sacred name at all (rather than speak it in a vain way). God was so holy and His name was to be revered as no other name and so to treat it lightly would provoke God’s anger and wrath towards them as a people. Therefore in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, all we are left with, when transliterated into English is “YHWH.”

Many centuries on, we have to only guess what those vowels might be because there is nothing to show us exactly what they were, and as I say, “Yahweh” is the best estimate of a guess by scholars.

Some say that the way this would have sounded would be “Jehovah,” but more careful scholarship dismisses that claim, and the vast majority would say the original sound of the name would be as close as possible to “Yahweh.” Most Jewish scholars are naturally reluctant to even look into this debate, because of what the issue means historically in Jewish society and how easy it would be to blaspheme God’s holy (set apart) name.

For us as Gentles, growing up in a culture where the name of God is not hallowed in the same way, this appears to be an over reaction on the part of the Jewish people to treat God’s name in this way. However, to the Jews, this made perfect sense and someone writing to Jews would need to take this into account if he wished to be read at all. This Jewish reluctance to use the name of God is seen even in today’s society in Israel where, for example, the Jerusalem Post (a secular newspaper) will spell the divine name as G-D, (putting in a dash rather than the “O” vowel), so as not to offend their orthodox Jewish readers (who can be very vocal).

I find it very interesting to note that in what we call “the Lord’s Prayer” Jesus instructed His disciples to make the very first petition a request that God’s name would be given its due reverence. When we say “Hallowed be Thy Name” we are actually asking God that His Name would be revered and set apart as holy. It is as if we are saying “May Your Name be hallowed.” Yet how wonderful it is that before we come to this request, we can, as His children, speak to Him as “Father.” Jesus, in teaching His people to pray, establishes both the transcendent majesty of God as well as the deep personal intimacy we have as His children. How wonderful this is.

I say all this to point out that while other gospel writers use the phrase “the Kingdom of God” when they are writing primarily to non Jews, Matthew prefers to use “the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew will use the word “God” of course, but it was rare for him to do so, and where there was the chance to use a different term, he did so.

This becomes immediately apparent when we compare Matthew and the other synoptic Gospel writers (Mark and Luke) when they are recalling either the exact same words of Jesus. Quoting the KJV, here are some examples:

Matthew 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, {15} And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Matthew 8:11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 13:28-29 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. {29} And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
Continue reading →

Understanding Hebrews 2:9

Posted on by
10

Pastor John, I am studying the Doctrines of Grace, but am struggling with the concept of the “L” in the TULIP, namely “Limited Atonement” because Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus tasted death for everyone. Does this not refute the idea or you able to explain this verse?

Thanks for your question. I can understand your struggle as I also found the “L” doctrine the most difficult one to grasp. That is not because the Bible is unclear. I don’t believe that is the case at all. My problem was that I was reading the Bible with a traditional lens, so to speak. Thankfully, what was once fuzzy to me is now extremely clear. Christ is a powerful and perfect Savior!

The whole issue revolves around what exactly was in the mind of God from all eternity in the cross of Christ. In sending His Son to die on the cross, what was God’s intention? Was He merely trying to save as many people as He could, hoping that somone would take Him up on the offer, or was He actually securing salvation for those He chose to redeem?

The answer, I believe, is that God intended to save all His elect people and achieved this through the death of Christ. Rather than being sad for all eternity that so many refused Him, God accomplished everything He set out to do. It is a mistaken idea to think that those who will make up the numbers in hell were every bit redeemed as the occupants of heaven, but their sin of unbelief prevented them from enjoying eternity with God. Such would make Christ a dejected Savior for all eternity, for if His blood truly purchased their redemption, and He removed God’s wrath from them (propitiation) it is indeed scandalous that wrath be poured out on these same people again in hell. That would be double jeopardy, a double payment for sin.

When we look at what Scripture says that Jesus actually achieved by His death, Revelation 5:9 tells us that the heavenly host sing to the Lamb, “by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

This gives us great insight. Notice that the text does not say that He ransomed everyone IN every tribe and language and people and nation but specific people in each tribe, tongue, people group and nation. This speaks of an actual atonement; one without distinction rather than one without exception.

Christ died not merely to make a potential or hypotethical atonement that would only be made effective by man’s response, but He actually removed God’s wrath forever (full propitiation) and provided an actual or definite atonement for the people of God. In doing this He fulfilled the prophecy that He would “save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

When someone describes themselves as a four point Calvinist it is almost always “Limited Atonement” where they have an issue. Reformed people often refer to these folk as “Christmas Calvinists.” Why?

No “L.” (Noel, Noel!! – ha ha)

Well, much more could be said but to answer your question, we can isolate the phrase “taste death for everyone,” taking it out of its setting (which many do without even realising it, which is of course, the very essence of tradition), OR we can allow the greater context to explain the meaning.

Actually, as I have explained elsewhere, whenever we find words such as “all” “every” or “everyone” in Scripture, the correct meaning is understood by the context. Sometimes it means each and everyone on earth, all in human history, past, present and future, but actually that is an extremely rare use of these terms.

This is true in all language use. In English, for example, when a teacher in a classroom asks “are we all here?” he/she is not asking if everyone on planet earth is in the room, but the students signed up for the class. Similarly, if a mother with seven kids gets in the car and before setting off for the grocery store looks behind her drivers’ seat at her children and asks “is everyone in?” we immediately understand she is enquiring about the location of all her children (asking to make sure none of them are missing) rather than everyone in this world.

So regarding Hebrews 2:9, the very next verses (v. 10, 11) explain who the “everyone” is. Here’s the text:

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing MANY SONS TO GLORY, should make the founder of THEIR SALVATION perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and THOSE WHO ARE SANCTIFIED all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call THEM BROTHERS.

The “everyone” are ‘everyone’ of the many sons Christ brings to glory (notice He does not merely try to bring them to glory, He actually does so), whom He sanctifies by tasting death for them and whom He calls brothers. He is the founder of their salvation. His death for everyone of these many sons, brought them all the way to glory, He sanctified them (set them apart as holy) by this death and rather than merely calling them potential brothers, He actually secured their membership in the family of God. Because of His death on their behalf, He is not ashamed to call these many sanctified sons, brothers.

This once again illustrates the value of context in determining the correct meaning of a verse or passage. Whenever we come across words such as “all,” “every” or “everyone,” we should make it a rule to carefully examine the immediate context where these phrases are found. When we take time to do so, the meaning will become clear.