The Messianic Psalms and their New Testament Fulfillment

There has been much inquiry into the study of biblical prophecy over the last few hundred years. Those who study prophecy have various backgrounds and reasons for their study. Some would include, pastors, theologians, secular scholars, scientists, historians, skeptics, and the average believer. While not all study for the same reason, or even believe in prophetic fulfillment, they would have to agree that prophecy is perhaps one of the most intriguing subjects that the Scriptures deal with.

Prophecy must never be confused with, or written off as merely prediction only. True prophecy must come to pass exactly as the details were given by the prophet. There were tests given in the Old and New Testament about identifying a true prophet. One test was that the message of the prophet must correspond with God’s Word (Deut. 13:1-3; 1 Cor. 14). The second test is accuracy concerning the prophecy (Jer. 28:9). The messianic prophecies concerning Christ’s earthly life came to pass and are recorded in the New Testament.

The Messianic Prophecies can be divided into two categories; those prophecies concerning Christ’s future rule, that have yet to be fulfilled, and those prophecies concerning Christ’s earthly life, that have been fulfilled and are recorded in the New Testament. The prophecy that will be dealt with in this paper concerns that of the Messianic Prophecies concerning Christ’s earthly life prophesied throughout the book of the Psalms and the fulfillment of those prophecies in the New Testament.

Most think of prophecy as coming from a prophet like Samuel or Elijah, and relate prophecy somewhat to preaching, or the proclamation of something yet future. The Psalms were written as prayers or hymns and do not necessarily contain preaching, but contain a didactic element as well as testimony (Milton, 85). David was not necessarily a prophet, or at least did not hold the prophetic office, but it was obvious king David had the gift of prophecy. David did not write all of the Messianic Psalms, however, the majority can be attributed to him.

The Messianic Psalms specifically deal with the person of Jesus Christ. Not all of the Messianic Psalms have been fulfilled, but there will be an attempt to discuss those that were fulfilled in the coming of Christ and during His earthly life including His sonship, death, burial resurrection, and priesthood.

Christ’s Sonship: Ps. 2:7 – (Mt. 3:17; Heb. 1:5)

Christ has always been the Son of God; from eternity past He dwelt with the Father and the Spirit as the second Person of the Godhead. The psalmist prophesied the Word’s of Christ Himself that the Father spoke to Him at His baptism (Mt. 3:17). This Messianic prophecy not only validates Christ’s eternal sonship, but proves His legitimate right to the Davidic throne as King of Israel. In the Davidic Covenant God declared that He would be Father to the king. David’s relationship with God, as king, was a Father-son relationship (2 Sam. 7:14) (Walvoord, Zuck, 792). Christ fulfills the true Father-Son relationship.

Christ’s Obedience: (Ps. 40:6-8) – (Heb. 10:5-7)

The psalmist, David, declares in Psalm 40:6 that God desired his obedience over sacrifice. The prophet Samuel instructs king Saul on the issue of obedience, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22). God delights in the giving of one’s self over sacrifice. When the psalmist declares, “mine ears hast thou opened,” it prompts obedience through the power of God. It is God who gives the believer the power of obedience. It was also the power of God that Christ depended on during His earthly life to be obedient to the Father. It is true that Christ could not have sinned because of His divine nature, but Christ willingly took upon Him the form of a servant and became obedient unto death (Phil. 2:7, 8).

Although David wrote Psalm 40, it is evident from verse 7 that Christ is the one being spoken of. Jesus, in speaking to the Jews, said: “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jo. 5:39). Jesus was the eternal Word (Jo. 1:1-3).

Hebrews 10:5-7 gives an even greater meaning to the Old Testament passage in Psalm 40: 6-8. Christ’s obedience was that which fulfilled all of the law. Christ accomplished perfectly what the law could never do, and was never purposed to do, putting and end to sacrificial offerings for the covering of sins, and once and for all, by His obedience to the Father, became the perfect sacrifice that took away the sins of the world. John the baptizer stated it so well: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world” (Jo. 1:29). There was no longer a need for covering sins.

 

The matter of Christ’s obedience is central to the believer’s salvation. If Christ would have been a mere man, He could not have been perfectly obedient to the Father. Christ was not merely a man; He was the God-man. No less than a perfect, obedient sacrifice would have been acceptable for taking away the sins of the world.

Christ’s Sufferings and Death: (Ps. 22:1-21; 69:4, 9) – (Mt. 27; Jo. 2:17; 15:25; Rom. 15:3)

The portrayal of the suffering Messiah given in the Psalms was fulfilled in the life of Christ. The psalmist was vivid in describing the anguish that he faced. David obviously felt as if the Lord had forsaken him while his enemies raged about, seeking to destroy him. David sought the Lord for deliverance and received from the good hand of God. Although David’s sufferings were great, they only slightly resembled the sufferings of the Messiah.

Psalm 22 gives a vivid illustration of death by crucifixion; the bones being out of joint, the piercing of the hands and feet, the intense thirst and fatigue, and the failing of the heart (Ps. 22:14-15). The figurative language David uses in Psalm 22 and 69 have great significance in the New Testament. David cries out to God, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps. 22:1). It only seemed as if God had forsaken David, but indeed the Father forsook the Son as indicated by Christ’s cry from the cross (Mt. 27:46). Psalm 22:3 indicates why God had forsaken His Son on the cruel cross; it was God’s holiness. A holy God can not look upon sin, and since Christ bore the sins of the world, the Father could not even look upon His own Son. Jesus had not become sinful, but was made sin for us (Phillips v. 1, 169).

In Psalm 69:4 the psalmist mentions how he was hated without cause. This is normally man’s view toward his enemies. There is always the tendency to exclude any reason that may condemn man, and give his enemies reason to hate. Because man is a sinner, fault can always be found. That can not be said about the Lord Jesus. Truly his enemies hated Him without cause because there was no accusation that could be brought against Him regarding iniquity. Christ stated Himself “They hated me without a cause” (Jo. 15:25).Christ said that He would be hated without cause in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.

Other prophecies from the Messianic Psalms that are fulfilled in the New Testament by Christ are, “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken” (Ps. 34:20 cf. Jo. 19:36); “they pierced my hands and my feet” (Ps. 22:16 cf. Jo. 19:37). Christ was the unintentional focus of the psalm writer.

Although Christ’s sufferings were of tremendous importance, His death was of even more importance. David prophetically spoke of Christ when he said: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. 16:10). David spoke only metaphorically, he could not be speaking literally of himself here because his body did see corruption. This reference is also mentioned by Peter in Acts 2:25. Christ’s body did not see corruption. After three days Christ came forth from the tomb (Jo. 20:1-10). Although this reference points toward the resurrection, it also indicates Christ’s physical death on the cross.

Christ’s Resurrection: (Ps. 2:7; 16:10) – (Acts. 2:25-28; 13:33-35)

One of the same passages that prove Christ’s Sonship can also be used to support His resurrection; “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Ps. 2:7). Some would relate Psalm 2:7 to the birth of Christ. The word “begotten,” meaning “one and only,” seems to indicate that it was referring to Christ’s birth, but the apostle Paul quotes Psalm 2:7 and references it to the raising up of Christ by the Father (Acts 13:33-34). While either interpretation seems to fit properly the New Testament quotation clarifies the usage of “begotten” in Psalm 2:7.

Psalm 16:10 evidences that Christ’s body would not see corruption in the grave, but would be resurrected before decay could begin. As previously mentioned, this passage is also used to support the prophecy of Christ’s death. David could only have been metaphorically speaking of himself, and unknowingly prophesying of the Messiah’s death and resurrection, since David’s body did see corruption. This passage is paralleled in the New Testament by the apostle Peter (Acts 2:25-27).

Christ’s resurrection is of the utmost importance to the believer in Jesus Christ. The believer’s salvation hinges on the fact that Christ arose from the grave victoriously, conquering death, hell, and the grave. It is because of the life He now lives that the believer can have life eternal (Rom. 5:10).

Christ’s Ascension: (Ps. 68:18; 110:1) – (Acts 1:11; Eph. 4:8)

Not only is Christ’s death and resurrected prophesied and reaffirmed in the Psalms and New Testament, but Christ’s ascension is also recorded in Messianic prophecy. In Psalm 68:18, David is relating to the Ark of the Covenant being moved to Jerusalem, and referring it to a mighty conqueror ascending on high with captives (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 843). The New Testament passage (Eph. 4:8) is thought by some to be a summary of Psalm 68 in entirety, and not specifically a quote of verse 18 (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 843). Regardless of the various opinions given regarding Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8, the interpretation must be considered prophetical when the two passages are compared.

Psalm 110:1 gives adequate proof of Christ’s ascension, as well as His exaltation. After Christ’s resurrection He ascended to take His place at the right hand of the Father where He now abides awaiting His future rule (Heb. 1:3). Although not a direct quote from the Psalms, Acts 1:11 provides ample evidence that Christ did indeed ascend to heaven in the presence of many witnesses.

Christ’s Priesthood: (Ps. 110:4) – (Heb. 5:6)

Christ’s priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek. Christ could not be a priest after the order of the Aaronic priesthood because He was not from the tribe of Levi. Christ was from the tribe of Judah and no priests were ordered from that tribe. Christ’s priesthood is more important, and far better, than the Levitical priests. The writer of Hebrews emphasizes the importance of Christ’s priesthood over the Aaronic priesthood.

Melchizedek was a Gentile king of Salem, and a priest that had no recorded genealogy; he was merely a type of Christ (Gen. 14). Christ was compared to Melchizedek in regards to his office as king, and priest, although Christ is not reigning as King at this moment. However, Christ is now a High Priest and Melchizedek was out of, what seemed to be, an eternal priesthood, meaning with no known beginning or end. There are five main similarities between Christ and Melchizedek: (1) two official offices in the same person (Heb. 7:1; Zech. 6:13); (2) both performed blessings not judgment (Heb. 7:1; Lk. 24:50); (3) the receiving of tithes (the fact that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, and blessed him, is proof that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham as well as the Levitical priests) (Heb. 7:8); (4) both were independent priests (Heb. 7:3); (5) neither was ever succeeded by another priest (Heb. 7:3).

In Psalm 110:4, it seems as if David was prophesying some oracle that had been given to him by God about the future Messiah; this is also quoted by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 5:6). Christ was a priest called of the Father. Christ fulfills the position of High Priest today for believers acting as both Intercessor and Advocate (1 Jo. 1:9; 2:1).

Conclusion:

There are endless passages in the Psalms that are considered Messianic prophecies. However, many have not been fulfilled as of yet. Christ’s rule as King, Judge, etc. will one day be fulfilled in their entirety just as the prophetic passages that have been discussed concerning His earthly life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

The prophesying of the psalmist is intriguing because there was so little known about Christ the Messiah, yet there was so much written about Him. The unveiling of these Messianic prophecies in the New Testament should have a tremendous impact to the believer. The Bible is Christocentric and Jesus said Himself, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jo. 5:39). Christ fulfilled all that the Scriptures prophesied concerning His earthly life and is awaiting the Fathers will to fulfill the rest.

Works Cited

Bulock, Hassell C. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Chicago: Moody, 1988. Print.

Dickson, David. A Commentary on the Psalms. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959. Print.

Walvoord, John F. Every Prophecy of the Bible Clear Explanantions for Uncertain Times by One of Today’s Premier Prophecy Scholars. Deerfield Beach: Cook Communications, 2004. Print.

Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. New York: Prince, 2003. Print.

Gleason, Archer. Survey of Old Testament introduction. Chicago: Moody, 1994. Print.

John, Phillips. Exploring the Psalms. Vol. 1. Neptune, N.J: Loizeaux Brothers, 1988. Print.

John, Phillips. Exploring the Psalms. Vol. 2. Neptune, N.J: Loizeaux Brothers, 1988. Print.

Milton, John P. The Psalms. Rock Island: Agustana Book Concern, 1954. Print.

Zuck, Roy B, and John Walvoord. Bible Knowledge Commentary Old Testament An Exposition of the Scriptures (Bible Knowledge). Wheaton: Victor, 1985. Print.

Introduction to Job

Introductory Material on the Book of Job

Introduction:

Time and again anguish and suffering are questioned by mankind. There has been an endless search for the answer to human suffering and why it must exist. The very fact that tragedy exists has led people to believe that God does not exist. Why would God allow misery to fall upon mankind whom He claims to love? These are difficult questions that do not have precise answers that are easily accepted. Perhaps affliction proves the existence of love; the two must co-exist. It seems impossible for one to exist without the other.

The mindset of mankind leads to the belief that an answer must be available and it has to be an acceptable one. When an answer to man’s question of suffering, and its purpose, can not be found, then it tends to become more disturbing than the affliction itself. This is perhaps the case in the Old Testament book of Job.

The book of Job is an ancient account of one man’s sufferings that is recorded in the Old Testament canon of the Scriptures. Job is a very intriguing book that not only puzzles theological minds but confuses those who read for the purpose of gaining insight on the reason for suffering. Most who read Job would agree that he was a man undeserving of the affliction he encountered. Job was a man who feared God, was blameless, and was above reproach, yet he lost everything from wealth, possessions, family, and personal health.

Not only did Job lose everything, it seemed as if Job’s wife, friends, and his God had forsaken him as well. What was the purpose for all of Job’s suffering? This is the question that lingers in the mind of the reader. While there are some indications of the purpose of Job’s sufferings, the answer to the question, “why Job had to suffer so much,” is never sufficiently answered. Here are some reasons from Scripture that give the reader insight to the sufferings of Job: (1) God used Job because of his outstanding character and devotion to silence Satan’s accusations (Job 1:9-11); (2) In order to prove that the righteous are not exempt from severe suffering (Job 1:1); (3) To ask the question “why” is not entirely wrong (Job 3:11, 12), but to demand an answer from God is wrong (Job 13:22; 31:15) (Bible knowledge Commentary, 715).

Looking through the eyes and minds of the individual characters involved in Job give very different perspectives on the purpose of suffering. For instance, Job is perplexed by his sufferings while the author, as well as the reader, would know that Satan is the afflicting one (Job 3). Job’s wife was obviously puzzled as well; she did not know why they had lost everything or why Job had to suffer in such magnitude (Job 2:9). Job’s three friends viewed all suffering as punishment for sin (Ch. 4-31) (Geisler, 187). Job and his friends had a faulty view of suffering; God, in His sovereignty, allowed this suffering to fall upon Job for the perfecting of His own. Suffering is not always a direct result of sin.

Theme:

Although there are many different themes given by commentators, it is interesting to note the Christocentric theme (Job 9:33; 19:25, 26). While there should not be an attempt to place any specific doctrine to these passages, an emphasis on Job’s pleading for a mediator to stand between him and God and a hope for a Redeemer is evident. Regardless of the degree of suffering individuals face today mankind is needful of a mediator in order to come before God. This is obviously something Job had little knowledge of, but by faith believed it.

Another theme that is prevalent throughout Job, more so in the latter chapters, is God’s sovereignty. It is by God’s providence that Job is allowed to suffer for the purpose of strengthening and drawing him closer to Him. In the first two chapters (narrative / prologue) a conclusion can be drawn and dogmatically stated that it is God who allows affliction, whether it is carried out by Satan or a direct result of sin (the lust of the flesh), but God does not afflict men Himself without cause (Job 1:12; 2:3-7; Acts 12:23).

Style of Writing:

Job is considered Hebrew poetry, and classified as Wisdom Literature. There are five such books that fall into this category: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. These books are different from other portions of Old Testament Scripture. They are not particularly historical books, although Job is a historical account, rather they are books that speak for man to God, whereas other portions of the Old Testament (i.e. prophetic books) God directly speaks to man through prophets or individuals (Bullock, 19).

Job is a mixture of prose and poetry. It contains both monologue and dialogue. The narrative portions are the prologue (Ch. 1-2), and the epilogue (42:7-17). Poetry falls between the prologue and epilogue (Ch. 3-41) (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 715). The book of Job is filled with parallelism, similes, irony, metaphors, and laments. The combination of literary styles used to portray Job’s sufferings makes Job a unique and outstanding work of literature.

Many scholars point out similarities between Job and other ancient Near Eastern literary productions. These similarities are undeniable. However, Job stands alone when it comes to the overwhelming portrayal of one innocent man’s sufferings and the ridicule he faced from his friends only to be answered by the Creator of the universe (Alden, 21). To claim the ancient Near Eastern literary style of that unique period influenced the poetic nature of Job would be accurate, but to suggest the book of Job was a fictitious writing based on other literary forms of that period would be inconsistent with the overall structure of the book in relation to its importance in the Word of God. Literary criticism has fell upon many Old Testament writings, but just because writings may correlate does not mean one was formed or caused by the other.

Date:

There are two factors that relate to the date of the book of Job: (1) the date of the actual events; (2) the date of the writing; these two are distinctly different. Most conservative scholars date the life of Job during the Patriarchal Age (2100-1900 B.C.). There are many indicators from Scripture that place Job’s life during this period. According to Scripture, Job lived to be 140 years after his first ten children were grown (Job 42:16). Job lived to be approximately 200 years old; this coincides with the ages of the Patriarchs, Abraham, 175, and Isaac, 180 (Zuck, 9). Job evidently lived before the dispensation of law because he acted as priest for his household and there is no mention of religious feasts, or of the tabernacle (Job 1:5). Job’s daughters were included in his inheritance which was not permitted under the Mosaic Law (Num. 27:8; Job 42:15). The literature style, scriptural references, and people groups mentioned undoubtedly place Job during the Patriarchal Age. The dating of the writing of Job will be discussed under the authorship.

Authorship:

What intrigues most about the book of Job is that the authorship is unknown. There are several opinions about who authored Job. Some scholars suggest Moses, Isaiah, Solomon, and even Hezekiah or Ezra (Zuck, 8). There is even the view that Job himself wrote the book; this view carries as much weight as other views. Job had 140 years after the events took place to accurately write down what happened. Job was an eyewitness, in the greatest sense, to the minute details given throughout the book. During the patriarchal time period it was not uncommon for a person to record events of his life in third person (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 716). There is a question whether or not such an account could be accurately passed down for hundreds of years by oral tradition. Some believe the book was compiled by several different authors, but this view is not consistent with the overwhelming unity, or the form of literature in Job that points to a single author (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 716).

The author of Job will never be revealed on this side of eternity. However, this unique literary masterpiece provides details about the author that should not be overlooked. For instance, he was knowledgeable in the area of literature, science, animals, culture, and the hearts of men. Above all else he wrote as the Holy Spirit moved him. Regardless of whom the human author may have been God was the original Author.

Brief Outline of Job:

Job can be broken up into three distinct parts:

I. Job’s Dilemma (1:1-2:13)

II. Job’s Debate with His Friends (3:1-37:24)

III. Job’s Deliverance (38:1-42:17) (The New Open Bible, NKJV)

A more detailed and extensive outline can be formed, and there are many various outlines available in an array of commentaries.

Conclusion:

Job is a book rich in literary style and is worthy of an in-depth study about life and suffering. Job thwarts man’s view of God and identifies God as righteous, sovereign, and compassionate; a literary showpiece that is rightfully placed in the canon of Scripture. The book of Job is an accurate account, and has been preserved in the inspired canon of Scripture, for all to read and draw from God’s sovereign dealings in one man’s life, that application and knowledge may be applied in the lives of believers.

Works Cited

Alden, Robert L. Job. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993. Print.

Bullock, Hassell C. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Chicago: Moody, 1988. Print.

Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. New York: Prince, 2003. Print.

John F. Walvoord. Bible Knowledge Commentary Old Testament An Exposition of the Scriptures (Bible Knowledge). Ed. Zuck, Roy B. Wheaton: Victor, 1985. Print.

Zuck, Roy B. Job. Chicago: Moody, 1978. Print.

What Makes My Mother Special?

First of all I believe that God is the One that made my mother special. My mother proved this to me and three other children through her actions of love throughout our life. I never understood the concept of loving someone that was just unlovable, but my mother showed us how to do that by always reaching out with love to those who had done her wrong. This is why I say that God made her special. You see, God reached out to an unlovable people with love giving His only Son for the sins of the world. Over the years I have watched my mother reflect God’s love, and it has impacted my life, and helped me to understand how to love others even when love does not come easy. That is why my mother is special.

 

-Jamie Sink

Demon Possession: Who Is at Risk and Is There Hope?

There are many people in this world today that are attracted to practices of the occult which include, but are not limited to, séances, divination, witchcraft, worshipping of angels, necromancy (worshipping the dead), etc. These are just a few of the tools Satan uses to lure men, women, and children to explore the side of darkness and evil. It is a common misconception that occult practices are harmless. Contrary to what many believe, occult activities are fueled by demonic power and can ultimately open the door for demon possession.

 In the Old Testament there is no explicit mention of demon possession; demons worked through spiritism, idol worship, divination etc. These were all ploys by demons to distract men from worshipping the true God and turn to other gods. There are not a lot of demon possessed people today that are labeled as being demon possessed. Society has all kinds of scientific and medical names to attribute to those who very well could be demon possessed.   

I. The Origin of Demons

To understand the power of demons their origin must first be determined. Demons are created beings and were created originally as angels for the purpose of serving and worshipping God. Christ is the Creator of all things created including the angelic beings (Col. 1:16). At the time of Satan’s rebellion and fall (Isa. 14:12), one-third of the angelic population followed him (Rev. 12:4). Since there is no indication in Scripture that demons were created at any other time demons must be the wicked angels that chose to follow Satan at his rebellion.

Demons can be called the non-elect angels since the angels that did not sin are called the elect angels (1 Tim. 5:21). Some of these non-elect angels were bound in Tartarus and the rest are free (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). At the time of their fall the destiny of the non-elect angels were sealed. They can never turn from their wickedness and become good and the elect angels can never sin and become bad. The wicked angels (demons) are still led by no other than Satan (Rev. 12:7).

Angels were created as spirit beings. Therefore, demons must be incorporeal beings, having no flesh or bones. There is no Scriptural evidence that demons can take on corporality as the elect-angels can (Acts 5:19). They can however possess a living body (Matt. 5:1-20). It seems that demons seek living human bodies to possess because it gives them some sort of rest (Matt. 12:43). Demons are intellectual, emotional creatures that seek to do their own will but at times show submission (Mk. 1:24; Js. 2:19; Matt. 8:32; Acts 8:7).

II. Demon Possession in Scripture

Many instances of demon possession are found in the New Testament. There are no explicit examples in the Old Testament although demons were actively working. There are several reasons for this, but the main reason is because of Christ’s earthly ministry. The synoptic gospels give ample detail about demon possessed individuals. Many were brought to Jesus for healing of demon possession (Matt. 4:24).

During Christ’s earthly ministry he cast out many demons, freeing individuals from the power of demon possession. Demon possession appeared in various forms. Some individuals had physical sickness because of demon possession (Matt. 9:32-33). Others had mental issues that resulted in insanity (Matt. 17:14-18; Mk. 5:1-5, 15). Scripture indicates when Christ cast out demons they were confined to the abyss, this is why the demons that possessed the maniac of Gadara begged Christ not to send them out into the deep (Lk. 8:26-39). The same passage supports demons as spirit beings because many were living inside of this one man. Scripture tells us that this demon was named legion and Christ cast this legion of demons into a herd of swine and there were about two thousand swine that ran into the sea and drowned (Mk. 5:13). This unique occasion is the only one given in Scripture where Christ cast out demons into other living bodies (swine).       

Christ was not the only one to cast out demons in the New Testament. The apostles were given the authority to cast out demons as well (Matt. 10:8). There are no instances given in the gospels where the apostles cast out demons but there are in the book of Acts (5:16; 8:7; 16:16-18; 19:12). The last time demons are recorded being cast out by the apostles is in Acts 19:12. The power to cast out demons was limited to the apostles and decreased as the Church was established (Mat. 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:12). The casting out of demons authenticated the message that the apostles preached and gave them power and authority as well as boldness to proclaim the gospel message.

III. Demon Possession Today

Some would argue that demon possession is a thing of the past and does not happen today. While it is true that demon possession is rarely heard of today, it would be an understatement to say it doesn’t exist. It is perhaps more subtle today than in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry, but just as dangerous. After the apostolic era demon possession seemed to decline and demons focused their attention on distorting the truth of the gospel message. The Apostle Paul faced off with such perversion as false teachers and warned the churches that such men sought to enter in as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Paul focused many of his epistles toward false teachers because this is where Satan sought to destroy the Church. While demon possession may not be manifested where it can be clearly recognized, there are still individuals possessed by demons, and demonic activity is at work among believers to distort the message of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 4:1).

Sometimes demon possession can be noticeable and other times it can be very hard to detect. There are outward signs of possible demon possession, but these signs are not always reliable considering the moral decline of society. Some of the signs are alcoholism, drug addictions, sexual addictions, self mutilation, insanity, unusual strength, multiple personalities, etc. There are millions of people with these characteristics that are not demon possessed. However, demons love to involve themselves in these kinds of activities so that they can run down the human body they possess causing it to be worthless.

There are people that could be demon possessed and pass right through the crowd unnoticed. As a matter of fact they could be wealthy, good looking, charming, business men and women. They may have a hidden side that is caught up in demonic activities such as secret cults and satanic worship. It is very possible that thousands, maybe millions, of demon possessed people are in the world today being used of Satan to hinder the work of God.

IV. Who is at Risk?

Anyone who has never accepted the gospel message has opened the door for demon possession. An unbeliever is susceptible to demon possession because he or she has rejected the gospel message. Satan uses the post-modern philosophy of this world to draw men away and closer to him. When someone becomes convinced that there are many ways of worship and many gods to worship then they begin to search for new experiences. Often these new experiences include mysticism, asceticism, séances, etc. Satan offers very real thrills in these avenues and they become addicting, capturing the very soul. Everyone that falls in this trap will not become demon possessed, but it is very possible.

V. Can Demons be Cast Out Today? 

As previously stated, the casting out of demons ended with the apostolic era. However, those possessed by demons today do have hope. That hope is only through the gospel of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:13). When a person that is demon possessed accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their life then the demon(s) that possess the body must leave. Satan does not have the ability to harm the believer unless granted by God (Job 1:12; 1 Jn. 5:18). Demons cannot be cast out today by Christians, Pastors, Priests, etc. Satan is a lot stronger than men and we can only overcome him through the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Jn. 4:4). The only way demons are cast out today is by the giving and receiving of the gospel message.

VI. Can Believers be Demon Possessed?  

At the moment of salvation the Holy Spirit takes permanent residence in a believer’s body until death or the rapture. This disables any demon from taking residence in a believer’s body. It is true that the Holy Spirit indwells a body that still has an old nature, but the old nature is an inanimate being and the Holy Spirit is an animate being allowing them to indwell the same body. Two outside animate beings (i.e. Holy Spirit and demon) cannot dwell together in the same body so once the Holy Spirit enters the demon must leave, if previously there, or will never be able to enter (Bowman, class notes Systematic Theology II). So the answer would be, no! A believer cannot be demon possessed.

Conclusion

Demon possession is among the population today. It may not be as noticeable because of the moral decline of society but just as real as it was in the first century. Satan uses different ploys to get men and women to destroy their lives and pervert the gospel with false teaching. Any type of activity that involves witchcraft, sorcery, divination, or mysticism should be avoided all together and viewed as demonic activity that could lead to the demise of a Christian or demon possession of an unbeliever.  

Works Cited

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology : A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. New York: Moody, 1999.

Lockyer, Herbert. All the Doctrines of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1964.

Bowman, Hoyle E. Systematic Theology II. Winston-Salem: PBC

Pentecost: The Birth of the Church

The church of Jesus Christ has been a topic of great discussion and controversy throughout the history of Christianity. There are many varying opinions among biblical scholars, denominations, pastors, and teachers, as to what particular time in history the church actually began. The doctrine of the church is a major doctrine of the Bible, and should not be overlooked. More specifically, the time of the church’s beginning is a critical issue and requires a thoughtful study of the Scriptures. The Scriptures give overwhelming proof that the church was born on the day of Pentecost, and at that time began to exist as a living entity, made up of believers, that form the body of Christ, of which Christ is the Head.

The Church Defined

To get an understanding of the term “Church,” a clear definition must be applied. Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines the New Testament word “Church,” which comes from the Greek word “ekklesia,” as an assembly of citizens (Church, 102). In The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the word church is defined as “a calling out” (Church, 197). Yet another definition of  “ekklesia,” as used in the New Testament, could be “assembly” or “called together” instead of “called out” (Ryrie, Basic Theology 456). These are the more technical terms for the word church. A more thorough definition is needed to understand what exactly makes up the church. A distinction must first be made between the local church and the Universal Church. The local church is made up of baptized believers, but would be considered in a local area or city, such as Corinth, mentioned by Paul (1 Cor. 1:2). The Universal Church will be discussed in this paper. The Universal Church can be defined as being made up as such: all believers in Jesus Christ, on earth and in heaven, from the day of Pentecost until the time of the rapture (Benware, 88-89; Ryrie, Basic Theology 458). In Dispensational Theology, this time period is known as the “Church Age” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism 125-126).

Varying Opinions

There are, of course, various differences to the above definition of the church. A few prominent positions that would argue against the church starting on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 would be some, but not all or limited to, Covenant Theologians, Posttribulationalists, Amillennialists, Postmillenialists, and Ultradispensationalists. The main argument for all of the previously mentioned, with the exception of Ultradispensationalists, would adhere to one main argument; the church and Israel are one and the same. There will be an attempt by the author of this paper to explain the opposition’s viewpoint with clarity in order to avoid confusion and to offer a clear rebuttal that militates against their doctrinal position.

The Distinction between the

       Church and Israel          

Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, defines the Church in this fashion: “The church is the community of all true believers for all time” (853). Grudem’s definition suggests there is no distinction between Israel and the church. This would include all of the Old Testament saints in the body of Christ. Grudem uses Ephesians 5:25 as Scriptural evidence to prove that Christ gave Himself up for the church (853). Grudem also suggests that the building of Christ’s church (Matt. 16:18) is a continuation of God’s pattern in the Old Testament (853). Since Christ died for all who believe (Grudem’s position not the author’s), then all saints Old and New Testament are part of the church.

Grudem deserves much credit for his theological studies as well as his devotion to the Lord. However, there are many gaps in his interpretation concerning the body of Christ. First of all, the context of Ephesians 5:25 is Paul instructing husbands to love their wives. The result of this would be that the wives would not be abused and treated as being lower than their husband. Christ is referred to as the Head of the church just as the husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23). Christ gave Himself for the church in order that He could become the Head of the church. There is no Scriptural proof that Christ was the Head of the church before His death, resurrection, and ascension. However, there is ample biblical evidence providing proof against Grudem’s claim. God the Father set Jesus Christ as Head over all things including the church (Eph. 1:19-22). If the body of Christ was established in the Old Testament then it was definitely without a Head because the Father had not yet set Christ in that position. Christ said “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). The Greek verb “I will build” (oikodomeo) is future, active, indicative, indicating something yet future, not already taking place. Scriptural evidence points toward a distinction between the church and Israel.

What about the church in the Old Testament? Another verse widely used by the opposition is where Stephen in his message refers to the “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:48). It is true Stephen uses the word “church,” but it carries different meanings. Here it refers to a congregation or gathering of people at the tabernacle in the desert. It would not be accurate to assume all gathered at the tabernacle were believers. Stephen went on to describe how the congregation in the wilderness resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51-53) (Walvoord, 369). Given the biblical confirmation the “church in the wilderness” cannot be related to the body of Christ which makes up the true church.

Not only are the church and Israel two distinct entities, the church will never take the place of Israel to receive the national covenantal blessings promised by God in the Old Testament to Israel. There are four unconditional covenants promised to the nation Israel; the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12), the Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 30), the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7), and the New Covenant (Jer. 31). The Palestinian, Davidic, and the New Covenants all flow out of the Abrahamic Covenant where God promised to Abraham land, seed, and blessing. These covenants are unconditional; God promised to fulfill them and no requirement was placed on man. God made the covenant with Abraham and his seed so the two parties involved were God and Abraham’s seed so there must be an accurate assumption that the fulfilling of the covenant will involve these same two parties.

Amillennialists claim that the church is the new Israel and the one to inherit the national blessings of Israel, and that the “seed of Abraham” refers to the spiritual seed of Abraham including believers throughout all ages (Benware, 50). According to Galatians 3:6-9, there is some accuracy to the Amillennialists claim. Church age saints benefit greatly from the Abrahamic Covenant but cannot replace Israel as a “spiritual Israel” to receive the national blessings promised specifically to Israel. The blessings the Gentiles receive from the Abrahamic Covenant are the spiritual blessings to all nations. If believing Gentiles are the spiritual seed of Abraham, then it is logical, as well as Scriptural, that they will inherit the spiritual blessings of Abraham (Gal. 3:6-14). This promised blessing given through Abraham to all the families (nations) of the earth is justification by faith; this is the same manner in which all saints have been justified throughout all dispensations (Heb. 11:4, 7, 8; Hab. 2:4). All of the blessings promised to Abraham and his physical seed were not promised to the nations. A present age Gentile is Abraham’s seed only because he is in Jesus Christ (Benware, 52).

Simply put, just because Israel was disobedient does not mean that the covenantal blessings were nullified. Israel was always to be a light to the Gentile nations as well as a source for God’s blessing and salvation to all nations. Just because the church exists now does not exclude Israel from God’s future plans. The blessings that the Gentiles have received do not mean that God’s chosen people Israel must be sidelined for good. 

Arguments against a Pentecostal Beginning

Now that a clear distinction has been made between the church and Israel an exact time must be determined as to when the church began. Most dispensationalists would agree that the church began on the day of Pentecost. However, there are many that argue a much later beginning of the church. One primary group would be ultradispensationalists.

Ultradispensationalism started with E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) and basically adds two dispensations between Pentecost and the end of the church age (Ryrie, Dispensationalism 198). Ultradispensationalism within itself has different facets. The extreme view, held by Bullinger, teaches that the church began with Paul after Acts 28 and denies the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The moderates would say that the church began with Paul in Acts 9 or later and would only observe the Lord’s Supper as an ordinance and omit baptism as an ordinance. Some earlier proponents of the moderate position would be Cornelius Stam and Charles F. Baker and are associated with the Worldwide Grace Testimony (Ryrie, Dispensationalism 199). A modern day advocate of ultradispensationalism is Les Feldick (Les Feldick Ministries) who through his teachings adopt ultradispensationalism. Dispensationalists and ultradispensationalists do agree on one thing; the church is not Israel. The main disagreement between the two is the church’s beginning…at Pentecost or after Pentecost?

To rightly divide the Word of truth a comparison of the claims made by ultradispensationalists must be weighed out in the balances of the Holy Scriptures. The first claim they make is that the church started years after Pentecost. If in fact the church did start with the Apostle Paul after Acts 8, how could Paul rightly say that he persecuted the church (Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6)? By comparing Scripture with Scripture it would be foolish to say that Paul himself said that he persecuted something that did not even exist. Another less convincing proof is that the first deacons were chosen and appointed in Acts 6. It is also necessary to point out that the first mention of the church, as a functioning body, is in Acts 2:47 “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” These verses would be quite contradicting if the church had not yet existed.        

The second claim ultradispensationalists make is an attempt to answer their first claim that there were two churches; a Jewish church (Acts 1-12 with Peter) and a Gentile church (Acts 13-28 with Paul). The church Paul claimed to have persecuted would have been the Jewish church (Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6). A rebuttal to this claim is that Scripture never indicates two separate churches. The very opposite is said to be true; Scripture declares there is only one church. According to Ephesians the church is the body of Christ (one body) (Eph. 1:22). It is impossible for there to have been a Jewish and Gentile church because Scripture emphatically states that all believers are “one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26-28). Some ultradispensationalists would say that Paul was the only one that received the revelation of the dispensation of grace, but the exact opposite is mentioned by Paul. Paul claims that he was not the only one that received this revelation but simply given more of the details that were involved in this dispensation of grace (Eph. 3:2-9). The “apostles” and “prophets” are plural and the Spirit, not Paul, revealed the mystery of the church to them (Ryrie, Dispensationalism 203). This is progressive revelation. The overall Scriptural proof does not allow for two churches; in order to come to that conclusion Scripture has to be manipulated and taken out of context.

The third and final claim that ultradispensationalists are forced to make is that there are two Spirit baptisms. This claim is made to back up their theory of two churches within the Acts period. The Jewish or Petrine church would have received power by the baptism “in” the Spirit and the Gentile or Pauline church is formed by the baptism “by” the Spirit (Ryrie, Basic Theology 420). The argument for two baptisms revolves around two key passages, Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. The same Greek preposition “en” is used in both passages and can mean “with,” “in,” and “by.” While the meaning of the Greek preposition is correct, the way ultradispensationalists use it to prove their viewpoint is not accurate. The preposition is used in the same phrase in Acts and 1 Corinthians with the word “Spirit” but is translated differently in each passage by ultradispensationalists. In Acts 1:5 they translate the Greek preposition “en” as “with” and in 1 Corinthians they translate it “by” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism 205). This is an inconsistent way of interpretation. If translated consistently it would refer to the same baptism thus collapsing their argument for two baptisms.

Scripture does not allow for two churches, neither does it allow for two baptisms; “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Regardless of how the ultradispensationalists want to translate the Greek preposition “en” the Scriptures still point toward one baptism. Spirit baptism places the believer into the Body which began on the day of Pentecost.

Arguments for a Pentecostal Beginning

The church was a mystery in the Old Testament and not even mentioned in Scripture until Matthew 16. The Lord Jesus said “I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18). Christ made this promise indicating He would build it in the future. This mystery that was not understood by the apostles was that the Gentile believers would jointly share a body with the Jewish believers. This concept cannot be found in the Old Testament although redemption being extended to the Gentiles was revealed in the Old Testament (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 42:6-7) (Ryrie, Basic Theology 463).

There are basic functions of a body that must be in place in order to operate properly. One of those functions is a head. In order for the Body of Christ to exist it had to have a head to function. Christ had to be crucified and resurrected in order to become the Head over the Body (Eph. 1:20-22). Christ also became the cornerstone of the church as well as purchased it with His own blood (Acts 4:11; 20:28; Eph. 2:20). All these were necessary to the development of the body.

Another important asset to the body was the members. How exactly does someone become a member of the body of Christ? It is only through Spirit baptism that a true believer can become a part of the church. It was on the day of Pentecost when the church began to exist and true believers were baptized into the body of Christ. The prophecy which John the Baptizer spoke concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Mt. 3:11; Acts 11:16). Christ, after His resurrection, also revealed to His apostles that Spirit baptism would soon take place (Acts 1:5). This was altogether different from the water baptism John performed. This baptism was a placing into the body of Christ.

The Word of God is exceptionally clear as to the beginning of the church. As Peter defends his ministry to the Gentiles in Acts 11, he rehearsed the events that happened at the house of Cornelius, explaining how the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles as it did the apostles at the beginning (Acts 11:15). Peter is referring back to the day of Pentecost when they received the baptism of the Spirit. Paul reveals how a believer becomes a part of the body in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul states: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Paul emphasizes the unity of the body as one, and believers are placed into that body by one Spirit. Paul again emphasizes the unity of the body in Ephesians 1:22, 23 with Christ as the Head.

Obviously the word “baptism” is not found in Acts 2 dealing with the day of Pentecost, but Acts 11:15-16 emphatically refers back to the day of Pentecost when Spirit baptism first took place. After all, it is Spirit baptism that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that place believers into the body of Christ. Since it was Paul who also stated that the body of Christ is the church a conclusion must be drawn that the body (church) began on the day of Pentecost when the very first believers were Spirit baptized.

Conclusion

The author’s intent of this article is not to argue against the opposition in order to prove a viewpoint or opinion. The intent is to establish a thoroughly documented source that provides overwhelming Scriptural proof of the exact beginning of the church. A careful examination must be taken regardless of the position held on the beginning if the church. It will reflect and influence how one views vital doctrinal truths that are given in the Word of God (i.e. the Lord’s Supper, water baptism, the great commission, etc.). The Word of God was not twisted to reflect this author’s position, but rather this author’s position was influenced through rightly dividing the Word of Truth. After a thorough study of God’s Word a conclusion can be emphatically made that the Scripture evidences that the church indeed began on the day of Pentecost.

Works Cited

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Ironside, Harry A. Lectures on the Book of Acts. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943. 

Lockyer, Herbert. All the Doctrines of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1964.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology : A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. New York: Moody, 1999.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. New York: Moody, 1995.

Ryrie, Charles C. “The Significance of Pentecost.” Oct. 1955. Galaxie Software. George M. Manuel, Winston-Salem. 24 Jan. 2009 <http://pbcweb.pbc.edu:2052/article.php?article_id=1149>.

Vine, William E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, eds. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Carlisle: STL, 1985.

Walvoord, John, and Roy B. Zuck. Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament. Winona: Christian Art, 2003.

A Mouthful of Muddle: Is Tongues a Sign Gift for Today?

  

      A subject among believers, especially those of the charismatic movement, which can become very sensitive, is that of speaking in tongues. The majority of true believers will not argue that the gift of tongues can be found in Scripture, and that there was a definite purpose for the gift. The viewpoints vary when the question arises if believers are given the gift of tongues today. The stand that some take believing that the gift is still given today take is very firm, and often their belief in the gift of speaking in tongues is very sincere. On the other hand, just because someone is sincere about something does not in any way make it biblical. Scriptural truth cannot be determined or learned by an experience someone has. The only true source of truth that mankind has today is the infallible Word of God, and it stands to be true regardless of any manufactured experience that can be encountered. Biblical tongues had a unique place and purpose in the infancy of the church, but taking into consideration the whole context of Scripture, a conclusion can be made that the gift of biblical tongues is not in operation today among believers.

The Original Purpose of Tongues

      To understand the original purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues a proper definition should first be established. Charles Ryrie well defines tongues in this manner: “The God given ability to speak in a language of earth that is unknown to the speaker;” Ryrie continues by defining the interpretation of tongues as well: “The ability to interpret that message in a language understood by the hearers” (Basic Theology, 430). This definition is in context with the first occurrence in Acts 2 where on the day of Pentecost those who spoke in tongues were heard by others in their native language. The original Greek word for tongues is “glossa” meaning language. Luke said that on the day of Pentecost that “they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with “other tongues” (Acts. 2:4). Luke continues by recording the response of these believers, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue “dialektos” (dialect), wherein we were born” (Acts 2:8)? So this establishes that speaking in tongues was not an ecstatic gibberish that the charismatic movement relates it to.

      The passages that refer to tongues in the book of Acts are not debated as heavily as the passages in 1 Corinthians (14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27); all of these passages contain the word “unknown” before the word “tongue.” The charismatics use these passages to defend their position that tongues are for today and it is an “unknown” language, giving them liberty to speak ecstatically. The Holy Spirit did not lead Paul to write that speaking in tongues was an unknown language because the word “unknown” does not occur in any Greek manuscript (Strauss, 5). What they fail to understand is the same Greek word “glossa” is used and the word “unknown” is in italics in the King James Bible indicating that the translators inserted it for smoother reading. The 1 Corinthians passages do not prove an ecstatic form of speech was used in the first century church.

      Now that a proper definition has been stated and a clarification between the Acts and 1 Corinthians passages has been made, the original purpose for biblical tongues in the first century church can be discussed. It needs to be settled that tongues were never spoken in the New Testament as an unintelligible language. Every usage of tongues in the New Testament is that of an intelligible language that was heard in each one’s own native tongue (language).

       One of the main purposes of tongues was to communicate God’s truth (Ryrie, 430). This obviously involved the miracle that took place at Pentecost when people from many different countries gathered at Jerusalem, heard the message from God, which the Apostles preached, in their own native language (Acts 2:1-8). Not only did they hear those of different nationality speak in their own language; the message of the gospel was authenticated and went abroad paying no attention to cultural barriers.

      The purpose of tongues was not only to communicate, but also used as a sign of confirmation of the message being proclaimed (Strauss, 9). The use of tongues can be found in several passages in Acts where believers are exercising the gift that has been endowed to them by God for the purpose of communicating the gospel to unbelievers (Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; 19:6). In all of these cases tongues are use for the main purpose of communicating God’s message to unbelieving Jews. Although, in Acts 19:6 the gift is used as a sign of confirmation to the believers Paul met at Ephesus, that had been saved and were disciples of John the baptizer, who had, as of yet, not received the Holy Spirit. Not only was the message confirmed but also the messenger.

      The fact that this sign was purposed toward the unbelieving Jews is manifested in Paul’s words to the Corinthians; “For the Jews require a sign” (1 Cor. 1:22). The Jews had continually asked for a sign throughout the gospels (Mt. 12:38; 16:1; Jo. 2:18; 6:30). Jews were consistently present where the exercising of tongues took place in Scripture indicating that it was a sign especially for them to either communicate God’s message or confirm to them that the Gentiles were able to partake in salvation.

A Misuse of Tongues

      One of the purposes of tongues, taught by the Pentecostals, is that tongues are necessary as a sign of Spirit baptism. If a believer does not have the gift of speaking in tongues then he or she could not possibly have experienced Holy Spirit baptism. This incorrect interpretation of Scripture comes from a faulty hermeneutic, and has led many to believe that they must have some kind of “experience” upon Spirit baptism.

      God’s Word declares very emphatically that every true believer has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that there is only one Spirit and one body (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4). Often being baptized by the Spirit is confused with the command to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Although, believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, nowhere in Scripture can a command be found for a believer to speak in tongues. Not all believers are filled with the Spirit but all have received the baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit places a believer into the body of Christ (Church) (Acts 1:5; 11:15, 16; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22, 23).

      The apostle Paul clearly states the reason for the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14; “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not…” (1 Cor. 14:22). Paul exhorts the Corinthian believers to avoid misusing the gift of tongues within the local assembly as they had been guilty of doing. Tongues were only to be used by believers who possessed the gift when unbelievers were present in the assembly. The gift was given by God for the purpose of clearly communicating the gospel message, not for the puffing up of one who possessed the gift. Paul encouraged the believers at Corinth to mature and “be not children in understanding…in understanding be men.” (1 Cor. 14:20). Paul uses the word “men” (teleios) referring to maturity in 1 Corinthians 14:20 (Strauss, 6). Some believers still lack this spiritual maturity today being yet babes in Christ and “unskillful in the word of righteousness” (Heb. 5:13).

      The gift of tongues did not mark spirituality since the Corinthian believers were marked with carnality, immaturity, and immoral sin (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 5:1). Paul exposes their failure to studying God’s Word for themselves. The fact that the Corinthian believers spoke in tongues is undeniable, but it was obvious they did not understand the Scripture as to its proper use.

Why Tongues are not Needed Today

       Are tongues needed today for a sign? The answer to that is, no. The entire Word of God has been completed and made available to mankind today. Believers fail to realize this important truth and still seek a sign today as the unbelieving Jews did. The apostle Paul mentioned that some of the gifts that were given in the formation of the early church would in fact cease (1 Cor. 13:8). The gift of tongues is not mentioned again in any of the epistles after Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Simply put, the gift of tongues is no longer needed for communicating God’s Word today or to confirm what is spoken. It is used today out of confusion, and is related to an experience upon receiving Spirit baptism which is a faulty understanding of the Word of God. May believers today examine and understand Scripture in light of the Holy Spirit and heed the words of the apostle Paul; “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men” (1 Cor. 14:20).

 Works Cited

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology : A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. New York: Moody, 1999.

Smith, David L. A Handbook of Contemporary Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992.

Strauss, Lehman. Speaking in Tongues. Philadelphia: Bible Study Time.

 Unger, Merrill F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971.

Walvoord, John, and Roy B. Zuck. Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament. Winona: Christian Art, 2003.

Ken Keathley “Salvation and the Soveriegnty of God: The Great Commission as the Expression of the Divine Will”

Keathley, Ken. “Salvation and the Sovereignty of God: The Great Commission as the Expression of the Divine Will.” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (2006) : 4-22. Http://pbcweb.pbc.edu. Galaxie Software. 11 Oct. 2008. Keyword: Sovereignty. The article written by Keathley, Salvation and the Sovereignty of God, gets into some theological debates that will never be solved. However, it is interesting to note the positions some hold concerning God’s sovereignty in the matter of salvation. Keathley addresses a major area that is heavily debated among believers today. Keathley’s argument lies with God’s salvific will; “Is God’s salvific will not done or does God want everyone to be saved?” (Keathley, 4). Keathley goes on to describe the two main views taken; (1) God has one will, (2) God has two wills. The first view has two proponents. In the first view are those who argue that God’s divine essence is love and through His love all of mankind will eventually be saved; love is seen as the ruling characteristic of God’s will. The second view is held by those who believe in double predestination (some are predestined to heaven and others to hell); sovereignty is seen as the ruling characteristic of God’s will. Keathley mentions that if God only has one will it contradicts Scriptural commands, particularly the great commission (4). The second view, God has two wills, like the first view, it also has two proponents: first those who believe that God has a hidden and revealed will and second those who hold to God as having an antecedent and consequence will. Keathley refutes the first and accepts the latter because the first claims that God universally offers salvation to all but will not allow all to receive (16). The antecedent/consequence fits best with Scripture. God made salvation possible for all, but all will not accept, therefore, divine judgment is the consequence for rejecting.

Love Misinterpreted

The lines have been blurred and the path has grown thick until love has been choked out and the mere picture of what remains is clouded by misconception. What ever happened to true love? Love is not merely an overwhelming desire to have something or someone. Love does not come about quick and is not easily disposed. It is not something that can be worn on the sleeve of a shirt for everyone to see. True love runs deep; to the very core of one’s soul, and once it is there it attaches itself, never to be removed.

 

Too many people seem to take love frivolously and often disregarded it when it seems to become burdensome. The normal situation that comes to mind is marriage. Marriage is entered into as a bond between a man and a woman that continues until death; at least that is what is vowed. Too often love is mimicked by emotion and is left out in the cold leaving an open door for infatuation. Marriage seems like the right thing to do. However, a few weeks, months, or years reveal a whole new world that was never foreseen. The Norman Rockwell picture of love begins to vanish and reality sets in; to many this is when to say “I quit.” After all, “til’ death do us part” is just a metaphor; right? Love is then cast off and tossed into the laundry like a pair of dirty socks.

 

However, there is hope! True love can be obtained. The true essence of love can only be captured by obtaining a correct interpretation that comes from the proper source; God. The only true meaning of love comes from the Creator Himself. Although, it would be inaccurate to suggest that God created love because God is eternal and that would make His attributes eternal as well. Love is one of God’s attributes therefore it must be eternal as God is (1 Jn. 4:8). God is the source for true love.

 

Love is not something tangible that can be grasped, so it has to be manifested to prove its existence. Love is similar to faith. Faith cannot be seen; only when it is manifested outwardly can others see faith. God manifested His love outwardly when He made provision for man’s sin. God, the possessor and giver of love, sent His only Son to take upon Him the sins of the whole world. What makes it love is the fact that the world did not deserve the kind of gift God sent. Man cannot earn God’s love by good works (Isa. 64:6; Eph. 2:8, 9; Titus 3:5). Jesus Christ was the spectacle of God’s love while He hung on Calvary’s cross silently without defense. Although he was the innocent, spotless Lamb of God, out of love he gave His life a ransom for all who will simply believe (Jn. 3:36). This is a tangible love than can be apprehended.

 

What if God treated us the way we often treat love and just cast us off like a pair of dirty socks when we become undesirable? How many of us would remain? We should love Him because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19). Loving someone even if they can’t offer anything in return is true love. That is God’s love. What a misinterpreted concept of love we have today.

 

If you have never personally asked Jesus Christ into your heart and life then true love does not exist in your life. Only a manifestation of love mimicked by emotions and infatuations will exist without knowledge of the perfect love that comes through a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Accept Him today and lay hold of eternal salvation and experience true love (Rom. 10:9-13).

“I Alone have Escaped to Tell You”

Four different servants approached Job with a tragic message of devastation. Each time the message began in like manner, “I alone have escaped to tell you” (Job 1:15, 16, 17, 19). Obviously after the first message Job cringed to hear the words that followed this phrase. After reading through this passage the question arises, “what next?” What would be the next plague in Job’s life? Just continue reading and it becomes quite obvious that Job’s suffering is just beginning. What would be our reply to such devastation in our life? Perhaps you have or are going through such trials. What will the response be?

A proper response will come from a proper motive. Satan accused Job of serving God for wealth, fame, and health. What is our motive for serving God? God allowed Satan to afflict Job in every area of life except personal death. God still allows affliction to come into the lives of believers today. So, what is the purpose of this affliction? Primarily it is to determine our proper motive for serving God.

At first it seems as if Satan chose to pick on Job. A closer look at the passage will reveal that God asked the question to Satan “Have you considered my servant Job” (1:8). Another important issue not to overlook is that God did not afflict Job; Satan did (1:12). Job lost everything but his life; his livestock, wealth, children, and eventually his health were all gone. Job sat in an ash heap with a piece of broken pottery and scraped the boils on his body from the tip of his head to the bottom of his feet. Job was in deep depression questioning the purpose of life, yet he did not sin against God.

Often when light affliction comes we throw up our hands and give up instead of praising God. We should never respond in acceptance to the world’s philosophy. This is the philosophy Job’s wife had, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die” (1:9). Pain stricken and smitten with affliction Job indeed held to his integrity. Job did not serve God for wealth, material, or even his own well being. Job later understood the purpose for suffering and God restored over and above all that Job had lost (42:10-16).

What do we serve God for? It should be out of reverence and adoration. Job had limited knowledge of what we know today from the Word of God. His faith was real, anchored in the living God. Believers should respond to trials and tribulations today as Job did; with humility, knowing that we came into this world with nothing and we will carry nothing out (1:21-22). God owes nothing to man, but man owes everything to God.

There is another time in life when man must stand before God empty handed; that is at the time of salvation (Titus 3:5). Man cannot bring anything to God for merit. God has already performed the work (Jn. 6:29). It is man’s responsibility to accept that work. There were several messages of devastation that came to Job, but there is only one message of hope; Jesus Christ alone (Jn. 14:6). “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28). Jesus Christ alone can suffice in the time of suffering and this should be our motive in serving God. If you have never personally received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life then there is no hope when troubles come your way. Trust Him today (Rom. 10:13). The words of the hymn writer Rhea Miller speaks volumes “I’d rather have Jesus than anything this world affords today.” Our service should be all about Him. The present sufferings of a believer cannot be compared to the glory to come (Rom. 8:18).                                      

Jephthah: Human Sacrifice or Perpetual Virginity?

The Old Testament account given in Judges chapter eleven causes great controversy among biblical scholars. The story depicts Jephthah, the Judge over Israel, getting ready to go to war with the evil Ammonites. Before the war, Jephthah makes a vow to God that whatever comes out of his house to meet him upon his arrival home from battle, he will offer as a burnt offering unto the Lord in return for a victory over the Ammonites. After the Lord gives Jephthah victory in the battle, he returns to his house, and his only daughter comes out to meet him. The scripture reveals that Jephthah fulfilled the vow he made to God, but there is no indication as to whether God was pleased or displeased with this vow. The controversy is over what actually happened to Jephthah’s daughter. Taking into consideration the moral condition during the rule of the Judges over Israel and the historical and grammatical context of scripture, it is likely that Jephthah indeed offered his daughter as a literal burnt offering in the historical account.

After a careful reading of the entire book of Judges, an obvious conclusion can be made that a human sacrifice would not be unimaginable during a time when moral apostasy saturated the region. The people of Israel had turned their hearts away from God and turned to idol worship. This period of time is depicted by God in Judges 21:25: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Turning away from godly standards led Israel to follow the heathen nations which surrounded them and adopt their cultures, which involved human sacrifice. God warned Israel against making their children to walk through the fire as the heathen nations did proving human sacrifice did exist among the wicked nations (Deut. 18:9, 10). Israel often fell into oppression by the heathen nations, causing Israel to cry out to God for a deliverer. Yet the nation of Israel continued to turn away from God. The proof that wickedness prevailed throughout the land is overwhelming. Every chapter in Judges is filled with details about the moral decaying of a wayward generation of people, indicating that immorality governed the land possibly allowing for such rites as human sacrifice.

Just because God had given a command that strictly forbade Israel to commit rites such as human sacrifice does not mean that Jephthah could not commit such a heinous act. However, there are those who oppose the idea of Jephthah offering his daughter for a literal burnt offering. In the book, Israel from Conquest to Exile, Davis says that those who oppose a literal offering of Jephthah’s daughter argue that Jephthah was most likely well acquainted with the law. Therefore, Jephthah would have known about God’s condemnation of human sacrifice and would have been careful to avoid such a hideous act (125). God gave many commandments to His chosen people, but He also gave them a free will, and did not force His will upon them. Jephthah was subject to sin just as other Old Testament saints were. God said David was a man after His own heart, but David fell into adultery and murder which God had strictly forbidden. What about Moses, Abraham, and even Lot, Abraham’s nephew? All of these men were said by God to be righteous men, yet all of them clearly disobeyed God’s commandments. It is evident that people in the Bible broke God’s commands just as people do today. Jephthah was not immune from breaking God’s command which forbade human sacrifice.

Jephthah could have known the laws of God and still chose to sin, but the text infers he was not fully aware of the laws God had instituted. Jephthah was grieving over the fact that his daughter was the one who came out to meet him. If Jephthah was acquainted with the law, he would have known that the law made provision for such rash vows. In The People’s Bible, Parker says, “Jephthah did not know that in the law there was mercy hidden” (80). In Leviticus chapter twenty-seven, God’s mercy provides grace for a vow made in haste. The law permitted payment to redeem those being dedicated, whether it was for temple service or literal sacrifice, so that the person who made the rash vow would not have to give up whatever had been vowed foolishly, in this case, Jephthah’s daughter. Jephthah could have redeemed his daughter for thirty shekels if he had been aware of the provision made by the law. This proof suggests that Jephthah was not fully aware of the laws that God instituted. It is possible that Jephthah ignorantly carried out his vow thinking that it actually pleased God.

The fact that Jephthah was mentioned in the text as tearing his clothes and grieving when his daughter came out to meet him indicates that the vow was going to be carried out resulting in the death of his daughter (Judg. 11:35). Jephthah felt compelled to go through with the careless vow he had uttered to God in a moment of despair. This seems to be why he was so grieved when his daughter met him at the door of his house. If Jephthah was offering his daughter for temple service, as some Bible scholars believe, he should have been happy instead of grieved. For example in I Samuel, Hannah being barren, asked God for a son and she vowed him to the Lord for service all of his days. In the narrative, Hannah praises the Lord when it is time to give little Samuel over for lifetime temple service (I Sam. 2:1). If we compare the words of Hannah’s prayer of praise in I Samuel 1:1-10 to the words of grief Jephthah used in Judges 11:35; they do not coincide at all. Obviously Jephthah would have been heartbroken to give up his daughter for lifetime temple service, but not as grieved as the text depicts. It seems that Jephthah realized he would lose his only daughter as a literal burnt offering if or when he carried out the vow made to the Lord.

Jephthah seemed to know before it happened that it would be his daughter who would come out to meet him after his return home from battle. A strong point that the opposition makes about the wording of the vow indicates that Jephthah was going to offer his daughter for perpetual virginity or lifetime temple service. McGee suggests that Jephthah stated that he would do one of two things; if a clean animal came out to meet him, he would offer it as a burnt offering, or if a person came out to meet him he would dedicate them for the Lord’s service for life (71). Why would Jephthah expect anything or anyone else to come from his house? It would not be in concordance with the law for him to offer someone not of his household to the Lord. The text does not indicate Jephthah had any servants to offer or any other family members. This seems to be a rather loose interpretation of the vow Jephthah made. McGee says that the word “and,” in the vow, could have been interpreted as “or,” giving Jephthah the option of dedicating someone to temple service or a clean animal for a burnt offering (71). The Hebrew conjunction “waw” could be used disjunctively or conjunctively, but the disjunctive use “or” was most likely not used in this case because a formal vow was not necessary to offer an animal sacrifice after a great victory (Davis 126-127). This is evidence that Jephthah was not at all expecting an animal, but a human, most likely his own daughter to come out of his house.

There is no substantial evidence in scripture that there were virgins living at the tabernacle. There is indication in scripture that women served in the temple, but not that they lived there permanently (I Samuel 2:22). If there were women living at the temple, and temple service is what Jephthah had in mind, then how would he assure this service would be carried out and that his daughter would remain a virgin? Keep in mind that this was a time when wickedness prevailed and the priests in the tabernacle were no exception to the rule. Eli’s sons served as priests in the tabernacle and they were very corrupt to the point that they had immoral sexual activities with the women that served in the tabernacle (I Samuel 2:22). All women were not involved in this immoral activity, but what would stop wicked men like Eli’s two sons from having their way with a young girl left at the temple for service? There is lack of proof that such a thing as lifetime temple service for women actually existed, indicating that Jephthah’s intentions were a human sacrifice and not perpetual virginity.

Jephthah’s daughter asked permission to bewail her virginity for two months indicating that she knew she would die childless. Many biblical scholars say that because she wanted to bewail her virginity, she must be preparing for perpetual virginity. Wood states, “this action makes no sense on the basis of her being sacrificed in death” (294). Actually, it would make sense because in the cultural setting, to die without children would be a greater misfortune for Jephthah’s daughter than the actual death itself; Davis says that “Perpetual virginity and childlessness were looked upon as the greatest of misfortunes” (126). Scripture most likely put an emphasis on the bewailing of her virginity to appeal to human emotion by stressing the impending death that was to come after the two months of bewailing.

There was a rehearsal of the death of Jephthah’s daughter on a yearly basis, not a celebration of the event. Some Bible scholars argue that “lament,” in Judges 11:40, should be translated “celebrate,” but this does not seem to fit because childlessness or death was not viewed as something to celebrate. This word “lament” is used in Judges 11:40 to indicate a memorial every year for the death of Jephthah’s daughter. In The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the word “lament” can be rendered, “to remember” or “to rehearse” (601-602). Davis points out that the Hebrew verb “tanah” is only found in one other passage of the Hebrew Bible, Judges 5:11, and is best translated “recount” (128). A more rational interpretation would be the daughters of Israel went out yearly to rehearse the death of Jephthah’s daughter rather than celebrate her being offered for perpetual virginity.

Jephthah’s past afforded him every opportunity to offer his daughter for a literal burnt offering to God. Jephthah was the son of a harlot and was an outcast (Judges 11:1-3). Jephthah was thrown out of his family by his half brothers and then he fled to Tob. Cook says that the Syrian city Jephthah grew up in was plagued with rites such as human sacrifices (447). Jephthah was subjected to an unfortunate lifestyle which turned him into a “freebooter” or pirate, suggesting the corrupt environment during that time (445). With all of the ungodly influences Jephthah had been subjected to, it is reasonable to think that he could have confused right from wrong and viewed offering his daughter for a literal burnt offering to God as a noble deed.

God did not endorse Jephthah’s sin of a literal burnt offering of his daughter by giving him victory over the Ammonites. God was very aware of what Jephthah was going to do and was also aware of Jephthah’s moral condition. God chose to use Jephthah to fulfill His divine will in spite of Jephthah’s shortcomings. God would never endorse any sin. Some biblical scholars argue that because God’s Spirit came upon Jephthah, he would not have committed such an act as human sacrifice (Davis 125). God‘s Spirit came upon Sampson and Gideon. Samson was a man God used to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines. Samson lived an immoral lifestyle filled with harlots and strong drink, yet God used him in a mighty way (Judg. 14-17). Gideon was another judge God used to deliver Israel from oppression, but Gideon was also known for making a golden ephod which led Israel into idolatry (Judg. 8:27). God knew that Jephthah was a man subject to fall into deep sin, but still chose to use him as a deliverer of Israel. The victory He gave Jephthah was no different than those He gave to Samson and Gideon. It was not Jephthah’s vow that gave him the victory, but his acknowledgement to God, that without divine intervention, he would have no chance of defeating the Ammonites. It was Jephthah’s faith that impressed God and gave him victory. Jephthah’s vow had absolutely nothing to do with the victory over the Ammonites, and God did not endorse his sin in any way.

The wording of the passage in Judges has been interpreted many different ways, but if the passage is interpreted literally, it seems to point toward an actual burnt offering. The phrase “burnt offering” is translated as “the whole of which is burned” (“Burnt Offering” 84). In scripture the words “burnt offering” always carries the same Hebrew word “olah, olah” which is rendered by Strong as meaning “to go up in smoke” (“Burnt Offering” 160). This is proof that Jephthah intended to offer a literal burnt offering to God. There are those who believe that Jephthah used the phrase “burnt offering” figuratively. In an article for Apologetics Press entitled “Jephthah’s Daughter,” Dave Miller says, “We use the term ‘sacrifice’ in a similar fashion when we say, ‘I’ll sacrifice a few dollars for that charity’” (par. 4). It is true that we use this term loosely today, but there is no such evidence in scripture that Jephthah used the word “burnt offering” as a figure of speech. When the Bible uses language figuratively, it always gives indication. An example would be “And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water” (Psalm 1:3). To be “like” a tree is not the same as actually being a tree. For the word “burnt offering,” there is no such indication it is a figure of speech, and therefore, it should be taken literally, “going up in smoke.” Jephthah did not say that he would offer whatever came out to meet him like a burnt offering, but for a burnt offering.

There were other kings that offered their children for literal sacrifices. II Kings 3:26-27 is proof that the king of Moab offered his son for a literal burnt offering upon the city wall. Some argue that no priest would carry out such a hideous act. In fact, someone carried out these horrible deeds because again, in II Chronicles and II Kings, the Old Testament record shows that Ahaz and Manasseh, both kings of Judah, offered their children for literal sacrifices (Davis and Whitcomb 127). These events took place after the time of the Judges when things were less corrupt. This proves that whether or not a priest carried out these human sacrifices, they did in fact occur.

There is no indication of the moral condition of Jephthah’s daughter, but it is stated that she was obedient to her father and willingly subjected herself to the vow Jephthah had made (Judg. 11:36-39). Jephthah evidently loved his daughter, but had synchronized heathen culture with what he knew about God’s law for so long that he probably thought he was doing a righteous deed.

Looking at the overall picture of the life of Jephthah, it is evident that he had every opportunity to fall into such a sin as offering a human sacrifice. The interpretation that Jephthah offered his daughter for a literal burnt offering is not the most popular one, but it is a very probable interpretation. Scripture gives no evidence of God condoning or condemning Jephthah’s act, except for the fact that he lost his only daughter. The debate over Judges eleven should be dealt with carefully, and without division among believers; instead a debate should encourage the study of the Word of God. It is for certain that this passage of scripture will be disputed for years to come and perhaps never be fully understood, but after weighing out the evidence on both sides of the issue, scripture gives adequate proof for a literal burnt offering interpretation of Judges eleven.

 

Works Cited

“Burnt Offering.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words. 1985.

Cook, F.C., ed. Barnes’ Notes. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 447-449.

Holy Bible. The Scofield Study Bible, KJV ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1996.

Miller, Dave. “Jephthah’s Daughter.” Apologetics Press. 2003. Executive Director of Apologetics

Press. 29 Oct. 2007 <http://www.apologeticspress.org/staff/dm>.

Parker, Joseph. The Peoples Bible: Discourses Upon Holy Scripture. Vol. VI.Long

Acre: Hazel, Watson, and Viney, 1887. 74-82.

Strong, James. “Burnt Offering.” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1990. 160.

—. “Lament.” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas

Nelson Inc., 1990. 160.

Wood, Leon. Distressing Days of the Judges. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1975. 281-299.