Romans 15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.
CROSS REFERENCES
7. receive. Ro 12:10, 13. *14:1-3. 16:2. Ex 20:12. Le 19:3. Ps 119:74. Ml 1:6. +*3:16. Mt *10:14, 15, 40-42. 18:5. 25:35, 40, 43, 45, 46. Mk 6:11. *9:37-41. Lk *9:5, 48. 10:8, 10, 38, 39. 15:2. Jn 13:20, 34. Ac *9:26-28, 43. *11:25, 26. *16:15. 17:7. 2 C +*6:9. 7:2, 15. Ga 6:1. Ph 2:29. Col 4:10. 1 T 5:17. Phm 12, 17. He 13:1, 2. 1 P 2:17. 3:8. +*4:8-10. 1 J 3:14. 2 J %10. 3 J %8-10. one another. Ro +12:5. as Christ. Ro 5:2. Mt 5:48. +*11:28-30. *12:20. Lk *15:2. Jn 1:38, 39. **6:37. *13:34. *17:24. Ep 1:5. 5:2. He 2:11. 11:16. received us. Ro 12:1. Ep 2:14. Col 1:10. to the glory. ver. *9. Ro +3:23. Ps 8:1. Mt 5:16. Ep *1:6-8, 12, 18. Ph 2:11. 2 Th *1:10-12.
CROSS REFERENCES FOR FULL-TEXT STUDY, PART 1:
receive. Ro 12:10, 13. *14:1-3. 16:2. Ex 20:12. Le 19:3. Ps 119:74. Ml 1:6. +*3:16. Mt *10:14, 15, 40-42. 18:5. 25:35, 40, 43, 45, 46. Mk 6:11. *9:37-41. Lk *9:5, 48. 10:8, 10, 38, 39. 15:2. Jn 13:20, 34. Ac *9:26-28, 43. *11:25, 26. *16:15. 17:7. 2 C +*6:9. 7:2, 15. Ga 6:1. Ph 2:29. Col 4:10. 1 T 5:17. Phm 12, 17. He 13:1, 2. 1 P 2:17. 3:8. +*4:8-10. 1 J 3:14. 2 J %10. 3 J %8-10.
CROSS REFERENCE TEXTS
Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
Comment: [Note, by request and the kind suggestions of other readers here, I am including comments on some of the verses cited from the Cross References.] If we followed this command, we obviously would receive one another. Therefore, failure to obey Romans 15:7 involves us in a violation of this command too.
Rom 12:13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
Comment: I have gratefully received the benefit of help from a local church that was clearly obedient to the first half of this verse, but which utterly failed to follow the second half of this verse. They helped my family shortly after I was shot at school in the back of the head by a stranger wielding a nine-millimeter handgun at point-blank range. Yet they were not “given to hospitality.” To this very day, decades later, the church marquee still does not employ the word “welcome” anywhere in its text. Upon his first visit to my home, the pastor remarked that I “talk too much about the Bible and too much about the Lord.”
Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Comment:
The larger context of this passage has been much discussed on this site in comments I have submitted in response to comments offered by others.
The point of the passage is that we ought not to be criticizing or condemning others who have a different point of view on matters pertaining to what we choose to eat, or the day of the week we choose to worship.
Paul directly tells us “let every man be fully persuaded (margin, fully assured) in his own mind” about these matters (Romans 14:5).
This hardly means that we must not use force to enforce obedience to Bible truth–that is not at all the question in context.
Rather, stronger brethren in the faith are urged not to upset the weaker brethren in matters pertaining to such scruples. Nor should the weaker brethren urge others to follow their scruples. The stronger in faith are not bothered by such issues, for they are inconsequential, Paul teaches.
Such scruples do become extremely consequential when individuals and denominations violate Paul’s directive and insist, for example, that their chosen day of worship, or their chosen foods to eat or not eat, is the only correct view. Such views and practices are the mark of a false cult, not a truly Christian church, for they violate the liberty we now have in Christ by insisting that we keep the Law on these issues. In Paul’s day these issues were the very problem he was gently correcting in the letter to the Romans, problems brought on by Judaizers (who had no understanding of Grace) infiltrating the Church.
Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Comment: Note that Paul most certainly permitted women to participate in Christian service in the local church, and insisted that such women be received.
Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Leviticus 19:3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
Comment: For “fear,” modern English translations use “respect” or “revere.” Here in Leviticus 19:3 the command to honor parents is directly linked with the command “and keep my sabbaths.” The New Testament nowhere makes this link. The Fourth Commandment regarding the Sabbath is never quoted in the New Testament. It is no longer a matter of obligation for New Testament believers. Not one example in the New Testament Epistles can be found of any caution regarding Sabbath-breaking. By direct example the New Testament shows it was the practice of Christians to meet for specifically Christian worship on the First Day of the week (Acts 20:7. 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2), never once on the Jewish Seventh Day Sabbath. Of course, the record in the early portion, if not the entire book of Acts, is a transition period. The first Christians were all Jews in Jerusalem. It took a while for them to learn fully their new position in Christ. Nevertheless, there is not a single example of Christians meeting on the Jewish Sabbath for specifically Christian worship–worship including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, spoken of as the breaking of bread.
Psa 119:74 They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I have hoped in thy word.
Comment: This verse shows us how every Bible-believing Christian ought to be received. When a church and congregation will not receive a newcomer, this shows that they do not fear the Lord. That is proper evidence to call their relationship with the Lord into question. Perhaps a few of the congregation may be truly saved, but if they were properly studying their Bibles such wrong attitudes would surely be corrected.
I have been a member of many small churches as well as very large ones. Always, if the churches were Bible believing churches, I was welcomed with open arms and almost immediately put to work. Most churches I’ve attended are short when it comes to knowledgeable workers to teach Sunday school, serve on the elder board, work with the young people. But now that I’ve been living in a rural community, the small churches in the nearest town appear to be, sociologically speaking, “village churches.” Such churches are very much a social “click.” They welcome newcomers so long as the newcomers are not a threat to their established social framework. They would never welcome a newcomer who knows anything about the Bible. That is strictly the province of the Pastor.
Such churches are an abomination to the Lord, you may be sure, because they have little to no Gospel outreach into the community, and don’t welcome anyone to attend who might be interested in promoting such an outreach, even when the church has the word “Missionary” as part of its name.
What we need instead are “camp churches,” churches made up of genuine believers who are there because they love the Bible, want to see souls saved, and are there for spiritual growth and are eager to study the Bible, because they are excited about the Lord and what He has done and does for us. “Camp churches,” whatever the denomination, receive and welcome newcomers into the fellowship, and take care to introduce newcomers into the fellowship on an ongoing basis, making sure they feel welcome and come to feel “at home” in the church.
Malachi 1:6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?
Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
Comment: Pastors and members of “village churches” have totally missed this verse! Someone needs to show it to them repeatedly until they get the message. No one who properly knows and believes the Bible would ever even think to tell a newcomer to their church like myself, “Jerry, you talk too much about the Lord, and too much about the Bible.”
As a senior in high school I was voted, in the Senior Mock Elections, as “The Most Bashful Boy” in the Senior Class, and so appeared that year in the school yearbook. I think to this day that my fellow students at Cass Technical High School were most perceptive and accurate in their judgment of character and personality in my case. The pastor I refer to certainly was not.
God rejoices when we speak to one another about Him and His Word. He tells us He is keeping a record of that. But have you noticed that people are in such a rush to get out of church once the morning service is over that they won’t take time to so much as greet one another? Let alone actually talk about the Bible, or the Pastor’s message while its fresh in their minds, or something else of spiritual profit as they leave. Where else do genuine believers have the opportunity to fellowship with one another if not at church? The problem is, most churches, particularly “village churches,’ fail to make intentional provision for fellowship.
No fellowship takes place while everyone is seated in pews that are nailed to the floor so all heads are facing one way–towards the pulpit. All you get to see is the backs of the heads of those who sit in front of you. You never get to meet and know them in a typical church.
Genuine fellowship cannot take place in groups larger than about eight or twelve persons. But pastors of village churches have told me they have no use for small groups and small group ministry in their church. They do not want Bible studies going on in the homes of the church members either. Small group Bible studies, I was told, lead to schism or division in the church. One pastor actually exclaimed sarcastically, “All this church needs is another Bible study!”
Most pastors do not know what a true Bible study is like. Neither do most church-goers. If they did, they would eagerly promote such activity. A true Bible study is not a glorified Sunday school class with a scripted outline of what the leader will teach. Rather, a true Bible study is open to the questions of those who attend, and everyone participates and contributes to the study and the answering of Bible questions and life questions that relate to the Bible. Once people get a genuine taste of God’s Word, they are eager for more, and so are their friends, and the group grows, and so does the church, and more groups must be formed.
Schism? How about facing the reality: people need to be grounded in their faith by being grounded in Scripture.
Schism? Avoid that as a Pastor by learning how to listen. When people know you will listen to them, on a regular basis, as a matter of course, people will respond by developing loyalty to the Pastor.
Schism? Avoid that as a Pastor by actually sanctioning Bible study groups as an important feature of the ministry of the Church. Not only sanction them, but promote them and develop the leadership needed to properly conduct them. Each group should be constructed intentionally to develop new leadership for additional groups as the need arises so no one group becomes too large for fellowship and nurture to take place.
Do I need to post a whole book on this subject for you to get the point? I easily could. At his request, I “ghost wrote” Dr. Carl George’s book, Prepare Your Church for the Future, a book which discusses how to grow your church. So you might imagine I do know something about the subject.
Where I have served in a teaching or leadership capacity in a local church the Sunday school class has grown, or the youth group has grown, or the church has grown in regular attendance. That is what so upsets me about the local village churches who have never welcomed me here where I now live. I wonder if, on Judgment Day, there may be some very unpleasant consequences for those guilty of failing to “receive one another,” for in the past I have seen whole communities changed for the better as a result of effective outreach with the Gospel when churches did receive one another.
By direct example the New Testament shows it was the practice of Christians to meet for specifically Christian worship on the First Day of the week (Acts 20:7. 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2), never once on the Jewish Seventh Day Sabbath. Of course, the record in the early portion, if not the entire book of Acts, is a transition period. The first Christians were all Jews in Jerusalem. It took a while for them to learn fully their new position in Christ. Nevertheless, there is not a single example of Christians meeting on the Jewish Sabbath for specifically Christian worship–worship including the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, spoken of as the breaking of bread.
A transition period – You again make me laugh. Acts 20:7 – is not a demonstration of what you claim. You believe this to be Roman time, not Jewish time, a fact you can not support. In fact, the bulk of evidence is this would be the start of the first day, what we call today, Saturday evening.
1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 – this in fact supports the 7th-day Sabbath. What this is saying is to do your financials on a day which is NOT the Sabbath, because this is not a Sabbath activity. The Sabbath should not be used to review business and financial records. This recommendation is in keeping with God’s Law.
Jerry said: “This hardly means that we must not use force to enforce obedience to Bible truth–that is not at all the question in context. “
Do you really think that Christians should use force? This is a scary thought. Particularly if those doing the “force” are wrong in their interpretation. In fact, this is a violation of Romans 12:19. I would much rather take my chances with God than many (most) Christians…
Dear A. Way,
You must know that in reference to using force to enforce Sunday worship that this is a false doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, false because it is a false prophecy regarding what is to happen in the future. Nothing in the Bible supports the notion that the Sunday Sabbath [we both agree there is no such thing] will be enforced by law worldwide or even more narrowly. It is your muddled Adventist doctrine that misreads the text in Romans 14.
The passage in Romans 14 has absolutely nothing to do with such nonsense. Paul is stating that everyone is free to determine for themselves what days, if any, should be honored, whether as days of worship or days of obligation like the Jewish New Moons and annual feast days. Judaizers would have wished in that day and this to enforce their view of the need to keep the Law on other Christians, especially Gentile Christians, who had no reason to observe such things. Paul highly regarded the liberty we have in Christ under grace. Your chosen faith-group has altogether missed and misconstrued this concept taught by Paul under the Gospel of the Grace of God. Your very response to and misreading of my statement proves my case.
You said:
In response to what I had said:
When I said “this hardly means that we must not use force” I was not stating that we should use force. I was stating this statement of Paul has no reference whatsoever to using force. Good readers would understand this from my use of the word “hardly” to deny the whole concept.
It is the false doctrine and the false prophecy of your chosen faith group that places this mistaken meaning and interpretation upon this verse (Romans 14:5).
Emphatically, the Bible does NOT teach that there will be an end-time effort to universally enforce Sunday worship in opposition to worship on the Seventh Day. That is an invention within the tradition of your chosen faith-group, perhaps in part inspired by its false prophetess.
Your understanding, actually total misunderstanding, of Acts 20:7 demonstrates your commitment to the traditions of a mistaken faith-group rather than the teaching of the written Word of God found clearly in the Bible. Furthermore, the fact that Paul and those with him had been in Troas for an entire week makes it necessary that during that week a seventh-day Jewish Sabbath had intervened. Nothing is said of his meeting for specifically Christian worship or any other kind of worship on the Sabbath while at Troas. Instead, he waited until the regular time of gathering observed by Christians for their specifically Christian worship and fellowship (marked clearly here by “to break bread,” the observance of the Lord’s Supper) on the first day of the week.
Like the school administrators I fought against so hard as the school Union Representative, neither you, your faith group, or administrators know how to tell time! I fought the grievance, and won. You have lost the argument before you started.
Troas was a Roman colony with special status as such. Read a Bible dictionary not produced by your favored but very mistaken faith group. Troas therefore went by Roman time, not Jewish time. Luke was a Gentile, writing to a Gentile. This combination of circumstances proves that Luke spoke of the First Day of the week the same way we do today, as a reference to Sunday and Sunday night until midnight, not Saturday night or any part of Saturday. Luke was speaking of local time, as would be natural for a Gentile, writing to a Gentile (Theophilus), and local time at Troas was Roman time.
Did I say use force to ensure Sunday worship? No. I spoke only of the generic use of force to enforce one’s idea of Christianity. An example would be those that would shoot an abortion doctor.
As for Sunday worship – you again speak of Act 20:7 as if it were a template of Christian worship. The coming together to break bread could occur on any day, even daily. Acts 2:46-47 AKJV And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (v47) Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. This could even be the 7th-day Sabbath. So the argument that Acts 20:7 is a template for Christian worship is not there. It is clear, that 20:7 is talking about the first day of the week. But the event is about Paul leaving, and the story of Eutychus, rather than a template of “Christian worship”. It was a farewell get-together.
Again – the point is mute. Roman time, or Hebrew time, it does not matter. This verse is about Paul leaving town. It is also the story of raising one from the dead. Certainly you must acknowledge that experts have disagreed as to which time reckoning was used in this verse, do you not? And you can say with a clear conscience that you are absolutely right?
Here is one commentary view on this verse:
The fact remains, the apostles and Paul did meet together on the 7th-day Sabbath, even after being called Christians to worship and teach Christ to Jews and to Gentiles. It is you that says that the keeping of Sabbath is “absolutely prohibited”. Paul is the one that says, let everyone be persuaded in their own mind. I prefer Paul’s view.
Dear A. Way,
Now you are backing off and clearly changing your story:
Shooting abortion doctors forms no part of genuine Bible believing Christianity. Understanding that the Sabbath has been completed by our Lord Jesus Christ and is no longer obligatory does form a part of genuine Bible believing Christianity. Those who think otherwise have not done their homework in Real Bible Study alone upon Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island apart from the poisoned wells of denominational and cultic religion.
Of course Acts 20:7 in the light of Greek grammar and syntax, in the light of the immediate cultural context, involving just exactly where this event took place, in the light that we are dealing with specifically Christian worship involving the breaking of bread called the Lord’s Supper, in the light of just who wrote the account, and in the light of to whom the account was originally addressed, demonstrates to an absolute proof that Christians at that time in the history recorded by Luke in the book of Acts were regularly meeting exactly when this text states, upon the first day of the week for worship and fellowship. Otherwise there is no accounting for the incidental but crucially important additional bit of information Luke supplies by his words “when the disciples came together to break bread.” Luke would have written, were your chosen faith group’s misunderstanding of this text correct, “when the disciples met with Paul to bid him final farewell.” But that is not what Luke by Divine Inspiration wrote for our instruction.
Thank you for at last conceding one of my major points. Since coming together to break bread could occur on any day, even daily, it is clear that at the beginning the Sabbath was NOT especially marked for specifically Christian worship involving the Lord’s Supper. It could be and was celebrated daily from house to house. This would support Paul’s statement that believers are free to “esteem every day alike” (Romans 14:5). In the New Testament, if there is any day at all specially marked out by Apostolic practice and example, it is remembering the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ upon the First Day of the week when they regularly met for specifically Christian worship and fellowship. That the book of Acts represents a transition period is clear for all to see who will read the book perceptively, for conditions and practices described early in the account were not maintained in practice in the later history recorded in the book’s later chapters. They no longer met daily in homes, far as the record tells us; they no longer shared everything with each other as was done at first, for example. Thus some of the things done at first did not become normative for the New Testament Church.
You cite scholarship which argues to the contrary of the position I have taken:
In the first place, it is inaccurate to suggest that “Paul held this meeting.” The text clearly states that this was the day and time when the disciples regularly met. Paul took advantage of that fact, for the blessing of those believers, to speak to them on that occasion.
Neander, while a scholar of some repute in times past, clearly shows his shortcomings as a careful scholar of this text in Acts, for he fails to mention or account for the all-important incidental clause Luke inserts into his narrative: “when the disciples came together to break bread” –therefore, Neander’s position, and the position of all the others you cite against mine, fails.
Such a position fails for violating the following Rules of Interpretation:
10. Interpret a passage according to the grammar of the original language text, Hebrew or Greek.
12. Interpret a passage in the light of its cultural and historical context and setting.
17. You cannot leave out material which, if included, would require or necessitate a change in the interpretation.
19. A correct and authoritative interpretation must be based upon what the text itself says, not upon what someone else claims it says.
Then you further claim,
You absolutely know that what you have here written is in error. Your claim is false because you have linked together what the New Testament record carefully avoids linking. It is true that the apostles and Paul met on the 7th-day Sabbath to teach Christ to Jews and to Gentiles. It is false in the extreme to suggest that the apostles and Paul met together to worship and teach Christ on the 7th-day Sabbath as a matter of specifically Christian worship, for on such occasions they met with the Jews at the Synagogue as a means of Christian outreach, not Christian worship, to share the Gospel with the Jews and those Gentiles who also attended the Synagogue in Jewish worship of the one true God.
The fact remains, there is not a single example of Christians meeting for specifically Christian worship involving the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the Jewish 7th-Day Sabbath, not one. Neither is there so much as one example of the Fourth Commandment being cited as a command to be found in the New Testament, not one. My position properly accounts for this remarkable omission, your position does not. Your position, therefore, flagrantly violates the following most important Rule of Interpretation:
21. A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible.
I am reminded that a once prominent and well-respected member of your chosen faith group intuitively sensed this principle over a good number of years, and wrote that this was what I assume a central means employed by the Holy Spirit to lead him out of that faith group. He writes of this faith group:
24. It is “another gospel,” Galatians 1:6, which the apostles never preached. I was long impressed with the fact that we Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For instance, we were always preaching and writing about the Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it but once, Colossians 2:16, and then only to condemn it! “We find in the New Testament ‘preach the gospel,’ fifty times; ‘preach Christ,’ twenty-three times; ‘preach the word,’ seventeen times; ‘preach the kingdom,’ eight times; ‘preach the law’ or ‘the Sabbath,’ not once!” Warner. (D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, Chapter V, “My Objections to the Seventh-day Adventist System,” page 86).
It is interesting to note that Mr. D. M. Canright observes on the same page:
22. All in their system that has been a blessing to them is held also by all evangelical churches, such as faith in God, in Jesus and the Bible, a pure heart, holy life, self-denial, etc. Nothing good has come to them or to the world by those doctrines which are peculiar to Adventists, as the time of the Advent, the condition of the dead, the Sabbath, the visions, etc.
That reinforces the observation I’ve made here on this site, that apparently all “doctrinal distinctives” are wrong, being based in every case I’ve observed on mistaken interpretations of the Bible. Mistaken interpretations may be identified by the fact that they always break one or more of the 23 Rules of Interpretation I’ve posted here in the October, 2010, Archives.
If your interpretation, or my interpretation, or anyone else’s interpretation, breaks one or more of these rules, the interpretation is wrong.
Quote: “If your interpretation, or my interpretation, or anyone else’s interpretation, breaks one or more of these rules, the interpretation is wrong.”
It should be noted – you made the rules. Thus, they are your rules, as you see them. They are not necessarily universal rules.
Canright – – we have discussed him before. New readers to your blog might be tempted to take his word at face value, but one needs to know the character of the man. Better to take scripture, and let scripture interpret itself.
Christian Worship – – please, can you tell me that the “breaking of bread” is always, 100% a description of Christian worship? Can the breaking of bread also just be describing, having a meal?
Sunday – – Scripture shows that the “breaking of bread” occurred on any day of the week. You claim that Acts 20:7 describes “normal” behavior, of having “Christian worship” on the 1st day. Please, show me that this is the case from this verse, or this chapter, or any part of the Bible. It is not there, and to say that this is describing this in this passage is reading more into this verse that is written. This is not the first time you have over interpreted scripture. Revelation 1:10 is another example. You have said this is either Sunday or the “day of the Lord”. There is NO Biblical support for this being Sunday, and in fact, the only Biblical support for any day in particular, would be the Sabbath. As for this being the “day of the Lord”, this does not match the narrative, so that can be excluded. Only one day is described as “God’s Holy Day”. See Isaiah 58:13.
Force – you have repeatedly said, that worship on the Sabbath is “absolutely prohibited”. Please, quote chapter and verse. Paul says, let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.
You said, “Of course Acts 20:7 in the light of Greek grammar and syntax…” If you look at the Greek grammar, then you must look at Matthew 28:1, which has the same Greek grammar. Matthew was a Jew – what time reference do you suppose he used? You can not argue Roman time, and the Greek is the same. E. J. Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago writes on this phrase: Commenting on “opse de sabbatōn”, the phrase in question, concludes that “the plain sense of the passage is: ‘After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning’” (Problems of New Testament Translation, p. 45). Similarly, J. H. Moulton assigns opse the meaning of “after” in Matthew 28:1 (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1, p. 72). “After the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week” is the RSV translation of the time statement of this passage. Goodspeed (op. cit., p. 43) cites Greek writers of the 2d and 3d centuries who use opse in the sense of “after.”
Is it necessary to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every time Christians get together? No. Is it necessary to celebrate it on the Sabbath? No. When was is first celebrated? On a Thursday evening. Should “Christian worship” take place especially on Sunday? It is said that Sunday is special because that is the day the Savior rose from the dead. Yes, but he also “rested” on the Sabbath. Typologically, the celebration of the resurrection on Sunday, particularly what Christians call “easter”, does not fit Sunday, but it should follow Passover. Does “easter” always align with Passover? Nope. Oops. The type is broken. Why? Should not Christians ask the question why antitype does not follow the type, Passover? They should! Most won’t. There is one day that God has specified that is to be kept Holy, and it is in the 10 commandments, and it is not Sunday. Does Colossians 2:14 do away with the Law? No. It does away with those things written against us. It does away with the condemnation. Does Paul elsewhere say that the Law was bad, and should be done away with? No. Does Paul say we can now sin without condemnation? No – God forbid! Romans 6:15. Jerry has argued from the point of the negative. Just because 9 or of 10 commandments are specifically mentioned, does not mean that only 9 out of 10 are to be followed.
The real question that is never asked, never discussed, is WHY was the Sabbath instituted? Jesus is the one that instituted the Sabbath. He was concerned about it looking into the future, Matthew 24:20. WHY keep Sabbath? Sunday does not fit Biblical types (Passover, Manna), so the question has to be asked, why do Christians today keep Sunday? There is NO Biblical basis for the keeping of Sunday. Even Jerry acknowledges there was not change in the Sabbath. Jerry claims that there will never be enforcement of Sunday keeping. Please do not ignore that Sunday keeping does not only have to be religious, it can be secular also. If you believe Jerry, then you need to explain “blue laws”. And you need to explain the goals of the “Lord’s Day Alliance” (http://www.ldausa.org/LDA_about.html). And you need to explain the goals of the Catholic church on Sunday, and you need to explain what is going on in Europe on the push to make Sunday a day of rest, not only for religious reasons, but also secular. Revelation 14:9 KJV “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand”. Forehead – think religious, hand thing secular, and work, one works with their hands. What follows in Revelation is a severe warning, but not to Jerry because the book of Revelation to him is not relevant to Christians, though it is a revelation of Jesus Christ. It says, Revelation 14:10-12 AKJV “(v10) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: (v11) And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. (v12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
Question – what are the commandments of God?
Dear A. Way,
You comment,
Yes, indeed, I formulated the rules in my own words. I originally wrote them while I was still a student in high school in my Bible study notebook. But to suggest that they are not necessarily universal rules betrays your lack of study in the subject of Biblical hermeneutics. I have been seriously studying Biblical hermeneutics since the 1950s, starting with a book by Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics. The rules are universal, and apply not only to the Bible but to all discourse intended to convey meaning. I shared these rules in a modified form suited for public school use with my high school English classes to help students get an understanding of how to interpret literature, especially poetry.
Contrary to the prevailing opinion of many English educators, rules of interpretation possess intrinsic validity and are a highly effective and valuable instructional device. You cannot legitimately make a piece of literature, including the Bible, say just anything you want it to say. Some interpretations are better than others. The rules of interpretation help the reader discriminate between better and worse, valid and invalid interpretations.
If you can find fault with a rule, bring on your contrary evidence.
So far, the evidence has been on my side: my careful interpretation follows the rules; your misinterpretation violates the rules. Even scholars are guilty of violating the rules at times. Not all of them have a broad enough educational background to have learned the absolute necessity of being aware of the rules of interpretation, and following them.
A Church of Christ pastor in Gainesville, Florida, in a series of debates with Dr. Albert Garner, posted the names of fifty recognized scholars who allegedly supported his interpretation of Acts 2:38. The flaw in such an argument is not only that truth is not determined by a majority vote, but that anyone, even scholars, may fail to carefully interpret a statement in the Bible and just gloss over it or aspects of it, unaware of the implications of their failure to pay careful attention to detail. In my personal studies I have noticed, for example, that as good as Dr. A. T. Robertson is in the field of Greek grammar and theology, he sometimes falls short by his failure to recognize the great significance of the figures of speech used in the Bible. When one examines a selection of what several of those fifty recognized scholars said about Acts 2:38, it is clear that they were not dealing with the issues so central to the arguments of the Church of Christ denomination. But here again, one painstakingly thorough scholar’s determination of the truth regarding the correct interpretation of Acts 2:38 outweighs all the rest of world scholarship that failed to take such careful heed to the details of the Greek grammar involved in that verse. I have publicly documented this in my extensive note on Acts 2:38 in my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, pages 1234-1236.
Such a FACT thoroughly demonstrates the full validity of my “Rule 10,”
10. Interpret a passage according to the grammar of the original language text, Hebrew or Greek.
You have cited some respectable scholarship which affirms that Matthew 28:1 has an important bearing upon the proper interpretation of Acts 20:7, scholarship which reaches a different conclusion than mine. I will simply direct you and those who follow such scholarship to go back and do your homework more thoroughly. You and they have come up with the wrong answer, and wrong interpretation! The teacher says so, and since I am the teacher, I ought to know, since I did my homework and paid more careful attention to details than either you or they did.
That my scholarship is unbiased may be observed by the fact that in supplying the cross references in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible, I retained that cross reference.
While there surely is some basis for suggesting the cross reference connection, Matthew 28:1 in this case does not determine the proper interpretation of Acts 20:7 because the surrounding cultural milieu is altogether different in these two cases. Matthew 28:1 takes place in Israel, and so would certainly represent the Jewish mode of reckoning time. The Roman colony of Troas happens not to be located in Israel, and is a Gentile community, and in the setting of the Roman empire, Troas reckoned time just as we do. Therefore, Acts 20:7 time is different than Jewish time. My interpretation complies with the following two Rules of Interpretation:
12. Interpret a passage in the light of its cultural and historical context and setting.
18. Whenever an interpretation involves the comparison of two or more subjects, or related topics, the interpretation must take into account not only the similarities, but also the differences which may exist.
Since Jerusalem is not the same as Troas, this surely constitutes a difference. In my interpretation, I accounted for this specific difference (in accordance with Rule 18). The difference has been specified: it is cultural (Rule 12). You and your sources failed to do so or even deny that there is a difference.
You and your sources fail to comply with Rule 12 and Rule 18 in this case. My interpretation does comply with these two specified Rules of Interpretation.
Quote: “If your interpretation, or my interpretation, or anyone else’s interpretation, breaks one or more of these rules, the interpretation is wrong.”
The conclusion is obvious: since my interpretation complies with the rules, my interpretation is correct. Since your interpretation “breaks one or more of these rules, the interpretation is wrong.”
There is much more to answer in your latest comment, but for now I must continue my work for Ezekiel 12 in my delightful task of preparing a new and improved source of greatly expanded cross references for unbiased Real Bible Study. You will note, though, that I am inching ever closer to that important book of Old Testament prophecy, the book of Daniel. Once I have refreshed my studies of Daniel anew, we will no doubt have much to talk about and share with each other about Bible prophecy. Of course, I’m still some way away from the book of Revelation.
Quote:”You have cited some respectable scholarship which affirms that Matthew 28:1 has an important bearing upon the proper interpretation of Acts 20:7, scholarship which reaches a different conclusion than mine. I will simply direct you and those who follow such scholarship to go back and do your homework more thoroughly. You and they have come up with the wrong answer, and wrong interpretation! The teacher says so, and since I am the teacher, I ought to know, since I did my homework and paid more careful attention to details than either you or they did.”
Have you ever thought you were wrong? You say you have studied the Bible since the 1950s, and only recently concluded that the Sabbath was not started at creation? This is a very fundamental point. How with your expertise did you miss that one? You say that the Sabbath was never mentioned by name until Sinai, but then you need to back pedal and say it started when the children of Israel left Egypt, yet the wording does not match such a conclusion. The conclusion that can be made is that the Sabbath was reinstituted. Marriage – the actual word marriage does not appear in the Bible until Genesis 19, if I recall correctly, yet Christ points out that marriage was started in the beginning, at creation with Adam and Eve, Matthew 19:8. With your study you seem to have missed a number of other points which others have identified and seem quite clear. The type of Manna and the Passover.
You claim to be “unbiased”. Really… You believe in a prophesy interpretation that only began in the 1800s. Why is that? Were the disciples that ignorant? Were others Bible scholars that ignorant? People should never trust a person on their own authority. People need to know the what the Bible says for themselves. You can not create a Bible study tool can claim it to be “unbiased”. It will be unbiased only in your own mind. You have already presented cross-reference data with includes biased opinions of others.
You said: “The teacher says so, and since I am the teacher, I ought to know, since I did my homework and paid more careful attention to details than either you or they did.” Even you did not believe your teachers. Why would anyone believe you just because you say so? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but the arrogance of your claim is astounding to me. Particularly when I quoted from a world recognized Biblical language scholar and you claim to have studied more and understand better. Two verses come to mind: Jeremiah 9:23-24 AKJV Thus said the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: (v24) But let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD which exercise loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, said the LORD. 1 Corinthians 1:31 AKJV (v31) That, according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 AKJV (v1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (v2) And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
Dear A. Way,
It was your prompting me to do additional study that led me to change my position about the Sabbath’s earliest mention. Now you wish to blame me? I appreciate your challenges. They lead me to further study. Further study sometimes leads to changed opinions on the basis of evidence or reasoning not encountered before. So yes, I plead guilty to changing my mind about Genesis 2:3 and context. Thank you for your impetus to do further study.
If you have ever bothered to study the Sabbath issue as I presented it in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, I think even you will have to agree that I presented a fair and balanced view of the subject, citing the best authorities I had access to at the time. You will find I did the same for the issue of water baptism, particularly the mode of baptism. I carefully and fully presented the strongest arguments I could uncover in my studies for immersion in my note at Romans 6:4. But I presented contrary evidence elsewhere, because the Baptist view is well publicized, whereas the alternative views, thanks in part to Baptist censorship in the press and market place, is less available to the ordinary Bible student seeking information on that alternative viewpoint, a viewpoint I learned is more correct, thanks to the impetus and assistance of my elderly friend, Uncle Frank.
It is very easy for you, I suspect, to simply plod on with your ready-made doctrinal viewpoint. It is fully established. There is nothing to learn new from Scripture. Your mind is made up already, because, apparently, you have chosen to carefully follow your chosen faith group. No matter the evidence to the contrary, you need simply hold to the position of your chosen faith group. Of course, such a stance has little to no connection with Real Bible Study, since your stance cannot be learned from the study of a plain text Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island. It cannot even be learned or established if we add to a plain text Bible a collection of a core of other non-denominational Bible study helps I have frequently named: Nave’s Topical Bible, Nave’s Study Bible, Monser’s Cross Reference Bible, the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and its updates including Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words, The New Topical Textbook, The NET Bible, First Edition, with 60,932 Translator’s Notes, the Holy Bible, Teacher’s Edition, American Standard Version which is most valuable for its good and plentiful cross references, The English Standard Version and the New Living Translation.
Like Paul, I am given every once in a while to “boasting.” I am thankful to the Lord that He has made it possible to study the Bible at length for many years, since 1953. In those years, I have learned a few things. I am still learning. I see nothing wrong with that. If we are not able to come to God’s Word with a heart open to His truth and a readiness to learn something new, the Bible is necessarily a closed book to us.
Like David, I can to some degree say,
Did you even happen to notice at all that when I brought criticism against admittedly well recognized and very great scholars, I precisely pinpointed their error, and gave specific reasons why they are mistaken on a particular point I am controverting?
I have appealed to specific principles of Bible interpretation. I have stated the principles in very clear language, surely clearer than you are likely to find in any textbook on the subject. I can actually do that because I know the principles, and I know how to apply them. You have been the greatest help of late in giving me the opportunity to apply these principles, the 23 Rules of Interpretation, to specific Scripture.
You said,
I suppose that whenever an opinion differs from yours, it of course by definition must be biased. Never mind should that opinion be correct. I have explained in this comment that when I prepared additional notes for The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, I provided notes on each of several sides of some controversial topics, like tithing, like baptism, like the Sabbath, to fairly represent each side as fully as possible with the strongest Biblical arguments in its favor. Of course, when such notes are contradictory, it is clear they are not equally correct. But I furnished each side’s best Biblical evidence. I believe I met the standard of producing an honest and scholarly work.
You have commented before that my cross references are biased.
I challenged you to provide “chapter and verse, please” together with the “page number” from either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.
You, so far, have never responded to this challenge.
Thus far, therefore, my claim that the cross references I have furnished in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible or The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge are unbiased still stands uncontradicted by any evidence.
Quote:”I suppose that whenever an opinion differs from yours, it of course by definition must be biased. Never mind should that opinion be correct. ” Correct in your opinion.
Quote:”It was your prompting me to do additional study that led me to change my position about the Sabbath’s earliest mention. Now you wish to blame me?” Blame? It is you that claims to know the truth, to have the right hermeneutics, to edit the study materials, to give “fair” review of the topics presented, such as the Sabbath. And then 50 years later, change your mind? How can that be, if your interpretation is correct in the first place? I’m not blaming any one. I’m just pointing out that on such a fundamental topic, which even you for 50, 60, or is it 70 years believed one way, then changed, one who is quite proud of their knowledge, miss such an important topic. If you were wrong on this subject, how many more are you wrong about? Example, Genesis 2:16-17, here you have even said that God is wrong…
Dear A. Way,
When you comment in part to say:
are you then saying that it is you who knows the truth and has the right hermeneutics?
It looks to me as if you might be employing the ad hominem argument, which as you must know is invalid, but very revealing at times.
And then you put words in my mouth:
“Example, Genesis 2:16-17, here you have even said that God is wrong…”
It looks to me as though you commit the error of assuming what is to be proved when you bring up Genesis 2:16-17,
If you follow the theology of heretical cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or, on this point, even the Seventh-day Adventists, you are wrong in your understanding of this verse.
For once, take your false-cult glasses off and read this verse for what it says in the light of the whole teaching of Scripture. Perhaps you would benefit from consulting cross references to be led from this passage to the whole teaching of Scripture.
The verse says Adam would die “in the day thou eatest thereof.”
Did Adam or Eve drop dead physically on the same day that they ate of the forbidden fruit?
What right have you to re-define “day” to make it other than a literal 24-hour time frame?
You are the one who denies that they died the very day that God said they would. You arbitrarily redefine “day” to suit your mistaken theology.
It looks to me like you are the one who has said repeatedly that God is wrong.
Now, lets see you clear yourself of this charge in your very own words.
And another theme to return to. I stated that it is possible to judge the validity and correctness of an interpretation of a literary work like a poem. When two or more interpretations or explications are offered, whether by students in my classroom, or by literary critics in their learned professional journal articles, it is possible to judge one or some interpretations as being better than others. Seeing this is so, there must be some basis for making such judgments. The basis of such judgments is the field of study called hermeneutics. I have provided a list of 23 Rules of Interpretation which guide such judgments. You faulted me for stating that I am the teacher, and I am right. I stated I have done my homework. I stated I continue to do so.
You seem to believe that absolute fixity of opinion is the mark of wisdom. The very opposite is the truth. Fixity of opinion assumes that you have started from an entirely correct position of absolute truth and full understanding and can never improve upon your knowledge: and only God Himself can make such a claim. Only those who are open to the Bible itself, who continue to study it, and who are able to learn something new, are taking the proper approach to Real Bible Study. If you have sold your soul to a denomination or false cult, you cannot take this approach: you must stay true to the official teaching of the denomination or false cult; should such be the case (and I truly hope and pray that it is not), the Bible remains a closed book to you, and you have never truly studied the Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island.
You also seem to lack sufficient comprehension to understand the point I made, carefully and specifically documented at that, that just one scholar who has thoroughly done his homework on a disputed point is fully entitled to overturn the opinions of the rest of world scholarship on that disputed point when the rest of world scholarship has failed to address that particular point that carefully. I have given an example of that in my notes on Acts 2:38 in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
Have you noticed yet that I document my claims specifically, and give reasons to support my claims, and that I am able to do so in my own words?
You have failed so far to find a legitimate flaw in my statement of the Rules of Interpretation. You keep saying to me, Those are your rules. As if that reduces their validity. Of course they are my rules, and the rules are correct. If you have a problem with one of the rules, lets see you try your hand at improving or refuting it.
You have affirmed repeatedly that there must be bias in the cross references I have furnished or compiled in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. You have never furnished any actual evidence from either of those two sources to support your claim. Until you do, your claim is false because the claim cannot be supported.
It is these kind of accusing lies that caused to me to think it is time to leave. Of course, then you would have no more real discussions on this site. This is such a lie that it is hard to believe you are really making it. Have I ever defined a day other that 24 hours? No. Where do you get this idea? Something I have written on this site? Please, show me.
What I am speaking about is that you believe in immortality of the soul, that it can not die. This is no where taught in the Bible. The soul that sinneth, it will die. Ezekiel 18:20.
In the day that thou eatest thereof. The prohibition was accompanied by a severe penalty for transgression, namely, death. Some have thought that the wording of the penalty required its execution upon the very day when the command was violated. They see a serious discrepancy between the announcement and its fulfillment. However, the divine pronouncement, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” literally, “dying thou shalt die,” means that upon the day of transgression sentence would be pronounced, that day, they would begin to die. Man would pass from the status of conditional immortality to that of unconditional mortality. Prior to his fall, Adam could be certain of immortality, because of the tree of life, so now, subsequent to that catastrophe, his mortality was just as certain. This, more than immediacy of physical death, is what the language implies. God required of man that he make a choice of principles. He was to accept the will of God and subject himself to it, confident that he would fare well as a result, or he would by his own choice sever connection with God and become, presumably, independent of Him. But separation from the Source of life could inevitably bring only death. The same principles are still valid. Punishment and death are the certain results of man’s free choice to indulge in rebellion against God.
Please – take back you lie that I have redefined a day. I have never done such. Will you acknowledge that this false accusation? I doubt it…
You say you are making cross references in Ezekiel. Ezekiel 20 should be interesting. And 22, and 23. Why did the children of Israel go into captivity in Babylon? And when you get to Daniel, then you can explain why they were in captivity for “70” years.
I was reading in 1 King2 12 today. I thought about the wandering in the desert, where the tabernacle was places was always a location of choosing by God. With the kings, the Ark of the Covenant (and we all know what was inside the Ark) was moved where God commanded. Places including Shiloh and Jerusalem. Well in 1 Kings 12, Jeroboam was splitting the kingdom, taking 10 tribes with him, see the prophesy in 1 Kings 11. Seeing that the worship of the LORD in Jerusalem would drain his new kingdom of wealth, he made 2 golden calves, and place one in Dan and one in Bethel. This was a sin. The people were not worshiping God where God commanded them to worship. This ties in with Ezekiel and Daniel, and Jeremiah and Isaiah, and the captivity. When we worship God when we want to, and not when He says we should. Think of the story of the Manna. Of Genesis. Of the captivity in Babylon, and there is a similar theme. Then the big question – WHY is this necessary. God commanded it, are we to ignore it? I think not.
I will now spare you (and me) the grieve of further comments for a time, for this discussion is not promoting the goal that Jesus hoped for in John 17. Nor do I see any possibility of good fruit being produced.
Dear A. Way,
I trust that I have never made a false accusation regarding you or anyone else, or any religious group.
However, you continue to deny (unless I misunderstand you, and I welcome correction) that Adam and Eve died the very day that they disobeyed God’s command and ate the forbidden fruit.
You supplied commentary that seems to reinforce the denial of immediate death on the very day the sin was committed, which is the threat God made to Adam and Eve. Your source suggests that not death, but the sentence of death, is what was threatened.
Your source states:
Even Eve, when she apparently misquoted God’s threatened punishment, got it more accurate than that when she told Satan, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” Though she changed the grammar by changing the certainty into a contingency, and apparently added a bit to what God actually said, she got the message straight: to violate that command meant immediate and certain death. Satan’s lie was to deny that it meant immediate death, and Satan quoted God accurately this time (even maintaining the emphatic Figure Polyptoton) but added a negative particle, “Ye shall not surely die.”
There is no hint in the text or the grammar of the text that God meant to say they would merely begin to die.
That is a meaning imported into the text out of necessity by those who believe in the mistaken doctrines of theological materialism.
There was surely no need for “sentence to be pronounced” on the day of disobedience: God already clearly stated emphatically what the sentence for disobedience to his one command would be: death. Materialists find it necessary to introduce concepts foreign to this text and the Bible as a whole when they speak of such matters as “Man would pass from the status of conditional immortality to that of unconditional mortality.” These would seem to be theological constructs contrived to maintain a false system of theology that would never be discovered doing Real Bible Study on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island apart from all denominational commentary.
Now you choose to bring up Ezekiel 18:4 or Ezekiel 18:20 regarding “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” You falsely charge me with denying what that text says. I charge you and your faith group with totally and flagrantly misinterpreting that text.
The word “soul” in this context means person.
In context, the question was whether God requires the sins of the father to devolve upon the son. See the proverb God is refuting as stated in the preceding verses at the start of the chapter.
God answered the proverb by explaining that each person will be chargeable only for his own sins, not the sins of his forebears.
Read further in context and find these statements:
What kind of death is being talked about? It CANNOT be a reference to physical death, for if a person died physically as a punishment for his or her sin, it could hardly be stated in the next breath that if that person repented and now lived in a manner so as to do that which is lawful and right, he would now live! If it is a reference to physical death, I wonder how many physical resurrections that might involve for the same person! And how would such person manage to start living righteously after he has suffered the death penalty?
The Bible speaks elsewhere of those who once were “dead in trespasses and sins”:
Does this mean that they had been physically dead?
Or (I must respectfully say, “a new one on me”), that they had just begun to die?
Clearly, the death spoken of is spiritual death, not physical death, in each of these texts.
That is the proper understanding of “death” threatened Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They did experience spiritual death the very day they disobeyed the command of God. This is evident by the immediate sense of shame and separation from God that they experienced.
Of course, death came by one man, Adam, Paul tells us, and so death passed upon all men. No doubt physical death entered the human race because of the sin of Adam, but it is also declared that spiritual death entered at this time too. Since spiritual death came immediately that very day, but physical death came later, the threatened punishment was spiritual death, for that was the penalty Adam and Eve suffered immediately.
The Ezekiel 18:4, 20, 21 passage makes it clear that it has reference to spiritual death, for surely to take it otherwise would result in both an impossibility and absurdity.
You repeatedly have charged me as follows:
If you would attend to Ezekiel 18:21 you will see your view is mistaken. But since when have I stated that I believe in the immortality of the soul?
It is my present understanding of Scripture that (1) only God is inherently immortal according to 1 Timothy 6:16, and (2) as for humans, believers receive immortal bodies at the resurrection and the Rapture (when those who are alive will put on immortality, 1 Corinthians 15:53; see also Philippians 3:21) while unbelievers receive immortal bodies at the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29) which takes place 1000 years later at the end of the Millennium (Revelation 20:5); (3) soul and spirit are used interchangeably in reference to the immaterial part of man’s nature in the Bible, and neither soul in that sense or spirit is subject to physical death (Matthew 10:28).
One last matter for this post: You indicate that you believe I have made a false accusation against you when I accused you (and your faith group) as follows:
Now carefully notice that you in your very post cite the following in supposed answer to what I said:
Notice the wording “some have thought” and the subsequent denial of what the actual text says, despite God by Divine Inspiration having inserted the emphatic figure of speech for great emphasis, the Figure Polyptoton, the reason behind correctly stating: literally, “dying thou shalt die.”
My explanation of this text given above maintains the literal meaning of “day” in the expression “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17).
Your explanation (supported by the source you cite) does NOT maintain the literal meaning of “day” at Genesis 2:17. You confirmed what I said, “What right have you to re-define ‘day’ to make it other than a literal 24-hour time frame? You are the one who denies that they died the very day that God said they would. You arbitrarily redefine ‘day’ to suit your mistaken theology.”
Now, in the light of all this, you may wish to reconsider carefully just who might need to apologize to whom. If I have truly misrepresented your position and in error made a false charge against you, will you kindly walk me through it? As matters now stand, you by the citation you made in your defense clearly confirmed the correctness of what I said.
I am currently on Ezekiel 13, so it shouldn’t take too long to reach Ezekiel 20 that you mentioned.
You have misrepresented what I said, I have laid it out. The Hebrew says, “dying thou shalt die”.
You said: “soul and spirit are used interchangeably in reference to the immaterial part of man’s nature in the Bible, and neither soul in that sense or spirit is subject to physical death (Matthew 10:28).”
And here is the crux of the difference. There is no “immaterial” part that is somehow separate. There is the body, and the character that is formed in this life. You can kill the body, but that does not change the character. Read Foxes Book of Martyrs, and you see those persecuted for their beliefs, and their characters were unchanged. You can kill the body, but not change the character of the individual. Be assured that when the body dies, the individual dies, the dead no nothing, and the praise of God ceases. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 6:5; Job 14:7-12; Psalms 115:17 and many more) At the resurrection, the character will be restored. The character is not destroyed by satan or man.
So , yes, you have misrepresented what I have said. You will deny it. So be it. Since I do not conform to your interpretation, you will continue to twist and denigrate my position. I hope each reader of your blog will study the Bible for themselves. As one write say, “We should not take the testimony of any man as to what the Scriptures teach, but should study the words of God for ourselves. If we allow others to do our thinking, we shall have crippled energies and contracted abilities. The noble powers of the mind may be so dwarfed by lack of exercise on themes worthy of their concentration as to lose their ability to grasp the deep meaning of the word of God. The mind will enlarge if it is employed in tracing out the relation of the subjects of the Bible, comparing scripture with scripture and spiritual things with spiritual. “
Vaya con Dios
Dear A. Way,
You are evidently quite settled in your fixed opinion. Those who truly engage in Real Bible Study are not. They surely have a fixed belief in our Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. They do not adamantly adhere to the teachings of mistaken theologies. They are able to correct or improve their understanding on the basis of further learning from what is taught in the Bible itself: the Bible is an open Book to them. But they are not tossed about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14), but contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3), and always seek to prove or verify all things (1 Thessalonians 5:20), and hold fast to that which is good. They carefully test teachings of others by the written Word of God in the Bible: they don’t believe everything others try to tell them (1 John 4:1).
You (and your quotation) say we should go by the Bible alone, not the testimony of any man as to what the Scriptures teach.
But you directly contradict this good and high ideal by quoting from what I imagine must be a Seventh-day Adventist Commentary to support your understanding of Genesis 2:16-17. Thus you are going by the testimony of some man, perhaps group of men, or a woman, not the Scriptures alone.
On the other hand, as I have discussed the Scriptures carefully with you, I have written everything in my own words, and rarely if ever have I cited a denominational commentary. I occasionally have cited a human author apart from Scripture to make a point, just as you cited an unidentified source with a remarkable statement about going by the Scripture alone and the value of comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Now in my citation of Matthew 10:28, you answer that crucially important text of Scripture with the observation:
The text of Matthew 10:28 reads:
1. Our Lord Jesus Christ is drawing a contrast here. The contrast is clearly between the body, which can be killed by man, and the soul, which cannot be killed by man.
2. From this text, therefore, one can properly conclude that the body is not the soul, nor is it the same as the soul.
3. From this text we may also conclude that though the body can be killed, it is asserted by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself that the soul of man cannot be killed.
4. From this text we may conclude that the soul is the immaterial part of man (sometimes in other texts referred to as spirit, as Zechariah 12:1) which continues in conscious existence after the death of the body.
5. Our Lord Jesus Christ in this text gave a warning, and the warning pertains to consequences that take place upon the death of the body; for the warning to have meaning it is necessary that the soul continue in consciousness after death, otherwise there is nothing to fear after death, because we have no cause for alarm if we are non-existent, or non-entities after death.
6. Clearly, soul in this text cannot mean character, for the Bible nowhere suggests that one’s character can be destroyed in hell, nor, in terms of the parallel text in Luke 12:5, would it be proper to assert that character can or will be cast into hell.
7. THEREFORE, the position you assert regarding the meaning of “soul” in Matthew 10:28 is utterly mistaken.
You are following and asserting the mistaken doctrines of men who espouse the false theology of materialism. You clearly are absolutely not following the teaching of the Word of God found in your Bible and mine.
You could never come to the position you assert from Matthew 10:28 by a careful study of this text on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island using a plain text Bible even with the unbiased Bible study helps and translations I have indicated are permissible.