The Deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10)

Introduction

It was a joyous time of celebration after the inauguration of their priestly ministry when the excitement is shattered as Nadab and Abihu disobey God’s command and offer “strange fire.” Because the events surrounding this narrative account are vague, there has been much speculation through the years about exactly what the “strange fire” was, and what sin they had committed in order to illicit such a swift and fatal judgment from the Lord.[1] Understanding the History by looking at the Biblical account of the “strange fire” and the importance of fire in the Old Testament will help to clarify the spiritual significance. The spiritual significance will be clarified by looking at the expectations of holiness, integrity and wisdom in the role of the leadership of Israel.

History

In order to grasp a clearer understanding of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, three primary points should be studied: the historical account, the “strange fire”, and the emphasis of fire in the Old Testament.

The Historical Account

Nadab was the firstborn son of Aaron who was the High Priest, and Elisheba. He was the brother of Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. The four sons of Aaron, and specifically, Nadab and Abihu are mentioned a few other times in Scripture.[2] Exodus 6:23 records their genealogy when it says, “Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.” Nadab and Abihu were among the group who were brought by Moses up the mountain to see God (Exodus 24:1-10). These two men were not outsiders or strangers. They had been anointed by God.[3] Therefore, as the events of chapter 10 unfold, one needs to remember that Nadab and Abihu, and their two younger brothers had all just been ordained as priests (Leviticus 8:30).

Leviticus 10:1, 2 says, “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” There was much to be celebrated as chapter 9 comes to a close. God had shown His approval of the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood, and the sacrificial system. Leviticus 9:24 says, “Then fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the portions of fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.” Thus, chapter 10 opens with the first full and official day of the priesthood.[4]

This, the first day of the priesthood, was one of the most impressive and solemn days, and it should have been one of the most incredible of Aaron’s life. However, in a moment, tragedy struck when Nadab and Abihu proceeded to bring unauthorized fire before the Lord. No one is sure, and the text is not clear about why the two sons brought the fire before the Lord. Although there have been many suggestions as to what may have led up to this significant event,[5] all anyone knows for sure is that Nadab and Abihu “took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord” (10:1).

The “Strange Fire”

The censers with which Nadab and Abihu brought in the incense were most likely long handled pans which could also be used to shovel the hot coals from the sacrifices. They also could serve as portable altars because the incense was actually burned in them. Since access to the main altar (where coals for incense offerings were supposed to be obtained), was difficult given the consuming fire, and since Aaron’s sons decided that incense was needed to shield the people from viewing the glory of the Lord (16:13), coals from another source were used (unauthorized fire). The coals were to be from the altar in the courtyard, as Moses specifically instructed Aaron (16:12). [6]

Discussion of what actual nature of the “strange fire” was, is an attempt to deduce the sin of Nadab and Abihu and could be used in a combination with other theories to help explain this instance. Incense was produced by mixing aromatic spices together. Then, the spices were vaporized by putting them over glowing lumps of coal lying in the censer (which was the “fire”). Leviticus 16:12 says that the coals had to be taken from the altar. Did they get the coals from somewhere else in this instance? Or since daily incense offerings were required (Exodus 30:7, 8), could it have been that Nadab and Abihu had offered the incense at the wrong time of day?[7]

Perhaps, as another theory proposed, Nadab and Abihu offered their respective fires at the wrong time.[8] Moses’ instructions were specifically clear in regard to the order of the sacrifices.[9] According to Kaiser, there is nothing in the text to suggest this would be the case.[10] “The event mentioned here no doubt took place toward the evening of that eighth day. Accordingly, the two men may have performed some ceremony that belonged to another part of the day.”[11] Rooker seems to agree, indicating that the issue at hand is the term “strange fire,” so, the nature of the fire is what the issue is, not the time of day.[12]

Another theory, similar to the previous was that they offered their sacrifices in the wrong place, or that they ventured too far into the sanctuary.[13] Maybe they wanted to offer their incense on the Golden Altar, or to just go behind the veil.[14] Either way, it usurped Aaron’s designated role as high priest and the privilege of going behind the veil once a year.[15] Aaron is in fact warned in 16:1, 2 of not going behind the veil more than once a year.[16] “This admonition might indicate that the nature of Nadab and Abihu’s offense was precisely that they had entered into the Holy of Holies, and thus God took their lives.”[17] There is also an allusion to strange fire and the limiting of entering the Holy of Holies in Exodus 30:9, 10 when the Lord says, “You shall not offer any strange incense on this altar, or burnt offering or meal offering; and you shall not pour out a drink offering on it. Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.” So, Aaron and his sons knew ahead a time, that there were specific occasions to go before the Lord, and they could not go any time they pleased. After all, the Holy of Holies was “most holy to the Lord.”

A final supposition as to what caused the “strange fire” and consequently the deaths of Nadab and Abihu would be the connection with and intoxication of strong drink.[18] One must look no further than verse 9, “Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die—it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations.” The alcohol would have impeded their ability to stay alert, cautious and treat the tabernacle with the respect it deserved.[19] There is support and similarities between this instance and the earlier instance of blatant drunkenness of Noah (Genesis 9:20-29).[20] “No wonder, then, that older Jewish commentators thought there might be a connection, and that perhaps Nadab and Abihu had drunk wine to excess. In their view, this circumstance provides the occasion for the warning found here in vv. 8-11.”[21]

Most scholars and commentators agree that some combination of these suggestions contributed to strange fire, and the subsequent deaths of the two men. Kellogg says, “It is perfectly possible, and even likely, that all these elements were combined in their offence. In any case the gravamen of their sin is expressed in these words; they offered ‘fire which the Lord had not commanded them:’ offered it, either in a way not commanded, or at a time not commanded, or in a place not commanded; or, perhaps, in each and all of these ways, offered ‘fire which the Lord had not commanded.’”[22] The narrative of Leviticus from 8:1 forward leads the reader to believe that God expects His priests to obey the Law to the exact.[23] Therefore, whichever scenario is the truth, it still stands to reason that Nadab and Abihu sinned, offered “a strange” or “unauthorized fire,” and it was wrong because it disobeyed the Lord’s command.[24]

Everything these two brothers did seemed to be wrong, and Wiersbe shows that the brothers’ sin was a combination of the reasons for their deaths. They should not have been handling the incense and presenting it to the Lord. Rather, their father, the High Priest should have been doing this (Exodus 30:7-10). They used the wrong tools by using their own censers, as opposed to the censer of the High Priest which was sanctified with anointing oil (40:9). Wiersbe goes on to argue that they were even attempting this at the wrong time. Only the Day of Atonement was the proper time when incense, with special ritual, could be taken behind the veil into the Holy of Holies. There is also no record that they consulted their father or Moses before attempting this, and in addition, they did not use the correct fire. They were also, presumably under the influence of alcohol.[25]

The Emphasis of Fire

At the end of Leviticus 10:1, the phrase “Which He had not commanded them,” is a figure of speech, or meiosis, which is a negative expression stated when the opposite affirmation is emphatically implied (cf. Psalm 78:50; Proverbs 12:3; 17:21). [26] So, even though there is some question as to what code of the law that the two brothers violated, there is no doubt that it was contrary to God’s command.[27] This narrative shows that if one approaches God properly, the holiness imparts life (cf. Isaiah 57:15) and inspires wonder (cf. Exodus 3:3, 4).[28] “But should anything that is profane or unclean enter God’s presence, it is consumed.”[29]

The result was death by fire. Fire is seen several times in the Old Testament. The Lord appears as such in Exodus 24:17; Deuteronomy 5:22; Numbers 11:1; 16:35; 2 Kings 1:10, 12. Fire is also seen as coming down from heaven twelve times in the Old Testament. Six of those ways (Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:24; 13:20; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:2; 1 Kings 18:38) were beneficial and six those ways were not (Leviticus 10:1; Numbers 11:1; 16:35; Job 1:16; 2 Kings 1:10, 12). That is the reason the writer of Hebrews says, “for our God is a consuming fire” (12:29).[30]

The fire came that out from the presence of the Lord and devoured the two brothers. It

did so instantly and with certainty and decisiveness. [31] Interestingly, fire in verse 9:24 had been a sign of God’s approval. [32] Here in 10:1, 2, however, it is a distinct sign of God’s disapproval. Most likely the reason the writer of Leviticus put the two events so close together was to show the God’s approval of genuine worship and His justified disapproval of disingenuous worship.[33] The devouring fire happens with them serving in their priestly capacity, complete with being clothed in their tunics. While the brothers are burned, but not to ashes, and killed, their tunics seemingly remain unharmed as verse 5 says, “So [Mishael and Elzaphan] came forward and carried them still in their tunics to the outside of the camp, as Moses had said.”

Spiritual Significance

While there are several spiritual significances that penetrate through this narrative of Nadab and Abihu, two main ones stand out: holiness and integrity.

Holiness

One of the most meaningful areas of spiritual significance in the narrative of Nadab and Abihu has to do with the holiness of God. When the Bible talks about the holiness of God it means, “He is totally and absolutely separated from anything defiling or contrary to His character.” He wants them separated unto Him for His work, not for common use. Leviticus 20:26 highlights this, “Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine”  (cf. Leviticus 10:10; 11:44; 19:2; Ezekiel 22:26). His holiness is transcendent through all of His attributes, but that same holiness is not exclusive to Him. Rather, He draws people to His holiness and desires that they be holy like Him. Even houses and grain offerings can be considered holy (separated for His use).[34]

The impact of the lesson of God’s holiness comes in Leviticus 10:3, “Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what the Lord spoke, saying, “By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.”’ So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.” Therefore, as can be seen from this verse, Nadab and Abihu failed to appropriately acknowledge and obey God’s holiness. Ignoring of His holiness and commands results in His judgment of sin.[35]

The holiness of God is a theological theme transcendent throughout Scripture. Moses was recorded as saying God being “majestic in holiness” (Exodus 15:11). In Acts 3:14, Peter says, “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” Revelation 4:8 records the four living creatures acknowledging the holiness of God. “And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.’” The saints in heaven declare “You are Holy” in Revelation 15:4. God reveals in Scripture just how perfect and pure His holiness is. Peter calls all believers to be like Him. “But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:15, 16).[36]

Integrity

The integrity of spiritual leaders is an issue in terms of spiritual significance. For instance, the two younger brothers, Eleazar and Ithamar, are not allowed to carry the bodies of their two older brothers out for burial. The handling of the corpses of close relatives will not necessarily defile a priest (21:1, 2). So, the reason these two brothers are not allowed to bury their own dead is because they are on the verge of starting their own ministry. In fact, they are about to partake of the “most holy” of sacrificial meals from the offerings made during the day. Leviticus 10:12-14, “Then Moses spoke to Aaron, and to his surviving sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Take the grain offering that is left over from the Lord’s offerings by fire and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy. You shall eat it, moreover, in a holy place, because it is your due and your sons due out of the Lord’s offerings by fire; for thus I have been commanded. The breast of the wave offering, however, and the thigh of the offering you may eat in a clean place, you and your sons and your daughters with you; for they have been given as your due and your sons’ due out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the sons of Israel.’”[37]

Eleazar and Ithamar were not only restricted from carrying the corpses of their brothers, but they were also restricted in grieving over their brothers. They were told “Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, so that you will not die and that He will not become wrathful against all the congregation. But your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which the Lord has brought about.” The word for uncover means to “become unkempt” to “bare” or to be “disheveled.” Therefore, none of the signs of mourning and grieving are to be seen between the remaining family members, lest they die. This illustrates, “the way that the sins of the leaders could have a negative impact on the people, even though they have not personally done anything to provoke the negative response.” These men are to continue on in their duties despite  the family emergency, because the Lord’s anointing was upon them (Leviticus 10:7). “This anointing signifies that the call to the service of God takes precedence over every other earthly affection.”[38]

Wisdom

Holiness and integrity can be found in one’s wisdom and discernment. This narrative plays a role in the priests’ being able to make wise choices between holy and profane, clean and unclean. Leviticus 10:10-11says, “and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses.” The result will be their ability to teach the nation of Israel the ways of the Lord. So, throughout the next several chapters, Moses will dictate and outline in detail distinctions of clean and unclean, holy and profane.[39]

Conclusion

By looking at a few aspects of the historical circumstances surrounding Nadab and Abihu, the reader can then more fully understand the spiritual importance of their sin and death. An obvious reminder of one’s conduct in service to the Lord comes from Ephesians 5:18, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.” However, every follower can gain from the lessons learned through the spiritual emphasis in the deaths of Nadab and Abihu. Thus, every Christian is called to be holy in their individual service to God, and that holiness should be evident to all with whom they come in contact. With this service to Him, comes ministry to others in their lives, and with that ministry comes great responsibility for the believer. Psalm 2:11 encapsulates this idea, “Worship the Lord with reverence And rejoice with trembling.”

---

[1] John Hartley, Leviticus: Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 4 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992): 133

[2] Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974): 154.

[3] Warren Wiersbe, Be Holy (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1994): 40.

[4] Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary: Leviticus (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000): 156.

[5] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994: 1069.

[6] John Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill, 2000): 127.

[7] Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 155.

[8] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1070.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary, 157.

[13] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1070.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary, 157.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1070.

[19] Ibid.

[20] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992): 330, 331.

[21] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1071.

[22] S.H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, vol. 1of The Expositor’s Bible, ed. By W. Robertson Nicoll (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1903):

[23] Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 155.

[24] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, 330, 331.

[25] Warren Wiersbe, Be Holy, 39, 40.

[26] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1070.

[27] Ibid.

[28] John Hartley, Leviticus: Word Biblical Commentary, 133.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary, 158.

[31] Ibid.

[32] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, 330, 331.

[33] Ibid.

[34] J. Carl Laney, “God’s Self-Revelation,” Understanding Christian Theology ed. Charles Swindoll and Roy Zuck (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003): 175.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Walter Kaiser, “Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1071.

[38] Ibid.

[39] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, 332.

The Ark of the Covenant

Introduction

God’s holiness requires that He be separated from anything impure and unholy. He chose, in the Old Testament, for the nation of Israel to be set apart for His glory. He desired for them to separate from the sin and defilement of the world, and thus prove that He was different from the other false idols of history.[1] He desired not only a relationship with them, but also to show them that He is the God who saves and intervenes.[2] One of the ways He did so was through the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was symbolic of His throne on earth, or His footstool providing a link to His people. The Ark has provided many speculators hours of thought provoking wonder as to its current location today. However, one must not be quick to dismiss the Ark as mere legend or gold digger’s dream. The Ark of the Covenant has a rich history, starting with the instructions for its construction which came from the Lord, the Ark’s place in the tabernacle, and the movements it endured as a portable altar and throne of God. It also has a deep spiritual significance, even to Christians today.

History of the Ark of the Covenant

The history of the Ark can be seen through the instructions for the construction of the Ark, its place in the Tabernacle and through its movements in the Old Testament accounts.

Instructions and Construction of the Ark

The proportions of the Ark of the Covenant can be found in Exodus 25:10-22, while the actual construction can be found in 37:1-9. Verses 10 and 11 say the Ark was 3.5 feet wide and 2.5 feet tall, made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold inside and out, and it had a gold border.[3] There were four rings on the Ark through which poles were placed made of acacia wood and encrusted with gold (vv. 12-15).[4] These poles were to never be separated from the Ark as Exodus 25:15 clearly states.[5] The poles were necessary so that anyone carrying the Ark would be prevented from touching it directly, allowing direct access only to the High Priest.[6] The purpose of the Ark was so the Lord could meet with the High Priest (v.22).[7] This was fulfilled in Numbers 7:89, “Now when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim, so He spoke to him.”

Inside the Ark was the “testimony” (v. 25:16) that was given to Moses. Deuteronomy 10:2-4 says, “‘I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered, and you shall put them in the ark.’ So I made an ark of acacia wood and cut out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up on the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. He wrote on the tablets, like the former writing, the Ten Commandments which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me.” As given by this description, the Ten Commandments were the “testimony” that was to go into the Ark (cf. also, Deuteronomy 31:26).[8] Also, inside the Ark was a pot of manna (Exodus 16:33, 34), and Aaron’s rod (Numbers 17:10).[9] Hebrews 9:4, 5 also records the contents of the Ark.

The cover of the Ark (kapporet) was made of solid gold instead of being encapsulated by gold like the rest of the Ark and was used to seal the Ten Commandments within.[10] The cover measured approximately 3.5 feet by 2 feet.[11] On top of the cover were two cherubim facing each other, their wings extending above and meeting in the middle, and looked down toward the lid.[12] Cherubim are angels of the highest class with amazing powers and incredible beauty.[13] Their purpose is to protect and proclaim God’s glorious presence, sovereignty and holiness.[14] Besides the Ark, they were commissioned to stand guard against sinful man from entering Eden (Genesis 3:24), and they present with God’s glory in Ezekiel’s vision preparatory for judgment (Ezekiel 1).[15] These creatures had an awesome and complex look about them: they had four faces of a man, lion, ox and eagle; with four wings, feet like a calf gleaming as with burnished bronze.[16] Quite simply, the cover was to be considered more than part of the Ark, appearing separately in some cases in the Old Testament.[17]

The arch of the two cherubim wings formed the Mercy Seat atop the Ark. From here is where God spoke to the people of Israel. Von Rad says, “[The Ark] is the throne of deity which is left empty. Or, to put it more exactly, Israel thought of the Ark as the throne of Jahweh. Wherever the Ark is, Jahweh is always fully present.”[18] He goes to describe how when the Ark is raised, the Lord raises up and goes on ahead of Israel, and when the Ark is set down, He sits down upon His throne.[19] Numbers 10:35, 36 says, “Then it came about when the ark set out that Moses said, ‘Rise up, O Lord! And let Your enemies be scattered, And let those who hate You flee before You.’ When it came to rest, he said, ‘Return, O Lord, To the myriad thousands of Israel.’” The symbolic picture represents the divine status of the one seated on the throne, the Ark serving has His chariot propelled by the cherubim.[20]

The cherubim wings were raised over the Ark, and they met in the middle above. This provided a footstool for God, a link between His throne in Heaven and His people on earth. As Price mentions, “If the Ark was a visible (or tangible) footstool for the invisible (or intangible) throne of God when He ‘descended’ to earth, then we can understand the mobile character of the Ark. Wherever God’s presence was to be temporally manifested…the Ark had to be available for the Lord of heaven to ‘rest His feet’ on earth.” In 1 Chronicles 28:2, David says, Then King David rose to his feet and said, “Listen to me, my brethren and my people; I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God. So I had made preparations to build it” (also cf. 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 80:1; 99:1; Isaiah 37:16; all of these picture the Lord as enthroned above the cherubim, and Psalm 132:7, 8 pictures the Ark as the footstool of the Lord).[21]

While there has been speculation as to the general overall purpose of the Ark, being container only or throne only, the best view is considered to be both.[22] The Ark contained the Ten Commandments and other artifacts while serving as the throne and footstool of the Lord.[23] The thought behind this is that the throne served as an extension of the container. A historical parallel can be found in Egyptian traditions. Within their own traditions, common practice was to put important documents and relics at the feet of deity.[24] In fact, during Egyptian festivals, the images of gods were carried in a portable box during processions. Paintings describing these show these ‘arks’ with poles and flanked by guardian creatures.[25]

There is not much difference between the narratives describing the instruction versus the construction of the Ark. Essentially, while the main contrast is that the construction passage is several verses shorter than its counterpart, there are no important details not mentioned in the construction of the Ark. The author, Moses, most likely included those details in order to show how the Ark was built, sequencing the process as he deemed appropriate.[26]

The Ark in the Tabernacle

The Ark was placed in the Holy of Holies within the Tent of Meeting. This was a room in which no one could enter except for the High Priest, and even then only one day per year. This Day is the only time which blood is sprinkled upon the Ark. The blood of the bull and the goat was to be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat individually seven times by the High Priest with his finger. This was a unique feature to the Day of Atonement, and “underscores the singular solemnity of this preeminent day.” The cherubim that looked down upon the Mercy Seat saw only sins and rebellions of the Israelites. Therefore, the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat symbolically showed that Israel’s sin was atoned for through the death of a substitute. [27]

The act of covering the Holy of Holies in incense is to respect the Lord and His holiness, but also to protect Aaron and his life. The act of sprinkling the bull’s blood on the Mercy Seat allows for the removal of the sins of his household. Then, the act of sprinkling the goat’s blood on the Mercy Seat not only removes the sin of national Israel, but cleanses the most holy place in particular and the tabernacle in general.[28]

Movements of the Ark

The Ark was fitted with rings and poles for transportation purposes. The Ark was to be carried wherever the Israelites went, be it in battle or wandering in the desert. [29] When the Ark was not traveling with the Israelites in battle, defeat would follow, and when the Ark was with them, victory was the result (cf. Numbers 10:33-36; 14:44).[30] When the Ark was stationary, it would be housed in the tent of meeting, which was where God would meet with Moses in order to proclaim His word to the people.[31]

In 1 Samuel 4, Israel gets routed by the Philistines in battle at Aphek and they lost about four thousand troops. They go to battle against the Philistines a second time, take the Ark with them, and still get defeated at Ebenezer (cf. 4:11 and 5:1). One of the theories as to why Israel was defeated was because they were guilty of turning God’s symbol of His presence into an idol by thinking the Ark was a guaranteed victory. The whole idea was, in effect, Israel needing to turn away from the false gods and back to the Lord (7:3).[32]

The Ark becomes problematic for the Philistines in 1 Samuel 5 in three separate ways: first, their idol-god, Dagon was found face down before the Ark (v. 3), the next morning it was found in the same position without head or hands (v. 4). Second, in verse 6, the Lord strikes the Philistines with tumors and finally, the Philistines try moving the Ark from Ashdod to Gath to Ekron, with tumors developing in each place (vv. 6-10). The Philistines finally understand they need to return the Ark back to its place of origin. They are required to return the Ark with a guilt offering of five gold tumors and five gold mice as evaluated by their priests and diviners (6:1-4). The reason for the guilt offering from the Philistines was because there was harm and damage done to the Lord’s holy things, so restitution was required.[33]

Once the Ark is in the process of being returned to Israel, it comes to a temporary rest in Beth-shemesh (field of “Joshua”). There, the people offer sacrifices to the Lord; however, 50,070 people died for inadvertently looking into the Ark. The people of Beth-shemesh then send it on to Kiriath-jearim saying, “The Philistines have brought back the ark of the Lord; come down and take it up to you” (1 Samuel 6:21). There in Kiriath-jearim the Ark stays for twenty years and the house of Israel lamented for the Lord (possibly in order to be restored in their relationship with Him). The Ark is under the supervision Eleazar, Abinadab’s son.[34]

The Ark continued to go unmentioned from 1 Samuel 6. However, in 2 Samuel 6, David, having been crowned king of Israel and won handily over the Philistines, gathers 30,000 men to retrieve the Ark from Kiriath-jearim.[35] David retrieves the Ark with the help of Abindab’s sons, Uzzah (Eleazar) and Ahio, and Uzzah dies while touching the Ark in order to keep it from crashing to the ground (6:7).[36] David leaves the Ark in the house of Obededom for three months and the Lord blesses the household.[37] David then moves it to Jerusalem. Until this point, the Ark had been kept in a tent, and David wanted to build a temple of cedar for it to be housed in. [38]However, the Lord had different plans. Solomon, David’s son would build the temple for the Lord and David’s dynasty would live forever.[39]

Therefore the Ark had moved from a private house, to a tent, and finally, it is set down to rest in the temple Solomon built.[40] 1 Kings 8:6 says, “Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, to the most holy place, under the wings of the cherubim.” Beyond this, the marrying of Solomon to foreign wives and tolerance of false religions propelled Israel into a motion of decline and eventually split it in two.[41] King Manasseh renovated the temple and put an image of the fertility goddess in place of the Ark (2 Chronicles 33:2-4).[42] Josiah, a godly king, cleansed the temple (2 Chronicles 34:8-33) of which his grandfather desecrated and ordered the Ark returned by the Levites (who were the ones to carry it from place to place) to the Temple.[43] 2 Chronicles 35:3 says, “He also said to the Levites who taught all Israel and who were holy to the Lord, ‘Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel built; it will be a burden on your shoulders no longer. Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel.’” This is the last point in the Old Testament where the Ark is mentioned.[44] Babylonian captivity ends the monarchy, and the sins of Manasseh are blamed for the loss of the Temple and everything inside.[45]

Spiritual Significance of the Ark of the Covenant

One of the spiritual significances for the Ark comes from its cover, being called at times the “propitiatory,” which connected it with the atonement ritual that took place in front of it (cf. Leviticus 16). The Ark and its cover was the special place where the Lord would speak to His people in person. It was the first item mentioned in the various aspects of worship. This was, in effect, the innermost circle of where the Lord’s presence was: in the midst of His people, Israel. Everything surrounding the Ark, from its lavish decorations to its stunning beauty and the guardians posted on top, gave great and important context to how the worship of God was to be carried out.[46]

Overall, it could be said that the Ark was a type of Christ. The acacia wood that the Ark was made of would be representative of Christ’s incarnate body. The gold overlay represented His perfect divine nature. The tablets within the Ark typified His being a mediator of the Covenant and the Law being written on His heart. Jeremiah 31:33 says “‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’” Also in Psalm 40:8 the Word says, “I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.”[47]

An analogy can also be drawn between Christ and the Church on the Mercy Seat and the Cherubim. The Church and the Cherubim “both gaze upon the blood-stained Mercy-Seat. Their faces are Christward. Even in glory the ransomed hosts behold Him as a Lam as it had been slain.” Romans 3:24, 25 says, “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God, He passed over the sins previously committed.” In other words, Christ is the true “Propitiatory Covering.” “He is set before us as the Righteous One, who has met all the law’s most rigid requirements,- spread Himself along ‘the vast dimensions of its requiring and condemning code.’” His blood atones and covers all sins of the whole world.[48]

Conclusion

The Ark’s history through the divine instructions, the construction, its place in the tabernacle, and its travel throughout give insight into its spiritual significance with the climax pointing towards the Savior of the world: Jesus Christ. The Ark of the Covenant tells the story of God redeeming and communing with His people and His desire for them to live holy relational with Him.[49] However, the Lord’s redemption in Israel and throughout history finally culminated with salvation through Jesus Christ.[50] Jesus provides the link to the Father today for all who will believe in Him. He sacrificially came as the Lamb of God to shed His blood for the lost sinners of the world. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).”

---

[1] J. Carl Laney, “God’s Self-Revelation,” Understanding Christian Theology, ed. Charles Swindoll and Roy Zuck (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003): 174.

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992): 301, 302.

[4] John Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill, 2000): 106, 107.

[5] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, 301, 302.

[6] John Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 106, 107.

[7] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, 301, 302.

[8] Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary: Leviticus (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 293.

[9] Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001): 96.

[10] John Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 106, 107.

[11] Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 762.

[12] Ibid., 96.

[13] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008): 301.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] John Durham, Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus, vol. 3 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987): 359.

[18] Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Row Publsihers, 1962): 236, 237.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasures (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994): 50.

[21] Ibid.

[22] John Durham, Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus, vol. 3 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987): 358.

[23] Ibid.

[24] John Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 106, 107.

[25] Ibid.

[26] John Durham, Word Biblical Commentary, 484.

[27] Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary: Leviticus (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 213, 218.

[28] Paul House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1998): 138.

[29] James King West, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971): 153.

[30] Samuel Sandmel, The Hebrew Scriptures: An Introduction to their Literature and Religious Ideas (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963): 29.

[31] James King West, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971): 153.

[32] Victor Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001): 225.

[33] Ibid., 225, 226. The five tumors and five mice probably indicate and are symbolic of the five Philistine cities, or the entire nation. The gold indicates that it is only the best that could be given from them. Also, the Philistines send this offering so they would get rid of the plague and send it back to its divine source.

[34] Ibid., 227, 313.

[35] Samuel Sandmel, The Hebrew Scriptures, 450.

[36] Victor Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books, 313.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Samuel Sandmel, The Hebrew Scriptures, 450.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Victor Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books, 397.

[41] Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasures, 73.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Paul House, Old Testament Theology, 534.

[45] Ibid.

[46] John Durham, Word Biblical Commentary, 360.

[47] John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, 301, 302.

[48] Frank White, Christ in the Tabernacle (London: S.W. Partridge and Co., 1907): 158-160.

[49] J. Carl Laney, “God’s Self-Revelation,” 175.

[50] Ibid.

Who Am I? A New Take on the Music Video

I received this over email. If you are a Casting Crowns fan, you will want to check this video out.

Q & A Part I

As people have realized what I am in school for, they have asked me several questions. I am always open to questions, and if I do not know the answer, I promise I will do my best to find out the answer.  I do not claim to know all of the answers and if there are any details you would like to tell me, by all means, I would love to hear them. A few of these questions and answers are below:

What is the King James only theory?

The King James Version was originally sought to bring a translation into the language and readability of the time period. Ever since the 1611 version and the subsequent revision, the King James Version has held an ability to cause some controversy. The King James only theory is basically saying that the King James is the only authorized version of the Word of God. According to this theory, extreme proponents would consider the King James as inspired.

However, the only writing that was inspired by God was the original manuscripts. Also, versions like the NASB can be considered more literal to the text and better translated in some areas than the KJV. Where the King James translators used Latin based texts to shed light on the Greek and Hebrew texts, the newer translations have tried to go back to the earliest manuscripts and use those as the only source of translation. Textual criticism and interpretation in translation is seen to be very important in the more modern translations. With the help of new tools of study, we have been able to produce some accurate, but readable translations.

What is the gender neutral controversy? What are some of its translations?

The gender neutral controversy started during the 1970’s when feminist reformers proposed a writing style that would prohibit the use of “sexist” language. Mostly accepted within liberal circles, this idea has started to come into the translations of the Bible. Both the Hebrew and Greek texts use generic masculine nouns and pronouns to include both sexes in general. The culture was primarily masculine based and so the writers wrote to that culture base. These writers were including women in their writing by using the generic tenses.

Major translations for this issue include the Today’s New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, published by the Roman Catholics, the Contemporary English Version, and the Inclusive New Testament published by the liberal wing of the Roman Catholics. Throughout the publications of these translations, each one (especially the more recent TNIV) have been met with strong resistance from the conservative end of evangelicalism.

Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? State some views.

There are several views concerning who or what the Sons of God are in Genesis 6. The first view is that the Sons of God were angels. They claim proof from their offspring being giants. Proponents of this view also say this is the reason why some of the evil angels are currently bound and others are roaming free. 1 Peter 3:19, 20 says, “in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.”.

The second view is that of demon possession. The Sons of God according to this view were demons who indwelled the men and were made to be attractive to the women. Supporters of this view claim the demon possession extended to the women and children (of whom became giants). The destruction of this “race” happened during the flood. This view too claims reason as to why some demons are currently bound in Hell (1 Peter 3:19, 20).

The third view is that of Cainite (Genesis 4:16-24), Sethite (Genesis 4:25-5:32) view. The context previous to Genesis 6 indicates the two lines as partakers in this passage. After Genesis 6, the flood destroys every living thing upon the earth except for Noah and his family. The text says nothing of angels during the flood and therefore proponents indicate this as a reason for this view. Additionally they say this was a time when even the godly among men were choosing polygamy.

The New Covenant

Introduction

Dispensationalism notes there are obvious covenants, which are clearly outlined in the Bible.[1] Each covenant within the Bible shows that God has one program in history and one chosen people, but there are different aspects to that program. [2]

What the New Covenant Is

The main biblical explanation for the New Covenant comes from the book of Hebrews 8:6-13. Here is where the writer not only gives insight into the covenant, but he also quotes from Jeremiah where God is predicting the New Covenant.

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ For all will know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more.” When He said, “A new covenant,”

He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.[3]

Several questions arise from the text. What is the New Covenant mentioned in the text?  To whom was the covenant given or promised? What happened to the Old Covenant?

A covenant can be made between God and man, between man and man, and between nations. [4]A covenant is a contract, or an agreement. In the case of the Bible, God enters into covenants with man, and their longevity depends on God.[5] The Mosaic or Old Covenant was conditional while the other covenants were unconditional. God did place limitations on them, and they will not expire until their complete fulfillment.[6] Therefore, the New Covenant is either an extension of the Old or a complete abolishment of it. Because the Law was written by a holy God and therefore perfect, people could not perfectly obey the Law. [7] Indeed, there needed to be a new covenant, which would take the place of or renew the Old covenant.

The New Covenant is said to be an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant, in that God would someday bless “all the families of the Earth” in Genesis 12:3.  However, it was first intended for the Jews.[8] In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised Israel the full possession of their land, in the future. [9] God also promised Israel several things within the New Covenant: regeneration (new heart and nature), forgiveness of sin, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, knowledge of Himself among the people of Israel so that they would obey Him, and multiple national blessings for Israel.[10] Among the national blessings would be the reacquisition of their land and they would live there forever.[11]

Chronologically, it would stand to reason that, in order for there to be a New Covenant, there would need to be an Old Covenant. Indeed, the Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant outlined in Exodus19-24.[12] The Mosaic Law was a covenant from God to man, yet man was the problem and the one who broke the covenant (v.9).[13] The mediator for the New Covenant had to be a perfect sacrifice in order to be able to save mankind from its sins. Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross-was the mediator for the New Covenant.[14]

Jesus Himself proclaimed that He was the New Covenant in Luke 22:20, “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’”.  Due to Christ’s work on the Cross, the Old Covenant has been annulled and the New Covenant has taken its place.[15] The writer of Hebrews states that the only way this covenant could exist was through the spilling of Christ’s blood and His subsequent death (9:15-28).[16]The nature of the New Covenant through Christ makes the covenant unconditional and everlasting.[17]

Theological Implications for Today and the Future

As can be seen, this New Covenant was instituted first for Israel, but because of their rejection of the Messiah, God has established this covenant with all families of the earth so the prophecy in Genesis could be fulfilled.[18] Through the New Covenant, people can know of Jesus as stated in Hebrews 9:24-28:

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Now, people can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He came, lived among man, died, resurrected, and because of His atoning death on the Cross, has saved all mankind from all of its sins.[19]

Theological Implications: The Church

In Acts 2:4, the Holy Spirit comes upon the believers at Pentecost. This is what initiates the New Covenant.[20] Because this New Covenant is for all believers, Jew and Gentile alike can partake in its spiritual blessing and become servants of the covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6).[21] The Gentiles who are saved are the church, the Body of Christ through faith in Him. [22]The promise that the church (Gentiles) would be grafted into the New Covenant is referred to by the “seed” in Jeremiah 31, thus linking all believers to God through the sacrifice of Christ.[23] This link broke down the barrier between believing Jews and Gentiles and has allowed for the potential grafting of every man and woman (Ephesians 2:13-18).[24]

Not only was the barrier broken, but Gentile believers were made part of the house of God (Ephesians 2:19). [25] Gentiles were also made part of “Abraham’s seed” spiritually. Paul notes this in Galations 3:16, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” Therefore, the church, fellow believers who once were aliens and foreigners have been brought in with the saints in Christ (Ephesians 2:19).[26]

Theological Implications: Israel

The remaining question is, “What about Israel?” Paul addresses this issue in Romans 11:25-27 “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’ ’This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’” Therefore, their time is coming when, after the Church has been raptured, Israel will be saved and all the promises of God to them will come to be fulfilled.[27]

Dr. Showers states, “As a result, at that time, the literal, national Israel will enter fully into the New Covenant relationship with God, and all the promises (spiritual, material and national) of that covenant will be fulfilled completely with that nation.”[28] Despite the fact that Israel rejected the Messiah at His first coming, they will enter that eternal relationship with Him at His second coming.[29]

Conclusion

Even though the New Covenant was first intended for Israel, the Gentiles have been able to partake in it through the work of Christ on the Cross. However, because Israel rejected Christ at His first coming, they have not been able to fully partake in this New Covenant. So, after Christ comes back for the Church, Israel will be called back to God, inhabit their land, and fully enter into this New Covenant. This paper has introduced and explained the New Covenant and given the Current and Future Implications of both The Church and Israel.

---

[1] Mal Couch, An Introduction To Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000), 157.

[2] Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: 1978), 269.

[3] All Scripture Quotations taken from The New American Standard Bible 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation: 1995) unless otherwise noted.

[4] Robert Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: 1995), 259.

[5] Ibid., 259

[6] Ibid., 259

[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester, England: Inter Varsity Press, 1994), 521.

[8] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 148.

[9] Mal Couch, “The Relationship Between the Dispensations and Covenants”, Conservative Theological Journal 2, no. 7 (December 1998) 426.

[10] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 100.

[11] Ibid., 101.

[12] Wayne Grudem, Systematic, 521

[13] Walter Kaiser, Toward, 232.

[14] Mal Couch, “The Relationship”, 424.

[15] Mal Couch, “The Relationship”, 425

[16] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 151.

[17] Renald Showers, There Really Is a Difference, 101.

[18] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 148.

[19] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 522.

[20] Mal Couch, An Introduction, 151.

[21] Ibid., 151.

[22] Renald Showers, There Really is a Difference, 110.

[23] Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament, 234.

[24] Ibid., 268.

[25] Ibid., 269.

[26] Ibid., 269.

[27] Renald Showers, There Really is a Difference, 110.

[28] Ibid., 110

[29] Ibid., 111.

Why We Believe Children Who Die Go To Heaven

This is an article written by Dr. Mohler (President, Southern Baptist  Theological Seminary) and Dr. Akin (President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary). This is a  great and uplifting article for those Christian parents, and hope for the unsaved parent, who may have lost a small child.

WHY WE BELIEVE CHILDREN WHO DIE GO TO HEAVEN

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin

Few things in life are more tragic and heartbreaking than the death of a baby or small child. For parents, the grief can be overwhelming. For the minister, to stand over a small, white casket and provide comfort and support seems to ask for more than he can deliver.

Many console themselves with the thought that at least the child is now in a better place. Some believe small children who die become angels. They are certain these precious little ones are in heaven with God.

However, it is important for us both to ask and answer some important questions if we can. Do those who die in infancy go to heaven? How do we know? What evidence is there to support such a conclusion? Sentimentalism and emotional hopes and wants are not sufficient for those who live under the authority of the Word of God. We must, if possible, find out what God has said.

It is interesting to discover that the Church has not been of one mind on this issue. In fact, the early and medieval Church was anything but united. Some Church Fathers remained silent on the issue. Ambrose said unbaptized infants were not admitted to heaven, but have immunity from the pains of hell. Augustine basically affirmed the damnation of all unbaptized infants, but taught they would receive the mildest punishment of all. Gregory of Nyssa offered that infants who die immediately mature and are given the opportunity to trust Christ. Calvin affirmed the certain election of some infants to salvation and was open to the possibility that all infants who die are saved. He said, “Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach unto Him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need His grace.” Zwingli, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge all taught that God saves all who die in infancy. This perspective has basically become the dominant view of the Church in the 20th century.

Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.” The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called “. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.”

It is our conviction that there are good reasons biblically and theologically for believing that God saves all who die who do not reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. It is readily admitted that Scripture does not speak to this issue directly, yet there is evidence that can be gleaned that would lead us to affirm on biblical grounds that God receives into heaven all who have died in infancy. Some evidence is stronger than others, but cumulatively they marshall strong support for infant salvation. We will note six of them.

First, the grace, goodness and mercy of God would support the position that God saves all infants who die. This is the strongest argument and perhaps the decisive one. God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14 where Jesus says, “Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” People go to hell because they choose in willful rebellion and unbelief to reject God and His grace. Children are incapable of this kind of conscious rejection of God. Where such rebellion and willful disobedience is absent, God is gracious to receive.

Second, when the baby boy who was born to David and Bathsheba died (2 Samuel 12:15-18), David did two significant things: 1) He confessed his confidence that he would see the child again and, 2) he comforted his wife Bathsheba (vs. 23-24). David could have done those two things only if he was confident that his little son was with God. Any other explanation does not do justice to the text.

Third, in James 4:17, the Bible says, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such decisions.

Fourth, Jesus affirmed that the kingdom of God belonged to little children (Luke 18:15-17). In the passage he is stating that saving faith is a childlike faith, but He also seems to be affirming the reality of children populating heaven.

Fifth, Scripture affirms that the number of saved souls is very great (Revelation 7:9). Since most of the world has been and is still non-Christian, might it be the untold multitude who have died prematurely or in infancy comprise a majority of those in heaven? Such a possibility ought not to be dismissed too quickly. In this context Charles Spurgeon said, “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them.”

Sixth, some in Scripture are said to be chosen or sanctified from the womb (1 Samuel 1:8-2:21; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15). This certainly affirms the salvation of some infants and repudiates the view that only baptized babies are assured of heaven. Neither Samuel, Jeremiah or John the Baptist was baptized.

After surveying these arguments, it is important for us to remember that anyone who is saved is saved because of the grace of God, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the undeserved and unmerited regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Like all who have ever lived, except for Jesus, infants need to be saved. Only Jesus can take away their sin, and if they are saved it is because of His sovereign grace and abounding mercy. Abraham said, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). We can confidently say, “Yes, He will.” When it comes to those incapable of volitional, willful acts of sin, we can rest assured God will, indeed, do right. Precious little ones are the objects of His saving mercy and grace.

CONCLUSION

On September 29, 1861, the great Baptist pastor, Charles Spurgeon, preached a message entitled “Infant Salvation.” In that message he chastened some critics who had “. . . wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists that we believe that some little children perish.” Similar rumblings have been heard in some Baptist circles of late. Spurgeon affirmed that God saved little ones without limitation and without exception. He, then, as was his manner, turned to conclude the message with an evangelistic appeal to parents who might be lost. Listen to his plea:

“Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there too? And yet, have I not in these galleries and in this area some, perhaps many, who have no hope hereafter? . . . . Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now and the lips which had scarcely learned to call you “Father” ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still, small voice, saying to you this morning, “Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?” If you wilt, think of these matters, perhaps the heart will begin to move, and the eyes may begin to flow and then may the Holy Spirit put before thine eyes the cross of the Savior . . . if thou wilt turn thine eye to Him, thou shalt live . . .”

Little ones are precious in God’s sight. If they die, they go to heaven. Parents, who have trusted Jesus, who have lost a little one, if they have trusted Jesus, can be confident of a wonderful reunion someday. Are you hopeful of seeing again that little treasure God entrusted to you for such a short time? Jesus has made a way. Come to Him now and someday you will see them again.

If you would like to download this article in PDF, click here.

What is the Kingdom of God?

Introduction

Another spin off issue from John 3:1-21 is the use of the term, Kingdom of God. Throughout the John 3:1-21 passage, Jesus cites multiple references to the Kingdom of God. What Kingdom is He talking about? When will this Kingdom take place? Who will be in this Kingdom? Well, the biblical use of the word kingdom comes from both the Greek and Hebrew words meaning the same thing: kingship or sovereignty.[1] The emphasis of the word is primarily to show the power and authority of a king, not to denote the country of people ruled by him.[2] Therefore, a kingdom, according to the Bible, is the exercise of lawful royal power (as opposed to the abuse of the power as in a tyranny).[3] In Scripture, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are used interchangeably.[4]

The Kingdom of God Defined

The Kingdom of God is defined as, “the sovereignty, reign, or rule of God.”[5] There is an idea within the Scriptures that the Kingdom of God exists in the whole of the universe.[6] For instance, 1 Chronicles 19:11, 12 says,

“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.”

God’s rule is sovereign and divine over the entire universe, as the Psalmist says, “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all[7].” Throughout the whole of the Bible, there are many instances where God’s sovereign and divine rule are expounded upon (Psalm 47:7, Daniel 4:34, Jeremiah 10:7, Matthew 5:35, and 1 Timothy 1:17, among them)[8].

            The Kingdom of God is like no other kingdom. No other kingdom can compromise the divine Kingdom. Henry points out, “God rules in a governance whose movement from yesterday to tomorrow is always complete and yet is always also a looming, imminent event toward which everything is hurrying. The goal of God’s kingdom is to subordinate all things to Him as the creator, judge and redeemer.” This Kingdom is not a kingdom to be compared with; it stands alone. The Kingdom of God is the conclusion in which all of His plans and purposes come together in one incomparable plan[9].

Who does the Kingdom Benefit?

            While the term Kingdom of God appears expressly in the New Testament, there are instances of similar terminology in the Old Testament. The Kingdom of God was referenced in the Old Testament for the Jews. The Kingdom of God will not be completely fulfilled until the Second coming of Christ.[10]This Kingdom was promised to David through Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:12-16:[11]

“When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.[12]”

Therefore, the Kingdom will be Davidic in that some of the promises given within this prophecy will be fulfilled at the Second coming of Christ, and He will be the Ruler.[13] During Christ’s first Advent, the Kingdom was active, but it was only in its inauguration stage. The promise is that one day it will come with power (Mark 9:1).[14]

The church, it needs to be said, is not part of the Kingdom taught in the New Testament[15]. In Acts 3:12, there is a distinction between the church and Israel. “But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, ’Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?’” The church did not come into existence until the day of Pentecost, and therefore, could not be referenced in the Old Testament[16].  For instance, in Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Jesus is talking about a future reference to the church. Ephesians 4:7-12 says the church could not be functional until after the death and resurrection of Christ[17]. However, there is a close connection between the church and the Kingdom of God where the church manifests itself in the Kingdom[18]. 

The Length of the Kingdom

In terms of length of the Kingdom, there are at least a couple of answers. First, the Kingdom had drawn near during the earthly ministry of Jesus and was inaugurated after His death and resurrection[19]. For example, Jesus in Luke 1:15 says, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Even though His followers mistook this statement to say He was setting it up then, it was only the beginning.

Second, the church, even though it is not part of the Kingdom can experience what the Kingdom will be like. The church knows victory over sin as in Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” The church knows victory over demonic opposition. Luke 10:17 says, “The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.’” They know victory over disease (Luke 10:9), and the church also lives within the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28, Romans 8:4-17).[20]

Third, the Kingdom of God is still future in tense, because when Christ comes again, He will reign in His Kingdom over all of creation[21] 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 says,

Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 

The Kingdom will be the conclusion of the New Heaven and New Earth where God’s righteousness is ruling forever (Revelation 21)[22]. This is where the heavenly city of God is established. No other kingdom can break it, steal it, or overtake it. Instead, the Kingdom of God is where justice and peace have complete authority (Revelation 21:9-22:5)[23]. As Carl F.H. Henry said, “[The Kingdom] is, rather, one inaugurated and consummated by a King who has nail prints in his hands and who rules his subjects from a higher world[24].”

Conclusion

The Kingdom of God was originally promised to the Jews, yet the Church can and does have benefits of the Kingdom. The subject of the Kingdom of God has raised questions from all sides of Christendom. Yet using  a literal interpretation, the text itself reveals exactly what the Kingdom of God is.  

---

[1] G.R. Beasley-Murray, “The Teaching of God in the Kingdom of Jesus”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 35, no.1, (March 1992): 20.

[2] Ibid., 20.

[3] Ibid., 20.

[4] Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2000, 291.

[5] Paul J Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985

[6] John Walvoord, “The Kingdom of Heaven”, Bibliotheca Sacra, 124, no. 495 (July 1967): 196.

[7] Ibid., 196

[8] Carl F.H. Henry, “Reflections on the Kingdom of God”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 35, no. 1 (March 1992): 40.

[9] Ibid., 41.

[10] G.R. Beasley-Murray “Kingdom of God and”:21.

[11] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, 460.

[12] All Scripture Quotations taken from The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, Lockman Foundation.

[13] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 461.

[14] F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, New York: Doubleday, 1969, 173.

[15] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 461.

[16] Ibid., 463.

[17] Ibid., 463

[18] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Leicester, England: Inter Varsity Press, 1994: 864.

[19] F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, 170-71.

[20] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 864.

[21] Ibid., 864.

[22] Carl F.H. Henry, “Reflections”, 50.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid. 

A Modern Day Heresy

Throughout the twenty-century history of the church, various ideas about God and His nature have come and gone. Most of the ideas have been false and have been disproved with Scripture and by brilliant theological minds of the day. These minds have held to the traditional idea, that God has exhaustive, divine foreknowledge (He knows the future in every aspect). However, within the last twenty years, there has been a rise in an ideology that says God does not necessarily know the future. This point of view is called Open Theism.

The claims of Open Theism are contrary to those of the traditional view and, therefore, both views need to be brought before the guiding light of Scripture to see which one would pass the test of truth. Both claim historical, theological and Scriptural influences.

The Traditional View of God

The more prevalent traditional view of God shows Him as an all-knowing (omniscient) Creator.  He is able to know and understand not just the past and present, but every detail of the future, including every action of every man. Another phrase that is used to describe His limitless knowledge of the future is Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge. The traditional view of God’s foreknowledge has received its share of criticism from people who ask, “If God knows the future, then how can man be free?” They also may ask, “If God is omniscient, then how can there be evil in the world?” While the intent is not to answer these questions directly, discussing the Scriptural foundations, a few historical examples, and current theology on the issue of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge may shed some light.

Scriptural Foundation for the Traditional View

The traditional view is not short on Scriptural emphasis. In fact, Dr. John Hammett from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary discusses a survey by Steve Roy of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

164 texts teach or affirm God’s foreknowledge, 271 texts affirm God’s omniscience, 128 texts that predict what God will do through nature, 1,893 texts that speak of what God will do in or through human beings, 1,474 verses predicting what humans will do (apparently of their own volition), 622 texts that predict actions relating to unbelievers, and 143 texts that speak to God’s sovereignty over human choices.[1]

The texts supporting God’s perfect knowledge in Scripture are pervasive and overwhelming.

For instance, the verses highlighting God’s omniscience can be found in 1 John 3:20, the Bible says, “…For God is greater than our heart and knows all things.[2]” “Can anyone teach God knowledge, In that He judges those on high?” Job 21:22. Job 37:16, “Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge?” In Romans 11:33, Paul says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” These verses are just few of the passages that highlight God’s perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge would be defined as knowing all things, past, present and future. The various authors of the Bible were quick and unashamed to say their God knows all.

The texts also seem to abundantly support the premise that God knows what man will do in the future. David writes in Psalm 139 that God knows him completely, even what he is about to say, “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all” (Verse 4). Micah 5:2 fortells the coming of the Christ out of Bethlehem, “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” This prophecy was some 700 years before the birth of Christ.[3] Jesus prophesied His own betrayal, “Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times’” (Matthew 26:34). Throughout the whole of Scripture, there is an essence that God has a perfect knowledge of the whole of time, from beginning to end.

Historical Perspective from Calvin to Spurgeon

Historically, many theologians and scholars have associated themselves with the traditional view of God’s knowledge. Such scholars and theologians as C.H. Spurgeon and John Calvin have given valuable insight into this view. Almost all the reformed Christian thinkers thought God was limitless in every way. They naturally associated God with omniscience. They understood there was nothing He did not know, nothing He did not understand, and nothing past, present or future that He could not see.

John Calvin could probably be called the father of the traditional view of divine foreknowledge. After all, it is from his name the term “Calvinist” was derived as a designation for those who believe in the divine omniscience of God. Calvin basically believed that God does know all things, from the beginning of time through the end.[4] Specifically, about divine foreknowledge and man’s eternal destiny he said, “Scripture clearly proves that God, by his eternal and unchanging will, determined once and for all those whom he would one day admit to salvation and those who he would consign to destruction.”[5]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, often referred to as the “Prince of Preachers”, always backed up what he said with Scripture. The same was true on the several occasions when he preached about predestination and foreknowledge.

I do not doubt that the Lord has settled, concerning every one of his elect, the exact time when they shall pass from death unto life, the precise instrumentality by which they shall be converted, the exact word that shall strike with power on their mind, the period of conviction which they shall undergo, and the instant when they shall burst into the joyful liberty of a simple faith in Christ. It is all settled, all arranged and predetermined in the divine purpose. If the very hairs of our head are all numbered, much more the circumstances of the most important of all which can occur to us.[6]

Spurgeon was confident in knowing that His Lord was a perfect, all-knowing Creator and he preached it with passion and perseverance so the future generations would be inclined to follow in similar footsteps.

Twentieth Century Perspectives

A.W. Tozer says, because God knows everything, He cannot learn anything, and therefore nothing surprises Him. If He could learn something new, He would then be less than perfect in His knowledge. “God perfectly knows Himself and, being the source and author of all things, it follows that He knows all that can be known.” Because, Tozer concludes, God knows all things perfectly and cannot know any one thing better than any other, humans should find comfort in Him.[7]

C.S. Lewis for example wanted to make sure people grasped the ideas that God was not in human time, and that He does not live moment to moment. Instead, Lewis says, all days to God are happening presently: past, present and future; God knows what is going to happen because He is watching it happen. Even though within time, the future has not happened yet, for God it has. “Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another…if you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn.” Since all things in time are happening presently for God, He does not foresee the future; He simply sees it. Therefore, God has no history, because, “He is too completely and utterly real to have one.”[8]

There are three main views regarding divine omniscience that are all theologically well based among theological scholars.[9] These three views consistently acknowledge exhaustive divine foreknowledge to some degree.[10] Dr. Russ Bush asserts, God has exhaustive, divine foreknowledge, while fully and completely knowing His creation.[11] Paul Helseth maintains God’s exhaustive knowledge saying, “He knows all true propositions about everything that has been, is, and will be, and He does so in a manner that extends to the minutiae of past, present, and future reality.”[12] Bruce Ware, in dealing with the Gospel of Jesus Christ presents God foreseeing man’s future sin, the punishment, and set into motion a plan to save those lost souls.[13] He goes on to say God knew from the beginning of time He would need to save the sins of man and devised a plan.[14] Throughout evangelical academia, many scholars and theologians sufficiently and abundantly support the exhaustive divine foreknowledge view of God.

Within Systematic Theology, the idea of God’s perfect and divine knowledge seems to be prevalent, as opposed to the idea of God’s open knowledge. Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology defines God’s knowledge as the following, “God fully knows Himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.” Grudem says if God does know everything, then it makes Him omniscient, or all knowing. Grudem goes into detail about his definition. God fully knows Himself, which is astounding, considering He is an infinite Being. God knows all things actual which means He knows everything about His creation, including the future. God knows all things possible meaning, even if the events or circumstances do not come to pass, He still knows and understands what could have been. God has perfect knowledge of the millions of variations that creation could have had. God also knows all of these things in one simple and eternal act. The word simple here means, there are no other parts; God sees and is fully aware of everything at once. His knowledge never changes or grows.[15]

The Handbook of Evangelical Theology similarly says, “[The omniscience of] God means He comprehends all things- past, present and future, things actual and things possible.”[16] Also, according to Henry Clarence Thiessen, “God is infinite in knowledge. He knows himself and all other things perfectly from all eternity, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future. He knows things immediately, simultaneously exhaustively, and truly.”[17]

While a seemingly high percentage of religious professors and scholars support the idea of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge, there are some within this same field who support a different view of God.

The Open View of God

 Within the last two decades, there has been an increase in debate among theologians and scholars alike as to how much of the future God really knows. One side debates an all-knowing God in every aspect, while the other side debates a limited knowledge of the future. The limited knowledge is termed as the Open View of God, or Open Theism. This view limits God’s omniscience to fully knowing the past and present, but unable to fully know the future because He chose to create free will creatures.  This idea of omniscience is called Divine Current Omniscience.

The Scriptural Foundation for the Open View

Open Theism argues there are counter texts in Scripture that show the future as open, which God did not know how situations would unfold.[18] Such Scriptures include God changing His mind, changing His mind if situations change, expressing regret, or showing surprise over the outcome.[19] Other examples suggest that God did not know humans would behave the way they did, and He attempted to find out through tests if His followers will remain faithful.[20] In another instance, He asked non-rhetorical questions about potential future.[21] Therefore, the idea is to emphasize and these counter texts at face value and acknowledge God’s divine ignorance.[22] Again, Open Theists affirm Scripture’s all knowing ability, but they also affirm that God knows there are potentials in the future, which may or may not happen.[23]

Some examples would include the Lord, according to Open Theists, changes His mind. “So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exodus 32:14). In 1 Chronicles 21:15, the Bible says, “And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw and was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, ‘It is enough; now relax your hand.’ And the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”

In certain passages, God says He did know what humans would do. “…and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind (Jeremiah 19:5). Or in a few cases, God wants to know where people are, as in Genesis 3:9, “Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’”

In other areas, Open Theists say the Lord asks non-rhetorical questions of the future. “The Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst” (Numbers 14:11). In Exodus, “Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, ‘The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt’” (13:17).

The Wesleyan/ Arminian Traditions

Dr. John Sanders says Open (or “freewill) Theism can be traced back to Calcidius and subsequent centuries (circa 1550-1899), mostly within Methodist circles.[24] Not until the late twentieth century did philosophers and theologians begin to recognize this as a significant doctrine.[25] Open Theism also claims to have roots within the Arminian/ Wesleyan tradition. In fact, Pinnock says, “Ninety percent of it is in agreement with these evangelically oriented theological traditions, while ten percent of it is contested.”[26]

In the ninety percent, Open Theism says, God made man for a loving relationship. Therefore, God shows His love by allowing man to choose to say yes or no to Him.[27] “There is genuine give and take with God. In love God takes risks that we will not respond appropriately to the divine love.”[28] The central element to His greatness lies in God’s desire to be limited out of love for His creation.[29] God has every desire for man to experience this love in part, by giving him the freedom to make choices, even if they are against His Will.[30] Pinnock concludes Open Theism gives humans a better reason to pursue God with all their heart, that their lives mean something, and that their prayers really do matter to God.[31]

To this degree, Arminian/Wesleyan theology would suggest that God knows all things from eternity and knows all of the possible things that could be.[32] God knowing the past perfectly and the future potential is what is often referred to as Middle Knowledge.[33] Bryant Barry quotes Arminius in his article, “God therefore understands himself: He knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or of the creature; in active or passive capability; in the capability of operation, imagination, or enunciation: He knows all things that could have an existence, on laying down any hypothesis.”[34] God’s intimate knowledge of His Creation allows Him to know how that Creation would respond in any given situation.[35] Therefore, God foreknew by giving grace, some would accept it and some would not.[36] This very brief description helps to further define where the Open Theists stand, how they agree with the Wesleyans and where the other ten percent of their beliefs begin.

The ten percent where Open Theism disagrees with the Arminian/ Wesleyan view is in divine foreknowledge. Rather, Open Theism holds to divine omniscience but denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge. So, there is a different level of foreknowledge which Open Theism terms divine current omniscience. The divine current omniscience theory suggests that God can know everything that can be known through the present. As for future events, the actions of His creation, or His actions, God cannot know those with certainty. Pinnock says, “If God created the world, and human beings in it possess free will, it will not be possible even for God to know precisely how they will react to their freedom.” In other words, God is free to do something new, and even He does not know what that something will be.[37]

John MacArthur pointed out in his article that Open Theism began to be championed in 1990 after the article, “Evangelical Megashift” was published in Christianity Today. This article outlined what Open Theism is today by saying there was a major change on the horizon of Christianity. This change, or “megashift” was the old theism giving way to a new model theology. MacArthur says the new theology outline was giving new perspective on how to think about almost every aspect of evangelicalism.[38]

As the historical context has come into view, another important aspect would be to look at the contemporary scholarly and theological framework of each view. Again, amongst theologians and scholars alike, a traditional, all knowing God view is pervasive in academia.

Twentieth Century Perspectives

In academia, Open Theism is described as a system in which God set up the universe purposefully so some things would be contrary to what He thought would happen. The primary thesis of Open Theism is the following, “God maintains a genuine, authentic relationship between Himself and mankind.” Open Theists say if God knows everything in the future as both Calvinism and Arminianism state, then there cannot be any direct interaction between God and man.[39]

Among the major proponents of Open Theism, there is a consensus saying that God accepted certain limitations upon Himself when He created man.[40] Pinnock continues by proposing that God regulated power of choice to His Creation, thereby becoming vulnerable.[41] Specifically, he says, “Though ontologically strong, God chooses to become ‘weak’ by the decision to create a significant world God would not control. God decided to work within a history whose outcome is not predetermined and to rule over a world that is able to resist.”[42] In other words, part of God’s decisions are based on what His creatures decide, which is libertarian freedom.[43]

So, the question is asked, “Does God know for certainty the future?”[44] The basic short answer is no.[45] According to Sanders, the open view rejects divine foreknowledge and adopts the view of presentism.[46] While God does have an exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, God does not know with absolute certainty what His free will agents will decide.[47] God can do this because, while His character is immutable, His will and emotions He can change.[48]

Therefore, Open Theists affirm several ideals about the nature of God. They affirm the absolute all knowing Scripture, but part of the reality consists of possibilities. They affirm God’s omnipotence, but He chooses to limit His power through free will. They affirm God’s absolute perfection, but the absolute perfection does not supersede human freewill. They affirm God can and does predict the future and even determines it when He needs to, but they deny that all of the future is determined or predictable.[49]

Refutation of Open Theism

Voltaire correctly wrote, “If God made us in His image, we have certainly returned the compliment.”[50] This statement is especially true in regards to Open Theism. Open Theism is a man made philosophical metaphysic, not a God centered theology. The beliefs of Open Theism have portrayed the sovereign, all-knowing Creator of the Universe as basically a ghostly phantom with human emotions. Within the context of history, theology, and Scripture, this ideology does not pass the test.

Scriptural Refutation

Open Theism is paving a very dangerous road. It acknowledges that even though the character of God does not change, His will does. However, certain Scripture passages additionally refute this idea. First, if Jesus Christ is God then, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end’” (Revelation 22:13). There does not seem to be an adequate argument against this. God does not change.

Historical Refutation

In regards to history, there is no conclusive evidence of any prominent church father taking the view of Open Theism. In fact, Dr. Hammett discusses the historical evidence showing no major church father or theologian in the two thousand year church history has ever adopted the view Open Theists view of God’s foreknowledge.[51] They have simply regarded the Lord as knowing all things past, present and future.

In Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer writes, “The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until is once more worthy of Him.[52] This can be applied to the current debate. The church would be wise to concede Tozer’s challenge and maintain that view of God. Tozer goes further, “We do the greatest service to the next generation of Christians by passing on to them undiminished that noble concept of God which we received from our Hebrew and Christian fathers of generations past.”[53]

Current Theological Refutation

If the Open view is true, then omniscience cannot apply to God. After all, if God does not know the future, then how did He know that Jesus’ mother would be going to Bethlehem in the first place?[54] How could God have known the only reason for her and Joseph’s going to the City of David was due to a census?[55] Afterall, the prediction for both of these events took place 400 years before the birth of Christ. Could it be the divine ignorance pasages are really communicative tools to get His point across in Scripture?[56] God knows how people will and would respond to situations and questions, He is not ignorant.[57] He enjoyed showcasing faith and was deeply pleasured when the event transpired.[58]

Bruce Ware sums up Open Theism this way, “Open theism affirms God’s exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows-or even can know- the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically-necessary future actualities.”[59] John MacArthur writes, “But in effect, open theists have denied the deity of God Himself, by humanizing Him and trying to reconcile Him with modern methods of political correctness.”[60]Open Theism has made God more human with human emotions and therefore has tried to bring God down to man’s level.[61] This results in a dependence upon human methods of knowing God without relying on Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

There comes a point when it does not matter what title can be held of a certain doctrine. Whether a pastor is a Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist does not matter, what does matter, however, is whether or not he is a Christ follower. What matters is if that pastor’s view of the world is consistently held within the light of Scripture. Anything other than what the Bible teaches is false.

Pinnock says, “Evangelicals like to be thought of as ‘biblical’ Christians when in fact they are often stubborn traditionalists who strongly resist fresh insight into Scripture.”[62] A traditional approach versus the Open approach is not a matter of being stubborn or resistant. Rather, when there are two views that are essentially contradicting each other, then it comes down to being right or wrong. There is an old saying, “Scripture will always interpret Scripture.” So when both sides claim to be resting upon the foundation of God’s Word, then stubbornness is no longer the issue: heresy is.

 

 

 

---

[1] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge and Open Theism,” Faith & Mission, The Journal of Southeastern Theological Baptist Seminary 21, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 20.

[2] All Scripture Quotations are taken from The New American Standard Bible. 1995 Update (Lockman Foundation, 1995) unless otherwise noted.

[3] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge”: 22.

[4] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Two Volumes in One. Trans. By Henry Beveridge.1959. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Company, 1559: 3.21.2.

[5] Ibid. 3.21.1, 3, 5.

[6] C.H. Spurgeon, “The Minister’s Farewell,” Sermon. Music Hall, Surrey Gardens, England: December 11, 1859.

[7] A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins: 1961, 57.

[8] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1952: 168-170.

[9] In his article, Dr. Hammett describes three primary views of God’s divine foreknowledge. First, he says one of the earliest views to be developed was from a Roman philosopher, Boethius. Boethius’ view claims that time is not sequential for God, because He is an eternal being, so God can know the future without causing or determining it. A second view, Middle Knowledge, asserts, God knows every man and woman so personally He knows what each would do in any given situation; He knows the potentials in life. The third view, Calvinism says God foreordains all, therefore, foreknows everything. This view does not cancel human responsibility, nor does it make God to be approving of sin. Man’s freedom would be considered “combatibilist” (24).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Russ L. Bush. “Open Theism: Good Try, But No Dice,” Faith & Mission: The Journal of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 21, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 6.

[12] Paul Kjoss Helseth, “What is At Stake in the Openness Debate? The Trustworthiness of God and the Foundation of Hope” Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Heseth, Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2003: 275.

[13] Ware, Bruce A. “What is at Stake in the Openness Debate? The Gospel of Christ,” Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Heseth. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2003: 309.

[14] Ibid, 310.

[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994: 190-92.

[16] Robert P Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995: 52.

[17] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949: 81.

[18] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008).

[19] Larry D Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11),” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 140.

[20] Gregory A Boyd, “God and the Future.”

[21] Ibid.

[22] Larry D. 2001 Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11)”: 140

[23] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.”

[24] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008): 6.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Clark H Pinnock, Open Theism: “What is this? A New Teaching?- And With Authority!” (Mk1:27). Ashland Theological Journal 34, no. 0, 2002: 44.

[27] Ibid.

[28] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?” : 6

[29]Clark H. Pinnock,  “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’”: 45.

[30] John Sanders, “Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008): 2.

[31] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’” : 46.

[32] Barry E Bryant, “Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free Will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge,” Wesley Center for Applied Theology of  The Northwest Nazarene University. 2000. http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/27.4.htm (accessed October 4, 2008).

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge and Open Theism,”: 24.

[36] Barry E. Bryant, “Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley,”

[37] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’”: 47, 48.

[38] MacArthur, John, “Open Theism’s Attack On The Atonement.” The Master’s

Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 3.

[39] Pettigrew, Larry D. 2001. “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11),”: 135.

[40] Clark H. Pinnock, “God’s Sovereignty in Today’s World.” Theology Today 53, no. 1 (April 1996): 16.

[41] Ibid. 17

[42] Ibid.

[43] John Sanders, “Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence”: 6.

[44] Ibid: 10.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?”: 11

[49] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.”

[50] Voltaire quoted in, Richard L. Mayhue, “The Impossibility of God of the Possible,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 203-20.

[51] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge,”: 20.

[52] A.W. Tozer,  The Knowledge of the Holy: 9.

[53] Ibid: 10.

[54] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge,”: 22.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Larry D. Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High?”: 141.

[57] Ibid, 142.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Bruce A. Ware, 2002. “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries Theologically: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June): 194.

[60] John MacArthur, “Open Theism’s Attack On The Atonement,”: 12.

[61] Larry D. Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High?”: 148.

[62] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this?’”: 48.

On Baptism

As I was blogging a three part series coming from different angles of John 3:1-21 (which I did not start off to do, it just kind of happened like that), a couple of issues (or spin off blogs if you will) came to mind. Baptism happened to be one of those issues and it came to my attention when Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus of course is emphasizing the spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit and the washing of the Word (Paul echoes this in Titus 3:5). However, the idea of a symbolic washing away of sin, dying to self and being raised to a new life in Christ that arises from that text should not escape our attention. So the question then becomes, what is baptism? Obviously, it is important (all evangelical churches practice this), but why? Just how important is it?

Jesus Christ was baptized. Matthew 3:13-17 says,

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Jesus’ comment for Him to fulfill all righteousness referred to a prophecy in Psalm 40:7, 8. “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.’” This makes sense when viewed in light of the Spirit of God coming down as a dove to show His pleasure with His Son. Not only is Christ delighting in doing His Father’s will, but the Father is pleased with Him. Jesus’ baptism was also the inauguration of His public ministry.

Baptism is a command given by our Lord right before He ascended back into Heaven. In Matthew 28:19, 20, Jesus says: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Known as the Great Commission, this is where the specific ordinance of believer’s baptism was first instituted.

The word for baptize, in the original Greek (baptiz­o), comes from the root word bapto (to immerse) and both appear within the New Testament 83 times collectively. Baptizo means to be immersed with water (literally, to make fully wet) in token of purification from sin. In the general sense of the word, it means to be identified with (just like the Israelites were identified with Moses: cf. 1 Corinthians 10:2). Paul makes this point:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin (Romans 6:1-7).

We have identified ourselves with Christ through baptism. Before Christ, we were dead in our sins (cf. Ephesians 2:1, 2; Colossians 2:13, 14). After a person asks Jesus to be their Lord and Savior, baptism is first public display of identifying with Christ. We are buried (because we recognize that we deserve to die) into the baptismal waters in the likeness of Christ (because we also recognize that Christ died in our place) to our old sinful nature, and are raised to walk “in newness of life.” Romans 6:8-11 says, “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

Paul goes on to say in Colossians 2:9-12

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The same powerful, wonderful faith that raised Christ from the dead is the same faith that is at work in us when we are spiritually raised from the dead. That is the public symbol that we represent when we are baptized. That makes baptism entrical (hence the Great Commission in Matthew 28).

Please, do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Baptism is a command, and an ordinance of the church, but salvation and entrance into glory does not depend on whether or not you are baptized. Paul says it is by grace that we are saved in Ephesians. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (2:8, 9). If baptism is something that we do, and if it is a requirement for faith, then it is a work. As Paul says, salvation is not through works. In Romans 10:8-10 Paul goes on to say,

But what does [the Law] say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Baptism is not mentioned in either of these passages. Jesus says in John 3:16, 17 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” Jesus also said, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46, 47).

In Acts 10:47, Peter says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Peter says “who have received the Holy Spirit.” They had already received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.

There are people who hold to this view of requiring baptism for salvation. They tend to point to Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Looking at the English translation, it looks like they may have a point. However, the term “for the forgiveness of sins” signifies action that was done in the past. So, it could be better translated “because of the remission of sins” or “for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins” (again, cross reference this with 1 Corinthians 10:2 where the Israelites were identified with Moses). Beyond that, if baptism was so important as to be a requirement for salvation, then why is there not any evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself baptize people? In fact, John 4:1-3 says, “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee.” We must not be tempted to build a theology based on one or two verses; we have to use the whole counsel of God’s Word and let the Bible speak for itself.

Baptism is important and was instituted (and commanded in Matthew 28:19, 20) by our Lord. It is an ordinance of the body of Christ to show, we declare our newfound faith as Christians and we should out of obedience partake. If you are a believer and have not been baptized, I encourage you to let your pastor know and follow our Lord in obedience.

Examining what it means to be “Born of Water and Spirit” in John 3:5

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

One of the major questions here is what Jesus was talking about when he said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit…?” One perception is that Jesus was emphasizing baptism as a requirement for salvation. The proponents of this argument would also conclude that certain other verses (e.g. Acts 2:38) elsewhere would also allude to baptism as a requirement for salvation. This view tends to be problematic in light of Ephesians 2:8, 9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Also, Romans 3:21-28:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Besides, if baptism was so important as to be a requirement for salvation, why did Jesus not baptize (cf. John 4:1, 2)? Granted, baptism is very important, but that is for another blog.

So, what was Jesus really saying here? As with verses 14-16, there is an Old Testament element here. The reference is back to Ezekiel 36:25-27:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

We must remember the historical context. Jesus is talking to Nicodemus who was a very powerful and educated Jewish leader in his own right. Jesus is explaining to him what the requirements are to get into the Kingdom. Jesus uses here a reference to Ezekiel and the analogy begins (at least) to set into Nicodemus’ mind (although he still has a little trouble wrapping his mind around the idea of being born again in verse 9. For a broader view of this conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, click here).

There are a few things to notice in this passage. First, the term “sprinkle” here was used in cleansing ceremonies (i.e. cleansing from leprosy: Leviticus 14:6, 7). The term “clean water” here is of a ceremonial type. This is not literal water; rather, it is a spiritual cleansing through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. This is further supported in the terms “you shall be clean” and “cleanse”. “You shall be clean is in reference to ritual and moral purity (cf. Numbers 8:5-22: the ritual of sprinkling was in direct reference to them being spiritually clean and pure). This “cleansing” is also in a ceremonial or moral sense; not in the sense that actual water has regenerative powers. After all, in John 3:3, the Bible says, “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” Jesus was not talking about literal rebirth, He was talking a spiritual birth. So, here, Jesus is referencing the Ezekiel passage by showing that a new spiritual cleansing and salvation must take place before one can enter into the Kingdom. Paul echoes this idea almost verbatim in Titus 3:5-7: “[Christ] saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

Paul uses this same idea in Ephesians 5:26 when he talks about Christ presenting the church as His bride: “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” The church is to be pure through the cleansing and washing of the word. We, as the church are not going to be literally washed. This is, again, a spiritual and moral cleansing so we may be presented holy and blameless.

Back to Ezekiel 36:25-27. The second thing to notice is the promise of a new heart for the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31-34 says:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is God’s promise to His people that they will return to Him through His Son and the work of the Holy Spirit. This new heart is the new regenerated life that they will have through Christ. The third and final thing found in the Ezekiel passage is that God will give them a desire to want to worship Him and to walk in His ways. The heart of flesh that He will give them in Ezekiel shows a heart that is alive and responsive to the will of the Father (versus the heart of stone they currently have).

So, now in light of the passage in Ezekiel, John 3:5 again says: “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Nicodemus caught the analogy. Having been educated as he was, he knew what Christ was getting at. He may have had a hard time believing and wrapping his mind around it, but he got it. Therefore, Jesus is not only talking about a spiritual regeneration through the Holy Spirit, He is also referring to Israel as a nation and how they will one day recognize Christ as the Messiah, fall down and worship Him, and be in His Kingdom.

Well, now what? What does this have to do with us today? I think this passage forces us to realize how to interpret our Bible. What we read in English, may not necessarily read the same way in the original languages. So, we need to be conscious of the grammatical standpoint of the Scriptures. But also, we must be willing to take into account the historical aspect of the Scriptures. We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. After all, David recognizes his own spiritual renewal throughout the Psalms, but notably in Psalm 51.

Another way to apply this is making sure we know, individually, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we belong to Him. Have you taken that step? Have you been washed and cleansed through the spiritual, regenerative waters of the Word and the Holy Spirit? If you want to know more about Jesus and what He has done for you, please click here.