Sunday, December 22, 2013
APOSTLES AND PROPHETS TODAY
APOSTLES AND PROPHETS TODAY
There are those who claim to be apostles and prophets by their own word. Others claim it by showing their signs, wonders and miracles. This so-called signs and wonders movement is part of an effort to restore what they understood to be the five-fold ministry described in Ephesians 4:11. The proliferators of the movement claim that these dynamics are what is necessary for the church to have power. In actuality, those who lay claim to this ministry today are operating under a misunderstanding of apostles and prophets of the Bible. The Lord confirmed His signs to the apostles' words to show a transition of authority from Israel and its priesthood to the apostles who were laying down the foundation for the church, a new entity. This unique anointing testified to Israel and to the gentiles a new order of leadership, the demonstration of spiritual authority was transferred to the church Christ body. Becoming aware of what the Bible says about these positions in the early church can help us guard against misleading teachings in the church today.
Validated by signs and miracles, the apostles deemed the faith for the whole Church and established the written word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once the scriptures were completed, the Church had all that was necessary in the area of revelational truth. The apostles' instructions were in words, then put to paper for all succeeding generations on how to live in obedience to the faith.
Once a foundation is laid down and a house is built, we don't rebuild the foundation.(Eph.2:20) Neither should we rip apart the house that the Lord has built.
A true apostle would point out the false ones. Yet today, not only do those who claim to be apostles fail to do so, but there are threats and manipulations for those who do not go along with what they are trying to portray. 'Jezebel,' 'Antichrist,' and 'Blasphemer of the Holy Spirit' are common terms used for those who speak against them.
Alarmingly, these impostor’s claim to be exclusively without error in their interpretations and teachings on these matters. They are to be questioned by no one. In reading the letter of Jude, we find him exhorting the believers to contend for their faith among apostates in the church. More specifically, verse 17 reminds the church of the apostles' warnings of mockers coming in the last days that are natural men not having the Spirit. Today we find those who claim to have more of it than others. Nowhere do we find the apostles preaching they are anointed and certainly did not imply they were more so than others. The danger of these mislead leaders is that they will cause divisions without realizing the harm they do, nor the judgment that they will eventually incur upon themselves.
Most scholars agree there are at least 3 and possibly as many as 5 groupings of apostles in the NT. First is Jesus who stands alone as the apostle in Heb.3:1-6 sent by God to be the Savior of the world. All other apostles derive their position under him. We find an apostle is 'one sent from'. There is a technical use and a general use in this term.
Scripturally we find that the apostles were all personally chosen by the Lord Jesus. Mt.10:1-4 and in Lk.6:12-16 names the 12 apostles, one of which was chosen for perdition. The 70 as well as the twelve were also trained and sent out. The position of the apostles were not permanently fixed number until after the resurrection (Matt. 19:28-30; Lk. 22:28-34; Jn. 21:15-18). The number 12 then becomes an eternally established number.
Matthew and Mark use the term “apostle” only once for the Twelve who were sent on a missionary journey (Matt. 10:2; Mk. 6:30). Luke uses the title the most frequently and almost exclusively calls the Twelve “apostles” (Lk. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10; Acts 1:26; 2:43; 4:35,37; 5:2,12,18; 8:1. )
One of the Biblical requirements for one to be rightly regarded as an apostle were those following Jesus from the time of John’s baptism. They also were to have seen the risen Lord be witnesses of his resurrection. When the closed group of twelve became eleven, they sought another to take Judas' office: Acts 1:21-22 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time the Lord Jesus went in and among us beginning from the baptism of John to that day he was taken up from us One of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.' “
The men went on to cast lots, and the lot fell on Mattias which closed the group of 12 permanently. We later see God choosing Paul in Acts 9. Also see 1 Corinthians 9: 1.) We find that the apostles were given authority to perform special miracles . In Revelation 12:12 there are 12 gates and the name of the 12 tribes in Rev.21:14, there is reference to twelve foundations with the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb which are written on them in Heaven. Jesus referred to this in Mt.19:28, that in the millennium those who have followed him (the apostles) will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. These twelve seem to relate to Israel specifically, while Paul does not.
Paul's own words in defense of his apostleship claim in 1 Cor. 9:1: “Am I not an apostle? ... Have I not seen Jesus Christ our lord? Essentially there were two different groups those who were with Jesus when he was alive and then were witnesses of his resurrection and Paul as one who was witness to his resurrection only not having him be of the 12.(I need to mention that there are some who hold the position that apostleship was temporary and as Judas was replaced so could be any of the others. This does not seem to be a tenable position since there is no mention of this occurring in scripture.)
In 1 Cor. 15 Paul describes the gospel and concentrates on the resurrection and the sequence of his appearing during the 40 day period after the resurrection.Vs.5 “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: then by over 500.” Vs.7 “Then he was seen by James then by all the apostles.”
After the resurrection the “twelve”, is a number used to Identify the apostles originally with Jesus. This does not necessarily mean their were 12 only gathered to see him. It certainly cannot mean it was Matthias as one of the 12 since he was picked after Jesus left and ascended. Their is no account of a special appearance to him or anyone else as was with Paul only. The term 12 identified them as the group number that began with John and saw the resurrection. But from the group of 500 he appeared to, there were apostles among them as well as in vs.7 Then the apostles all.
Other requirements within this first qualification of being from John and a witness to the resurrection. He must have been taught divine truth by Jesus personally (Gal.1:1,12; 1Cor.15:3). The 11 were commissioned together as Jesus breathed on them the Holy Spirit as an indication of their unity and authority to forgive sins ads they proclaimed the Gospel. The exception is Paul who was taught personally by Christ while he was in Arabia for 3 years. When he emerged he had the same teaching as the 12. (Jn.14:26, 16:13; 1 Cor.13:37) So an apostle will agree with the already commissioned apostles in Scripture.
They were commissioned to communicate the very words of the Lord (1 Thess.2:13;1 Jn.4:6) They could speak words of judgment and the miraculous and have it immediately executed (Jn.20:23; Acts 5:3-11; 13:10, 1 Cor.5:3-5; 1 Tim.1:20). The Apostles exercised a position of authority as a community of elders over the church which was to be obeyed as if it was the Lord himself. (1 Cor.5:3-5; 2 Cor.10:6,8,11; 2 Thess.3:7-12,14). All these were in the nature of the office of an apostle.
Paul sometimes uses the term “apostle” in a broader sense for a messenger like a legate (2 Cor. 8:23; they are called apostles of the church),” a non technical term with a general meaning. There is a difference supported in scripture to be an apostle of the Lord, personally chosen and sent by him; and an apostle of the church, sent out by the body of believers. This broader usage made it possible to include others who would be considered false apostles, messengers (2 Cor.11:14; Rev 2:2). Paul also uses the word for a group of witnesses who had seen the risen Lord before him and had received a specific call to an apostleship. This group was larger than the Twelve.
The book of Acts is recording a transitional period from when Christ left physically and sent the Holy Spirit to continue his ministry. The book of Acts traces the missions of two of the apostles specifically and others when they relate to their ministry. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.
When the apostles came and laid hands on people they received the Spirit in the dramatic way like Pentecost. The Bible never shows any regular Christian laying hands and their receiving the gift of the Spirit in this way.
A question often posed is, 'Can others do miracles like the apostles, since Mark 16:17-18 describes “and these signs will follow those who believe in my name they will cast out demons they will speak in other tongues and… will heal the sick.” (' Note: these particular verses are not found in the majority of the manuscripts, granted that they are...) The answer is found in a careful examination of the text. Where we find in the Mark 16:14 narrative that Jesus is speaking to the 11 and commissions them to preach the Gospel first then baptizing the believers. So we find that the Lord is in fact speaking directly to the apostles just before he is taken up into Heaven (verse 19). Afterward, the apostles went out and preached, and the Lord was working with them confirming His Word through accompanying signs. Therefore, there is no evidence that all believers can do what the apostles did. What did occur is the word was first preached and the signs and wonders followed to validate the new leadership for the church. In much the same way Jesus’ miracles were to validate his person and message. If these signs and wonders were to follow all who believe how could one tell who the apostles were? There would be no distinction in leadership. The very reason for the signs and miracles were to appoint the apostles as a governing leadership over Gods new entity the Church. If we look at the book of Acts who was it that took up a serpent? Paul an apostle. Who laid hands on the sick and they recovered? The apostles. This was never a normal occurrence for everyone who was a Christian. When Dorcas died the believers did not raise her but sent for Peter to raise her from the dead (9:36-42). This also shows that Mk.16:17 is not a promise that was being exercised to all believers.
“ Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.”(2 Cor. 12:12) The sign of an apostle was the miracles done, this distinguished them from the other believers.
Unlike those who claim miraculous healings today the apostles healed totally and instantaneously. It was permanent not as some claim today that one must continue in faith or the devil will steal it away. They were able to heal all such as Paul on the Island of Malta in Acts 28 healed Publius and the rest of the people who had diseases came to him. He was also able to be unaffected by a poisenous snake. They healed organic disease on those from birth. They raised the dead . Peter raised Dorcas Acts 9:36-42, Paul raised Eutyches back to life after he fell 3 stories Acts 20:6-12. Like Jesus it was by a word or a touch, as God approved their office it was immediate and permanent .
Acts 2:43: “Then fear came upon every soul and many signs and wonders are done through the apostles. Acts 5:12 “And through he hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. Acts 14:3” Paul and Barnabas speak boldly in the Lord, who bears witness to His word of grace, granting signs sign and wonders to be done through their hands.”
All these and many more scriptures show that the apostles were special men commissioned for a unique role in a particular time period for the Church. (Ephesians 2:20) “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets…Notice past tense, been built. Once a foundation is laid it does not need to be laid down again, it is built upon “ It was upon these men the apostles and prophets that the foundation the church was built on, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Those who claim apostolic authority today are attempting to rebuild the church whose foundation was already laid and built . Later on in Eph.4:11 Paul writes, “and he himself gave some to be apostles and prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers…” he does not say he keeps on giving apostles and prophets for the simple reason formerly stated they were the foundation of the church. Paul makes no distinction of what is continued or what is not in this passage. Anything mentioned in Eph.4:11 must be in light of the former statement in 2:20 of the apostles and prophets laying down the foundation in the past tense (foundation in the scriptures for us to come to the unity of the faith.) We do see Pastors and teachers continue as they are not supernatural offices or sign gifts but leaders and rulers over the congregations after the apostles were gone. The Apostles wrote down the teachings for the Church to follow. If their are apostles today in the sense of the Church’s beginnings there would have to be new revelation. This would have to be included as Scripture because apostolic revelation is authoritative and infallible. It would then be on the same level as our Bible. This is what the Mormon church claims and many other cult groups. To say we have modern day apostles like Matthew and Paul is to say Scripture is continually being written which means rejecting the former revelation of the apostles given by Jesus. As John writes in his 1st epistle 1:1-4 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.”
The greatest men who influenced the church throughout history never claimed they were apostles or prophets. They never taught that these 2 offices continued. Athanasius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Finney, Great theologians like Charles Hodge , A.H Strong or Gill and all others were satisfied to build upon the foundation already laid by the original apostles.We find the only apostles mentioned in Church history after the bible was completed were false ones.
The gift and office of apostleship was the first and most important gift given after Christ ascended, but it was a temporary gift and office that does not continue to our present time. For the simple reason people do not see Jesus Christ in His bodily resurrection. For this to be so he would have to leave the right hand of God and make a special appearance. We know from scripture the next time he comes is for everyone at the rapture, there are no secret comings. The apostles had completed their mission of laying the foundation of the Church and the doctrine was inscripturated. God's Word is complete no new revelation is needed. While the Lord does speak to us today he does not give any new revelation or doctrine since it has been delivered and completed.
There were also apostolic legates those directly commissioned by an apostle, their were no apostolic miracles done except in the presence of one or being commissioned by one. Two examples are Stephen and Philip. Acts 6:5-8: “And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.”
Stephen was directly appointed by an apostle approved into ministry. He was what is called an apostolic legate, one that is commissioned by an apostle. It is these legates like Philip who went to Samaria (Acts 8) ahead of the apostles to bring the gospel to new areas until Paul and Barnabas were sent. Even in Acts 8 when Philip preached Christ and did miracles they believed and were baptized. They sent for the apostles vs.14-15 and when they came and prayed it was then as they laid hands on them they received the Holy Spirit from on high. also in Acts 10, and 19. So all the miracles were in the presence of one of the apostles or one commissioned by one. (James the Lords brother was called an apostle Gal.1:19, James is included in Gal. 2:9 also Barnabas 1 Cor. 9:5-6)
Paul became an apostle by seeing the resurrected Christ Acts 9 and 1 Cor.15:8. Paul was picked by Jesus. There are those today who claim that someone can see Jesus and be an apostle just like Paul. We have to look at this event carefully. Jesus appeared to choose him, he was an unbeliever at the time. It became his conversion. Jesus appeared to him in glory more in the manner of what John saw on the Isle of Patmos when he wrote the Revelation, not like the disciples saw him after his resurrection.
Acts 9:5 It is clear, from this event that there was a personal appearance as he states [I am Jesus of Nazareth] who was the object of his contempt. Jesus appeared in a manifestation “crowned with glory and honor.” As Paul states in Gal 1:16 I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood. Paul certainly understood what this shekinah glory was knowing the OT. as he did. Paul actually became blind from seeing the glory Acts 22:11.
In Acts 9:17, after the Lord speaks to Annanias in a vision he States to Paul “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came.”
And Barnabas states when he brought him before the apostles at Jerusalem, he declared to them how he had SEEN the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken unto him; and in Acts 22:14, “The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.”
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead). He then became an apostle to the gentiles (as well as Barnabas Gal.2:9; Acts:13:2,7, 15:12) as Peter and the others was to the Jews. In 1 Cor. 9:1 Paul in defense of his position states “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our lord? He then validates his position by their salvation. So he met the 2nd requirement, to be a witness of the resurrection Acts 1:22.
Paul defended his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, using examples of signs and wonders. If these miracles and signs were common for everyone, how then could Paul use these as proof of his authority? Even when the apostles were alive, all Christians could not do signs and wonders so they certainly cannot do them today. Some of these were unusual miracle uncommon occurrences such as healing from his handkerchiefs Acts 19:12. Again, God used these miracles as witnesses to confirm His gospel as truth, and to identify His new leadership it was these men who penned down the words of the Holy Spirit that has become our New Testament. Once the scripture was completed we find no more apostles
How can we know this for sure? Because Paul states unequivocally in 1 Cor.15: after going through the witnesses of the resurrection. Vs. 8 “Then LAST OF ALL seen by me also, as one born out of due time.” Paul is appealing to his unusual appointment. He was the last on earth (Gr. last in time) to see the risen Christ (Thayers Gr. optanomai or optomai- to look at, to behold , to allow oneself to be seen, to appear ) and that his encounter was an abortion. “Paul resembled such a birth, in the suddenness of his new birth, in that he was not matured for the apostolic function, as the others were, who had personal converse with our Lord. He was called to the office when such conversation was not to be had, he was out of time for it. He had not known nor followed the Lord, nor been formed in his family, as the others were,” (from Matthew Henry's Commentary)
In the same sense neither are there any more apostles by abortion today. Since Paul was the LAST OF ALL. “Paul’s adverbs of time here is chronological: then (eita), then (epeita), then (epeita), then (eita), last of all (eschaton pantoôn)”. (A.T. Robertsons word Pictures)
This should settle the issue that just as the 12 became a closed group, so likewise Paul ended the Lord choosing others. The fact is there is no more apostles chosen after Paul.
The pastoral epistles give the principles and positions for church leadership throughout history, they mention elders, teachers and deacons. They never mention apostles. The only apostolic category that consists today is the one of being sent out as a missionary planting Churches. There are pastors, teachers and elders for Church government today also evangelists, as well as spiritual gifts being operational for the local body.
Jude said, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17). Jude does not mention any continuance of apostles in the Church, he points back to them. When the apostles spoke, there was no debating. They were already recognized as the leaders revealing Gods will for the Church . Whereas the prophets, whose words had to be judged as to their accuracy.
While there is no contest that at least some of the gifts of the Spirit are operating today (God still heals supernaturally and does miracles), but we must keep our views in healthy balance with the scriptures. The Biblical portrayal or definition of the position of apostle is as an appointed office by Christ, not merely a spiritual gift. The word apostle can be used in a general sense in reference to someone commissioned to go out and start churches (2 Cor. 8:23). In this sense, a believer can exercise the gift of apostle today, as a 'sent out one.' However, one cannot claim to hold the office of an apostle as in the 12 as we see many doing today.
The Apostles set position were authenticated by the miraculous. Acts 3:3-11Peter healed the crippled man at the gate of the Temple as well as others. (Acts 5:15-16) Paul had also brought Eutychus back to life after he had fallen to his death (Acts 20:6-12). No apostolic miracles were ever performed in the apostolic era by anyone other than the apostles and those who were commissioned by them, showing this office was unique to its time.
It is also worth pointing out that the apostles were limited on the miracles they performed; none of them ever fed five thousand as Jesus did, nor did they ever walk on water or translocate into a room on their own. Yet they did do unusual healings and miracles and resurrect people, which was also the last sign Jesus said would be given to the unbelieving generation at that time. Today it seems we are again surrounded by unbelief, even in the church, because so many are following those who do signs and wonders. Jesus said it was an evil and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign and a wonder. Today our generation is repeating the same error as the unbelieving Jews except it supposedly from believers.
The apostles never preached signs and wonders to attract the multitudes much less those who already believe. Seeing a sign was never a assurance of belief.
We are warned of false apostles those who claim authority that is not from God and can do miracles. In much the same way as the false prophets God told Jeremiah,” I have not sent them or spoken to them.”
With all this in mind Paul did not use the signs and miracles as the absolute proof of his apostolic position.
1 Cor. 4:9-13: “For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.” Notice he says they were last examples condemned to death, weak, poor, hungry, beaten and homeless. Its obvious we don’t see those who claim these positions today living in such a manner. They for the most part became martyrs. Today those who claim apostolic positions live in luxury and opulence.
Col. 1:24 “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.” Paul’s life of weakness and suffering showed his gifting and position. Paul’s life of denial showed his anointing.
2 Cor.1:6: “Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation.”
History tells us that all of the apostles (minus one Judas) were killed for their service to the Lord. This is hardly the case for those claiming this position today.
There are numerous warnings in scripture, in Mt.7 there is number of people who claim before the Lord have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name and done many wonders. Clearly they are laying claim to some type of apostolic position. Then I will declare to them I never knew you, depart from me you who practice lawlessness.” They tried to be accepted by what they did , by the power they supposedly had but they did not do the will of the Lord which is to preach the Gospel in truthfulness. Yet the lord said he never had a relationship with them. So his name is not a stamp of authenticity for anyone (obviously it was a different Jesus who was their source of power.) They were lawless they were not under his leadership, or guidance they did not practice the law of Christ. They tried to approach God on their own merit by their good deeds saying look at what we did, we had power. It wasn't about power but about knowing him in a relationship. “I never knew you “he gave them what they already possessed, since they were departed from him to begin with.
In Rev. 2:2: “unto the church in Ephesus write… Thou hast tried them that say They are apostles and are not, and has found them to be liars.”
They were false apostles because they did not see the risen Lord nor were they commissioned by him. They did not live or teach to the standard of scripture.
2 Cor.11:12-14: “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light, Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” They can look right but if they do not speak according to the word already delivered then whatever follows in miracles is not from God but from another source.
The true apostles are unique in their ministry , office, and power never to be duplicated. They were for a specific period in Church history. It is impossible for their to be modern day apostles as in the beginning since none of those today possess the necessary credentials to be an apostle. In 1 Cor.4:9 Paul explains what it was to be an apostle. “For I think God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; “ (this is in the aorist tense meaning that they do not continue.) The apostles example were that they gave their lives for Christ and the Church. It was their teaching and it being written including miracles that made them apostles.
In warning, Jesus said to those who were following Him for the blessings, 'Unless you people see signs and wonders you will by no means believe.' Our choice today is to believe His Word that he spoke, not self-appointed men in spiritual offices in which they clearly do not belong.
Jude said, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17).This is Gods word to those who think they are in the category of the ancient apostles.
The apostolic age was unique in histories timeline and it ended. Jesus says it, Paul does, history teaches this, theology teaches it, and the New Testament itself continually affirms it.
What makes a prophet
What makes a prophet a true spokesman for God?
The Old Testament prophets taught the basic truths and principles of God, and the facts and nuances of man's relationship with Him. They condemned sin, they brought comfort to the remnant, and conviction to those who sinned. They were invariably persecuted by the target portion of Israel, and most importantly, they spoke of things to come both near and far into the future Deuteronomy 18:15 -19 tells us of the nature of a true prophet. Verses 20 through 22 state that if one claiming to be a prophet speaks in the Lord's name, something God has not given him to say, or speaks in the name of other gods, then he is to die. Thankfully, the Lord provides a method for identifying fallacies spread by would-be divine spokesmen. If what is said in His name does not come to pass, then God has not spoken it.
In Ezekiel there is an interesting scripture Ezek. 13:2-3 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy out of their own heart, 'Hear the word of the LORD!'“ Thus says the Lord GOD: “Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! God says one can actually say they are hearing from the Lord but it really is their own spirit.
In the OT prophets prophesied within three time frames . Their own time, for the 1st coming and the 2nd coming. The test of a prophet was his near prophecies which would be fulfilled in his own lifetime. Obviously, if it was beyond his lifetime, he wouldn't be around to have to answer for it. Prophecy was very specific in the Old and the New Testament. They would foretell God's revelation to the people and if one looks back at Biblical record to study a prophet's calling, it was God who picked them and they are often found arguing not to have the office. In contrast, there are now schools to train new prophets because the people desire this office.
Another test used on would be prophets, found in Deuteronomy 13:1. In addition to whether or not their predictions came true is whether they used signs and wonders as tools to draw people to other gods or a different representation of God. (Such as Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8). Here, God is testing the people to see if they love only Him. This is probably the most overlooked scripture pertaining to examining the claims of those who profess supernatural powers that come from God. If they were to contradict the teaching that had already been revealed - which had provided knowledge of the one true God then they were seen as false prophets. God did not, and still does not tolerate false prophesying. If they wrong once, they are false, they were to be stoned. If this occurred today many if not all who lay claim to this position would have a quick end to their so called anointing!
Remember: just because one performs miracles, even inside a church, does not mean God is working. We should be more on guard inside the church than we would like to think. In 1 Corinthians 4:6, we are told no to go beyond what in written. If one contradicts the apostolic writings and teachings, then they are false (2 Cor.11:14). Those who go beyond the word having God speak to them directly with new revelation, become puffed up with self deception. There is something called humility that is practiced when one adheres to the same standard that everyone else does. Isa.8:16” bind up the testimony (of the Prophets) seal the law among my disciples”. (Moses) vs. 20 “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because their is no light in them.” This standard distinguishes a believer from an unbeliever. The test of the prophet was his conformity to the word of God, he condemns sin, he comforts the brethren, and he speaks of things in the near future and later than his life. A prophet, like an apostle, not only functioned as a gift, but as an office. A prophet would declare God's will for his generation, addressing idolatry or lukewarmness. We see this personified in John the Baptist who warned and rebuked the people preparing the for the Messiah.
Jesus said there was no greater prophet than John the baptizer (of the old Testament dispensation) because he had the privilege to introduce the messiah.
In the Old Testament there were prophets who did not speak for God yet the people loved to hear what they had to say more than the true prophets words. Jer.23:16 “They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD”. A few verses later God calls them lying prophets, v. 30 “who steal from one another words supposedly from me.”
Isa. 29:10-13: “For the LORD has poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; and He has covered your heads, namely, the seers. The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, “Read this, please.” And he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, “Read this, please.” And he says, “I am not literate Therefore the LORD said: “Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men.” When we see new prophets operate outside the written word or give new unknown meanings to the word they have become illiterate to expounding truth. When this happens many turn to signs and wonders to validate their ministry. Its not truth that they have to give, but the power to display. 2 Tim.4:3 The time will come when they will not adhere to sound doctrine but according to their desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn away from the truth and be turned aside to fables.” Fables are all things beyond what is written in the word.
Time is the enemy of a false prophet, so if one cannot discern from their conforming to scriptures, then they will certainly be able to tell by waiting to see if what was said will come to pass. In the New Testament, when the foundation of the faith was being laid down, a prophet saying “thus saith the Lord” would bring forth new revelations which in turn became our scripture. This is a strong reason why there are no more prophets today.
Acts 13:1: “Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the holy spirit said “now separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Remember the NT. was still being written down and there was revelation given. The prophets here were Saul and Barnabas and more likely the others were the teachers mentioned.
God is able and still does speak in various ways, yet he has chosen a more explicit but simple way to convey his message. It is by his son. Not just any Son but one who is God himself who delivered it in person. his words are written down so it can be understood equally to all. To change this or reject this method is to reject God.
Not everyone mentioned in the Bible who received direct revelation from God was a prophet or even a believer. God spoke to Pharaoh in a dream also Nebuchadnezzar. In Gen.20 Abimelech is warned by God not to take Sarah into his harem. So just because one receives a dream or vision does not mean they are of God. Also we need to know the enemy can give prophecies that will come to pass but will oppose Gods word. So all needs to be tested by the words of the true prophets and apostles.
In Jeremiah’s day he was commissioned to be the prophet to the people as they were in Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah was made an illustration to the Hebrew people as the time was ordained to be 70 years of captivity. The children of Israel were to submit to being in captivity for the duration ordained by God for the sake of their own survival or it was considered rebellion. Jeremiah’s message to Zedekiah the king was not to believe the false prophets they encourage the people to rebel. We find Jeremiah is put in a yoke for 4 years to illustrate Israel captivity to Babylon.
In Jer.28 Hananiah the prophet publicly prophecies in the temple that within 2 years Jeconiah and all taken captive with him the vessels of the Lords house will be brought back into Jerusalem. The yolk will be broken. To illustrate this he takes the yoke off Jeremiah that the Lord had him wear and breaks it. Jeremiah immediately receives a word from the Lord in which he says Go tell Hananiah Thus says the Lord you have broken the yokes of wood but you have made in their place a yolk of Iron. Gods response to his self made prophecy is he will put all the nations in the surrounding area in a yolk of iron to serve the king of Babylon. It is then Jeremiah addresses him directly saying “hear now, Hananiah, the Lord has not sent you, but you make these people trust in a lie. Therefore says the Lord I will cast you from the face of the earth, this year you shall die because you have taught rebellion against the Lord and so he died in the 7th month of the same year. Obviously Jeremiah and others were in no position to bring sentence on the false prophets so God did.
What we see is false prophets incorporate their own agenda. We find censoring the false prophets protects Gods people from harm, physically and spiritually. Anyone who allows people of this type of questionable ability to go for it in their church needs to question whether they are pleasing man or God. As a shepherd do they really care for the sheep or are for promoting their own ministry. We don’t read of any second chances for false predictions or an attitude of let bygones be bygones. The scripture does not allow to let prophets practice because practice makes perfect. There are no readjustments in their figures. Nor do we hear, lets see if any harm comes from what they say first before we judge. 2 Peter 1:19 says we have a more sure word of prophecy. No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. There seems to be a common denominator with all the new cults that disguise themselves as the original. They have new views on basic fundamental doctrines that have been accepted for almost 2,000 years it usually starts with the Lord told me or he appeared to me or I went to heaven. Sorry the job description has been filled your to late.
Hebrews 1:1 I tells us that God has spoken in times past to the fathers by the prophets in many various ways, but in these last days, He has spoken by His Son. Once the New Testament was completed, there was no longer a need for prophets to reveal God's will or new revelational knowledge. His Son's words are all we need. prophets are not a continuing position. However, we do have the gift of prophecy functioning for edification, consolation, and exhortation within the local church body. But this is never doctrine. Prophets are not sent, as in Old Testament times, to rebuke; rather the gift is to console and build us up.
God is able and still does speak in various ways yet he has chosen a more explicit but simple way to convey his message. It is by his son. Not just any son but one who is God himself to delivered it in person. To change this or reject this method is to reject God. As Jesus said he who receives you receives me and he who receives me receives the one who sent me, the father.
What do all false prophets have in common? A hope of not being tested! They count on the people not to test their writings by putting guilt and fear in those that would dare to question Gods “anointed ones”. Most people think that if we just teach the truth then we don’t have to address error. However error dies a slow death and must be exposed and then killed by the truth. Infections don’t leave the body by just eating right they need to be combated by antibiotics. The writers of the scripture did not believe in the concept of just teaching the truth. We have numerous letters that have their major content and themes addressing the false views and practices that arose in the early church. 1 Cor., 2 Thess. and 2nd John, Jude would not have been written if the apostles did not put the truth alongside error to expose it. All error challenges the truth and if accepted will usually rise above it. It was chased out of the early church and if a church is to be true to the words delivered by the apostles then it needs to be forged with the same attitude today. To be apologetic in ones approach to the culture and beliefs of the people is to be evangelical. That is to make sense out of the Gospel. The Bible teaches to preach the word not new revelation knowledge. If someone claims the position of a prophet they need to be brave enough to accept the consequences of one.
Today prophecy dos not have the same import that it did with the prophets to Israel.1 Cor. 14:3 “But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.”
Ephesians 2:20 says that the church has been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Ephesians 3:5 reads that the mystery concerning the church has been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets through the Holy Spirit. The scriptures indicate that these roles were fulfilled in the first century, and do not continue today. Many believe the apostles were also the prophets and that they wrote the future down in scripture for us. Acts 13:32 names Judas and Silas as also being prophets. Jude admonishes his readers to avoid false doctrines not by listening to the living prophets or apostles, but by recalling what the apostles already taught them in vs.17. The church today does not need new prophets and apostles today, just to listen more carefully to the old ones
Saturday, December 21, 2013
CHRISTMAS
Christimas
A woman was doing her last-minute Christmas shopping at a crowded mall. She was tired of fighting the crowds. She was tired of standing in lines. She was tired of fighting her way down long aisles looking for a gift that had sold out days before.
Her arms were full of bulky packages when an elevator door opened. It was full. The occupants of the elevator grudgingly tightened ranks to allow a small space for her and her load.
As the doors closed, she blurted out, “Whoever is responsible for this whole Christmas thing ought to be arrested and shot!”
A few others nodded theirs heads or grunted in agreement.
Then, from somewhere in the back of the elevator, came a single voice that said, “Don’t worry.
They already crucified Him.”
-copied from Dr. Tim White's Blog-
A woman was doing her last-minute Christmas shopping at a crowded mall. She was tired of fighting the crowds. She was tired of standing in lines. She was tired of fighting her way down long aisles looking for a gift that had sold out days before.
Her arms were full of bulky packages when an elevator door opened. It was full. The occupants of the elevator grudgingly tightened ranks to allow a small space for her and her load.
As the doors closed, she blurted out, “Whoever is responsible for this whole Christmas thing ought to be arrested and shot!”
A few others nodded theirs heads or grunted in agreement.
Then, from somewhere in the back of the elevator, came a single voice that said, “Don’t worry.
They already crucified Him.”
-copied from Dr. Tim White's Blog-
Friday, December 20, 2013
Should Women Be Pastors and Elders?
Should Women Be Pastors and Elders?
by Matt Slick
In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this biblical?
My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders." Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard. You make the decision after reading this paper.
First of all, women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the church. There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling. What does the Bible say? We cannot come to God's word with a social agenda and make it fit our wants. Instead, we must change and adapt to what it says.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.1 This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression," (1 Tim. 2:12-14 -- all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB).
This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Acts 2:17; 18:24-26; 21:8-9). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity" (1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male (See article There were deaconesses, so there can be female elders and pastors). He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women. Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
What About Galatians 3:28?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).2 The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.
Being a Pastor or Elder is to be in Authority
God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21 ) and the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38) and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure.
In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority of men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11-14.
But Doesn't This Teaching Belittle Women?
No, male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. All are equal before God whether it be Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female. But in the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. The chain of command is Jesus, the man, the wife, and the children.
What About Women Who Say They are Called By God to Be Pastors?
There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have stated that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. Instead, I believe they have usurped the position of men and gone against the norm of scriptural revelation. Additionally, those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture.
The issue is simple: are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?
What About a Missionary Woman Who Establishes a Church?
Scripture establishes the norm. As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women.
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.
Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:9-13).
Some argue that if we are to forbid women to be elders then the context of 1 Tim. 2:9-13 demands that we require women to no have braided hair, wear gold, or have costly garments. Since no one wants to put that sort of a demand on a woman (since it is cultural), then why should we also demand that they not be elders since it would logically follow that it was also a culturally based admonition?
The problem here is that multifaceted. First, the objection ignores what the scriptures plainly teach about the elder being the husband of one wife. Second, it fails to address the real issue of biblical headship residing in the male. Third, it fails to properly exegete the scripture in question.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-13 Paul tells us that women should be modestly dressed. He uses the example of the then present day adornment as an example of what not to do. This is a culturally based assessment by Paul. Notice that Paul emphasizes good works and godliness as a qualifier (as does Peter, see 1 Pet. 3:2). This is not a doctrinal statement tied to anything other than being a godly woman in appearance as well as attitude.
In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly. A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing” (cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).”3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.
Then in verse 12-13, Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Notice that Paul directly relates the authority issue with the created order. He does not do this with the woman's dress code. Therefore, the dress code is cultural and the authority issue as doctrinal since the latter is tied to the creation order and the dress code and authority issue are not.
Conclusion
God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what the Bible teaches.
1. An important note here is that the Holy Spirit is also called the Helper and is no less God than Jesus and the Father.
2. The Promise is God's promise to Abraham to bless all the nations in Him (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:8).
3. Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.), 1983, 1985.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
12 Reasons Why Supersessionism / Replacement Theology Is Not a Biblical Doctrine
12 Reasons Why Supersessionism / Replacement Theology Is Not a Biblical Doctrine
Written by Michael Vlach.
"I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this."
--Charles H. Spurgeon
"To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."
--Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Supersessionism is the view that the New Testament Church supersedes, replaces, or fulfills the nation Israel’s place and role in the plan of God. I am convinced that supersessionism / replacement theology is an unbiblical doctrine that violates clear statements in both the Old and New testaments that teach and affirm a national salvation and restoration of Israel. Below are twelve reasons why supersessionism violates the biblical witness:
1. The Old Testament explicitly teaches the restoration of the nation Israel.
a. Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land.
b. Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.
c. Ezekiel 36–37 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.
d. Amos 9:11-15
e. Zephaniah 3:14-20
f. Zechariah 12–14
g. NOTE 1: Even if the NT never discussed the restoration of Israel, the many explicit texts about Israel’s restoration in the OT give enough reason to believe in the restoration of Israel.
h. NOTE 2: Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made. John Murray is correct that Israel’s restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament: "Thus the effect is that the future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution."
2. The Old Testament explicitly promises the perpetuity of the nation Israel (see Jer. 31:35-37).
"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD" (Jer. 31:35-37).
Have you seen the sun, moon or stars today? If so, you can know that the nation Israel still has a place in God’s plan.
3. The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a salvation and restoration of Israel.
a. Matthew 19:28 -- Apostles to rule over 12 tribes of Israel.
According to E. P. Sanders, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel."
b. Matthew 23:37-39 / Luke 13:34-35-- Israel one day will accept her Messiah. Donald Senior states, "In Matthew’s perspective, the rejection of Jesus by the leaders is indeed a grave sin, one that brings divine judgment. Yet the story of God’s relationship to Israel is not concluded, and the day will come when Jerusalem will again receive its Messiah with shouts of praise."
c. Luke 21:24-- Times of the gentiles will come to an end. J. Bradley Chance states, "Close examination of L. 21:24b,c provides a strong hint that Luke did foresee the restoration of Jerusalem."
d. Luke 22:30-- Apostles to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.
e. Acts 1:3-7-- Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus. Scot McKnight states: "Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity."
f. Acts 3:19-21 -- Restoration is preached to the leaders of Israel.
g. Romans 11:26-27-- Salvation of "all Israel" will occur in accordance with the New Covenant promises given to Israel in the Old Testament.
i. C.E.B. Cranfield: "It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly-perhaps quite unconsciously-believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God's mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God's mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters [Rom. 9-11] emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people."
ii. Jonathan Edwards: "Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11."
iii. In his comments on Rom 11:26–27, Ernst Käsemann rightly states that "Christianity is already living in the new covenant" while "Israel will begin to do so only at the parousia."
4. The New Testament explicitly states that the Old Testament promises and covenants to Israel are still the possession of Israel even during this church age and even while the nation is currently in a state of unbelief (see Romans 9:3b-4).
"my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Rom. 9:3b-4).
5. The New Testament indicates that God is faithful to Israel because of His promises to the patriarchs of Israel (Romans 11:28).
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Rom.11:28).
6. The New Testament indicates that Israel’s election/calling is irrevocable (Romans 11:29; see also Deuteronomy 7:6-8).
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).
a. Jürgen Moltmann: "There can be no question of God’s having finally rejected the people of his choice—he would then have to reject his own election (11.29)—and of his then having sought out instead another people, the church. Israel’s promises remain Israel’s promises. They have not been transferred to the church. Nor does the church push Israel out of its place in the divine history. In the perspective of the gospel, Israel has by no means become ‘like all the nations.’"
b. Wolfhart Pannenberg: "How could Christians be certain of their own comparatively new membership in the circle of God’s elect if God for his part did not remain faithful to his election in spite of Israel’s unbelief? This is the apostle’s point when he advocates the inviolability of the election of the Jewish people (11:29; cf. 9:6). He has in mind also Christian assurance of election."
c. The more one believes in the sovereignty of God especially as it relates to election, the more one should be committed to a salvation/restoration of Israel based on God’s election of this people.
7. The New Testament never uses the term "Israel" for those who are not ethnic Jews. Thus, the church is never called "Israel."
a. The title "Israel" is used seventy-three times and always refers to ethnic Jews: The vast majority refer to national, ethnic Israel. A few refer specifically to Jewish believers who are ethnic Jews.
b. The New Testament still consistently refers to national Israel as "Israel" even after the establishment of the church (Acts 3:12; 4:10; 5:21, 31, 35; 21:28).
c. The book of Acts maintains a distinction between Israel and the church. In Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. "Israel" is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.
8. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament identifies the church as "Israel."
a. Romans 9:6 – Believing Jews are those who are the true spiritual Israel. As William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam state: "But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel."
b. Galatians 6:16 – Paul is referring to Christian Jews in his reference to the "Israel of God." Paul scolded the Judaizers who said circumcision was necessary for salvation, but he acknowledges those Jews in Galatia who had not followed the Judaizers in their error. These Christian Jews are the true "Israel of God." Ronald E. Diprose: "Galatians 6:16 is insufficient grounds on which to base an innovative theological concept such as understanding the Church to be the new and/or true Israel."
c. Romans 11:26 – There is very little chance that "Israel" here refers to the church, something even many supersessionists acknowledge. Like the other ten references to "Israel" in Romans 9–11, Israel in 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel.
9. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament reinterprets or alters the original OT prophecies in regard to Israel. The alleged "NT Priority" approach of Supersessionism is really ‘structural supersessionism’—a hermeneutic that does not allow the OT passages to speak to the issues they address.
a. How can the NT reinterpret or alter the OT expectation for Israel when the NT actually reaffirms the OT expectation? (see point #3 above).
b. Hebrews 8:8-13 and Jeremiah 31:
i. The Old Testament never indicated that the New Covenant would only be for the nation Israel. Isaiah uses the New Covenant concept of "sprinkling" in regard to salvation in Isaiah 52:15.
ii. Paul quotes New Covenant passages in Romans 11:27 to show that the nation Israel will be saved (see Rom. 11:26). Thus, even after the church began Paul sees Israel as still related to the New Covenant.
iii. The purpose of Hebrews 8 is not to address the issue of who is and is not the people of God. Hebrews 8 is directly addressing the superiority of the New Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant, not whether the church is now the true Israel.
iv. Only the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant are mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13. If the New Covenant were being fulfilled in its entirety we should expect the physical blessings of the New Covenant to be mentioned as being fulfilled with the church. The New Testament never links the church with the physical blessings of the New Covenant.
v. It is best to conclude that the church is participating in the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant while the full eschatological fulfillment of the New Covenant will take place with Israel in the millennium.
c. Acts 15:13-18 and Amos 9:11-15
i. The main point of the quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 is to show that Gentiles becoming the people of God is consistent with or agrees with what the OT prophets like Amos predicted. It is not discussing the complete fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom or calling the church Israel.
ii. Discussion of Israel’s place in the plan of God is not even the focus of Acts 15.
iii. Acts 15 says "agree" not "fulfill."
iv. William D. Barrick: "Note, first of all, that James never says that Amos 9 is ‘fulfilled.’ Secondly, James’ reasoning is that the Gospel should continue to go out to the Gentiles because God included them in his redemptive plan according to Amos 9. Amos 9 mentions Gentiles as recipients of God’s kingdom blessings, so how could the early church ever take action to exclude them?"
10. Supersessionists have failed to show that unity between Jews and Gentiles in the church rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel.
a. Ephesians 2:11–22 shows that Gentiles who used to be far from God have now been brought near God because of Christ. Thus, the soteriological status of believing Gentiles has changed. They now share with Israel in Israel’s covenants and promises but they do not become Israel.
b. Believing Gentiles cannot be incorporated into Israel because Paul says they are now part of a new structure—the new man.
c. Howard Taylor: "Superficial logic has continued to argue that there is no more uniqueness for the Jew and physical Israel. Since it is said Christ has broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile [Eph. 2:11–18], Israel’s election is finished. But this is not the logic of the New Testament. Although there is only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, the New Testament teaches that the Jewish people do still have a unique place in the historical working out of God’s redemption of the world in Christ.
d. Rom 11:17–24 stresses that Gentiles are now related to the promises of God. Thus, there is a soteriological unity between believing Jews and Gentiles. But it does not indicate that the church is now the true Israel. There is a difference between saying that Gentiles participate with Israel in Israel’s covenants and claiming that believing Gentiles become Israel. Gentiles are partakers of the covenants not takerovers. This passage does not rule out a future role for national Israel or indicate that the church is now Israel.
11. Israelite language applied to believing Gentiles does not mean the church is Israel.
a. 1 Peter 2:9–10 and Romans 9:24-26 – Yes, language used of Israel in the Old Testament is used of believing Gentiles in the New Testament. But similarity with Israel does not mean identification with Israel. There are occasions in Scripture when "Israel" imagery is applied to non-Israelites without these non-Israelites becoming Israel. Isa 19:24–25, for instance, predicts that Egypt would someday be called "my people." Yet, the context makes clear that Egypt is distinct from Israel since Egypt is mentioned alongside "Israel my inheritance." So, even in the Old Testament it was predicted that non-Israelites would someday carry some of the titles of Israel without becoming identified as Israel.
b. J. Ramsey Michaels says, "Nowhere in 1 Peter are the readers addressed as a new Israel or a new people of God, as if to displace the Jewish community."
c. Galatians 3:7, 29 The New Testament teaches that believing Gentiles are the seed of Abraham but this does not mean that believing Gentiles are Israel. The concept of "seed of Abraham" is used in several different ways in the New Testament. First, it can refer to those who are biological descendants of Abraham. Second, it can refer to the Messiah, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham. Third, it can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Isa 41:8 with Rom 9:6). Fourth, it can be used in a spiritual sense for believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:29). John Feinberg states, "no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses." Thus, the application of the titles "sons of Abraham" or "seed of Abraham" to believing Gentiles does not mean that believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews or part of Israel.
d. Galatians 3:7-8 links the Gentiles being "sons of Abraham" with the part of the Abrahamic Covenant that predicted that "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."
12. New Testament prophecy refers to Israel, thus indicating that God’s plan for Israel is alive.
a. Revelation 7:4-8 – all the tribes of Israel are mentioned.
b. Matthew 24:15ff.
i. The abomination of desolation is clearly related to the Jewish temple.
ii. Jesus tells the residence of Israel what to do in the Tribulation Period.
c. Paul refers to the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
d. If the church is now Israel why do NT prophecies refer to ethnic Israel?
In conclusion, Ronald Diprose is right when he states that in order for supersessionism to qualify as a biblical doctrine there needs to be "positively, passages which clearly teach it and negatively, no passages which actually exclude it." On both counts, supersessionism fails. The New Testament does not call the church "Israel," and nowhere does the New Testament state that the nation of Israel has been permanently rejected by God. Various texts such as Matt 19:28; 23:37–39; Luke 13:35; 21:24; 22:30; and Romans 11 refute supersessionism in that they teach or reaffirm the Old Testament expectation of a restoration of Israel. Thus, we agree with Kaiser when he says, "To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
C.S. Lewis and Materialism
C.S. Lewis and Materialism
by John West
“You say the materialist universe is ‘ugly,’” wrote C. S. Lewis to a young skeptic in 1950. “…If you are really a product of the materialistic universe, how is it you don’t feel at home there?”
Nearly half-a-century later, Lewis’s question still resonates. Modern society continues to operate largely on the materialistic premises of such thinkers as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. Yet few today feel at home in the materialist universe where God does not exist, where ideas do not matter, and where every human behavior is reduced to non-rational causes.
C. S. Lewis spent much of his life debunking the sterility of materialist thinking; and his insights are as relevant now as when they were first offered, because our culture remains dominated by four of materialism’s most deadly legacies.
Rejection of Reason and Truth
Materialism’s first deadly legacy is the rejection of reason and objective truth. Nineteenth-century materialists depicted our thoughts as the irrational products of environment or heredity or brain chemistry. As a consequence, the intellectual classes became convinced that only the reality was material, and thus the only true explanations were reductive. If you wanted to explain a flower, you described its cell structure, not its beauty. If you wanted to explain human beings, you looked not to their greatest achievements, but to the raw materials that made them up. This sort of reductionism permeates contemporary society, from politics and the social sciences to literature and the performing arts.
Lewis’s first sustained attack on reductionism came in his allegory The Pilgrim’s Regress in the early 1930s. In a section of the book titled “Through Darkest Zeitgeistheim” (literally, “through the darkest abode of the Spirit of the Age”), Lewis’s pilgrim is arrested by the flunkies of a giant who symbolizes the materialistic reductionism that was the Spirit of the Age. The pilgrim, named John, is subsequently jailed, leading to a nightmarish sequence. Lewis relates that the eyes of the giant had the property of making whatever they looked on transparent: “Consequently, when John looked around into the dungeon he retreated from his fellow prisoners in terror.… A woman was seated near him, but he did not know it was a woman, because, through the face, he saw the skull and through that the brains and the passages of the nose, and the larynx, and the saliva moving in the glands and the blood in the veins… And when John sat down and drooped his head, not to see the horrors, he saw only the working of his own inwards.…”
John is rescued from the dungeon by a towering woman in blue–Lady Reason, who slays the giant with her sword. She tells John that the giant had deceived him about the real nature of human beings: “He showed you by a trick what our inwards would look like if they were visible… But in the real world our inwards are invisible.“
“But if I cut a man open I should see them in him,” replied John.
“A man cut open,” returned the Lady, “is, so far, not a man: and if you did not sew him up speedily you would be seeing not organs, but death. I am not denying that death is ugly: but the giant made you believe that life is ugly.”
Lewis’s point was that reductionism really does not explain that which is human at all. In fact, in the name of explaining man, reductionism explains him away.
In a 1956 essay titled “Behind the Scenes,” Lewis articulated his own view of the relation between man and his material components. He likened life to a stage play. In one sense, nothing in the play is real; it is all imaginary. The only “realities” are the sets, costumes, and lighting. The play is “appearance” and the sets are “reality.” Yet, as Lewis points out, “in the theatre of course the play, ‘the appearance’, is the thing. All the backstage ‘realities’ exist only for its sake and are valuable only in so far as they promote it.”
The materialist may scoff at this approach, but as Lewis relished in pointing out, the materialist has his own problems: The materialist who debunks everyone else’s ideas as the subrational products of their brain chemistry or environment cannot avoid being debunked himself. If he is honest, says Lewis, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphe-nomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true.
Debunking of Objective Morality
Closely related to materialism’s attack on reason is its debunking of objective morality. Materialists early in our century denied the existence of objective standards binding on all cultures, claiming that environment dictated our moral beliefs. Such relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology, and sociology.
Lewis attacked moral relativism in his opening chapters of Mere Christianity, where he pointed out that all people–even criminals–appeal to a universal standard when trying to excuse their own behavior. Even those who claim that right and wrong are mere conventions will hotly protest when wronged.
In Abolition of Man, Lewis made this argument in more detail, pointing out that we cannot escape making moral judgments. Every action presupposes a goal toward which the actor acts, and the goal (no matter how clinically it is expressed) represents a judgment of value. We cannot exist without making moral judgments, argued Lewis. The only question is what those judgments will be. Speaking within the western natural law tradition, Lewis proposed that at the foundation of all moral judgments is one set of ethical first principles known intuitively by all human beings. These first principles include obligations to treat other people justly and to keep one’s promises. All other moral judgments and ethical systems are derived from these principles.
Lewis added that the major civilizations agree almost wholly on ethical fundamentals (such as extolling honesty and kindness and reproving treachery and injustice). To be sure, there are “blindnesses in particular cultures–just as there are savages who cannot count up to twenty. But the pretence that we are presented with a mere chaos–that no outline of universally accepted value shows through–is simply false.…”
Denial of Personal Responsibility
If materialism has been hard on reason and morality, it has been equally destructive of personal responsibility. By claiming that human thoughts and actions are dictated by our biology and environment, materialism undermined personal responsibility. The results can be seen in our criminal justice system, our civil justice system, and our welfare system. Ever since sin entered the world, human beings have sought excuses for their behavior, but materialism handed us an inexhaustible supply of excuses. No matter what we do, it can be attributed to a cause other than our own choices: our social environment, subconscious drives, or brain chemistry.
Against this modern ethic that no one is responsible, Lewis strove to make people aware of just how responsible they really are. Lewis countered this mentality not so much by direct disputation, but by trying to place a mirror in front of us that would cause us to recognize the evil in our own souls. This is most apparent in his fictional works, where there are key moments of self-revelation when major characters realize that they are really to blame for the fix they are in.
In the novel That Hideous Strength, Mark Studdock is a young sociologist who has spent his life cravenly currying favor with others in order to promote himself. When he subsequently finds himself in the middle of a totalitarian conspiracy, he first wonders what bad luck put him there. “Why had he such a rotten heredity?” he complained. “Why had his education been so ineffective? Why was the system of society so irrational?” Finally hitting bottom, he suddenly sees with brutal clarity who he really is and how his choices led to the mess he was in.
One cannot read Lewis’s fiction without being convicted of the fact that we are more accountable than we would like to think. Lewis calls us to responsibility by reminding us that every action has a consequence, and that no wrong choice–however small–is insignificant.
Proliferation of Coercive Utopianism
The final legacy of materialism is coercive utopianism. Although the belief that all thought and behavior are predetermined by material causes would seem to deny the power of human beings to reshape their world, materialism in fact inspired a fierce strain of coercive utopianism. Claiming either that they were merely the servants of the forces of materialism–or with Nietzsche, that they could overcome materialism by a sheer act of will–materialist reformers tried to create secular utopias in Russia and Germany. In America, meanwhile, significant parts of the cultural elite began to believe that we could engineer the perfect society through social science and planning.
The coercive utopians in Germany and Russia were both targets of Lewis’s scorn. But fascism and communism were far from the only forms of coercive utopianism about which Lewis was concerned. He also feared the modern welfare state, which he thought would become ever more intrusive as government planners allied themselves with the tools of materialist social science.
According to Lewis, if people act because of environmental and biological necessities, the government no longer need deal with them as free moral agents, and preemption replaces punishment as the preferred method of social control. Instead of punishing you for making the wrong choice, the state simply eliminates your choice.
Lewis painted a grim portrait of this kind of despotism in his novel That Hideous Strength. There the spirit of modern social science becomes incarnate in something called the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments—NICE, for short. Of course, there is nothing nice about NICE; its social scientists are exactly the type of technocrats that Lewis feared. In the name of science and humanity, they claimed the right to remake society without bothering to obtain its consent.
While we are a long way off from the nightmare vision depicted by Lewis in That Hideous Strength, we certainly should be able to understand some of what he is getting at. Public policy decisions in America today are made increasingly by the type of technocrats that Lewis talked about, as legislators have transferred much of their authority to a vast array of independent regulatory agencies staffed by unelected experts.
Lewis did not dispute that technocrats have plenty of knowledge that may be necessary for good public policy. But it is not sufficient. Political problems are preeminently moral problems, according to Lewis, and technocrats are no better equipped than any other citizen to function as moralists.
A New Natural Philosophy
At the end of The Abolition of Man, Lewis called for a new natural philosophy that would understand human beings as they really are. “When it explained,” said Lewis, “it would not explain away. When it spoke of the parts it would remember the whole.”
Lewis was not quite sure what he was asking for, and–being a realist–he certainly was not convinced that the revolution would actually come about. Yet during the next decade it just might. We live during an era of tumultuous change, and nowhere is this fact more evident than in the sciences. Recent developments in biology, physics, and cognitive science are raising serious doubts about the most fundamental assumptions of materialism. In biology, scientists are discovering such irreducible complexity in biological systems that the only reasonable explanation seems to be a non-material designer. In physics, our understanding of matter is becoming increasingly non-material. In cognitive science, efforts to reduce mind to the physical processes of the brain have failed repeatedly.
In other words, for perhaps the first time since the materialist onslaught we have an opportunity to bring about the collapse of materialism and to re-found both science and culture along the lines envisioned by C. S. Lewis more than half-a-century ago.
Monday, December 16, 2013
The Day Jesus Was Born
The Day Jesus Was Born
This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?
Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?
The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.
But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.
In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).
Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.
Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.
And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.
We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ's birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.
But modern man has turned that around. A baby lying in a manger is harmless, non-threatening. But a man dying on a cross--a man who claims to be God--that man is a threat! He demands our allegiance! We cannot ignore him. We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no middle ground.
This Christmas season, take a close look at a nativity scene once again. Remove your rose-colored glasses--smell the foul air, see the cold, shivering animals. They represent the Old Testament sacrificial system. They are emblems of death. But they are mere shadows of the Babe in their midst. He was born to die . . . that all who believe in him might live.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
"Does the Bible say anything about a pre-Adamic race?"
Question: "Does the Bible say anything about a pre-Adamic race?"
Answer: The concept of a pre-Adamic race is the idea that God created a race of humans who lived on the Earth before He created Adam, the first man. This hypothesis has been promoted by various scholars at various times throughout history. Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (circa A.D. 331–363) and Calvinist theologian Isaac de La Peyrère (1596-1676) are two notable examples.
We will look at two popular facets of the Preadamite Hypothesis: the hypothesis as it was proposed by Isaac de La Peyrère and the form which it takes in the “Gap Theory” (also known as the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation). According to La Peyrère, God created the Gentiles on the sixth day when He said, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26). He did not create the Jews until after the seventh day, His day of rest. At some point after the seventh day, God created Adam, the father of the Jews.
La Peyrère cited Scripture to support his hypothesis. Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17) are all interpreted as evidence that another race of men coexisted with Adam and his family.
La Peyrère subsequently reinterpreted other passages of Scripture in light of his peculiar understanding of the Genesis account. Consider a very familiar passage, Romans 5:12-14: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
This passage is traditionally interpreted as meaning that death began with Adam’s sin and reigned unchecked among men (even among those who haven’t actually eaten the forbidden fruit, those who have sinned but not “in the likeness of the offense of Adam”) until the Law was given to Moses. La Peyrère interpreted this passage another way. According to La Peyrère, the pre-Adamic Gentiles sinned against God, but in a manner less egregious than Adam (which is why Adam’s sin brought death while theirs didn’t). They merely sinned against God’s moral will, while Adam sinned against His Law. Adam disobeyed God’s prohibition by eating the forbidden fruit. He broke what La Peyrère called the Law of Paradise. Thus, according to La Peyrère, the pre-Adamic Gentiles were those who “had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.”
By now it’s obvious how misinterpreting one or two passages of Scripture can lead to all kinds of warped perceptions. The Scriptural problems with La Peyrère’s interpretations are numerous.
First, Adam is called the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45). This is inconsistent with the idea that God created men before Adam. Second, according to La Peyrère, the Gentiles were to live outside of the Garden of Eden while Adam enjoyed paradise (a privilege which came with the responsibility of obeying the Law of Paradise—not eating the forbidden fruit). Genesis 2:5-8, however, says quite plainly that before God created “the man whom He had formed,” the very same man which He placed in the garden, there were no men upon the earth to cultivate the ground. Third, God created Eve for Adam because he was alone, there was no one else like him around (“It is not good for the man to be alone… but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” Genesis 2:18, 20). Fourth, Adam named his wife “Eve” “because she was the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). The list goes on, but these passages should suffice to refute La Peyrère’s misinterpretation.
As for Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17), Adam was almost 130 years old by the time that Cain killed Abel (Adam had Seth, his next son after Abel’s death, when he was about 130 years old; Genesis 4:25; 5:3). And we know that Adam had sons and daughters (Genesis 5:3). At 130 he could have had grandkids and great-grandkids by the time that Cain killed Abel. Cain had plenty of family members to be afraid of after killing his brother.
Cain apparently married a family member (a necessity back then) at some point before Abel’s murder. It seems odd to us today, but incest wasn’t outlawed by God until the Law of Moses. It may have been around that time that generations of degenerative genetic mutations began to take a toll on our DNA. God outlawed incest for our protection. It became (and remains) dangerous for close relatives to procreate because of shared genetic defects which become expressed in their children causing severe deformities and other problems.
As for Cain founding a city, if he lived to be the average age back then, he probably lived to be about 900 years old. By the time he died, his family would have been a small city. If Cain had a child at the age of 30, and his child had a child at the age of 30 and so on, Cain could have produced 30 generations by the time he died (30 generations times 30 years each equals 900 years).
The Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation takes a somewhat different approach to the pre-Adamic race theory. According to the Gap Theory, an unspecified amount of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which God created a pre-Adamic race of men who lived upon the earth until God destroyed them in judgment. Other extinct creatures, like the dinosaurs, are said to have also lived during this time. Afterwards, the theory goes, God remodeled the earth in six days. He created Adam on the sixth day, and the rest is history. Some say that Satan’s fall occurred at some point during the ambiguous gap.
A “mistranslation” has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Proponents of the Gap Theory emphasize the word “replenish.” They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what it says in English translations, the Hebrew word is mâlê’, and it simply means “to fill” or “to be full.” Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means “to fill.” They chose “replenish” because, in 17th-century Elizabethan English, “replenish” meant “to fill” (similar to how in modern English the word “replete” doesn’t mean to “abound again,” it simply means “abundant” or “abounding”). Language is not static, but dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today “replenish” means “to fill again.” It didn’t mean the same thing in 17th century England. Nearly all modern translations translate mâlê’ as simply “fill” in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28).
Proponents of the Gap Theory respond by pointing out that God said to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill [mâlê’] the earth” (Genesis 9:1). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the earth after the flood. Can’t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the same thing—that Adam was to repopulate the earth after God’s judgment? The fact is that, regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah’s flood, God didn’t tell Noah to “refill” the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said “refill,” that would have been something, but since He just said “fill,” that argument falls flat.
The real problem with the Gap Theory is that it places human mortality (pre-Adamic human mortality) before Adam’s sin. The Bible is quite clear that death entered in through Adam’s sin. “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Regardless of whether or not we believe in animal mortality before sin, the Bible is quite explicit about human mortality before Adam’s sin. There wasn’t any. To deny this is to deny a central Christian doctrine.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/pre-Adamic-race.html#ixzz2nXQE6OAW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






