Old Testament Salvation

Q. How could the people in the Old Testament become righteous without the blood of Jesus? John 14:6 says “No one comes to the Father but through me.”

A. OT people become righteous in exactly the same way as NT people, by grace through faith in God. This is clearly explained in Rom 4:

• Rom 4:3, 6 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” … David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.
• Rom 4:13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
• Rom 4:21-24 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what He had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Note the following:
• Abraham believed God, and God credited righteousness to him apart from works.
• It was not through keeping the law, but by faith.
• This principle by receiving righteousness through faith is not just for Abraham alone, but for us who believe in Him as well.

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. OT people looked forward to the cross. In God’s forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand (up to the cross) unpunished (Rom 3:25). NT people look backward to the same once-for-all sacrifice of the Son making atonement for our sins. OT people may not know the Son as clearly as NT folks, but they knew and trusted the Father. Both are fully persuaded that God will fulfill what He promised. There is no difference.

Abraham vs. Paul

Abraham offering Isaac

Paul in prison

Q. Abraham was righteous just because of his faith in God. Why didn’t it apply to Paul who said “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel”? Abraham did not go around convincing his neighbors to believe in his God. He also married his half-sister.

A. Actually justification by faith did apply to both Abraham and Paul. Saul’s conversion is recorded in Acts 9:3-19. His testimony before a Jerusalem crowd is given in Acts 22:3-16, and before king Agrippa in Acts 26:9-19. Note the following:

Before Conversion – Saul persecuted Christians and put them in prison. If justification depended on good works, he had none. In fact, he was an enemy of the Cross.
• Acts 9:1-2 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
• Acts 22:4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison,
• Acts 26:11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

During Conversion – Saul did nothing either. He was struck blind and had to be told what to do. He also received his commission from the Lord and through Ananias, appointing him to be God’s servant and a witness to all people.
• Acts 9:4-6 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
• Acts 22:14-15 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard.
• Acts 26:14-16 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me.

After Conversion – Saul did exactly as he was called to do, preaching that Jesus is the Son of God, and that people should repent and turn to God.
• Acts 9:20, 22 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. … Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.
• Acts 26:20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.

So Paul was justified by his faith in Jesus. He preached in obedience to the Lord’s call, demonstrating his repentance by his deeds. Preaching the gospel was his grateful response to God’s grace, not the cause of his being justified. He was called to be an apostle (Rom 1:1, 1 Co 1:1) and set apart for the gospel. In particular, he was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13; Ga 2:8). Abraham did not go around convincing his neighbors because that’s not his call. God called him to be the father of the nation of Israel, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through his descendant Jesus Christ. Each has his role appointed by God. Abraham marrying his half-sister was not wrong. The Mosaic law came much later. His lying about it was, and he was rebuked by Abimelek for his lie (Gen 20:9).

Abraham’s Faith

Q. What’s so special about Abraham’s faith that he became the “father of faith”?

A. Abraham’s faith is primarily explained by Paul in Romans 4. Space does not permit citing the whole chapter, just the key verses:

• Rom 4:3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Also v 9)
• Rom 4:11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
• Rom 4:18-21 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

Note the following:
• Abraham believed God – he took God at His word.
• He had faith while he was still uncircumcised. Circumcision came later. He is therefore the father of all who believe, Gentile and Jew alike.
• His faith was against all hope, as it was humanly impossible for him to have children. He was 75 years old (Gen 12:4) when God called him and promised to make him into a great nation (Gen 12:2). He was 100 when Isaac was born (Gen 21:5). He waited 25 years but did not weaken in his faith, or waver through unbelief by looking at circumstances. He was fully convinced that what God promised, He will perform.

Hebrews 11 adds two other examples of Abraham’s faith:

• Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
• Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, … Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead

Again note the following:
• By faith Abraham obeyed and left his home country for a place he did not know – faith is never just an intellectual assent, but active obedience.
• By faith Abraham offered up Isaac – his faith is willing to pay the cost, trusting that God will even raise the dead to fulfill His promise of giving him countless descendants.

In short, Abraham’s faith was solely in God and His word alone. Nothing else mattered, neither circumstances, nor the costs. He stood the most severe test. No wonder he is the father of faith.

Can the Elect be Deceived?

Q. Mt 24:24 says, “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (KJV) What is the deception? Can and will the elect be deceived?

A. The context indicates the deception to be false Christs and false prophets. I believe the elect can be deceived. The confusion arises in a mistranslation in the KJV. Note that the two words “it were” are in italics in the KJV. They are not in the original Greek. By adding these two words, the KJV gives the wrong impression that it is impossible, when the meaning is only that it is difficult, to deceive the elect. The Bible has many warnings for believers against being deceived:

• Mt 24:4-5 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. (Mk 13:5-6; Lk 21:8) Jesus was talking with His disciples, not the crowd. If it were impossible to deceive them, why bother warning them about being deceived?
• Jas 1:16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. James was addressing Christians, the elect.

Not only can the elect be deceived, they can also deceive themselves – by thinking they are wise, somebody, only listening to the word but not doing, and claiming to be without sin:

• 1 Co 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise.
• Ga 6:3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves.
• Jas 1:22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
• 1 Jn 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

What are some of the lies that deceive the elect? They include thinking that you will inherit the kingdom regardless of how/how much you sin, believing that you won’t reap destruction by pleasing the flesh, erroneous timing of the Day of the Lord:

• 1 Co 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
• Ga 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
• 2 Thes 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Finally, how are the elect deceived? By empty words and fine-sounding arguments:

• Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
• Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

Do not be deceived. Watch and pray.

I do not Permit a Woman to Teach (2 of 2)

(Continued from yesterday)

In terms of biblical history, God had consistently chosen men to be leaders. For instance, in the service of God in the OT, all priests are men. Can women say we are just as capable and want to be priests? No, because it wasn’t based on ability. To be a priest, you must be a descendent of Aaron. Even if you are a man of the tribe of Levi but not Aaron’s descendant, you don’t qualify.

In the NT, all the apostles Jesus chose were men. Some people say Jesus accommodated to the customs of His days, but did He really? Jesus was very much counter-culture. He was very gentle with sinners, but confronted the Scribes and Pharisees without giving an inch. Did He accommodate after praying the whole night to choose His apostles? Definitely not.

Throughout the OT and NT, all elders were men. Did God make a mistake? Hardly. I don’t know why some churches elect women elders. I don’t find that in the Bible. Could it be that it’s as some scholars say, that was only the local conditions at that time, but now times have changed and we got to catch up with the times. I don’t think so, because of the reasons Paul gave:

• 1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
• 1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul did not refer to the situation in Ephesus then, but cited the order of creation. Adam was formed before Eve, so had priority and appointed to lead his family. That is not situational. Secondly, Adam was not deceived. When Eve got out of Adam’s umbrella of protection, she was deceived by the serpent. Since these roles were assigned by God at the beginning of creation, they do not change with the passage of time. We ignore them at our own peril.

However, women submitting to men, in particular to their husbands, does not mean that they are intrinsically inferior, for two reasons:

• Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
• 1 Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Male and female are all one in Christ. God made Man male and female from the beginning. They stand equal before God. And just as God the Father is the head of Christ but they are the same in essence, so man is the head of a woman but they are of the same essence.

In summary, not permitting a woman to preach is based on male leadership in the church. It is not situational. Some will disagree with this view, but it’s scriptural.

I do not Permit a Woman to Teach (1 of 2)

Q. What does 1 Tim 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” mean? Is it situational?

A. First, note the structure of 1 Tim 2:11-12 (NASB):

1 A woman must quietly
2 receive instruction
3 with entire submissiveness.
2 But I do not allow a woman to teach or
3 exercise authority over a man,
1 but to remain quiet.

There are 3 couplets:
1. Quietly and quiet;
2. Receive instruction and not teach;
3. submissiveness and [not] exercise authority.

(1) and (2) are the application, (3) is the principle – male authority or leadership.

Second, note the wider context. Being quiet and not teaching are not absolute for all situations e.g.

• Acts 18:26 and he (Apollos) began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
• 1 Co 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.
• Titus 2:3-4 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children…

Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and explained to him in private. Women prayed and prophesied in worship – they were not silent. Older women taught young women how to run their home. So Paul not allowing a woman to teach does not apply to all cases, but specifically to public teaching because of God assigning the role of leadership to men in the home and in church.

Nowadays people believe that there should be no distinction in the roles played by men and women, but that’s not God’s design. God had assigned different roles to men and women. For example, giving birth to children is and has always been the task of the women. It’s never sometimes men, sometimes women in order to be equal.

(To be continued)

Household Salvation

Q. Acts 16:31 says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” When a person believes in Jesus, does this verse mean that all his/her household (family members) will be saved?

A. There are 2 ways to interpret this verse:

1. Specific promise and prophecy only for the jailer. The jailer asked Paul and Silas in v 30, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, to which Paul replied in v 31. Then in v 32. “they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.” V 34 adds, “he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.” Paul shared the gospel with all in the jailer’s household, and all of them believed. In this case this promise would not apply to others.

2. General principle for all, but not an unconditional promise. This would be similar to Prov 22:6 Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it. Does child training work? Yes it does. Is it guaranteed to work all the time? No, this is a general principle, not an unchanging law. Similarly, when a person believes in the Lord Jesus, he will be saved, and becomes the channel where his household will be introduced to the gospel. However, each individual must choose to follow Jesus for himself or herself. There is no automatic blanket conversion for the whole household when one member believes. The reason is explained in detail in Ezk 18., in particular v 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Having said that, Scripture has many examples in which entire households turn to God because of the faith of a key member e.g.

• Gen 18:19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
• Jn 4:53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and his whole household believed.
• Acts 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
• Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

So while it is not an iron-clad guarantee without exceptions, it is a very comforting promise for us to direct our children and our household so that all will believe.

Seed on Rocky Ground

Q. In the Parable of the Sower, did the seeds falling on rocky ground lose their salvation?

A. The answer hinges on whether those seeds have genuine salvation. Some believe they do, because:

• v 5 It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow.
• v 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy.

Their deduction is since the plant sprang up, there is life. There is life because the rocky ground receives the word with joy. Therefore, according to them, only the “path” is not saved. The “rocky ground”, the “thorny ground”, and the “good soil” are all saved. Then how do you account for the plants on rocky ground withering, and those on thorny ground choking? Their reason is “because they are carnal Christians (1 Co 3), and therefore unfruitful”. Those who don’t subscribe to “once saved always saved” believe they lost their salvation; those who do believe they lost only their reward, as God can’t trust them anymore and has to end their earthly, not eternal, life.

I disagree with this interpretation. I believe only the good soil is saved, the other three are lost. According to the Lord, the real test of whether a person is saved is fruitfulness:

• Mt 7:16-20 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. The context is on entering the kingdom of heaven, not just gaining or losing rewards. Also Lk 6:43-44.
• Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

Only the good soil bears fruit, and brings forth some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. It entered through the narrow gate and is saved. The others tried to enter by the wide gate and are lost. The rocky ground did not lose its salvation. It never had salvation to begin with. The joy was only a shallow, emotional response, not deep repentance. Examine your life to be sure you are truly saved – not by your works, but by your faith which expresses itself in grateful obedience and is fruitful.

Five Foolish Virgins

Q. Did the 5 foolish virgins lose their salvation? How does it square with “once saved, always saved”?

A. The key is “are the 5 foolish virgins Christians?”. Some believe they are, based on:
• They are virgins, and virgins are figurative of the body of Christ 2 Co 11:2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to Him.
• They had oil, and oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit’s anointing 2 Co 1:21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us.

However, if they were genuine Christians, the bridegroom, representing Christ, would never have replied ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ (Mt 25:12). More likely, virgins simply mean chaste persons Rev 14:4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins.

Furthermore, Mt 25:3 says “The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.” The text is clear that they did not have oil. There is no “extra” in the original. Then how come v 8 says The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ To understand this, we need to know the kind of lamps they were carrying. The Greek word is lampas, which means a torch. They are for outdoor use, able to stand the wind without the flame going out, not the oil lamps for indoor use. They can be lit, but go out quickly unless supplied with oil, which the foolish virgins did not have.

Now Rom 8:9 says, “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.“ So, the foolish virgins were in the company of the wise ones, took their lamps like they did, except that they did not have any oil i.e. the Holy Spirit. They looked like Christians, but they did not belong to Christ. They even called Him “Lord, Lord” (v 11), just as in Mt 7:22-23, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Why were the wise virgins so selfish in not sharing the oil? They were not mean, just being realistic, because you cannot be saved riding on the coattails of others, be they your parents, spouse or friend. Everyone must come to a relationship with God for him/herself. There is no second-hand saving faith.

So this is not a case of true Christians losing their salvation. They may be moral persons in church, but they were never saved to begin with. I believe in perseverance of the saints, but these were not saints, just nominal Christians at best.

Daniel’s Four Beasts (2 of 2)

Yesterday I summarized my views on the four beasts in Daniel 7 and the supporting biblical-historical evidence. Most commentators believe that the dreams and visions in Daniel 2 (large statue), 7 (four beasts) and 8 (ram and goat) parallel each other because of their similarities, which help to identify them:

Today I will explain why I disagree with your author’s rationale. He based his belief on Dan 7:12 “The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time”. Since “ALL FOUR of Daniel’s Four Beasts are said to be IN POWER – IN EXISTENCE” (author’s emphasis), they could not be the four empires of Daniel 2, which were successive. Therefore they must be kingdoms that necessarily EXIST ON EARTH at the time of the Second Coming of Jesus (author’s emphasis). I have problems with two things:

• Direct contradiction with Scripture. Dan 7:12 specifically states that the first 3 beasts were no longer in power, stripped of their authority, though still in existence, contrary to the author’s assertion.
• Jumping to application without proper interpretation. A basic rule in hermeneutics is that before you determine what does the passage mean to you, you must ascertain what it means to the original readers. To jump to the conclusion that Daniel’s four beasts must be immediately before the Second Coming of Christ, without any reference to Daniel’s ancient readers, is poor exegesis. Did the Holy Spirit skip over them and had only twenty-first centuries readers in mind? Hardly!

So does Daniel 7 have nothing to do with Christ’s Second Coming? No, it does, but not in the way your article put it. To apply Daniel 7 to the end times is a valid application, as its four beasts are all rolled into one in the beast of the sea of Rev 13. There are many speculations as to what the seven heads and 10 horns mean e.g. G7, EU etc. As applications, the author’s ideas do have their circumstantial evidence. But to interpret Daniel 7 as having no significance historically, except as it relates to the last days, is not proper interpretation. Hope this helps.