Thank you,

S

Dear Page

The question of God's sovereignty and man's free will has caused many disagreements among Christians over the centuries. Greater minds than mine have grappled with the issue, and all I can do is give you my understanding.

I believe that God is absolutely sovereign. I also believe that he has given us free will, and respects our decisions. In some way, like a great conductor, God takes our individual choices, varying degrees of willingness to follow his lead, and both good and bad notes, and then organizes them to accomplish His will. I know that left on my own, I probably would never have found God had he not found me. Yet, I believe that He is willing to let me accept or reject His overtures to me.

In the case of Pharaoh, I believe that when it says that God hardened his heart, it means that God expedited the hardness that was already in Pharaoh's heart. Like wet concrete, Pharaoh already had that hardness in it. God simply "hardened" it faster, so that He could demonstrate His power and love for His people. While Pharaoh temporarily considered letting the people go after certain plagues, I don't think that indicates a softened heart, only a grief stricken one. My Jewish Pastor in a Messianic Congregation in Chicago told me that God took the natural elements of Pharaoh's heart and brought them to their natural conclusion faster than they might have otherwise, in order to accomplish His will. That does not mean that Pharaoh really wanted to repent, and God wouldn't allow it. I hope I'm distinguishing that difference clearly for you.

In the case of Job, for instance, God did not "have everything taken from him," but rather allowed Satan to have his way with Job within certain limits. The loss of his family should be blamed on Satan, rather than God. However, God did allow it to happen.

Without knowing his family members very well, it is impossible for us to say whether this seems fair or not. But for Job, who is described as an upright man, God allowed these loses. If his family was also righteous, that is people of faith, then I trust that in the afterlife Job saw them all again. We must remember that we are limited in our thinking (we can't understand how the next life will change our perceptions of this life), and therefore, are not in a position to accuse God of the lack of justice or fairness. Just as a baby, safe and happy within the womb, cannot imagine life this side of the traumatic birth canal, neither can we imagine life the other side of death. Job might have felt the same as you when he lay on his ash heap in this life, but in heaven, finds himself of an altogether different opinion.

Ultimately, these questions are a test of our trust in God's character. What appears to our finite minds to be a contradiction in God's character, we must assume is rather a limitation in our understanding. Your questions are legitimate and they are good questions. Others express them also. The key, I think, is whether we will trust God to be beyond our understanding, or insist that He must make sense to us, or He cannot be God. I hope that trusting Him enables you to live at peace with some these unresolved difficulties.

Pastor Mark

Dear Carolyn,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but it is difficult to give a simple answer to a question like this without sounding simplistic. I've decided to share some general thoughts about why I believe as I do, and then simply list some passages for you to look up and think about on your own.

First let me say, that it comes to prophecy yet to be fulfilled, there is always room for differences in opinion about how that fulfillment will come to pass. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the entire story of the future is not laid out in one passage of Scripture. One must put the message of one prophet alongside that of another, and depending on how one puts the various accounts together, interpretations may vary.

Allow me also to say at the outset that I too read the Scriptures in a literal fashion. I take it to mean what it says, unless there is adequate indication that it is intended to be understood symbolically. Of course, apocalyptic passages, or those about the climactic events of history lend themselves to being interpreted either way, literally or figuratively.

Concerning the millennial kingdom, I do believe that Jesus will return to reign upon the throne of David for 1000 years. This means that the world will be under the rule of a "Jewish" king, since Jesus was born in the lineage of David (Matt. 1:1). I believe this to be true because it will most adequately fulfill the many Biblical references to a future Davidic (or Jewish) monarchy, that will be a time of world-wide peace.

The cornerstone of why I believe in the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ is, of course, Rev. 20:4.
(Revelation 20:4) I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

  Here it clearly says that Christ will reign for 1,000 years. I do believe that Satan will be bound during that time and unable to tempt us. Therefore, those living during that time will find they can no longer use the excuse that "the devil made me do it." Rather, it is the human heart that is sinful (see James 1:14-15). Therefore, Jesus will rule with a rod of iron (Rev. 19:15), because people will still be inclined to sin. But under Messiah's rule there will be perfect peace and harmony.

I believe in an earthly rule of Messiah (Christ) because it will fulfill the many promises that have yet to be fulfilled in their entirety. Among such verses I would include Zech 14:9, 16-20; Micah 4:3-4; Is 2:1-4; and Isaiah 9:6-7. Such passages speak of a peace & harmony we have never known during the reign of a Jewish king upon the throne of David. It would be consistent with a millennial view that these are references to that 1000 year reign of Christ.

Once again, let me say that this is the way I put these passages, and others like them, together into a coherent whole. But you cannot refer to a specific passage in the Bible which puts them all into one story. However, I must also say that if we cannot believe Rev. 20:4 literally, just as it is written ("reigned with Christ a thousand years'), then how can we trust that any passage of Scripture means what it says?

Therefore I see a millenial kingdom when Messiah Jesus will reign on earth, after which, there will be a new heaven and new earth. Rev 20 & 21 are not necessarily talking about the exact same time period.

I'm glad you are studying these things. I am sure the difficulties are with our ability to understand and not God's ability to promise and fulfill. I hope to hear from you again.

Pastor Mark

I have three questions:
1. When did year one begin? Is it correct that year one started when Jesus was born?
2. Who are the "Sons of God" in Gen 6?
3. Where did the giants come from that are referred to in the Bible?

Shalom,

Big Dog

Dear Big Dog

It is difficult to say with certainty how our current calendar relates to the birth of Jesus. The calendar was changed several hundred years after the time of Jesus, with the intent of beginning to count the new era from the time of Jesus' birth. Whether they knew the date Jesus was born, however, is debatable at best, and probably doubtful.

Scholars have tried to discern the date of Jesus' birth by checking Luke's historical markers, but without much luck. Luke's account of the birth of Jesus begins this way.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) Luke 2:1-2

Scholars cannot find verification of a census that coincides with both Augustus and Quirinius. As a result, there is debate over whether Jesus was born someplace between 6 BC and 6 AD. However, it is without a doubt that our current marking of time refers to the birth of Jesus as the beginning of a new era.

I suspect that your other two questions are both related to Gen. 6:1-4 where we read

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4)

The King James Version translates Nephilim as "giants."

There are three camps of interpretation concerning this passage. One is the idea that angels joined with human women. But the arguments for this interpretation are weak. It runs counter to Jesus statement in Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry. In addition, if this were a story of the wickedness of angels, then it should have resulted in the flooding of heaven, not the earth. Furthermore, if this resulted in some mutation of giants, surely in a passage like that concerning Goliath, it would have been mentioned.

A second theory is that the sons of God refer to the sons of Seth (the covenant family, or the "good guys") and that the daughters of men refer to sons of Cain, (those who are worldly, or the "bad guys.") This may be a better interpretation than the above, however, the marriage of covenant people with those outside the covenant, or believers with unbelievers, doesn't fit in any way with "giants" or "men of renown."

I think the best interpretation is the third. "Sons of god" was an early tribal reference to kings, nobles and aristocrats in the ancient near east. Such were despots who lusted for power and to be "men of renown." They began to marry any woman they chose, and many of them, perpetuating their wickedness. Walter Kaiser of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary gives five lines of argument supporting this view. Among them he includes the fact that Nephilim is also translated as "bully or tyrant." These people are those of power, strength, and greatness in human terms, or "giant" figures. The weakness of this interpretation is that it requires a variant form of the term elohim (God), but this is not necessarily out of the ordinary in that day.

I hope this is helpful. You can read Kaiser's viewpoint in his book "More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament."

Pastor Mark

Dear J,

It is critical to keep in mind that while we believe there is an ultimate truth, or a right answer, we are not so sure that we can grasp it absolutely. There are some things that Scripture is very clear about, while it is not so clear about other things. Sometimes we can only know that the truth falls within certain boundaries set by the Scriptures.

Therefore, when you ask several people their educated opinions of what the Bible means, you may get several aspects of the boundaries of truth. Through your own Bible study and prayer, you continue to seek. Sometimes we must accept that we are seeking the truth, but not necessarily gaining the truth, or arriving at the final answer.

Keep on Seeking His face,

Pastor Mark

Dear D

I suppose the answer to your question would vary according to whom you ask. There are a wide variety of opionions when it comes to which prophets lived when. However, most evangelical scholars consider Malachi to be the last writing prophet. Though some of the prophets mention something or someone who would help date them, such as a reigning king, many only describe Israel's conduct and impending consequences. Therefore, one must deduce from the sort of conduct described and the future at hand to draw conclusions about dates.

Pastor Mark

Betty

Dear Betty,
I suspect you might be referring to a passage like Ex. 34:7 where God passes before Moses as He gives to him the commandments of the law. As God passes, He make an interesting comment.

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:6-7

At first it might sound as if a person must serve the penalty for the sins of their parents. If we are under the curse of our parent's sins, and we put our faith in Christ, how does our personal salvation and forgiveness come into play?

My understanding is that sin always carries consequences. For example, if a man robs a bank and is caught, he will serve time in jail. Even if he comes to Jesus and is completely forgiven for his sin, he will still have certain consequences to pay. He will serve his time in jail, as well as always have an awareness of his failure. He will have a record that might affect his employment, etc.

In the same way, if this man is a father, then his children will also suffer with the consequences. They will grow up at best with an absent father who is in jail. They may be affected financially by the stigma that goes with their father having a criminal record. However, as they surrender their life to Jesus as Savior and Lord, they are completely forgiven by God and their salvation is secure.

In my opinion God was telling Moses that there are enduring consequences for our choices and behavior. When God gives us His law, He is pointing out that if we will follow His directions, life will go better for both us and our children. Another place where this is apparent is Ps 103:17-18.

But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children-- with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts. Psalms 103:17-18

However, while we live with the consequences of our actions, our salvation rests not on our keeping of the law, but on God's grace through our faith in Jesus Christ. The clearest expression of this is found in Ephesians 2:4-10. In part, that passage says

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. . . . For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Eph. 2:4-5 & 8-10.

You see, our salvation is based on God's great love for us, and Christ's finished work on the cross. After we accept Christ, God is at work making us more like Christ, and we should see an increase in our obedience to His will.

Now, I need to tell you that Maurita, my wife, always feels that my answers are too long and complicated. So if this is confusing or unclear, ask again.

God bless you as you seek to know God better and follow His will in your life.

Pastor Mark

- anglmision

Dear Angl

Thank you for your question. It shows your familiarity with the Bible. Jesus in His resurrected body did indeed pass through walls and still eat fish.

The exact nature of heaven and the resurrection body may be among the most perplexing questions in the Bible. While it is clear that heaven is the Christian's ultimate destination, many details are not clear. The list in your question includes these kinds of details.

The text that immediately comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 15:35-53. Here, the apostle Paul deals with the question of the resurrection body. He describes how the resurrection body will be continuous with the physical body of this world, yet at the same time different. Here is what it says.

But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. 50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:35-53)

So we know that the body must go through a change before it becomes the heavenly body. Just like a particular seed results in a particular tree, so there will be some kind of continuity between this physical body and the resurrected body. However there are some significant differences between a seed and a tree. So it will be with the resurrection body. The exact nature of those details are left open for speculation. My guess is that it may be beyond our comprehension. Maybe the very categories we use (three dimensional, four? six?) are less than adequate. In any case, we know that God's will for us good and that the resurrected body will surely be something of wonder.

Pastor Mark

Thanks...Again,

A

Dear A

First, let me say that your concern as to what extent prophecy should interpreted in exact terms is a legitimate one. I believe that every prophecy is "exact" in that God will fulfill it in exact terms. However, there is always a risk that our interpretation is not "exactly" accurate. In your example, Jesus was speaking of His body being the temple which would be destroyed. His body was indeed the true Temple of God, since the presence of the Almighty dwelt within. However, their interpretation that Jesus meant the temple of stone was not accurate.

Rather than assume that prophecy is "symbolic," I assume that I may not fully understand how it will be fulfilled.

Having said that, the Thessalonians passage to which you refer has every indication that Paul is intending it to be understood literally rather than symbolically. When the Bible is speaking sybolically, it tends to be obviously the case. For instance when Jesus spoke in parables, or symbols, the Bible specifically makes that clear.

To read the Bible otherwise, however, and see everything as symbolic, runs the risk of reducing everything the Bible says to symbolism and then filling the symbols with whatever seems right to us - which is sure to lead us into error. Most of the time, you can tell when the Bible is using symbolism and when it is not..

God's intent isn't to mislead us with symbols, but rather to share with us His truth. In some cases, that might only be communicated (or be better communicated ) in symbolic language. But otherwise, God simply tends to tell it like it is.

Hope you find this helpful.

May you know the Savior's grace every day -

Pastor Mark  

Dear M

Actually, the wording there in the Greek means to pray without interruption. Paul's exhortation doesn't seem to be directed so much at one prayer concern as at a general attitude of dialogue with God. The entire sentence reads

Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
(1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

In other words, I think the exhortation is that we should be perpetually in a spirit of joyful and thankful dialogue with our Heavenly Father about whatever is going on in our lives. In my own life, I find the need for specific "appointments" with God, where I address particular issues with Him. However, I also try to be in constant conversation with Him while driving, counseling, or eating, for example. It is an awareness that He si always present, listening to my thoughts and whispering in my heart. In this way, we seek to "pray without ceasing."

Pastor Mark

Dear H

In John 14:6, Jesus is re-assuring the disciples that they needn't be afraid during His absence. He will return to take them to dwell with Him. He is preparing a special place for them. The Greek word does not insist that it be a mansion. Because of the context, I don't think that Jesus' emphasis is on the extravagance of our dwelling place as on reassuring us that we will safely abide with Him throughout eternity in a place that He has prepared specifically for us.

I also suspect that when we all get to heaven we will find that those who held positions of apparent esteem, prominence, importance or influence on earth will not be at the top of God's "hit parade." Rather it will be those who have been faithful in their testimony, in parenting, in the workplace, etc. Quiet Christians who loved the Savior and served Him in humble and simple ways will find their service rewarded.

In Jesus' time, most would assume that the religious leaders would be among the most blest in the Kingdom of Heaven. But notice Jesus' response in Luke 13..

Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" He said to them, 24 "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.' 26 "Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' 27 "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!' 28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last." (Luke 13:23-30)

The most important question is do you know the Savior? Have you entered into a personal relationship with Him?

Hope this helps,
Mark

Thanks! JL

Dear JL

Concerning Ephraim and Judah. I don't see how they can be interpreted in any other way than the Northern and Southern tribes of Israel. Ezekiel's illustration is obviously that they will be re-gathered and united, with David as their king. I checked the blessing by Jacob, and I can't see where Gentiles become Jews. To someway include Gentiles as part of Ephraim is a stretch, unless there is something I'm overlooking. If you have more info on just what passages and why they see this connection, I'd be more than happy to investigate.

It also seems to me that it is a mute point. If we are grafted into the vine as indicated in Romans, what makes the difference? Sometimes our desire to "be Jewish" indicates a subtle envy over their choseness. However, if we have been grafted in, then we share in the promises, and in our own way, have also been chosen . . . for adoption.

May the LORD make His countenance to shine upon you

Mark

Dear Ish
It's a very interesting question that you raise. A difficult one also, I might add. I'm not sure that the Bible addresses it directly, so we can only try and draw conclusions from what we know. Here are some thoughts to consider.

First of all, I thought the following comments cast some light on this question. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary makes this comment.
The law of Moses made clear distinctions between clean and unclean, the holy and unholy (lev. 10:10). Uncleanness was primarily ceremonial defilement, not moral, unless done willfully. It kept a man from the service of the sanctuary and from fellowship with co-religionists" (v.1, 299).

The Encyclopedia Judaica says,
Purity and impurity, Ritual . . . a concept that a person or object can be in a state which, by religious law, prevents the person or object from having any contact with the temple or its cult (v.13, 1406).

Thus, ritual impurity or uncleanness was more symbolic, or ceremonial, than substantive. It is not the same as moral impurity, for example. Much of the ceremonial law was a foreshadowing of Christ Himself, and what must be required for people to come into the presence of the Divine. Thus, Jesus broke no moral laws by touching a leper, for instance.

I am also reminded that Jesus said,
"Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'" 16 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" Mark 7:14-23

This supports the idea that the ceremonial law was there to point out the importance of purity, but that the infractions were not necessarily substantive. Moreover, when Jesus touched a leper, rather than Jesus becoming unclean, the leper became clean. Having no sin of His own and being free from the sin nature, Jesus was not susceptible to "impurity" in the same way we are, though I do think He was tempted to sin. However, this would pertain more to the moral areas of the law, than the ritual, since the ritual law had no real substantive basis.

Those are my thoughts right now. I would hope that over time, my view would adjust and I will grow in understanding. I'd like to know whatever further thoughts you might have.

God bless you with wisdom, insight and resolve to do His will.

Pastor Mark