HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIES

AMILLENNIALISM – A MAN-MADE THEOLOGY (PART 2 OF 3)

February 12, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

AMILLENNIALISM

THE ARGUMENTS OF AMILLENNIALISM

We must consider the points which Amillennialists make in favour of their views. We will never be able to convince them that they are wrong if we cannot at least answer their points. Also, when they make their points, these often seem at first to be very plausible. It is sometimes only after looking a little closer that we see the error of them; so, we need to look a little closer now.

There are several main reasons that an Amillennialist will give in support of his position:

Argument 1 : The use of figurative language in prophecy.

It is argued that since so much of the prophetic writings use figurative or symbolic language, it was never meant to be taken literally, thus we are free to spiritualise prophetic passages.

However, while it is true that much of the prophetic writings are in figurative language, these figures are nonetheless used to represent actual things, people and events. The use of figures does not do away with their reality.

Scripture abounds with the use of figures. For example, in Ex. 19.4, God tells the people of Israel that He has borne them out of Egypt “on eagles’ wings”. This is clearly a figure. No-one is seriously going to suggest that they left Egypt on the wings of birds. God is using a figure to show the might and power with which He took them out. But God’s use of a figure in no way lessens the fact that it was a literal exodus from Egypt. Figurative language is used to describe it, but it is nonetheless a real event.

It was so in recording past events. It is so in prophecy too. Take for example Isa. 11.1: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots’. No-one doubts that this refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the words “rod”, “stem”, “Branch,” and “roots” are figurative. Nonetheless this in no way negates the fact that the Lord Jesus is a literal descendant of Jesse. The use of figures does not nullify the literal fact.

Turning now to the Book of Revelation, which is so much attacked because it abounds in figures and symbols. Take chapter 1 for example. We read in v. 12 about 7 candlesticks (lampstands). These are figurative, but we are told in v. 20 that they represent 7 churches. And those 7 churches are actual churches, as we see in the following 2 chapters. The use of the figure of the candlesticks (lampstands) does not mean that they did not represent literal churches. Take ch. 5.6. The Lord Jesus is represented as “a Lamb as it had been slain.” This draws our attention to His great sacrifice. No-one would suggest that the One being worshipped is a literal Lamb, but this figure in no way lessens the reality of that great scene of worship. The use of figurative language does not remove literalness. Thus, while prophecy often have figurative language, this is used to describe literal people, things and events. The use of figures enriches the Scriptures and gives to the reader many insights which he would not obtain if figures were not employed. But to use these figures as an excuse for doing away with literal events, is not valid.

Argument 2: The claim that OT prophecies which on the face of it are literal, are given a spiritual interpretation in the NT.

This point is really the cornerstone of the Amillennialist’s argument. He will point to NT quotations from the OT, which would appear to interpret the OT passage non-literally, and thus say that this shows that the OT passage was never meant to have a literal fulfilment, and the spiritual fulfilment is all the fulfilment there will be, i.e in the present age for the church and not for Israel in the future.

However, in taking this line, the Amillennialist is making a very big assumption. He is assuming that when an OT passage is quoted in the NT, then the NT quote is giving the only, the full, and the final interpretation for the original passage. This is not a valid assumption, for many reasons :

(a) There can be two fulfilments for the same OT Scripture.

An example: Matthew 2.15: “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. This is stated by Matthew to be the fulfilment of the words of “the prophet”, that is, a fulfilment of Hosea 11.1, where the context shows beyond doubt that God is referring to the Exodus of the nation of Israel from Egypt, many years before. Thus this verse, while it clearly describes a past event, is said to be fulfilled in the events in the Lord Jesus’ life in Matt. 2. Hence, we see that the same Scripture refers to 2 distinct events. But the fact that it refers to 2 different events does not mean that one of the events could not have taken place. They both took place, but one Scripture referred to both.

The above example is not the only one, but has been chosen because there is little room for argument about the fact that it shows that one scripture can describe two different things. But the point is this— Matthew’s quotation of this passage did not in any way do away with the reality of the Exodus. By the same token, the quotation of an OT Scripture in the NT, in a context different from that given in the OT, does not nullify its OT meaning. One OT passage can refer to two different things, and the fact that one of these is given in the NT does not mean that the other is untrue.

Thus, for example, in Rom. 4.17, when Paul quotes God’s words to Abraham, “I have made thee a father of many nations”, it is clear from v.16 that he is saying that the OT quote is fulfilled in the spiritual children of Abraham. However that does not in any way nullify the literal fact that Abraham was the physical progenitor of many nations, which we know to be true. The fact that God’s word to Abraham can be taken in two ways does not make one or the other untrue. Both are true.

And so it is for many OT prophecies yet to be fulfilled. Their use in NT quotations, which appear to indicate their fulfilment already, does not in any way mitigate against their future fulfilment. A Scripture can be fulfilled in more than one way.

Malachi 4. 5,6 gives us a good example of two fulfilments for the same passage. These verses promise that Elijah will come before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. This prophecy relates to John the Baptist, as our Lord’s words in Matt. 17.12,13 show. However, it is equally clear from the same passage that this Malachi prophecy also awaits future fulfilment, as the Lord says in v. 11, “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” That this cannot refer to John the Baptist is seen in the fact that the tense used is future (and John was already dead when the Lord spoke these words), and also by the fact that the Lord says Elijah will “restore all things” (John certainly did not do that). John’s being the final fulfilment of Malachi 4.5,6 depended on the nation accepting his message (Matt 11.14), but their rejection of it, and thus of the Messiah means that the prophecy will have a future fulfilment. The fact that John fulfilled, in a measure, this prophecy does not mean it will not be fulfilled again in a day to come.

(b) The issue of partial fulfilment.

A prophecy may have a partial fulfilment in the NT but may still await its full and final fulfilment. An example is from Luke 1.32, where the angel tells Mary that her Son “shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest”. This was fulfilled in large measure at His first coming. But, from the evidence of other prophecies, it awaits a fuller and final fulfilment. His greatness is yet to be fully manifest to all. His Sonship is yet to be acknowledged by all. The words of the angel have been partially fulfilled and will be fully fulfilled in a day to come.

Thus, it must always be kept in mind, when a prophecy is quoted in the NT, it may have been fulfilled only to an extent. The full fulfilment may be yet to come. The quotation in connection with its partial fulfilment does not remove the fact of its complete fulfilment in a day to come.

(c) The time gap between the fulfilment of different parts of the same prophecy.

Often a prophecy is given which on the face of it will all be fulfilled together, but then in the NT we see that only parts of it have been fulfilled and the other bits are still to be fulfilled. We will take one example each from the OT and the NT:

OT: Isa. 9.6-8. In this passage, no distinction is made between prophecies referring to the Lord’s first coming (such as “For unto us a child is born”) and His second coming (such as “upon the throne of David”). Some of these prophecies were fulfilled in the NT and others still await fulfilment. But the fact that only some were fulfilled does not mean that the rest cannot be literally fulfilled.

NT: Luke 1.31-33. Again no indication is given that there is a time gap between the fulfilment of statements such as “thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son” and “the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David”. The fact that the latter has not yet been fulfilled literally does not mean that it will not be. We must allow for the time gap.

The Lord Jesus illustrated this Himself as no other could. In Luke 4.16-21 he read the prophecy from Isa. 61.1,2 and told that He is the fulfilment of it. But He read only the words from Isaiah which refer to His first coming, and left out the phrase “the day of vengeance of our God”, which refers to His second coming. Thus our Lord Himself makes clear to us that there may be a time interval between fulfilment of parts of a passage and other parts of the same passage.

Thus, when an OT passage is quoted in the NT, we must not assume that it has all been fulfilled. Take, for example, Peter’s quotation of Joel 2.28-32 in Acts 2.16-21. The events in Acts have fulfilled the predictions quoted in v.17 and 18, but the events quoted in v. 19,20 have still to take place. The fact that the whole passage is quoted in Acts 2 does not mean that it has all been fulfilled in Acts 2.

When parts of a prophecy have been fulfilled, the Pre-Millennialist takes the “wait and see” view. He trusts that God will fulfil all that has been promised. But the Amillennialist is not prepared to wait. He demands that it must all have been fulfilled already, and so anything for which he does not yet see the literal fulfilment he spiritualises away.

(d) The quotation of an OT passage in the NT is not necessarily a fulfilment at all.

We cannot assume that a quotation means fulfilment. Examples:-
i) Acts 15.14-17, quoting Amos 9.11,12. Many assume that this means that Acts 15 is fulfilling Amos 9. But it is never said to be fulfilling it. What is said is that what is happening in Acts is in agreement with what is said in Amos. James is not saying that the one is fulfilling the other, but that they agree together; they are in perfect harmony with each other. Much of the NT is not fulfilment of OT Scriptures, but it is not in disagreement with them.

ii) Hebrews 8.8-12 and 10.15-17 refer to the New Covenant, quoting Jer. 31.31-34. Because the provisions of the New Covenant are quoted to believers in this age, many take it that the New Covenant is with the church, and so that there is no future for Israel as far as the New Covenant is concerned. However, nowhere in Hebrews does God say that this New Covenant is completely fulfilled by the church. In fact, He re-iterates (Heb. 8.8) that it is with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”. He quotes it to us as the Spirit’s “witness” (Heb. 10.15). Witness and fulfilment are not the same thing. The main benefit of the New Covenant to Israel will be that their sins will be remembered no more (Jer. 31.34).

We bless God that this same benefit is true for the people of God today, and thus we can say that it is true that we do come into some of the blessings of the New Covenant. But that is not to say that we are the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31. The fact that present-day believers are said to come into of some of the blessings promised to the nation of Israel does not mean that we have replaced Israel in the purpose of God. That some of its blessings have been made good to us does not in any way mean that it will not be made good to Israel in a day to come. Here we have a case of amplification of an OT promise, to include us. The fact that it is amplified to include us does not in any way nullify its future fulfilment for Israel.

iii) Romans 9.26, quoting Hosea 1.10,11 and 2.23. The whole context of Hosea chapters 1 and 2 show that these verses in Hosea refer to Israel being set aside and subsequently restored. However, in Rom. 9 Paul is using this verse to refer to Gentiles being brought into blessing. Amillennialists seize on this as a proof that the church fulfils Hosea’s promise to Israel. But Rom. 9.26 says nothing of the sort. Paul is simply quoting Hosea out of its original context, and is not suggesting for a moment that Gentile blessing is the fulfilment of Hosea’s words. He is simply borrowing the quote and applying it in a different context. He is not denying or changing the original meaning of Hosea’s words. They will be fulfilled. We must always remember that the Holy Spirit is free to quote a Scripture in a different context from its original OT reference. That does not in turn free us to dispose of the OT context altogether.

Example (i) above is a case of agreement between OT and NT.
Example (ii) is a case of amplification of the OT context.
Example (iii) is a case of application of an OT passage in the NT.

But none of them is fulfilment. Thus, we see that NT quotation does not mean the same as fulfilment, and does not preclude future fulfilment for the passages quoted.

(e) The equation of things that are mentioned in the same passage but which are not equated in the passage.

For example, the Amillennialist will use Acts 2.25-36, in which we read of the Lord sitting on David’s throne (v. 30) and we also read of His present exaltation in Heaven (v. 33), and put these two things together and say it proves that His present exaltation is Him sitting on David’s throne. But Peter simply does not say that they are one and the same thing. The two statements are a couple of verses apart and are connected only to the extent that His resurrection is the reason why He is exalted in Heaven and also the reason why He will be able to sit on David’s throne. They are two separate things. The fact that they are mentioned in the same passage does not make them the same thing.

(f) When believers in the NT are said to fulfil parts of an OT prophecy, that does not mean they fulfil all of it.
There is no doubt that believers in this age do fulfil some OT prophecies, but we must not take that to mean that they fulfil all of them.

We get a good example of this in the use of the term “seed of Abraham” in Gal. 3 and Rom. 4 to refer to present-day believers. Amillennialists seize on this and take it to mean that all the blessings promised to Abraham’s seed in the OT are ours, spiritually. But if we look carefully at these 2 passages we will see which of the promises to Abraham are said to be ours:

Gal. 3.8: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” Thus, we see that in us is fulfilled the promise that in Abraham all nations would be blessed.

Rom. 4.13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world”. This phrase is not found in God’s words to Abraham in Genesis, but it clearly must refer to some promise that was made to him regarding the whole world. The only blessing promised to Abraham which was of a universal nature was that above, i.e. that in his seed would all nations of the earth be blessed. This therefore must be what is meant by his being “heir of the world”.

Thus, in both these passages it is made clear that the promise, in Abraham would all nations of the earth be blessed, is fulfilled in salvation through Christ for all nations. But nowhere in these two passages or elsewhere are present-day believers said to fulfil any of the promises relative to the nation and the land. These await literal fulfilment to literal Israel. The blessings for us spoken of in Gal. 3 and Rom. 4 were promised to Abraham. They do not go beyond God’s original promise, and no spiritualisation is necessary in order to bring them in. But we do not fulfil all God’s promises to Abraham. The promises to his physical seed will not be fulfilled in us.

Thus, when we take all the above points into consideration, we are not left with a single NT passage which nullifies or invalidates the original meaning and interpretation of an OT prophecy. In the NT we may get repetition, application, partial fulfilment, agreement, amplification, or broadening of the context of the original prophecy, but never does it entitle us to do away with the full sense and fulfilment of the original passage.

Argument 3: Alleged difficulties in the Pre-Millennial position.

One of the major ways the Amillennialist will try to discredit the Pre-Millennial position is by putting up difficulties. Before looking at some of the difficulties he brings up, however, two points are pertinent:

Firstly, the existence of difficulties does not make the thing wrong. It is admitted that there are many things about which we are not 100% sure, such as what exactly is being described in Revelation 21 and 22 (the Millennial city, or the eternal state, or both). But whichever is right, it does not in any way weaken the Premillennial argument. If we were working on the basis of difficulties, we would see that the Amillennialist himself has very many difficulties to try to explain. The existence of difficulties does not nullify the truth.

Secondly, many of the so-called difficulties are due to the Amillennialist doubting the power of God. Things that seem impossible to our finite minds are possible with God.
Some examples of difficulties which the Amillennialist mentions are:

1. The reinstatement of a priestly order. It is argued that this is impossible, as the records of the different tribes have been destroyed.

It is true that the records have been destroyed, and that perhaps no Jew alive today knows his tribe. But does God not still know it? And will God not be able to tell everyone which tribe they are from? And will anyone dare to disagree with Him? This is no difficulty when we are dealing with an infinite God.

2. The ritual of animal sacrifices. They argue that this would contradict the teaching of the Book of Hebrews, which says that animal sacrifices have given place to the final sacrifice of Christ. But it must be remembered that the Book of Hebrews is dealing with Christians of this church dispensation, and the point being made is that animal sacrifices could never take away sin, and are totally inappropriate in this age. But in a future day, when Israel is restored, in the land, with priests, and a temple, then sacrifices will be in order; not to take away sin, any more than the OT ones did. The OT sacrifices were effective only because they pointed forwards to Christ, and the Millennial sacrifices will point back to Christ. God will not allow Israel to forget the sacrifice of Christ and the system of sacrifices will continually be a memorial to them of what the death of God’s Son has done for them. Thus, as a commemoration, they will not be inappropriate at all.

3. They claim that a temple of the dimensions of that given in Ezekiel could not fit in the present temple site.

This is true, but they forget that Zechariah (14.4) tells us that at the Lord’s return to earth there will be massive geographical changes in the Jerusalem area, which will make room for the larger temple.

One is reminded of the words of the Lord Jesus: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt. 22.29). In the light of Scriptures and God’s power, these and other “difficulties” will vanish.

Argument 4: Objection to the view of the church as a parenthesis.

The Amillennialist claims that the OT makes no room for the setting aside of Israel, the introduction of the church, and then taking up Israel again. He claims that to believe this is to introduce an unwarranted break in the continuity of God’s dealings with His people.
It is interesting that this objection by the Amillennialist is tantamount to an admission that the church is not in the OT! As we have already tried to show, the church is not the subject of OT prophecy; it is a “mystery” not revealed until the NT. Revelation was progressive: God did not reveal everything at once, but different things in stages. The fact that the church was not revealed in the OT is not an argument against its existence in the NT.

But although it is true that the church is not in the OT, the Amillennialist is not right when he states that the OT makes no provision for it. Many times in the OT God speaks of the setting aside of Israel and their subsequent restoration at a later date. There are so many references to this that it would be difficult to know where to start with examples, but Hosea 1.10,11 is one of many. This setting aside and subsequent restoration leaves room for the church period.

Allowance is made time-wise for the church period in passages such as Daniel 9.24-27, which give the “Seventy weeks” prophecy. That 69 literal weeks of years passed up to the Lord’s death has been well-established (“The Coming Prince” by Sir Robert Anderson), leaving one week (7 years) to be fulfilled. That more than 7 years have passed since the Lord’s death is obvious, thus there must be a gap before the 70th week is fulfilled. Therefore, provision is made for the church age.

We see similar allowance in the NT, in the Lord’s reading of Isa. 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4.16-21). The gap between His first and second comings leaves room for the church age.

In Acts this is made clear too, e.g. Acts 15.14-17, which speaks of this time when God is taking out of the Gentiles “a people for his name”, and then Israel’s subsequent restoration.

As we have already seen in the epistles also, notably in Romans 11, the setting aside of Israel, a time of Gentile blessing, and future restoration for Israel.
Thus, the claim that there is no provision in Scripture for the church period is unfounded.

Argument 5: The claim that the only Scripture for the Millennium is Revelation 20.1-7.

The Amillennialist claims that the only time we read of the Millennium is in Revelation 20, and that without it there would be no case for the doctrine of the Millennium.
It is true that Revelation 20 is the only place where we are told the duration of the Millennium, but it is stated no fewer than 6 times that it is “one thousand years”. However, if it is the Word of God, one reference is all that we need. To say that something only occurs once in Scripture is an argument against it is to imply that something needs to be said several times before we are expected to believe it. If God says it once, that is enough.

The claim that Revelation 20 is the only Scripture for the Millennium is untrue. In these articles we have had many Scriptural references and this is the first time reference has been made to Revelation 20.

There is much Scripture for the Millennium, from Genesis to Revelation. Revelation 20 gives us the duration.

Argument 6: Argument based on 2 Peter 3.8

The Amillennialist says that since Peter tells us that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”, then when the Lord tells us in Revelation 20 of a thousand-year period, we have no reason to take it literally.

But to argue this is to do violence to Peter’s words. Peter is talking about scoffers who are denying that the Lord will come again, because, in their view, He is taking such a long time (v4). In response Peter reminds his readers that God is outside time, and what can seem a very long time to man is not so with God. The scoffers have no concept of how God sees world history and the passage of time.

However, to say that God is outside time, is not the same as saying that when God specifies a time to us, that He does not mean what He says. He does mean what He says, and when He gives us information, He gives it accurately. Peter is not implying for one moment that we can make specified time intervals in Scripture to mean whatever we want them to mean. On the contrary, in this passage He is emphasising the accuracy of Scripture. Amillennialists try to make it mean that he is teaching that Scripture is inaccurate. This is not so.

The Amillennialist’s arguments are clever and at first sight plausible but are unsound. May God give us help to know His Word, so that we will not be swayed by such erroneous teaching.

(Source: Amillennialism Examined – by David McAllister (Zambia))

A DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE GOSPELS IN SMALL CHUNKS (9)

February 12, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

0 Dispensationalism

CHAPTER II (CONTINUE)
THE INAUGURAL PERIOD (CONTINUE)

4. The First Disciples

(Reference: John 1:35-51)

A. John Loses Two Disciples. The next day after the baptism of Jesus, John was standing with two of his disciples and saw Jesus walk by, and John said to them, “Behold the Lamb of God.” Immediately the two disciples left John and followed after Jesus. John had a very large following at first, but gradually his followers began to follow Jesus. A little later some of the people came to John with apparent concern that John was losing his followers: “And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him” (John 3:26). John’s reply was: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” This is a lesson for every servant of Christ. Preachers usually attract certain people. They like the preacher’s appearance, his manner of speech, his intelligence, his ability to expound the Scripture. They become his followers. There is always the danger that the preacher will forget John’s example here, that it is his business to decrease and cause Christ to increase. We are not to make disciples unto ourselves but unto Christ.

B. First Recorded Words of Jesus’ Public Ministry. When Jesus saw these two disciples of John, He turned and asked them, “What seek ye?” His next recorded words were, “Come and see.” We are doubtless familiar with His last words, spoken from the Cross, and the last words He spoke before His ascension, but what is perhaps just as important for us, is His word spoken to us from heaven through the Apostle Paul. We should be familiar with all the words He spoke, but especially with those He directed to us as members of His body.

C. The Names of the First Disciples. One of the first two to follow Jesus was Andrew, brother of Simon Peter. The name of the other disciple is not given, but it was apparently John, the writer of this Gospel. They came with Jesus to the place he was staying and it was about four in the afternoon (the tenth hour). (The first hour was sunrise, or six A.M. Ten hours later would be four P.M.) The very first thing Andrew did was to find his brother and tell him, “We have found the Messiah”(Hebrew word for “the Anointed One,” same as the Greek word “Christ”). And he brought him to Jesus. The lesson for us is obvious. Jesus not. only knew Simon’s name, He knew his nature and renamed him Cephas, or Peter, meaning “a stone.” (Cephas is Aramaic and Peter is Greek for “rock.”)

The next day Jesus started on His way and found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Here we learn that Philip, Andrew, Peter, and Nathaniel were all from Bethsaida, a town located at the northeastern end of the Sea of Galilee, just a short distance east of Capernaum, and between 80 and 90 miles north of Jerusalem. Philip finds Nathaniel and excitedly tells him, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” We have spoken earlier about the reputation of Nazareth, so it is no wonder that Nathaniel replies: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip didn’t argue with him, he just replied, “Come and see for yourself.”

The more we can get people into personal touch with the Lord Jesus, the more likely we are to win them; surely more likely than arguing with them. As Nathaniel approached Jesus, Jesus said: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” This amazed Nathaniel and he asked, “How did you know me?” Then Jesus told him, “Before Philip called you, I saw you standing under the fig tree.” Apparently the fig tree was too far away for Jesus to have seen him with His physical sight, for this so impressed Nathaniel as Divine power that he cried out: “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel.” There are many such ascriptions to the Deity of Jesus Christ in the Gospels and in none of them does Jesus deny the fact. Either Jesus was or He was not the Son of God. There is no middle ground. If He was not then He was indeed a blasphemer, a mere man making Himself equal with God.

D. Greater Things to Come. Jesus asked Nathaniel, “Did you believe on me because I said I saw you under the fig tree? You are going to see something greater than that. Verily, verily, I tell you all, hereafter you shall see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” These words remind us of Jacob’s dream, back in Gen. 28:12: “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.” In Jacob’s dream the angels were ascending and descending upon a ladder. In Christ’s words the angels are going to ascend and descend upon Himself. Christ is, therefore, the Ladder between earth and heaven. He is the way and the only way that man can reach heaven. The reference to the angels probably points to the future Kingdom when there will be visible communication between heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1-3).

This brief section has told us how disciples are made and how Christ is able to reveal Himself to others when we simply bring them to Him and let them taste for themselves.

5. The First Sign – Water Turned to Wine

(Reference: John 2:1-12)

A. Signs in John’s Gospel. The Bible uses a number of words to describe what we usually mean by the miraculous. There is the word “dunamis,” translated wonderful works, mighty works, miracles, the meaning of which is a display of great power .Then there is the word “teras,’ translated wonders, something strange which causes the beholder to marvel. Another word is “thambos,” translated wonder and amazement, describing the effect of a miracle upon the beholder. Finally, there is the word “semeion,” meaning a sign, mark or token. It is used 17 times in John to describe the mighty works of Jesus, being translated miracle 13 times and sign 4 times. A sign signifies or points out something, even as a sign on a place of business indicates what kind of establishment it is.

There are eight great signs in John’s Gospel. They point out, first of all, the power and glory and Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, as we shall see, they also point out certain truths concerning the nation of Israel. And further, there seems to be a correspondence between the first and the eighth, between the second and the seventh, between the third and the sixth, and between the fourth and the fifth.

It might be well at this point to remember that the Jews require a sign (1Cor.1:22). From the very beginning of the national life of Israel God has dealt with that nation through signs. Nineteen times in the Pentateuch alone God speaks of the signs He wrought when He delivered Israel out of Egypt. Signs are mentioned 75 times in the O.T. Isaiah and Ezekiel are full of signs. The Kingdom Gospel which Jesus gave to the Twelve Apostles to preach had signs which accompanied it (Mk.16:17,18).

B. This is Jesus’ First Miracle. This fact is stated in vs. 11: “this beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.” We mention this fact merely to silence all of the myths which sprang up about miracles which Jesus did even as a baby.

C. The Narrative. There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there. This indicates that she was probably one of the relatives, for she is not said to have been invited, as Jesus and His disciples were. It should be observed that Jesus often entered into social times with the people. The Pharisees murmured at Him because He received sinners and ate with them (Lk. 15:2). In Lk. 7:33,34 the Lord said: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.”

D. The Miracle. Mary discovered they had used up all the wine and so she came to Jesus and told Him, “They have no wine.” Catholics use this passage to bolster the doctrine that Mary is the Intercessor so that whatever we ask of Mary, she will intercede with Jesus to do, However, notice Jesus’ reply: “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” This was a reprimand. He did not even call her Mother, but Woman. Up until now He had recognized His relation to His mother and family in the flesh, but now that He has begun His public ministry He is no longer merely Mary’s Son, but Mary’s Lord. He is now taking orders, not from His mother but from His Father in heaven. Mary apparently recognized her mistake and bowed out of the picture, saying to the servants: “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.”

There were six stone water pots there, containing twenty or thirty gallons, which were used in purification ceremonies. Jesus told the servants to fill them with water and then draw some out and take to the master of ceremonies. This they did and when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine and not being aware from where it came, although the servants knew, he said to the bridegroom, “Every one puts out the good wine at the beginning of the feast and later on that which is worse, but you have kept the good wine until the last.”

After the wedding feast Jesus, accompanied by His mother, brethren and His first five disciples went down to Capernaum, about 16 miles to the northeast, and remained there a few days.

E. The Sign. It is obvious that this miracle was a sign of the Deity of Christ, for He created wine out of plain water. Christ as the Word was introduced by John in chapter one as the One by whom all things were made that were made, and that without Him not anything was made that was made. Paul in Col. 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created that are in heaven and earth.” And John tells us in connection with this first sign, “Jesus manifested forth his glory and his disciples believed on him.”

We believe that this miracle could also be pointing to the day when Christ’s glory will be manifested, not in a little village in Galilee, but in the whole universe, when He comes again as King of kings and Lord of lords. Isa: 62:4, 5 predicts a great wedding in the future when Israel is married unto Jehovah, and Rev. 19:7-9 speaks about the future Marriage of the Lamb. Both of these prophecies point to Millennial times, when Israel is restored, and the glory of Christ is manifested throughout the whole earth.

F. The Counterpart Sign. We believe it will be helpful to include at this point the eighth sign which corresponds to the first. The sign is recorded in John 21:1-14. This incident took place after the resurrection of Christ at the Sea of Tiberias, which is another name for the Sea of Galilee. Seven of the disciples were together, probably not knowing what to do with themselves after the events of the past few days, when Peter said, “I’m going fishing,” which was his old trade. The others said, “We will go with you.” They fished all night but caught nothing. When morning came Jesus stood on the shore but they didn’t recognize Him. Then Jesus asked them, “Do you have any fish?” They answered, “No.” Then He shouted, “Cast the net on the right side of the ship and you will find.” Upon casting their net, it was filled with fish, so many they could not draw it in.

The disciple whom Jesus loved, that is John, said, “It is the Lord.” When Peter heard that he put on the fisher’s coat and jumped into the water and swam ashore. The others came in a dinghy dragging the net behind them. On shore they found a fire of coals with fish cooking and bread. Jesus told them to bring the fish they had caught, and they counted 153 great fish but the net was still intact. Then Jesus said, “Come and dine,” and He gave them to eat. This was the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection.

Notice now the correspondence between the marriage at Galilee and the miraculous catch of fish. At one they had no wine, at the other they had no fish. The first happened on the third day; the other was the third time Jesus has manifested Himself to His disciples. In both cases it is stated that Jesus manifested Himself (2:11 cf. 21:14). In both cases there are numbered objects: 6 water pots and 153 fish. In both cases Jesus commanded something to be done: “fill the water pots with water,” “cast the net on the right side of the boat.” In both cases the same verb is used: “enegko,” translated “bare” in 2:8 and “bring” in 21:10.

Both of these signs depict the ability of Christ to supply sustenance far in excess of their needs: about 150 gallons of wine and 153 great fish. These signs show the riches of God’s grace. One is reminded of Paul’s statement: “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Eph. 3:20,21). The blessing in these signs, will come upon Israel in the Kingdom age. The spiritual blessings of Paul’s epistles are for us today.

(Main Source: Understanding The Gospels – A Different Approach – Charles F. Baker)

A DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE GOSPELS IN SMALL CHUNKS (8)

February 9, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

0 Dispensationalism

CHAPTER II (CONTINUE)

THE INAUGURAL PERIOD (CONTINUE)

2. The Temptation of Jesus

(References: Matt. 4:1-11; Mk. 1:12,13; Lk. 4:1-13)

A. The Temptation Spirit Directed. All three Evangelists emphasize this fact. Matthew states He was led of the Spirit; Mark that the Spirit driveth Him forth; and Luke, He, full of the Holy Spirit, was led by the Spirit. This may at first seem very strange that the Holy Spirit, who is one of the Persons of the Godhead, should fill and lead the Son, another Person of the Godhead. However, we must not lose sight of the humanity of Christ in considering this problem. Christ as a man, grew in wisdom and knowledge; as a man He hungered and thirsted. And it was as a Man He was filled with the Spirit and was led by the Spirit.

B. Circumstances Surrounding the Temptation. He was led into the wilderness of Judea. His baptism had taken place at the Jordan River somewhere between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. John 1:28 states that these things were done at Bethabara, east of the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The location of Bethabara is uncertain. Some place it near the Dead Sea and others a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee. The region around the Dead Sea is a wilderness indeed, as anyone can testify who has visited the region. Mark adds the detail that He was with the wild beasts and the angels ministered unto Him. The first Adam was tempted in a beautiful garden filled with food: Jesus in a barren wilderness without food.

C. The Length of the Temptation. We know He was in the wilderness for forty days and that He ate nothing during that time. It is not clear whether Satan came with his temptations during the forty days, or at the end of the period. It would appear that the temptation came at the end of the forty days when Jesus hungered. Humanly speaking, a fast of more than forty days would probably prove fatal. When Mark tells us that angels came and ministered to Him, this was probably after Satan’s temptation, since Mark does not give any details of the temptations.

D. The Order of the Temptations. Matthew gives the following order of the temptations: 1. Command the stones to become bread. 2. Jump from the pinnacle of the Temple. 3. Worship Satan and receive all the kingdoms of the earth. Luke, on the other hand, gives this order: 1. Command the stones to become bread. 2. Worship Satan and receive all the kingdoms of the earth. 3. Jump from the pinnacle of the Temple. This difference in order might not even be noticed by the average reader, but for some it presents a real problem. Some would say that either Matthew or Luke was mistaken and therefore there is an error in the Bible. Others believe there was a divine design in changing the order. Williams, for example, states:

The order of the temptations here (in Matthew} is historical; in Luke it is dispensational. There is therefore an inner harmony, for Matthew presents Him as the Messiah coming to His temple, and then as the Son of man reigning over the earth. But the Spirit in Luke places His relation to the earth in the foreground, and His connection with Israel in the background.

We may not be able to explain to the satisfaction of all the difference in the order, but we believe if all of the surrounding facts were known there would be no contradiction or mistake. If Matthew or Luke could be in error here, every writer of the Bible could be in error any place and we could have no assurance that anything in the Bible is true.

E. The Nature of the Temptation. The question arises, was the purpose of the temptation to see if Jesus would sin, or to prove that He could not sin? To say yes to the first proposition is to say that Jesus was capable of sinning. Those who hold this view claim that the temptation would have been a farce if Jesus was incapable of sinning. We have spoken before of the many mysteries surrounding the nature of the God-man, or more correctly of the two natures of the one Person. Jesus Christ is not two persons. He was a person before His incarnation and He was one and the same person after His incarnation. To say that it was possible for Jesus to sin is to say it was possible for the Son of God to sin. But it is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18). Therefore we conclude that the purpose of the temptation was to prove that Jesus Christ was sinless and therefore able to become the Savior of sinners.

When a manufacturer puts his product to a public test, he does not do so to see if it will break down, but to prove that it will not. As noted earlier, the first man was tested in innocency. His test was in a beautiful garden where God had provided for his every need. There was just one restriction. Surely no more ideal a situation could be conceived to make it easy for man to pass the test. But Jesus was placed in a desert wilderness where there was no food, surrounded by wild beasts. After forty days His body was weakened, His body craved food. He had the power to create food to satisfy His appetite. Under other circumstances there would have been nothing wrong in turning the stones into bread, even as on two occasions He multiplied the loaves and fishes. But in this circumstance He would have violated God’s will in yielding to Satan’s temptation to satisfy His own appetite. If Jesus could pass the test under such adverse conditions, surely He proved His absolute holiness.

If Jesus could not sin, can we really call this a temptation? The word peirazo, according to Thayer’s Lexicon means: “to try whether a thing can be done, to try, make trial of, ‘test, to test one maliciously, to try or test one’s faith.” If students are given a test and one student knows perfectly all of the answers, it is still a test. Jesus was tested in all points like as we are, yet apart from sin (Heb. 4:15).

The practical result of His temptation, aside from proving Him fit for the office of Savior, was to fit Him to become a faithful and merciful High priest who could be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Since He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted (Heb. 2:18).

The Scripture is the best shield from temptation. On all three occasions Christ responded, “It is written.” Someone has said of the Bible: “This book will keep you from sin, and sin will keep you from this book.”

Note that the first temptation was quite subtle: you are hungry. You may even die. You have the power, why don’t you turn the stones into bread and save yourself?. But Christ had come to minister to others, not to minister to Himself. He never used His divine power for selfish purposes. He could have called for twelve legions of angels when He hung on the cross, but He didn’t. To cast Himself off the pinnacle of the temple and then call upon the angels to catch Him was not quite so subtle. It would have involved a public display and would have brought the angels in subjection to Satan’s will.

The third temptation abandoned all disguise and called for Jesus to fall down and worship Satan. Satan claimed to own all the kingdoms of the world, and Christ did not dispute this fact. Would it not be much easier to become King over all these nations simply by giving allegiance to Satan, rather than follow the Father’s will which involved the suffering of the Cross? How many a man has succumbed to Satan’s temptation for worldly power and fame and has ended up in his trap. Thank God, the Lord Jesus proved Himself true to the Father’s will and went all the way to the Cross and will someday return to take His rightful place as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Many Christians either do not know or do not believe that Jesus Christ will actually come back to earth to reign as King over the nations of the earth, but Satan knew it. There would have been no basis for a temptation had it not been in the purpose of God for Christ to so reign.

3. John’s Testimony of Jesus

(References: Matt. 3:11,12; Mk. 1:7,8; Lk. 3: 16,17; John 1:15-34)

A. John’s Witness to Christ’s Pre-existence. “John bare witness of him, and cried saying, This was he of whom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me” (John 1: 15). John was born six months before Jesus was, but Jesus was before John. John must have known of the Incarnation and that Jesus did not come into being at His birth but existed as a person before His birth.

B. John’s Witness to Christ’s Pre-eminence. “He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” (Matt. 3:11). John was the greatest of the prophets, but Jesus was far more worthy. John lowers himself as far as possible by saying that, lower than the most menial servant in comparison, he was not even worthy to carry Jesus’ shoes or to fasten them on His feet.

C. The Apostle John’s Witness. The Apostle John often interrupts the words of Jesus by his own comments, and it is sometimes difficult to know whether it is John’s words or the words in this case of John the Baptist. We believe John the Apostle is speaking in John 1:16-18. John wrote these words some 25 years after Paul’s death. He tells us that we have received of His fulness, and grace for grace, or grace upon grace (cf. the manifold grace of God, 1 Pet. 4:10). The law was given by Moses and Christ lived under the law, but He brought the law to an end in His death, so now we read, “But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” These words must have been said after Jesus’ death.

D. John the Baptist’s Witness About Himself. The Jews sent priests and Levites to John to ask: “‘Who art thou?” He answered: “I am not the Messiah.” They asked him further, “Art thou Elias? Art thou that prophet?” and he answered, “No, I am not.” Again they asked, “Who art thou, that we may give answer to those who sent us?” He then answered: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias” (cf. Isa. 40:3).

It may seem strange that John would deny being Elijah, since Christ said that he would have been Elijah had Israel received Him. God had promised in Mal. 4:5, “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.” John did come in the spirit of Elijah as we have seen. The Jews apparently were looking for Elijah to come back down from heaven, even as he had been taken up into heaven in a whirlwind many years before from almost the same area of the wilderness (2 Kings 2:1-11).

We read that John was in the desert until the day of his showing unto Israel (Lk.1:80). He was thus isolated from society and was a stranger to the religious leaders. When these leaders began to hear reports about John and how his ministry was similar to that of Elijah, they sent messengers to find out who he was. His sudden appearance made it seem that he had come down from heaven. Could this be the very same Elijah who had been taken to heaven without dying? If this was their question, we can understand why John answered, “No, I am not.”

E. John’s Recognition of Jesus as the Lamb of God. The next day after the Jews had questioned him John saw Jesus coming unto him and said, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not, but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:29-31). Twice in this context John says that he did not know Jesus before this incident took place. This could surely not mean that he had never met Jesus, for he was a close relative and no doubt he had learned as a child the strange events which surrounded both his birth and that of Jesus.

Since John had lived all his adult life in the desert it is possible that he did not recognize Jesus when he first saw Him. Or as some think, he did not know that Jesus was the Messiah until after His baptism when he saw the Spirit of God descending upon Him. It is evident that John must have had communion with God and that God had spoken directly to him, for in vs. 33 he says: “he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” Thus John could have been acquainted with Jesus but he did not know Him as the Messiah until God revealed it to him.

The name Jesus means Savior, and the fact that He would save His people from their sins had been made known even before His birth. Just how Jesus would save His people from their sins had not been dearly revealed, but John here introduces Him as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Although not clearly stated, the Lamb suggests sacrifice., It is not until we come into the Pauline epistles that we find the full exposition of the meaning of the sacrificial death. We no doubt have an intimation of it here, however.

In this passage John also gives us another reason for his practice of water baptism. It was not only a baptism of repentence for the remission of sins, but it was for the purpose of introducing Jesus to Israel as their Messiah. In practicing water baptism Christians should ask whether or not they are carrying out this two-fold purpose: receiving remission of sins and introducing Jesus to Israel as Messiah.

John concludes his witness to Jesus in this section: “And I saw, bare record that this is the Son of God.” Thus, John witnesses to fact that Jesus Pre-existed, that He is Preeminent, that He is the Lamb of God, that He is the Son of God. And whether it was the Apostle or the Baptist who said it, Grace and truth, in contrast to the came by this Jesus Christ.

(Main Source: Understanding The Gospels – A Different Approach – Charles F. Baker)

AMILLENNIALISM – A MAN-MADE THEOLOGY (PART 1 OF 3)

February 8, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

AMILLENNIALISM

A-Millennialism believes that there will not be a literal Millennium at all, and the Lord will not return until the end of the world.

“Amillennialism” is a big word, but its meaning is relatively straightforward: The Latin word for a thousand is “Mille” (e.g. a millipede is supposed to have 1000 legs!). The Latin for “years” is “annum”, so millennium is literally “1000 years”. When a word is prefixed by the letter “a” this means, “not” or “against”, i.e. the opposite of what follows it, so “Amillennium” could literally be translated “Not 1000 years”!

THE ADVANCE OF AMILLENNIALISM

Post-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation and Post-Millennium theories have all declined in popularity in recent years. It is getting rather difficult to find people who believe them, or at least who are prepared to propagate them. The very opposite is the case for Amillennial teaching. The number of people holding it is increasing rapidly, and they are increasingly confident and vocal in their propagation of it. There are doubtless many reasons for this, but one is definitely the resurgence in popularity of so-called “Reformed doctrine,” which is totally dismissive of any other position. Consequently, in seminaries, in books, in magazines, in conferences, and wherever possible, the Amillennial position is now propagated either without question, or if any alternative is mentioned, it is mentioned only so that it can be contemptuously dismissed. In evangelical circles today, it takes a strong fish to swim against the strong tide of Amillennialism.

Here are several reasons why believers cannot afford to ignore it:

Amillennialism is not just an argument about future events. The issue at stake is more fundamental, i.e. Is Scripture to be taken literally or not?
It is better to counter it before it does more damage and deceives those who still holds on to biblical eschatology.
It should ever be our desire and prayer that believers in denominations will see the truth of scriptural gathering, leave their man-made systems, and come into fellowship with ourselves.

The believer who tries to reason with an Amillennialist on the grounds of what the Scripture teaches will soon find himself up against a difficulty. The difficulty is that we may be able to quote every verse from Genesis to Revelation which refers to future events, but the Amillennialist will constantly respond with, “It is to be interpreted spiritually, not literally.”

And so, when seeking to combat the error of Amillennialism, we need to know something of how Amillennialism came about, what it is based on, what are its main arguments, and how these can be answered from Scripture.

THE ANALYSIS OF AMILLENNIALISM

When God spoke to Abraham, He made a number of promises to him, promising a blessed future for his seed. These promises were totally unconditional, and thus they will be fulfilled literally to the nation of Israel. These blessings have not been transferred to the church, which is distinct from the nation of Israel, and is a mystery which was not revealed in the Old Testament. After the church has been removed from the earth and the Great Tribulation has taken place, Israel will be restored as a nation to its place as the people of God. Christ will sit on the throne of David, and there will be a period of peace and justice on earth for 1000 years, which we thus call the Millennium, during which the many promises given in the Scriptures will be fulfilled.

And now, by contrast, the Amillennial position:

When God made the promises to Abraham, these promises were conditional upon obedience by Abraham’s descendants. Due to the nation’s disobedience, they forfeited these blessings, so that they will not be fulfilled literally to the nation of Israel, but rather spiritually to the church. The church is not a distinct entity revealed in the New Testament; rather, it did exist in the Old Testament, and consists of all believers, from Old Testament times right up to now. There will be no restoration of the nation of Israel. Christ will not return to sit on the throne of David; such references in the Scriptures are fulfilled by His present session at His Father’s right hand. There will be no 1000-year reign. The promises of peace and justice in the Scriptures are presently being fulfilled spiritually in the blessings of the church.

Clearly both views cannot be simultaneously correct! In analysing the above views, it would be easy to get into deep water quickly and to lose sight of where we are going. So we will set ourselves 5 questions to answer; questions which deal with key differences in the above 2 points of view:

We will seek to answer each question in turn. In the interests of space, Scripture references will be given, but the passages will not be quoted. This is because it is assumed that the articles will be read with an open Bible alongside, and that every reference will be looked up and read carefully. The Scripture references are of immeasurably more value than anything that will be said about them.

QUESTION 1: WERE THE PROMISES GIVEN TO ABRAHAM UNCONDITIONAL OR CONDITIONAL?

If they were conditional, then Israel could forfeit them by disobedience. Doubtless there was much failure in the nation, so if the promises were conditional, then we have no right to believe that Israel has any hope of receiving them. If, on the other hand, the promises were unconditional, then Israel’s failure does not nullify them, and they must be fulfilled to Israel.

The following show that the promises were unconditional:

Once Abraham had obeyed God and left his country and kindred, the covenant with him was stated and repeated several times without any conditions whatsoever (Gen 12 .1-3; 13.14-17; 15.1-7, 18-21; 17.1-18). If it had been conditional, God would have stated the conditions, as He did in the Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19.5; see also Deut. 28.1-15).
Not only was the covenant repeated and amplified to Abraham several times; it was also repeated to Isaac (Gen. 17.19; 26.2-4) and Jacob (Gen. 28.13-15), always without any conditions attached. By the time we have reached Gen. 28 and God states it to Jacob, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have all failed in different ways, yet the covenant is unaffected. It is not nullified by failure on the part of the nation.
The Abrahamic Covenant is explicitly referred to as “everlasting” in Scripture (Gen. 17.7,13,19; 1 Chron. 16.16,17; Ps. 105.9,10). A covenant which can be broken by man is not in any sense, everlasting.
In solemnizing the covenant (Gen. 15.9-17), only the Lord passed through the pieces. Normally both parties to a covenant passed through the pieces. In this case the covenant did not depend on man for its fulfilment, but entirely on God.
Even in the midst of apostasy, God states that He will not cast aside Israel (e.g. Jer, 31.35-37). Failure on the part of the nation does not nullify His promises.
Failure on the part of an individual to be circumcised resulted in that person individually losing out on the blessings of the covenant (Gen. 17.14). This shows that disobedience by an individual affected only his own relationship to the covenant; it did not nullify the covenant.
In the New Testament, after the nation of Israel has committed the worst sin possible: rejecting and crucifying the Messiah, it is specifically stated that the covenants are still theirs (Rom. 9.3,4 and Ephes. 2.12). Even their rejection of Messiah did not nullify God’s covenants with them.
In Rom. 11.1,2, Paul categorically states that “God hath not cast away His people which he foreknew”. We will return to this passage later, so will not add further here.

There are further reasons, but we trust that these are sufficient to show that the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant are unconditional, and will surely be fulfilled. Israel’s disobedience has not nullified the promises of God.

QUESTION 2: WILL THE PROMISES BE FULFILLED LITERALLY (TO ISRAEL) OR SPIRITUALLY ONLY (TO THE CHURCH)?

There are many prophecies in the Old Testament, and also in the New, which have not been literally fulfilled; in particular ones relating to a time of unprecedented tribulation and a time of unprecedented peace on earth the earth. The Amillennialist says that these were never intended to refer to literal events on earth; they have a spiritual fulfilment only. We therefore need to try to determine whether or not we can expect a literal fulfilment for these Scriptures.

The following points are put in favour of a literal fulfilment:

Abraham received many promises which all must agree have been fulfilled literally. He was promised a great nation stemming from him; a great name; a blessing for those who blessed him; cursing for those that cursed him; a blessing for all families of the earth through him; that he would have an heir; that he would be the father of many nations; and that kings would come out of him. These promises have been fulfilled literally. There is not the slightest need to spiritualise any of them. Now when we come to the issue of the promises regarding inheriting the land, which are part of the same covenant, surely we are entitled to expect that these promises will also be literally fulfilled. Consistency of interpretation will not allow for anything other than a literal fulfilment. To suggest otherwise is to accuse God of inconsistency; a very serious charge indeed.
In Genesis 15, Abraham is told by God that it is “this” land which the Lord brought him out of Ur, to inherit (v7). This can only mean the physical land of Canaan. Abraham asks how he will know he is to inherit it (v8), and in response God solemnizes the covenant in a most emphatic way, indicating to him beyond doubt that he will inherit the very land he is standing on. God emphasises again that it is “this” land (vl8). And as if any further proof were needed that it is the literal land of Canaan He is talking about, God precisely delineates its boundaries in vl8—21. In the same passage God predicts the period of suffering in Egypt, referring to it as “a land that is not their’s” (vl3). This clearly refers to a literal land, and it was fulfilled literally. Abraham would have had no doubt whatsoever that God was referring to literal land throughout this passage. To suggest that when God gave such a clear and specific promise and description of the land, He did not have in His mind any intention of ever giving Abraham the land, is not only to rob language of any meaning; a serious enough error in itself, but, more seriously, it is to accuse God of deliberately deceiving Abraham.
Later references in the OT (e.g. Gen. 50.24 and Ex. 32.13), and, very significantly, in the NT as well (e.g. Acts 7.3—8 and Hebrews 11.9), categorically state that the land Abraham and his seed were promised was the literal land of Canaan.

But the Amillennialist sometimes goes even further than this. He says that when God made these promises to Abraham’s “seed”, He was not referring to Abraham’s natural descendants at all; He was referring to believers, whether Jews or not. Thus the nation of Israel has no entitlement to the blessings.

Another look at Gen. 15 will answer this point: In vl3 we have already seen that God says “Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their’s”, and He goes on to describe the affliction in Egypt, and the Exodus (vl3—16). Thus, the term “thy seed” must refer here to the nation of Israel. By no stretch of language or imagination can it mean the church. Abraham would have had no doubt that the term “thy seed” was literal. Moreover, in Gal. 3.8, 15 Paul makes it clear that the promise “In thee shall all nations be blessed” is fulfilled ultimately in Christ. He was literally a descendant of Abraham, so again the word seed is to be taken literally.

(We acknowledge that the term “seed of Abraham” is also used in a spiritual sense in the N.T. We are not avoiding that issue and will come to it later. But for now, we are trying to decide whether the promises in the OT were meant for Abraham’s literal seed or his spiritual seed, and the above reasons would point to the fact that they were given to the former, and hence will have a literal fulfilment for the nation of Israel.)

Moreover, the promises of the covenant are stated as having been given not only to Abraham’s seed, but also to Isaac’s “seed” (Gen. 17.19) and to Jacob’s “seed” (Gen. 28.13). To support their theories, many Amillennialists must construe the OT references to Abraham’s seed to mean his spiritual seed, due to NT references calling all believers the seed of Abraham. No such construction can however be made from the seed of Isaac or seed of Jacob, as NT believers are never referred to as “Isaac’s seed” or “Jacob’s seed”. The only way these terms can possibly be taken is literally.

Other uses of the word “seed” in Genesis include 7.3, 9.9, 38.8, 46.6, 48.11, and 48.19. Examination of the context in each case shows that each must refer to literal descendants. Neither is there any reason to believe that in the Abrahamic Covenant it refers to anything other than literal descendants.

The above discussion has been largely confined to the Abrahamic Covenant, but the argument for literal fulfilment goes much further than that. Frequently in the OT we have references to Christ’s first coming, which were fulfilled literally (e.g. that He would be a descendant of David, that He would be born in Bethlehem, that He would be born of a virgin, descriptions of His earthly ministry, the manner of His death, and the circumstances surrounding it). There is not the slightest doubt but that these prophecies were literally fulfilled. But in the same OT, there are many prophecies regarding His return to earth, judgments, a blessed future for Israel, and a time of peace. Often these are side by side with prophecies of His first coming. For example, we do not doubt the literal fulfilment of Isa. 53 at the Lord’s first coming. Why then doubt the literal fulfilment of Isa. 11 and 12 at His second coming? Consistency demands a literal fulfilment for these as well. It is absurd to suggest that everything that has been fulfilled up to the first coming was meant literally, but everything else spiritually only.
There is not a single scripture that the Amillennialist can produce in order to substantiate his claims that OT promises of the land have been spiritually transferred to the church. Never in Scripture is the promise to Abraham cancelled, never is it stated or implied that the literal boundaries given are only of spiritual significance, and never is it indicated or even hinted that the church inherits these promises. If the Amillenniaiist proposes that the promises have a totally different meaning than the plain sense of their words, the very least we can expect is a clear statement from scripture to back up his claims. This has never been produced, only lots of convoluted arguments, which we will consider later.

Thus, we conclude that the promises given to Israel in the OT must be literally fulfilled, and this can only happen in a future literal reign of Christ on earth. There must be a Millennium.

Question 3: Is the church a distinct entity, seen only in the NT, or did it exist in OT times as well?

If it can be shown that the church is not the subject of OT prophecy, then it follows that it cannot be the fulfiller of the OT promises to Israel.

The following shows that Church is distinct from Israel:

The use of the word “mystery” to describe many of the major truths of the church. Four verses in particular give us the meaning of the word “Mystery”:

Romans 16.25: “the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began”
Colossians 1.26: “The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints”
Ephesians 3.4,5: “The mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit”
Ephesians 3.9: “the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God”

Thus, we clearly see that a mystery is a truth hidden in the OT but revealed in the NT.

Now let us look at some things pertaining to the church which are described as a mystery, and which thus are new revelations in the NT, and not in the OT:

Eph. 3.1-12. This describes the mystery of the one body, which Paul calls a “new man” in 2.15. Nothing could be clearer: the church has not been incorporated into Israel, nor is it a fulfilment of it, rather it is an entirely new and distinct entity. In v 9 it is stated that it was “hid in God” from “the beginning of the world” and in v 10 it is stated that it has been revealed “now”. There could be no clearer statement of the fact that the church is not in the OT.

Col. 1.27. This describes the fact that Christ indwells each believer. “Christ in you” was never the case for individual Israelites, let alone Gentiles. Something never revealed heretofore has been revealed and realised in the church.

Eph. 5.32. This speaks of the relationship between Christ and the church. It is a mystery, never before revealed. The description of God as the husband of Israel was known (Isa. 54.5). The relationship of Christ to the church is distinct.

1 Cor. 15.51,52. This describes the rapture of the church. This was not revealed in the OT.

Thus, so many major truths concerning the church are clearly indicated to have been hidden before and have been revealed in the NT. The church must therefore be seen as distinct from Israel.

The Lord Jesus in Matt. 16.18 says, “I will build my church.” The tense is future, clearly showing that when the Lord Jesus spoke, the church was not yet in existence.
The church’s purchase and purification depend on the shed blood of Christ (Acts 20.28 and Eph. 5.25-27). Therefore, it could not have existed before the death of Christ.
The church is the body of Christ, and this Head and body relationship is consequent upon Christ’s resurrection and glorification (Eph. 1.20-23).
Entrance into the body of Christ was by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12.13), and this did not take place until Pentecost, so this fixes the beginning of the church at Pentecost.
The word “church” is never used of Israel in the NT (or the OT for that matter) in the sense of being the body of Christ. The use of the word “church” in Acts 7.38 and Heb. 2.12 refers to a congregation or assembly of people, and would be better translated as such, as was done elsewhere, e.g. Acts 19.39,41. Acts 7.38 no more proves that the church was in the OT than Acts 19.40,41 proves that the riotous mob at Ephesus was the body of Christ! The Amillennialist’s use of Acts 7.38 to try to prove that the church as the body of Christ was in the OT shows just how short of evidence he is.
In the NT, there are many references which refer to the church and Israel as being distinct, e.g. 1 Cor. 10.32; Rom. 9.4,5; 11.1-27.

Question 4: Will the nation of Israel be restored, or is their setting aside permanent?

If the Amillennialist is right, then there is no future for the nation of Israel in the purpose of God. If he can prove that God has cast them away irrecovably, then he has a very strong case for his Amillennialist position. If on the other hand we can show that there is a future for Israel, then his argument is doomed.

A couple of points before looking at the evidence:

Firstly, many of the points cited above are also evidence for the restoration of Israel as a nation. For example, proving that the promises to Israel were unconditional is proof that Israel will have to be restored. Also, proof that the promises will be fulfilled literally to Israel is proof of their future restoration. Thus, in this section we will look only at evidence not yet considered, but we should bear in mind that the restoration of Israel is essential in view of what we have already seen.

Secondly, we must confine our evidence in this section to the NT. Whatever OT Scriptures could be quoted as evidence (and there are many) the Amillennialist will not admit it, but will claim it has to be spiritualised away. We thus confine ourselves to NT Scriptures.

There is one passage which will be more than sufficient to totally prove that Israel will be restored. The Scripture in question is Rom. 9-11. No-one can deny that the subject of this section is the nation of Israel. At the start of each chapter: 9.3-5; 10.1-3; 11.1,2 we are left in no doubt that physical Israel is being referred to; it cannot by any stretch of imagination be the church. Many verses, particularly in ch.ll, indicate that Israel’s fall is not final (e.g. v.2,11,12,15,23,24). However, of particular concern to us is 11.25-27. Again it must be stressed that these verses must refer to literal Israel, as phrases such as “blindness in part is happened to Israel” (v.25), “turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (v.26), “I shall take away their sins” (v.27), “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies” (v.28) cannot by any means refer to the church.

These few verses show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel’s blindness is partial (v.25), temporary (v.25), will cease when the Deliverer comes out of Sion (v.26), and removes their ungodliness (v.26) and sins (v.27), and saves them as a nation (v.26).

Several times people spoke to the Lord Jesus when He was on earth, mentioning the hope of the coming earthly kingdom, and the Lord never contradicted them. Of particular interest and significance is Acts 1.6,7, because it was after the ultimate rejection by the nation (the crucifixion), and also because it specifically mentions Israel’s restoration. When the disciples ask Him, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”, the Lord’s reply, had the Amillennialist been right, would have been undoubtedly to make it very clear to them that such a thing was never going to happen. On the contrary, however, His reply confirms that it will happen (“the times and the seasons”), but it is not for the disciples to know when it will happen. But undoubtedly the Lord’s words would have left the disciples in no doubt about the fact that it would happen.
Other examples of references by people to the earthly kingdom include:

James and John’s mother in Matt.20.21-23
those who thought the kingdom of God should immediately appear, in Luke 19.11
the dying thief spoke of the Lord coming into His kingdom in Luke 23.42.

In every case, the Lord does not even hint that there is not going to be an earthly kingdom, but is clear that it will not be immediately. But come it will, indeed He Himself makes many references to His literal earthly kingdom (e.g. Luke 22.30, when He speaks of the apostles sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel).

Passages such as Acts 15.14-17 show that in the present age God is taking from the Gentiles “a people for His Name” (v.14), and that “after this” (v.16) Israel will be restored (v.16) and there will be universal blessing (v.17).

Thus, we see that there is going to be restoration for the nation of Israel. This cannot take place under the Amillennialists’ scheme. Either we accept the evidence of the above (and many other) Scriptures or we accept the Amillennialist theory. We cannot do both.

Question 5: Will Christ reign on the throne of David, or does this refer to His present glory in Heaven?

The Amillennialist denies that there will be a restoration of the earthly throne of David and says all such references in Scripture refer to the Lord Jesus’ present session in Heaven. If he can show there will be no restoration of David’s earthly kingdom, his case is strengthened. If, however, we can show that there will be a literal reign on the throne of David, this can only be fulfilled in the Premillennial scheme since Amillennialism has no place for it.

The following points indicate the restoration of the Davidic throne, with Christ sitting on the throne of David:

The covenant with David, promising that his throne would be established forever is given in 2 Sam, 7.12-16. Much of what was said above regarding the Abrahamic Covenant is also true of the Davidic Covenant, and so will be given in summary form: It is unconditional and demands literal fulfilment:-

it is described as “everlasting” (2 Sam. 23.5), “for ever” (2 Sam. 7.13,16)
its promises are often repeated, in the midst of failure (Isa. 9.6,7; Jer. 23.5,6; 33.14-17,20,21; Zech. 14.4,9) – disobedience on the part of Solomon will bring chastening on him but will not nullify the covenant. The words of 2 Sam. 7.13-15 could not make this clearer.
it was confirmed by an oath (Ps. 132.11)
God says He will not break it (Ps. 89.34)
much of 2 Sam. 7.12-16 has already been fulfilled literally (e.g. David was given a son, it was his son who built the temple, his kingdom was established, Solomon was chastened for his iniquity, but God’s mercy did not depart from him, and did not result in a destruction of the Davidic line). Since all these were fulfilled literally, consistency demands literal fulfilment for the promise in vl6.
David expected a literal fulfilment (2 Sam. 7.18-29). To propose that it will not be fulfilled literally is to say that God was deliberately deceiving David, and indeed the nation of Israel.

In the OT Christ is the ultimate fulfiller of the promises to David, and that it will be literally, e.g. the well-known passage in Isa. 9.6,7. The reference to the child born and the son given (v6) must be taken literally. For consistency so must the reference to His “government and peace . . . upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom”. We cannot take verse 6 literally and spiritualise verse 7.
Turning now to the NT, no clearer example could be afforded to us than the words of the angel to Mary in Luke 1.31-33. He tells her that she will conceive in her womb, bring forth a son, and call His name Jesus. These are literal, if ever anything was. Then in the next verse the angel says, “the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of his father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end.” The Amillennialist cannot have it both ways: if he takes the details of the Lord’s birth as literal, then he must take the reign over Israel as literal. If he denies the literalness of the reign, then to be consistent he must deny the literalness of the details of the Lord’s birth.
There are many references to David in the NT, and there are also many references to the Lord’s present position in Heaven. Nowhere is His present session said to be on the throne of David. On the contrary, His present position is at God’s right hand (e.g. Heb. 12.2) or the Father’s throne (e.g. Rev. 3.21). Moreover, to equate David’s throne with the Father’s throne is to say that David’s throne has existed from all eternity: a strange suggestion indeed!
The Lord Jesus Himself refers to His return to earth and sitting on His throne, e.g. in Matt. 25.41, He says “When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit on the throne of His glory’. The linking of the two words “When” and “then” show clearly that the sitting on the throne is not until He comes again. Thus, it is future (so it cannot be His present sitting in Heaven), and it will be on earth (again showing that it is not His present session in Heaven).
Acts 15.14-17 show that the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David is “after” God takes out a people for His name, and it will be at his “return.”

So we see that the promises of Scripture can only be fulfilled by a literal reign of Christ on the throne of David. Amillennialism cannot be true if this is so.

In closing this long section, we must summarise. We have analysed 5 major planks of Amillennialism:

The claim that God’s promises to Abraham and the nation were conditional on obedience, and that thus they were irrevocably forfeited.
The claim that the promises to Abraham and the nation were not meant to be taken literally.
The claim that Israel and the church are not distinct.
The claim that there is no future restoration for the nation of Israel.
The claim that Christ’s session in heaven is the fulfilment of the promises regarding the throne of David.

In order for Amillennialism to stand, it must be able to show that all five statements above are true. If any one of them falls, the whole system falls. We trust that it has been shown that each one of them is false, and thus that Amillennialism must be rejected.

(Source: Amillennialism Examined – by David McAllister (Zambia))

A DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE GOSPELS IN SMALL CHUNKS (7)

February 6, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

0 Dispensationalism

CHAPTER II
THE INAUGURAL PERIOD

RESUME

The Inaugural Period begins with the ministry of John the Baptist in calling the people of Israel to repentance, and includes the Baptism of Jesus by John, the Temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness, John’s Testimony concerning Jesus, the Calling of the first disciples, and the first Miracle of Jesus at Cana in Galilee.

Next to Jesus Christ, and perhaps to Peter, John the Baptist is the most important person in the Gospels. While the name of Jesus appears some 615 times in the Gospels, Peter occurs about 94 times, and John 85 times. But since John was beheaded early in the Gospel records, and Peter is found throughout, John actually has the numerical superiority. Numbers are not necessarily a criterion of importance, but at least Christ spoke very highly of John’s importance: “But what went ye out to see? A prophet? Yea, and I say unto you much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist” (Lk. 7: 26-28).

Jesus left Nazareth and went to Bethabara to be baptized by John. This was His inauguration into His public ministry. Immediately after this He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness where He was tempted by the Devil for forty days, Matthew has Him going immediately to Galilee to Nazareth and Capernaum, as does Mark. Luke has Him going to Galilee and preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth. The gospel of John does not mention either the Baptism of Jesus or the Temptation, but he has Him in Galilee finding some of His first disciples, performing the first of His miracles at the wedding in Cana, and then going for a brief stay in Capernaum with His mother and brothers.

EXPOSITION

1. The Ministry of John the Baptist Including the Baptism of Jesus

(References: Matt. 3:1-17;Mk. 1:1-11; Lk. 3:1-23)

A. The Person of John. We have seen who John was from his birth and parentage. What further does Scripture say about him? The angel told Zacharias he would come in the spirit and power of Elijah. When the disciples came down from the mount of transfiguration, where Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus, the disciples asked why the scribes say that Elijah must first come and restore all things. Jesus replied, “Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, the Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:10-13). Also in Matt. 11:14 Jesus said of John: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come.” Thus, if Israel had received John the Baptist, he would have been the Elijah who was to come. But they did not receive him or Christ, and it appears that there must be one in the future who will fulfill this office to Israel. Many suppose that one of the two witnesses of Rev. 11:3 will be Elijah, although neither of these witnesses is received by Israel, nor do they restore all things.

B. The Baptism of John. John came preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Some suppose, because the word baptism first occurs in our English Bibles in connection with John, that John was the first to practice baptism. However, Heb. 9:10 informs us that Judaism had its standing in meats, and drinks, and divers or various baptisms. The Mosaic ceremonial had many baptism rites which had been practiced for 1500 years before John came on the scene. The people did not ask John what baptism meant, but why he was baptizing if he wasn’t the Messiah. But John was a priest and the priests were the ones empowered to practice baptism.

John’s baptism was for the remission or forgiveness of sins. A great deal of confusion arises when water baptism or even the forgiveness of sins is equated with personal salvation. What most students fail to recognize is that Israel as a nation was in covenant relationship with God, a relationship shared by no other nation in history. The covenant made them near to God, whereas the Gentiles were far off. This fact is clearly stated by Paul in Eph. 2:17. Now that Israel has fallen and has been set aside for the duration of this dispensation, there are no people who can claim a nearness to God by nature. All are far off and can only be brought near through the merits of the blood of Christ. But when John came preaching the baptism of repentance Christ had not yet shed His blood and there was a nation that could claim nearness to God. This covenant people had transgressed the covenant and John came to call them back to a place of fellowship with God within the covenant.

Today when we preach the Gospel of salvation, we do not ask people to become readjusted to the covenant by baptism and repentance. We tell people that they are lost, without hope, and without God, and that God has provided a way through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to justify them before God and give them eternal life. This salvation is given as a gift of grace and received through faith apart from our own good works. After we accept this message of salvation our personal lives may still fall short of the standard God has set for us and there is then need for us to repent and to change our mind about our life and to confess our sins to God and receive forgiveness from our Father. This is not an experience of getting saved all over again, but simply a renewal of one who is already saved. Thus there is a vast difference between an unregenerate sinner coming to God by faith and receiving remission of the eternal penalty of sin, and the coming of one who is already saved and keeping his manner of life adjusted to the will of God by admitting his shortcomings and being restored to a place of fellowship and blessing. John’s message of repentance to Israel was in many ways similar to the latter experience. He was not making them God’s people: they were already that by the covenant but was calling them back to fellowship and blessing.

C. The Mode of John’s Baptism. Nothing is said of the actual mode, which could have been sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. That was not the important thing. The important thing is that baptism was for cleansing. All of the many baptisms of the Old Testament were for cleansing. When John was baptizing at Aenon we read that a question arose about purifying or cleansing (John 3:25). Why a question about purifying? Simply because that was the purpose of baptism, to cleanse at the time. What did the Lord tell Saul to do when he was converted?

“Arise, and be baptized, washing away thy sins” (Acts 22:16). What were the Jews supposedly doing when they baptized their couches, their pots and pans (Mk. 7:4)? The meaning is so evident that the translators used the word “wash” to translate baptism. There is a mistaken idea, based on Rom. 6:3,4 that baptism represents a burial. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In Romans Paul is talking about the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit that identifies the believer with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

D. The Baptism of Jesus. The question John asked, and the question anyone would ask is, “If baptism represents a cleansing from sin, why would Jesus present Himself as a candidate for baptism?” Matthew alone voices tiffs objection by John. John recognized that he was a sinner and needed rather to be baptized by Christ. But Jesus answered him: “Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” What does this mean? Jesus was here being inducted into His office of Prophet, Priest, and King. Under the law when a priest was inducted into office he was first washed with water and then anointed (Ex. 29:4-7). Here Jesus submits to John’s washing and that was followed by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon Him as a dove, with the accompanying voice from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

The name “Christ” means the anointed One. Christ thus identified Himself with His sinful people in view of that final identification upon the cross, where He took the sinner’s place and thus righteously satisfied the penalty of the law. He was reckoned among the transgressors. He was made sin for us, although He was sinless, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Jesus Christ is the only person who could have thus fulfilled all righteousness. When people say they are following Jesus in baptism, they may be sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. They might as well speak of following Christ in His death on the Cross. Only He could do this work.

E. The Baptism with the Holy Spirit and Fire. John predicted that the Messiah, who would take up where he left off, would baptize the people, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit and fire. We know that Christ did baptize His Jewish believers with the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost in the Book of Acts. Luke calls this baptism an “enduement with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49). This baptism was manifested by outward signs, tongues of fire, speaking with other tongues, the sound as of a mighty rushing wind. We believe that this baptism which Christ performed at Pentecost is an entirely different work from that described by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:13, where the Holy Spirit is said to baptize the believer into the one Body of Christ.

The baptism with fire has not yet taken place. Notice that immediately following the statement about baptizing with fire, John says: “but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable” (Lk. 3:16,17). Therefore we believe the baptism with fire will occur at the second coming of Christ, when He comes in flaming fire, taking vengeance upon them that know not God (2 Th. 1:8). Some believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire is just one baptism and that the fire refers to the tongues of fire that appeared at Pentecost.

F. John’s Preaching. John insisted that the people produce works which proved they had repented. Being naturally descended from Abraham was not enough. See Rom. 9:6-13 for Paul’s discussion of relationship to Abraham. Luke gives us some of the answers John gave to different classes who asked what they should do to prove their repentance. The people were not saved by their works. Their works were the result of their repentance. Believers today are not saved by works, but they are saved unto good works (Eph. 2: 10; Tit. 3:8,14).
(Main Source: Understanding The Gospels – A Different Approach – Charles F. Baker)

A DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE GOSPELS IN SMALL CHUNKS (6)

February 2, 2020February 3, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

0 Dispensationalism

CHAPTER I (CONTINUE)

THE PREPARATORY PERIOD

EXPOSITION (CONTINUE)

4. Infancy of Jesus (References: Matt. 2:1-23; Lk. 2:21-39)

Let us first piece together the narrative from these two Gospels. Luke tells of the circumcision of Jesus when He was eight days old, and of the prophesying of Simeon along with the words of Anna on that occasion. After vs. 38 we must turn back to Matthew where we learn of the visit of the Magi, which occurred somewhat later, and then of Herod’s plot to kill the infant Jesus, of God’s warning to Joseph to flee into Egypt with the child, and of their stay there until Herod’s death. Luke takes up the story again at this point and simply states that they returned to Galilee to their own city of Nazareth. However, Matthew fills in details, how they feared to return to Judea when they heard that Herod’s son had become king, so they turned aside into Galilee and settled down in Nazareth.

A. The Circumcision of Jesus. It is evident that Jesus was born and lived under the dispensation of the Law. On the eighth day His parents brought Him from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for His circumcision and for offering the sacrifice demanded by the law. Paul states this truth in Gal. 4:4: “In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” It is most important to remember that we today live in an entirely different divine dispensation from that under which Jesus lived and ministered.

B. The Prophecy of Simeon. The important dispensational part of Simeon’s prophecy is, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel: and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, and a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” The A.V. translation is faulty, as it predicates the failing and rising of the same persons: the fall and rising again of many. The American Revisers give it correctly: the falling and the rising.” The many of that generation fell; the many of a future generation of Israel will rise again.

Paul is the Apostle who announces the fall of Israel and the future rising or fulness of Israel in Rom. 11:11-32. It is of utmost importance to know when the fall of Israel took place and its effect. Many dispensationalists, as well as most non-dispensationalists, suppose that the fall of Israel occurred at the Cross. They therefore begin the new Christian dispensation on the day of Pentecost. But what are the scriptural facts?

Christ prayed for the forgiveness of those who crucified Him; Peter stated that they had done this in ignorance and that God would restore the Kingdom to them if they would repent; and it is plainly stated in Acts 3:26 that it was to Israel first after God had raised up His Son that God had sent Him to bless them. The fall of Israel came after Pentecost and after the Apostolic testimony of the resurrection of Christ. It was because of Israel’s fall that God raised up a new apostle to announce that fall and the beginning of a new dispensation. Paul’s statement is very clear: “through their (Israel’s) fall, salvation is come unto the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:11). The first Gentile to be saved was in Acts 10 and the door of faith for the Gentiles was not opened until Acts 13 (cf. 14:27). Pentecostalism is the logical outcome of beginning the new dispensation at Pentecost. Scripture plainly indicates it began with Paul at the fall of Israel.

But Christ was also set for the rising of many in Israel. And Paul tells of this also. “Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” (Rom. 11:12,15). And he goes on to show that the whole nation of Israel is going to be saved after this gentile dispensation is ended.

C. The Visit of the Magi. It is commonly supposed that the Magi came to Jesus on the night He was born in the manger. The shepherds did come on that glad night. However, it appears that the Magi arrived somewhat later. Jesus was not in a manger when they arrived, but in the house (Matt. 2:11). When Herod plotted to take the life of the infant Jesus, he inquired diligently of the Magi when the star first appeared to them, and then he issued his decree that all children under two years of age in that region should be killed (Matt. 2:16). Why “under two years” if Jesus was but a few days old? Jesus might have been over a year old when Herod acted.

D. Dreams. God dealt with Israel through dreams, visions, and signs. Note that it was in a dream that God told Joseph that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit; it was by a dream that he warned Joseph to flee into Egypt; it was by a dream that he informed Joseph to return to Israel now that Herod was dead (cf. Hos. 11:1); and it was in a dream that he warned Joseph not to go into Judea but return to Galilee. Note God’s promise to Israel: “your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts. 2:17).

It is important to note that God does not give people extra-biblical revelation through dreams and visions. Christians who are ignorant of this fact try to interpret their dreams as additional messages from God and end up in confusion and fanaticism. He can speak through dreams, if he chooses, but we must keep in mind that the Bible is complete, having revealed everything we need to know from now to eternity. This is not to say, that God does not work miracles or even speak through dreams today, but anything God says, whether through a dream, vision, impression, or “still voice,” will agree completely with what He has already revealed in His Word. Dreams cannot usurp the authority of Scripture.

E. The King of the Jews. It is significant that the Magi spoke of Jesus as King of the Jews. And, of course, it is significant that these astrologers from an eastern country, perhaps Persia, should have known about the Jewish Messiah. It must be remembered that the Jews were taken captive by the Babylonians and that prophets like Daniel became high government officials in Babylon and Persia. The Jews who returned under Ezra and Nehemiah must have left behind a great deal of knowledge of these prophetic events and apparently the wise men of that area were more diligent than the Jews in studying the prophecies.

Much speculation has been made about the star they saw: was it a nova, a conjunction of two or more planets, or something miraculous. We believe it was not a natural phenomenon, for it is difficult to understand how such a heavenly body which rises and sets every night, tracing the same course across the heavens, could have been a means of guiding the Magi, and especially of pinpointing the very house in which the child lay. It seems more likely that it was a manifestation of the Shekinah glory of God which appeared as a point of light similar to that of a very bright star but which must have been at a much lower elevation, so that it would stand over the very house where Jesus was. The miraculous Light had appeared before, as the glory cloud to give light to Israel when they came out of Egypt, in the most holy place of the tabernacle and temple, from which it departed in the days of Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:4-19). Now the One had come who was the embodiment of the Shekinah glory (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4-6).

5. The Childhood of Jesus (References: Matt. 2:23; Lk. 2:40-52)

This period covers approximately ten to twelve years in the life of Jesus which is passed over in silence except for one event when Jesus was twelve years of age. It is recorded by Luke that Joseph and Mary journeyed from Nazareth to Jerusalem every year to attend the feast of Passover, but there is no record that Jesus went with them except on the occasion when He was twelve years old. After the feast when the family started their journey home, they didn’t notice that Jesus was not in the company until the end of the first day. Discovering His absence, they retraced their steps and searched everywhere in Jerusalem without success, everywhere except in the Temple. They surely wouldn’t expect to find a twelve year old boy in the Temple. It was the last place they looked after three days of frantic searching, and to their amazement there He was answering and questioning the great theologians of the day. Even the doctors of the Law were astonished at His knowledge. His mother remonstrated with Him, “Son, why hast thou dealt thus with us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” But He answered them: “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what He meant. After that Jesus submitted Himself to His earthly parents, went home with them, and was subject to them until the time that He should be revealed to Israel.

A. The Humanity of Jesus Christ. Luke’s gospel emphasizes the humanity of Christ. Christians are sometimes afraid to speak of the humanity of Christ, for fear they will be accused of denying His Deity. But He was the God-man and we must give equal emphasis to His humanity and His Deity. The fact of the Incarnation is stated in Scripture, but the how of it is not. How the eternal Son of God could become a human body, helpless in His mother’s arms, how the One who existed in the form of God from all eternity could grow, and wax strong in spirit (vs. 40), how He could increase in wisdom and stature is a mystery we can never fathom. His conception by the Holy Spirit was miraculous, but from there on as far as His humanity was concerned, everything was natural. The nine-month period of gestation was normal, as with any pregnancy. His birth was normal and natural. There was no halo about His head as He lay in the manger. He looked like any other Jewish child of His day. He no doubt had to learn to walk and to talk like any other child. His body grew and became larger and stronger. His human mind increased in wisdom and knowledge. But, we ask, how could this be if He was the eternal Son of God? We cannot explain the how, but we can understand from the Word the necessity of His taking upon Himself a true human nature and a body of flesh and blood, so that as a Man He might die for our sins and shed His human blood, and so that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, and become the One Mediator between God and man.

Very early in the Christian era heresies arose over the Person of Christ. There were those who taught that Jesus was just a man but that the Christ spirit came upon Him at His baptism and then left Him at His death. Others taught that Jesus was not a true human being, but that He was a sort of apparition, appearing as a man but without an actual human body. Still others thought that Jesus was a kind of mixture of human and divine, half God and half man. Yet others held that the Divine Spirit took the place of the human spirit in Jesus. These controversies raged for four hundred years until finally in 451 A.D. at the Church Council of Chalcedon the orthodox statement was formulated from Scripture, holding that in the one Person of Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and a divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby. We must not divide His Person or confound His Natures. Jesus Christ is unique. There is no other person with whom to compare Him. We must simply believe what God has told us about Him in His infallible Word. To rationalize and try to explain Him is futile. We might as well try to put the whole ocean in a bucket. If we could explain Jesus Christ, He would be but a finite being unworthy of our adoration and worship.

B. Jesus Called a Nazarene. Matthew simply tells us that Jesus came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Strangely enough, there is no recorded statement in the prophets that the Messiah was to be called a Nazarene. Matthew does not say it was written in the prophets, but spoken by the prophets, so it may be that the prophets had announced this orally but had never written it. Others take it to mean that Nazareth was despised by most Jews, on the basis of John 1:46, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?,” and therefore a Nazarene means a despised one, and the prophets predicted Messiah would be despised and rejected of men.

6. The Eighteen Silent Years at Nazareth Until the Age of 30 (Reference: Lk. 2:51; 3:23)

The Gospels are completely silent concerning this period in the life of Jesus from the age of 12 to 30 years. We know that Joseph was a carpenter by trade, for the people asked: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (Matt. 13:55). And it is evident that Jesus Himself worked in the carpenter’s shop, for in Mk. 6:3 the question is asked: “Is not this the carpenter?” referring to Jesus. If the Gospels were mere human productions they would no doubt contain much about the youthful life of Jesus. God’s design, however, was not to tell of the work His earthly (legal) father gave Him to do, but the work His heavenly Father sent Him to do. Hence His years up to the age of 30 are passed over in silence, except for the visit to the temple at the age of twelve.
(Main Source: Understanding The Gospels – A Different Approach – Charles F. Baker)

DEALING WITH FEAR AND ANXIETY (PART 9)

February 1, 2020February 1, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

FEAR

LEARNING TO BE CONTENT

We now close this series by focusing on our most essential weapon. The Christian’s Excalibur against the dragon Anxiety is named Contentment. It likewise is the banner under which Christ’s troops advance to personal victory.

As we saw earlier, the Bible speaks of contentment not only as a virtue but also as a command. Nowhere is that clearer than in Paul’s closing comments to the Philippian church. He had just told them never to succumb to anxiety (Phil. 4:6) and then went on to illustrate how with a glimpse from his own life:

“I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that … you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.

You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” (vv. 10–19)

In the context of this inspired thank-you note, it is clear Paul knew what it was to be content. At the time of this writing Paul was a prisoner under house arrest in Rome. He was chained to a Roman soldier twenty-four hours a day. He had little of what this life considers benefits, but still he was content. “The peace of God” (Phil. 4:7) and “the God of peace” (v. 9) were obvious realities in Paul’s life. They can likewise be in ours as we learn how to be content.

INDEPENDENCE

The Greek word translated “content” (autark∑s [ ]) means “to be self-sufficient,” “to be satisfied,” “to have enough.” It indicates a certain independence and lack of need for help. Sometimes it was used to refer to a person who supported himself or herself without anyone’s aid.

Paul was saying, “I have learned to be sufficient in myself—yet not in myself as myself, but as indwelt by Christ.” He elsewhere expressed that subtle distinction: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20). Christ and contentment go together.

SECRETS TO CONTENTMENT

Notice that Paul said, “I have learned to be content.… I have learned the secret” (Phil. 4:11–12). Paul became privy to the secret of contentment, and it’s one he passed on to all who have been initiated by faith in Jesus Christ. Here are its key facets:

Confidence in God’s Providence

Paul said, “I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that … you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity” (Phil. 4:10). About ten years had passed since Paul was last in Philippi. Acts 16 relates what happened during his first visit.

Paul and his traveling companions met a businesswoman named Lydia and preached the gospel to her and her companions. Their conversion resulted in the formation of a church. During the early days of that church, Paul cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl. The girl’s owners—livid over the loss of the income they had derived from her fortunetelling abilities—had Paul flogged, thrown into prison, and locked in stocks. Instead of complaining about the miserable situation in which he found himself, he praised God through thankful prayer and song far into the night.

God responded in an amazing way: He shook the foundations of the prison so violently that all its doors opened wide and the chains fell off the prisoners’ feet and wrists. That incredible experience, plus Paul’s incredible response to his dismal circumstances, led to the salvation of the jailer—and the jailer’s entire household. As the church at Philippi grew, it’s apparent that they helped fund Paul for further missionary outreach.

Our text in Philippians makes it clear, however, that it had been a while since they last were able to help support him in that endeavor. But that was fine with Paul. He knew it wasn’t that they lacked concern, but that they lacked “opportunity” (Gk., kairos). That’s a reference to a season or window of opportunity, not to chronological time.

The point is that Paul had a patient confidence in God’s sovereign providence. He was content to do without and wait on the Lord’s timing. He didn’t resort to panic or manipulation of others. Those things are never called for. Paul was certain that in due time God would order the circumstances so that his needs would be met. We can have that same certainty today.

Until we truly learn that God is sovereign, ordering everything for His own holy purposes and the ultimate good of those who love Him, we can’t help but be discontent. That’s because in taking on the responsibility of ordering our lives, we will be frustrated in repeatedly discovering that we can’t control everything. Everything already is under control however, by Someone far greater than ourselves.

A synonym for God’s providence is divine provision, but that’s a skimpy label for a complex theological reality. Providence is how God orchestrates everything to accomplish His purposes.

There are two ways God can act in the world: by miracle and by providence. A miracle has no natural explanation. In the flow of normal life, God suddenly stems the tide and injects a miracle. Think, for example, of how God providentially ordered the lives of Joseph, Ruth, and Esther. Today He does the same for us.

Contentment comes from learning that God is sovereign not only by supernatural intervention but also by natural orchestration. Appreciate the complexity of what God is doing every moment just to keep us alive. When we look at things from that perspective, we see what folly it is to think we can control our lives. When we give up that vain pursuit, we give up a major source of anxiety.

Paul was content because he had confidence in the providence of God. That confidence, however, never led him to a fatalistic “It doesn’t matter what I do” attitude. The example of Paul’s life throughout the New Testament is this: Work as hard as you can and be content that God is in control of the results.

Satisfaction with Little

Here is another secret to contentment from Paul’s life: “Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity” (Phil. 4:11–12). He appreciated the revived generosity of the Philippian church but wanted them to know he hadn’t been coveting it. He kept his wants or desires in check, not confusing them with his needs.

“Not that I speak from want” is another way of saying “I really don’t have any needs that aren’t being met.” Our needs as human beings are simple: food, clothing, shelter, and godliness with contentment. Scripture says to be content with the bare necessities of life.

That attitude is in marked contrast to the attitude of our culture. People today aren’t content—with little or much. The more people have, the more discontent they’re apt to be. Often, the most unhappy people you’ll meet are very wealthy. They seem to believe their needs can never be met. Unlike Paul, they assume their wants are needs. They’ve followed our materialistic culture’s lead in redefining human needs.

You’ll never come across a commercial or ad that tells you to eat food, drink water, or go to sleep. Mass media advertise items that are far more optional and discretionary, but you’d never know it from the sales pitch. The appeal isn’t “Wouldn’t you like to have this?” but “You need this!” If you expose yourself to such appeals without thinking, you’ll find yourself needing things you don’t even want! The goal of this kind of advertising is to produce discontent and make a sale.

To protect yourself, pay careful attention to whenever you attach the word need to something in your thoughts or speech. Edit any use of it that goes beyond life’s bare essentials. Paul did, and you can too. Thankfully regard any surplus as a blessing from God. You will be satisfied with little when you refuse to depend on luxuries the world redefines as needs.

Detachment from Circumstances

The one thing that steals our contentment more than anything else is trying circumstances. We crumble and lose our sense of satisfaction and peace when we allow our circumstances to victimize us. No doubt Paul was human and suffered that way too, but then he learned a different way: remaining content no matter what his circumstances were. “I have learned to be content,” he said, “in whatever circumstances I am” (Phil. 4:11). And he really meant whatever circumstances, for in the next verse he ran the gamut of extremes from great poverty to great wealth.

It’s possible for us as Christians to learn to be content in facing any situation in life. And we don’t have to wait for the next life to be able to do this. We do need to keep one foot in the next life, however. Paul said it this way: “Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth” (Col. 3:2). “Our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Cor. 4:17–18 NIV). Paul endured many horrific circumstances (note his summary in 2 Cor. 11:23–33), but through them he learned to be content by having an eternal perspective. Realize any circumstance you face is only temporary. The energy you’re tempted to expend on it by getting anxious isn’t worth being compared to your eternal reward. Learn to be content by not taking your earthly circumstances too seriously. This is not always that easy to do, but worth practicing.

Being Sustained by Divine Power

Paul could face any earthly circumstance with this confident assurance: “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13). He had learned that no matter how difficult things get in this material world, every Christian has a spiritual undergirding.

In saying he could do all things through Christ, Paul was referring to endurance, not miraculous provision. He didn’t mean he could go on forever without eating or drinking. He couldn’t be battered five thousand times and still survive. There’s a limit to the physical hardships any human being can endure. Instead Paul was saying, “When I have come to the end of my own resources, then I experience the power of Christ to sustain me until a provision is made.” He believed in the promise of Isaiah 40:31: “Those who wait for the LORD will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk and not become weary.”

Contentment is a by-product of distress. It comes when you experience the sustaining power of Christ when you simply have run out of steam: “To him who lacks might He increases power” (Isa. 40:29). We do well to experience enough difficulty in our lives to see Christ’s power on display in us.

Do you know how a pacemaker works? It kicks in when the heart it’s attached to doesn’t work right. It’s a sustaining power. We as believers have a reservoir of spiritual power that moves into action when we have come to the end of our resources. Therefore we can “do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us” (Eph. 3:20).

You’ll learn contentment when you’ve stood in the valley of the shadow of death, when you’ve been at the brink, when you can’t resolve your problems, when you can’t eliminate the conflict, when you can’t fix your marriage, when you can’t do anything about the kids, when you can’t change your work environment, when you’re unable to fight the disease that’s wracking your body. That’s when you’ll turn to God and find the strength to get through the situation.

To add an important qualifier, however, if you’ve been living a life of sin and you’re now at the bottom of the pit where sin has led you, don’t expect the Lord to step in, put on a dazzling display of His power, and make you feel content. What He’s more apt to do is add corrective discipline to the pain that your circumstances have naturally produced. There’s no quick fix for a sinful pattern of living.

Preoccupation with the Well-Being of Others

If you live for yourself, you will never be content. Many of us don’t experience contentment because we demand our world to be exactly the way we want it to be. We want our spouse to fulfill our expectations and agenda. We want our children to conform to a prewritten plan we have ordained for them to fulfill. And we want everything else to fall into its perfect niche in the little cupboard where we compartmentalize every element of existence.

Paul prayed for the Philippians to have a different perspective. He began his letter to them with a prayer that their love for one another might be abundant (Phil. 1:9) and went on to give this practical advice: “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3). He wanted them to lose themselves by being preoccupied with the well-being of others. This was the example he gave to them and us:

“Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.

You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4:14–19)

Even though Paul was assured of God’s providence, independent of his circumstances, and strengthened by divine power, he knew how to write a gracious thank-you note. He wanted the Philippians to know they had done a noble thing in caring for his needs. They were a poor church from Macedonia (an area whose poverty is described in 2 Cor. 8—9) that had apparently sent food, clothing, and money to Paul in Rome through Epaphroditus. Their generosity impressed Paul.

Notice what made him happiest of all about the gift: “Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account” (Phil. 4:17). He was more interested in their spiritual benefit than his material gain. Being comfortable, well fed, and satisfied weren’t Paul’s main concerns in life. Rather, he was interested in accruing eternal dividends to the lives of the people he loved. Here are the timeless scriptural principles that apply:

Proverbs 11:24–25: “There is one who scatters, yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.”
Proverbs 19:17: “One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.”
Luke 6:38: “Give, and it will be given to you.”
2 Corinthians 9:6: “He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”

Paul described the gift he had received as “a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18). He was using Old Testament imagery to say, “Not only did you give it to me, but you also gave it to God.” At the beginning of our passage, in verse 10, we noted how happy Paul was to receive the gift. His joy came not because he finally received what he had been wanting (as we saw in verse 11, he politely mentioned that he didn’t need it) but because the Philippians had given him something that honored God and would accrue to their spiritual benefit.

Their acts led Paul to say in closing, “My God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19). That is one of the most often-quoted verses of Scripture, but it needs to be set in its context. Paul was saying, “You gave to me in a way that left you in need. I want to assure you that God will not remain in your debt. He will supply all your needs.” It refers to material, earthly needs sacrificed by the Philippians that God in response to their sacrifice would amply replenish.

If you likewise “honor the LORD from your wealth … your barns will be filled with plenty and your vats will overflow with new wine” (Prov. 3:9–10). God’s not going to give you back spiritual blessings only and let you die of hunger. If you’re in Christ, the riches of God in glory are yours. That is why, as we learned in the first part of the series, we are not to be preoccupied with what we eat, drink, or wear. Instead we are to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and … not [to] worry” (Matt. 6:33–34).

Attack anxiety in your life by applying what you have learned about contentment. Be confident in God’s sovereign providence, and don’t allow your circumstances to trouble you. Instead of giving in to panic, cling to the promise of Romans 8:28: “We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” Regard that verse as a spiritual lifeline for the rest of your life. Also, buck the tide of our materialistic, selfish society by being satisfied with little and being more concerned about the spiritual welfare of others than your material needs. Be obedient to God’s Word and confident in His power to meet all your needs. May our Lord keep all these principles in the forefront of our minds that we might be content—and free from anxiety!

DEALING WITH FEAR AND ANXIETY (PART 8)

January 30, 2020February 1, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

FEAR

DOING ALL THINGS WITHOUT COMPLAINING

One of the first biblical passages we examined on anxiety was Paul’s straightforward command in Philippians 4:6: “Be anxious for nothing.” In the last two parts of this series, we will probe two other passages from Philippians. One comes before the command, and the other comes afterward. They bracket our understanding of how to attack anxiety by specifying a habit to avoid and an attitude to cultivate. Follow through with what you learn and you will see for yourself that Paul wasn’t issuing an impossible command. Our first text is: “Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life” (Phil. 2:14–16).

Discontent in Society

We live in a society that loves to complain. Ironically, the most indulged society the world has known thus far is also the most discontent. The more people have, the more discontent they are apt to be with what they have—and these types don’t believe in silent suffering. We seem to be breeding a generation of complainers.

Most families in the Western World nowadays have either one or two children, if any. These small families in a materialistic society are apt to breed selfish, self-indulgent children. Picture this scene at the breakfast table: The mother asks her one or two children, “What would you like me to fix you to take to school for lunch?” One says peanut butter, the other says tuna. She says okay and starts preparing customized lunches. Before they leave for school, Mom asks, “What time will you be home? What time should I plan dinner?” The kids collaborate and say, “Let’s see, we’ll probably be home somewhere between four and five. Better make it five thirty.” At the dinner table of the modern family, after taking one bite, at least one of the kids will probably say, “I don’t like it. I want something else.”

If you were raised before the 1980’s or even the 1990’s, a different reality prevailed. When you got up in the morning and made it down to the kitchen, you got handed a bag. And when you left the house, your mother said to you, “Dinner is at five thirty. You’re here, you eat.”

The difference is that in most modern families, authority defers to the child. Before the 1990’s —in most instances, the child had to defer to authority. So what you have, is a generation growing up in an environment where authority defers to them. It is the unfortunate product of child-centered parenting.

When I was a child, I looked forward to growing up because I wanted my freedom. I was expected to conform to my surroundings, and I did. I ate what my parents gave me and wore whatever my mother brought home. I was eager to assume the responsibilities of adulthood so I could be free to make my own choices.

The reverse is now true. Children who grow up controlling the family environment don’t want to become adults because that means conformity for them. They don’t want to get a job because nobody at work is going to say, “How would you like your office decorated? And what time would you like to break for lunch?” Rather, they put you on an assembly line or in some other place, and you are expected to conform to their rules. No wonder we have a generation of young people who don’t want to grow up and leave home!

Ask the average high school or college student what he or she wants to do after graduation, and you’ll receive the usual response: So many of them feel this way because they’re postponing responsibility. The freedom of their childhood seems so much more attractive than conformity to a system. Their parents, although usually well meaning, are unwittingly training them to be irresponsible.

When reality hits, when children raised this way are finally forced to get a job, count on them to look for whatever offers the most amount of money for the least amount of work. They have no work ethic or sense of excellence for excellence’s sake. The objective of these adult children is to finance themselves so they can indulge in the things they enjoy. They try making the most out of the necessary evil of adulthood by collecting gadgets, boats, cars, vacation trips, and whatever else might reignite the flame of their lost childhood.

That is a hollow pursuit, however, because “not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions,” said Jesus (Luke 12:15). These adult children will feel empty inside and know that something is missing. Rather than seeing it’s because they’re emphasizing the physical at the expense of the spiritual, most will assume it’s because they don’t have enough—and whatever they have is never enough to these individuals! Moreover, their attitude is infectious, and that’s why our society tends to be critical.

The complaints have become more and more petty over time. Think about the things most people complain about, get anxious over, and even become enraged over. You may feel convicted. I know I’ve been guilty of letting some of these things bother me more than they should. Something as commonplace as a traffic jam can bring on incredible anger. Slow drivers in front of us and people who cut us off can be enough to make us fall back into sin! Talkative people irritate us. Long lines, short lines—any lines—drive us crazy. We want it our way, and we want it now!

Think how distressed people become over crying babies. Rather than accepting them as part of life, a terrible brooding discontent has led to a frightening increase in child abuse. Phone calls at inconvenient times, misplaced keys, non-housebroken puppies, stuck zippers, tight clothes, unsuccessful diets, being rushed or interrupted by someone—we get distressed by the biggies, don’t we?

Now if we’re in Hiroshima and it’s 1945, we have a problem worthy of considerable concern. But just because we lost out on a promotion, a business deal, or something else we wanted doesn’t mean we’re to complain about it and become anxious. We can surely find a way to survive, calm down, and review the situation. Our concerns are productive when they lead to a sensible course of action, but not when they lead to anxiety. Be aware that our concerns are far more apt to follow the path to anxiety and misery if accompanied by complaints.

It is a sin to complain against God, and we must see our complaints as such. “Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” asked Paul rhetorically. “The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Rom. 9:20). Complaining against God is out of place and completely inappropriate. Don’t be fooled into thinking only the worst blasphemers commit that sin. Isn’t it God we are really complaining against when we gripe about our circumstances? After all, He is the one who put us where we are. A lack of thankfulness and contentment is ultimately an attack on God.

Complainers have a devastating effect on the church. Some are apostates, whom Jude described as “grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts” (Jude v. 16). Their sin is so defiling because it is highly contagious. We find abundant proof of that in the Old Testament. Let’s consider it carefully so we can protect ourselves and our churches from descending into a morass of complaints, discontentment, anxiety, and misery.

Discontent in the Old Testament

This is the scene: The Israelites are in the wilderness, heading toward the Promised Land after God miraculously delivered them from centuries of bondage in Egypt. God tells them to occupy the land. Joshua, Caleb, and ten others spy out the land and give their report:

Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size.… We became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

Then all the congregation … grumbled against Moses and Aaron; and … said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?” So they said to one another, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt.”

Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces in the presence of all the assembly.… Joshua … and Caleb … spoke to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, saying, “… Do not rebel against the LORD; and do not fear the people of the land.… Their protection has been removed from them, and the LORD is with us.…” But all the congregation said to stone them with stones. (Num. 13:30—14:7, 9–10)

Those ten spies, those prophets of doom, kicked off nationwide discontent by complaining against what God had commanded them to do. What does Scripture say happened to them? “As for the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land and who returned and made all the congregation grumble … even those men who brought out the very bad report of the land died by a plague before the LORD” (Num. 14:36–37). Does that give you an idea of what God thinks about grumblers? They spread a noxious poison that quickly infects other people. They have the capability of setting into motion a group panic attack.

That happened many times in Israel’s history. Poor Moses had to suffer complaints regularly about his leadership and the food God provided for the people. According to Psalm 106, the complaints of the Israelites “tempted God in the desert.… They despised the pleasant land; they did not believe in His word, but grumbled in their tents.… Therefore He swore to them that He would cast them down in the wilderness, and that He would cast their seed among the nations” (vv. 14, 24–27). That divine judgment has dogged their nation throughout its history.

The New Testament makes it clear that the church is to learn from Israel’s mistake. After describing the incredible blessings Israel enjoyed from God’s hand, Paul stated, “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things [are] examples for us, so that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved … nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed” (1 Cor. 10:5–6, 10).

Complaining is the symptom of a deep-seated spiritual problem—a failure to trust God and submit to His will. It is not a trivial matter: “The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar” (1 John 5:10). Here’s a better text to adhere to: “Why should any living mortal … offer complaint in view of his sins?” (Lam. 3:39). God has forgiven our sins, and the only proper way to say thank you is to be grateful. As we learned previously, a spirit of thanksgiving drives away anxiety—and also makes it hard to complain.

Contentment as a Command

We now have the background for understanding Paul’s command in Philippians 2:14: “Do all things without grumbling or disputing.” The “all things” refers to what Paul had said previously: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you” (vv. 12–13). In other words, while God is working in your life, be sure you never complain.

Life isn’t always going to serve us what we’d like. God will allow trials in our lives to help us pray, trust, and be grateful for what we have. Through it all, the Bible commands us to be content:

Luke 3:14: “Be content with your wages.”
1 Timothy 6:6, 8: “Godliness with contentment is great gain.… If we have food and clothing, we will be content with that” (NIV).
Hebrews 13:5: “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have.”

Two roadblocks to contentment are grumbling and disputing. The Greek word translated “grumbling” in Philippians 2:14 is gongusmos. It’s a grouchy, grumbly, onomatopoeic word. It sounds as grumpy as its meaning. It refers to murmuring, an expression of discontent and muttering in a low voice. It’s the word used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to describe the grumblings of Israel. It’s a complaint expressed with a negative attitude, an emotional rejection of God’s will.

The Greek word translated “disputing” (dialogismos) is more intellectual in nature. It refers to questioning and criticism.

This is when emotional bellyaching turns into a debate with God (as it did with Job). We start arguing with God about why things are the way they are or why we have to do what we’re supposed to do. We think we have a better idea than God about the job, marriage, church, home, or any other situation we’re in.

Paul said there’s a better way to live—working out our Christian life without complaining. It’s an attitude more in tune with life as it is. We are living in a fallen world. It isn’t always going to be the way we like it, and the people around us aren’t always going to be the way we’d like them to be. When we complain about them, we offend God and position ourselves for His judgment. James warned, “Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (James 5:9). Imagine a little kid in his room complaining to his sister, “Boy, I sure hate the way Dad treats us.” But what he doesn’t know is that Dad is standing right outside the door! God, likewise, is always in earshot of our complaints.

The Reasons behind the Command

It would be wrong to conclude, however, that God is always waiting to get us. In His Word He not only tells us that He hates complaining, but He also makes it very clear why. He wants us to see that the reasons are as dear to our own hearts as to His and are clearly in our best interests.

Stop Complaining for Your Own Sake

A literal translation of the Greek text in Philippians 2:14–15 is: “Stop complaining in order that you may become blameless, innocent children of God.” There is a process here. Salvation has past, present, and future aspects to it. These verses refer to the present aspect. As God does His work in us, our part is not to complain.

Ask yourself a couple of questions: Whom do I belong to? Whose name do I bear? As Christians, we are to live consistently with who we are. Don’t you know who your heavenly Father is? How can you act like that? Keep that in mind the next time you’re tempted to become anxious or complain. Hold your head up high and realize that God has destined you for something better. You have been created to reflect His nature.

Stop Complaining for the Sake of Non-Christians

Paul explained that we reflect God’s nature to “prove [ourselves] to be … children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom [we] appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life” (Phil. 2:15–16). How we live has a dramatic effect not only on whether we’re consistent with who we are as children of God, but also on how we affect the world around us.

This statement addresses our evangelistic mandate and is the heart of Paul’s appeal. A simple definition of evangelism is God’s children shining as lights in a dark world. Doing that effectively involves two things: content and character. It’s not just what we say but what we are.

If you are a godly, obedient Christian, you will have an almost startling effect on most people. They will feel the light, and some may even shy away from it because it is so obvious that you possess something they don’t possess. Others will be attracted to it because they have a yearning to be something better than what they are. Their fate is inextricably intertwined with how we live our lives. As John Donne wrote hauntingly, “No man is an island, entire of itself” (“Meditation 17”). That is especially true of the Christian. A few sentences later Donne affirmed, “I am involved in mankind.” For the Christian, that is more than a resolve; it is a statement of fact.

The quality of your life is the platform of your personal testimony. A murmuring, discontent, grumbling, griping, and complaining Christian is never going to have a positive influence on others. It’s incongruous to be talking about the gospel of forgiveness, joy, peace, and comfort, yet be moaning and complaining much of the time. Give people more credit than that: They aren’t going to believe the gospel until they see it do what you say it will do. “Show me your redeemed lives, and I might be inclined to believe in your Redeemer” is a valid challenge for any non-Christian to make.

As said earlier, the equation for evangelism is character plus content. While appearing as lights in the world, we simultaneously are to be “holding fast the word of life” (Phil. 2:16). It is the Word of God that gives life. Since the people of the world are spiritually dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1), there is nothing they need more.

Stop grumbling, said Paul. Stop arguing with God. Obey Him joyfully. In the process of shining as lights in the world, you will find there will be a ready reception, because a transformed life is the greatest advertisement for the gospel. A negative, griping, complaining spirit is the worst.

Try your best to make it through today without complaining about something. Make a note every time you do complain. You may be surprised to discover it has become a way of life. In addition to being highly contagious to others, a complaining spirit has an anesthetic effect on whoever possesses it. It quickly becomes so habitual that most people infected by it don’t even realize what a dominant characteristic it has become.

Put a check on the complaints you utter, and you will succeed in attacking anxiety at its source. You will be affirming that God knows what He is doing in your life. To hear yourself complain is to hear yourself affirm the contrary. The more you hear yourself talk like that, the more you’ll believe it. For peace of mind, stop it now.

DONATIONS

January 29, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

via DONATIONS

A DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF THE GOSPELS IN SMALL CHUNKS (5)

January 29, 2020January 29, 2020 HEAVENLY REMNANT MINISTRIESLeave a comment

0 Dispensationalism

CHAPTER I (CONTINUE)

THE PREPARATORY PERIOD

EXPOSITION (CONTINUE)

1. Annunciation and Birth of John the Baptist

(Reference: Lk. 1:5-25; 57-80)

Luke alone gives an account of the birth of John the Baptist. His father, Zacharias, belonged to the priestly tribe of Levi, as did his mother, Elizabeth. (This is not the same Zachariah as the prophet in the Old Testament.) They were advanced in years and Elizabeth had never been able to have children. Back in the days of King David the priesthood had been divided into twenty-four courses, each course serving in the temple for one week, twice a year (1 Chron. 24:10). While in the holy place an angel appeared unto him and announced that Elizabeth would bear a son who would have the spirit and power of Elijah and was to be named John. Zacharias just could not believe such a thing could happen, and for that reason he was stricken dumb until the prophecy should be fulfilled.

Zacharias went home to his wife after his service in the temple, and she conceived and in due time the child was born. On the eighth day the relatives and neighbors gathered for the circumcision ceremony and they all called his name Zacharias after his father, but Elizabeth said, “Not so, but he shall be called John.” They remonstrated with her that none of her kinfolk bore that name, and then asked Zacharias what name he wanted the child to have. He called for a writing pad and wrote, “His name is John,” and immediately his speech was restored. The people marvelled and fear came upon them and all wondered what manner of child this would be, as the story spread throughout the hill country of Judea.

Then Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and he began to prophesy. His prophecy concerned the Messiah who was not yet born and his own son John. Even though Jesus would not be born for another six months, Zacharias praised God for rising up a Horn of salvation for Israel in the house of His servant David. It is most important to note that Zacharias, filled with the Holy Spirit, brings the same message as did the O.T. prophets concerning God’s promise to the nation of Israel for a physical, earthly kingdom. Theologians of the Post-millennial and Amillennial schools claim that the Jews were greatly mistaken in supposing that God intended to establish them in a literal, material kingdom. They claim that all of these promises which the Jews took literally must be spiritualized. Thus, they teach that Jesus came only to establish a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men. But what did the Spirit-filled Zacharias in the N.T. say?

“As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life” (Lk. 1:70-75).

Although the actual word “kingdom” does not occur in this passage, it is plainly intimated by the reference to this Deliverer who is raised up in the house of David, and by the twice repeated reference to salvation, not only from sin, but from Israel’s enemies. But it is argued that these could not be physical enemies, such as the Romans, because the Jews were never delivered from them. What proponents of this objection fail to understand is that this deliverance was conditioned upon Israel’s repentance and acceptance of the Messiah. These conditions become evident later on in the preaching of Jesus and of the apostles, (cf. Lk. 19:41-44; Acts 3:18-26). The fact that the generation of Israel rejected the Messiah does not mean that these national promises of the kingdom will never be fulfilled. God swore with an oath to Abraham and He promised David that even though Israel failed He would finally restore His kingdom, (2 Sam, 7:5-17). Therefore, this Davidic covenant must yet be fulfilled.

Zacharias also prophesied that John would be called the prophet of the Highest, to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord, and to give the knowledge of salvation unto Israel by the remission of their sins. All what we are told of his childhood is that he grew and became strong in spirit and lived in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel.

2. Annunciation and Birth of Jesus

(References: Matt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-56; 2:1-20; John 1:14)

Luke also tells of the annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel. It took place six months after Elizabeth had conceived John. This is the first “hail Mary.” Roman Catholics have repeated it millions of times since then.

Truly, Mary was highly honored to be chosen to be the mother of the humanity of God’s Son, but the high honor bestowed upon her, exalting her as immaculately conceived and higher than Christ himself, substituting her as the intercessor between God and man, when Scripture states there is only one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), is an invention of the Roman Church.

When the angels said, “Thou hast found favor with God,” he used the word which is almost always translated “grace.” This is the first time grace is mentioned in the N.T. and one of the eight times it is used in Luke, which may indicate the influence of the Apostle of Grace upon Luke. Mary needed the grace of God just like any other human. If Mary had been sinlessly conceived as Romanists aver, she would not have needed a Savior; but in the Magnificat she exclaims: “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” (vs. 47).

Matthew says nothing about the annunciation to Mary but he does tell us that Mary was espoused to Joseph and that she was found to be with child before they had come together. According to the law Joseph could have called for her death (Deut. 22:20-24), but because he was a just man he decided to follow Deut. 24:1 and put her away quietly. But an angel appeared unto him in a dream and told him not to fear to take Mary to himself, because the conception had been by the power of the Holy Spirit and the child should be named Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins. Upon awaking, Joseph took Mary as his wife, but had no sex relations with her until she had brought forth her firstborn. Catholic doctrine refuses to accept this plain statement of Matt. 1:25. Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Ch. 13:55,56 names four brothers of Jesus as well as sisters.

Matt. 1:22 is the first of the many “that it might be fulfilled” statements in Matthew. Here the fulfillment is the Virgin Birth as predicted in Isa. 7:14.

Returning to Luke’s account in ch. 1:32,33 God makes it abundantly clear that the N.T. and the O.T. are in perfect agreement on the subject of Israel’s promised kingdom. God is going to give to Jesus the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever and of His kingdom there shall be no end. Some theologians claim we today are spiritual Israelites but we have never heard any claim to be spiritual Jacobites. Jacob was his natural name: Israel his divinely given name. Christ is going to reign over the house of Jacob. Notice too that the Kingdom will have no end. The Millennial form of the Kingdom will have an end, but the Kingdom will continue after that in the new earth without end. After the last enemy is subjugated under the feet of Jesus, there will be no further need of Jesus to reign with a rod of iron, as in the Millennial Kingdom (Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15, cf. 1 Cor. 15:26-28).

Luke gives a very detailed account of the actual birth of Jesus, which might be expected from a medical doctor. His mention of the taxation which was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria helps to tie in the birth of Christ with secular history and it provides another example of the Providence of God: how He works through seemingly unrelated events to bring about His ends. It was because of the taxation that Joseph and Mary had to take the journey down to Bethlehem to enroll and while there Mary’s time to be delivered came. Thus, Jesus was born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth and a prophecy uttered 700 years earlier was fulfilled (Mic. 5:2). One would have thought that God would see to it that His Son was born in the most pleasant and commodious surroundings, perhaps in the palace of the king, but this was the first step in His humiliation. There was no room in the inn, so He was born in a stable (cf. Phil. 2:5-8).

Luke also is the one who has given us the beautiful store of the shepherds. It was a joyous announcement: “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” But before the ministry of Christ had ended He was being rejected by Israel, so that He had to change all of that joyous message and instead ask: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division” (Lk. 12:51). It has been said that there can be no lasting peace on earth until Israel is established in her land, until Christ is in His rightful place on the throne of David, and until Satan is in his appointed place, the lake of fire.

There has been much controversy over the date of Christ’s birth. There are several logical arguments against the traditional date of Dec. 25 for the birth of Christ. It is argued that the shepherds would not be abiding in the open fields with their flocks in the dead of winter, not only because of the cold nights (it does snow in Jerusalem), but because there would be no pasturage at that season. It is also argued that the Roman government would not choose a time for the enrollment when it would be most difficult for the people to travel back to their own cities. And then the improbability of Mary in her condition taking this trip on donkey-back of some seventy miles in the winter is pointed out. From May through October there is no rain in Israel, but in December the almost continuous winter rains set in which continue through February. The hill country through which they travelled had an average elevation of 3000 feet. Such a journey through cold rains and even snow would surely have been a most difficult trip for a woman ready to give birth to a child.

It may at first seem strange that Mary who belonged to the tribe of Judah had a cousin, Elizabeth, who belonged to the priestly tribe of Levi. Edersheim, an authority on Jewish matters, states:

There can be no question, that both Joseph and Mary were of the royal lineage of David. Most probably the two were nearly related, while Mary could also claim kinship with the Priesthood, being, no doubt, on her mother’s side, a blood relative of Elizabeth, the Priest-wife of Zacharias. Even this seems to imply that Mary’s family must shortly before have held higher rank, for only with such did custom sanction any alliance on the part of Priests.

(Main Source: Understanding The Gospels – A Different Approach – Charles F. Baker)