Difficult Important Biblical Texts

[Episkopos]

But what does it mean for the violent to take the reign of God (the kingdom) by force? This question has vexed modern NT scholars for generations. Prof. George Eldon Ladd omitted this text in his book "Jesus and the Kingdom."

It means that the spiritually forceful...the hard seekers...(not violent)..get swept up into Zion to be where Jesus is.

God is a rewarder of they who diligently seek Him after all.

 

[marks]

So then among the righteous (but not the saints) will be people of every belief system in the world...whether Muslim of Hindu or whatever. All who are accepted by God for their works.

Rather contrary to the Biblical teaching that Salvation is in Christ alone.

And again you separate the "saints" from other believers, denying the Lord that bought them and declares them saints. As if the Bible gives such a distinction. What is good is that anyone who is interested can simply read the Bible and see this is not what it teaches.

Much love!

 

[marks]

..not just privileged white folks.

Where is that coming from?

 

[marks]

The coup attempt by Satan is violent spiritual war against God. Which "heaven suffered until now"...that is until Christ.

So many want their "piece of the pie". But only the LORD will be exalted in that day.

 

[marks]

It means that the spiritually forceful...the hard seekers...(not violent)..get swept up into Zion to be where Jesus is.

Right. There's the whole works thing.

If you are good enough . . . If YOU want it enough.

Wait a minute. I remember you posting that God just picks who He picks for the "walking in Zion" seeing the shining and such, and it's just about whomever it is He wants.

But to be clear, you are teaching that it's by your works, your desire for Him, that you become sufficiently pleasing to God, to be swept up into Zion?

And that until such a time, that you aren't actually where He is? This is what you teach?

Much love!

 

[marks]

get swept up into Zion to be where Jesus is.

I have another question. Why is it Zion? Why Jesus? Why not Brahma, or Nebo, or Ra? Why not Mecca?

Why do you choose the Bible to teach from when the Bible declares an exclusivity which you deny?

There is no other name than Jesus that men must be saved by.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

So many want their "piece of the pie". But only the LORD will be exalted in that day.

Thankfully, all who are "in Him" are lifted up "with Him" as well. Which makes "that day" 2000 years ago, except for those to whom He has not yet come.

 

[marks]

Thankfully, all who are "in Him" are lifted up "with Him" as well. Which makes "that day" 2000 years ago, except for those to whom He has not yet come.

In that day that He was lifted up was our abject obedience and helplessness, our declaration of His Lordship, and His purification of our sins.

So excellent to meditate on!

We're in like the time between the cross and the resurrection, not yet received the redemption of our bodies in incorruptibility, but put to death on the cross.

Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison, we also preach, so they can know His death and resurrection.

When we really take in the meaning of co-crucified with Christ, yet alive, in that way is freedom.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

In that day that He was lifted up was our abject obedience and helplessness, our declaration of His Lordship, and His purification of our sins.

So excellent to meditate on!

We're in like the time between the cross and the resurrection, not yet received the redemption of our bodies in incorruptibility, but put to death on the cross.

Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison, we also preach, so they can know His death and resurrection.

When we really take in the meaning of co-crucified with Christ, yet alive, in that way is freedom.

Much love!

It is a hard and abstract reality to grasp. But rather than it being "the time between the cross and the resurrection", it is us experiencing time where there is no time, but rather what is "written", as God does--with Him, until the end.

 

[Nancy]

It is really quite simple. While Christ is indeed the Savior of the world, He is especially the Lord and Savior of those who have believed on Him, called upon His name and been saved, and received Him as Lord and Savior. Since He is active only in their lives, He is especially their Savior.

God the Father has designated and delegated His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, to be the Savior of the world. And since He took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, and paid the penalty in full, all could be saved if all would obey the Gospel (repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ).

Agreed @Enoch111
His shed blood was powerful enough to save every single person, it is there for the taking for those (especially) who have believed on His name, repented and obeyed Him. If unbelievers do not want to accept this awesome gift...they will perish. Some see this verse as universal-ism. The word "all" (Pas) can mean all types of people...not just the Jews. Or of, of every kindred, tribe, tongue, and race” as opposed to Jews only. So, that says to me anyhow, all gentiles.

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. (1 Tim. 2:5-8)"

There is one God and one mediator, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all "types" of men. That is why Paul was appointed to preach to the Gentiles –"types" of men other than Israelite's. The verse in question is so misused...it fits neither into Calvinistic or Armenian beliefs it seems. Seems some theologians try to mold it to fit their own doctrines.
“Especially” in the Greek word “malista,” is the neuter plural of “mala,” which means - "very much." It can mean "especially," "chiefly," or "most of all." It seems to speak to designating one thing or "type" above another. Hey @Episkopos , got me some Greek goin on!! Lol.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Your politically correct response ignores the apparent implication that God is the actual (not just the theoretical) Savior of unbelievers as well. Also how can God be the Savior of all unbelievers if only the foreordained elect are saved? This text does not yield its meaning as easily as you imply.

There is no other Saviour offered to mankind Acts4:12

 

[Enoch111]

...it is us experiencing time where there is no time...

Right. The Space-Time Continuum. Einstein would be delighted.

Why is there "no time" when God say that time exists and uses time throughout the Bible starting in Genesis 1?

 

[ScottA]

Right. The Space-Time Continuum. Einstein would be delighted.

Why is there "no time" when God say that time exists and uses time throughout the Bible starting in Genesis 1?

It is not that time does not exist, but that it was "created." These are the words of God ("as it is written") made manifest. As such, time is not real as God is real, but is story time, real in God.

 

[marks]

It is a hard and abstract reality to grasp. But rather than it being "the time between the cross and the resurrection", it is us experiencing time where there is no time, but rather what is "written", as God does--with Him, until the end.

Yet there is still the phenomonon of life on this planet as we know it.

We live in 2 places.

 

[ScottA]

Yet there is still the phenomonon of life on this planet as we know it.

We live in 2 places.

Life in the world is life within "it is written." Manifest godly media.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

This thread is intended to draw attention to the elusive meaning of several ambiguous but spiritually important biblical texts. Please make your case for your interpretation, resisting the temptation to pontificate without evidence on what you think the text should mean.
Let me begin the thread with these 4 texts and then add more later:

(1) "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10)."
(a) What is meant by "especially?" This word initially seems to imply that God is ultimately going to save everyone, believer and unbeliever alike.
(b) In what sense is God the Savior of all unbelievers? It seems forced to assume the meaning that God is especially the Savior of all current believers, but will also be the Savior of unbelievers who later convert in this life.

Strong's - mal'-is-tah; neuter plural of the superlative of an apparently primary adverb μάλα mála (very); (adverbially) most (in the greatest degree) or particularly:—chiefly, most of all, (e-)specially.

"Specially" carries the meaning of particularly. 1 Timothy 2:4 God desires all men be saved, Christ dying on the cross provides opportunity for all men to be saved but it will be in particular those that believe that will be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10 makes a contrast between "all men" and "believers" as John 3:16 contrasts "world" (all men) and "believers". Even though God loves all men it will be believers in particular that will be saved. (There is no limited atonement in these verses as Calvinism claims.)

If 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches both unbelievers and believers will equally be saved then how are believers particularly saved?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

This thread is intended to draw attention to the elusive meaning of several ambiguous but spiritually important biblical texts. Please make your case for your interpretation, resisting the temptation to pontificate without evidence on what you think the text should mean.


(2) "In my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's sufferings for the sake of His body, the church (Colossians 1:24)."
(a) Christ's suffering on the cross is surely sufficient for our salvation. So why does Paul seem to imply here that Christ's sufferings are in some way lacking or deficient and that his own sufferings can compensate for this deficiency?
(b) What does this verse imply about the spirituality of the sufferings of believers for the sake of the church?

Colossians 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church;"

In Colossians 1:20 Paul shows that Christ's suffering and death is sufficient to reconcile all things, His death is CAPABLE of saving all men. Even though Christ's death is CAPABLE of saving all men, all men will not be saved - Christ's death did not save any, did not remit the sins of any man.

So what is lacking or needed? Even though Christ's death is CAPABLE of saving all men, men still have to hear and obey the gospel to be saved (Romans 1:16). So Paul is saying his 'part' was the suffering he endured in taking the gospel to men. Therefore Paul took fellowship in the suffering of Christ, Philippians 3:10. Paul, by preaching, provided that what is lacking in the saving of men. So each Christian has his/her part in the suffering with Christ in living a Christian life in taking the gospel to the world.

Example, Acts 10 Cornelius was a righteous, God fearing man, praying to God always but he was lost for he had not heard the saving message of the gospel. Even though Christ's death was capable of saving Cornelius it did not. It was not until Cornelius heard the gospel and obeyed it, then Cornelius took advantage of the salvation Christ's death provided. By preaching the gospel to Cornelius, Peter filled up his part that which was lacking of the afflictions of Christ.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

(3) Pray then like this...Thy kingdom come (Matthew 6:9-10)."
(a) Suppose God answered this petition. How would we recognize the answer?
(b) The Lord's Prayer also instructs us to pray for God's will to be done. What do we lose if we pray for God's will, but not for His kingdom to come?
(c) Jesus seems to imply that the coming of the kingdom of God is not automatic; so its coming must be the subject of petitionary prayer. What do we lose if we ignore Jesus' petition and directly engage God in petitionary prayer to meet our needs and the needs of the church?
(c) In Aramaic the word for "kingdom" ("malchut") means "reign" or realm." How do these nuances solve the mystery of this required petition?

Luke 11:1 "...Lord, teach us to pray..."

THis was an example prayer, a model prayer in how disciples should pray "after this manner" and not meant to be repeated word for word. At the time Jesus gave this model prayer, the kingdom (church) had not yet come but was "at hand" - near (Mark 1:15). The kingdom shortly after that model prayer came in Acts 2 on Pentecost as we can see those first century Christians were in the kingdom (Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:9). Hence Christ's prayer that the kingdom come was answered.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

This thread is intended to draw attention to the elusive meaning of several ambiguous but spiritually important biblical texts. Please make your case for your interpretation, resisting the temptation to pontificate without evidence on what you think the text should mean.
Let me begin the thread with these 4 texts and then add more later:

(4) "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of God has suffered violence and the violent take it by force (Matthew 11:12)."
Luke 16:16 is the closest parallel to this saying, but does not seem to remove the difficulty in interpretation. What does it mean to take the kingdom of God "by force?"

JW McGarvey of this passage wrote "Jesus here pictures the kingdom of heaven as a besieged city. The city is shut up, but the enemies which surround it storm its walls and try to force an entrance ... The gates of Christ's kingdom were not opened until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); but men, hearing it was about to be opened, sought to enter it prematurely, not by the gates which God would open, ... but by such breaches as they themselves sought to make in its walls....The people were full of preconceived ideas with regard to the kingdom, and each one sought to hasten and enjoy its pleasures as one who impatiently seizes upon a bud and seeks with his fingers to force it to bloom. The context shows that even John the Baptist was then seeking to force the kingdom"

Examples of those trying to "breach the walls" and force entry into the kingdom before it came would be the Apostles who argued among themselves who would be greatest in that kingdom (Luke 22:24). The mother of James and John (Matthew 20:21) attempting to get her sons appointed to be on the left and right hand of Christ in the kingdom. See also John 6:15.

 

[Naomi25]

This thread is intended to draw attention to the elusive meaning of several ambiguous but spiritually important biblical texts. Please make your case for your interpretation, resisting the temptation to pontificate without evidence on what you think the text should mean.
Let me begin the thread with these 4 texts and then add more later:

(1) "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10)."
(a) What is meant by "especially?" This word initially seems to imply that God is ultimately going to save everyone, believer and unbeliever alike.
(b) In what sense is God the Savior of all unbelievers? It seems forced to assume the meaning that God is especially the Savior of all current believers, but will also be the Savior of unbelievers who later convert in this life.

Hmm, resisting the temptation to pontificate. Its getting late, which means my urge to pontificate is at its highest. I'll do my best.
I think perhaps we overlook the most obvious of explanations here. Just as God is God of all the world, not just of the Christians who believe in him, so Christ Jesus is Saviour of all the world. This means that his covering blood attonment was not just shed for Jews. Or the French. Or the Africans. But of all peoples of all nations and tribes and tongues.
Does that mean that every person from every tribe, nation and tongue will accept him? No. And that's why he's Saviour especially to those who believe.
I hope that answers (a) and (b), but should it need reinforcing; no, I do not believe this passage is claiming people who do not put their faith in Christ will be saved none-the-less. That would then contradict so many other passages in scripture as to make most of scripture irrelevant.