It could be that you've never run into this version, but considering that it has become quite well-known internationally and is available on BibleGateway, you might have just tried it there and found out about it the same way as I.
However, I want to warn you that it is a very dangerous edition. It is not only a paraphrase but is flooded with New Age theology, and thus is clearly a perversion of God's Word. If you know people who use it as their primary Bible, pray for them and send them these links—The Message can be so dangerous for the simple reason that the congregations do not study the Bible any longer, and are thus oblivious to the fact that different translations try to achieve different things, and when encountering these translations cannot comprehend the difference.
Two articles you should read about the edition:
The Message Bible: A Mystic Mess
What kind of message is "The Message"?
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
19 August, 2009
24 June, 2009
Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: From Jerusalem To The Ends of The Earth
Introduction
Jesus has made miracles. When He comes to the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asks his disciples whom the men say that He, the Son of man, is. All sorts of answers come up. Then he asks of the disciples themselves: ”But whom say ye that I am?” Simon Peter is the first to answer: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".
This passage can be found from Matthew 16:13-16. This invokes Jesus’ answer (all from KJV):
The Roman Catholic Church has interpreted this passage to mean that their church is the only authentic church. But I would like to introduce another interpretation. For this we will have to read four passages from the Book of Acts. We will first read them in full, then I will speak of the Samaritans and then give an interpretation for the passages and show their connection to the passage in Matthew 16:13-16.
Four Passages From The Book of Acts
Let us begin with a quotation of Jesus' words in Acts 1:
Let us now move forward to the day of Pentecost. This is how Peter begins to address the crowd in Acts 2:14, and Peter's speech will not be quoted here in full:
As we know, 3,000 people were baptized that day. The church grew stronger, but great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all ”except the apostles” were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). Philip then went to Samaria and proclaimed Christ there (vv. 4-6). The Samaritans had followed Simon the Sorcerer, but after Philip’s preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Samaritans were baptized, as was Simon (vv. 9-13). A curious passage follows:
The final passage we must quote in length. It is the full tenth chapter of Acts:
The First Stage: Jerusalem
Now let us remember that Jesus gave the apostles authority to give witness of Him (in Acts 1). There were three stages in His words: (1) Jerusalem, (2) All Judea and Samaria and (3) the ends of the earth.
Indeed, the first stage where the Holy Spirit was given to the Jews occured on the day of the Pentecost. That is why I only quote the beginning of Peter’s wonderful sermon, to show that his first missionary sermon was for his fellow Jews. 3,000 Jews were baptized that day.
The Second Stage: Samaria
The Samaritans are descendants of the Israelites from the time of the Assyrian Exile. Though Samaritans worshipped their own gods, their religion is close to Judaism as they regarded the Torah, the Law, as their holy book, not any later books of the Old Testament. Because of this, there was constant antagonism between the Samaritans and the Jews.
In other words, they are not fully pagans but ”half-pagans”, if such a word is sensible. But the point is this: they were descendants of the Israelites as well, but they were hostile towards the Jews.
From the point of view of missionary work this was then a very demanding area. And this is the reason why Acts speaks so deliberately about their conversion. There are two crucial things to be understood from this passage: the behaviour of the Holy Spirit and the involvement of the apostles.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit had not descended upon them (v. 16). Why is this? The answer follows in v. 17: the apostles came, laid their hands on them and they received the Spirit.
What is the reason for God to not give the Holy Spirit before the apostles have come and blessed the Samaritans? Unlike the teaching of many baptist churches (including the Pentecostals), this is hardly proof of two separate baptisms (that of water and that of spirit; Ephesians 4:4-6 should be ample proof of only one baptism, as well). Instead, this is proof of God moving forward with his eschatological plan concerning Christ’s salvation: by not giving the Holy Spirit in baptism, as it usually is given, God made it necessary for the apostles to travel from Jerusalem to Samaria and meet with the congregation there. As you can see from the Scripture, nothing is wrong with the congregation, as the apostles give no directives, they do not prohibit the congregation from doing anything. They simply laid their hands on the people and they received the Spirit. In other words, nothing the congregation did could have brought the Spirit, as proven by this passage: it was God’s unique plan to bring the apostles there to Samaria and through them give them the Spirit.
You may have gotten my point already, but let’s ask: why did God want the apostles there? The primary reason is the antagonism between the Samaritans and the Jews. It is likely that had not the apostles come there and thus unite the Samaritan Christian church with that of Jerusalem, that Christianity would have suffered its first dividing crisis right there and then. In other words, God made the apostles travel there so that the Samaritans could have seen the power of God, and so that there could have been unity. This was a unique occurence in which the time between the baptism and the arrival of the Holy Spirit was delayed by God Himself to unify the churches.
The Third Stage: The Ends of the Earth
The final step in bringing the gospel from the Jews to the rest of the world happened with the household of Cornelius. This has been recorded in Acts 10.
The key to understanding this passage lies in v. 28, where Peter says:
It was unlawful for Peter to come to pagans, to the Gentiles. Now we should ask the obvious question: why did Peter come, then? Was there any other reason apart from that being the will of God?
The answer is no. Not only saw Cornelius a vision to reach for Peter, Peter saw in a vision all sorts of animals and God saying they were free to be eaten, and that ”What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (v. 15). What is the motif behind this?
The point in Luke’s narrative in which this occurs tells a lot. Cornelius has sent his servants to Joppa already, and when Peter is still trying to figure out what the vision meant, the men arrived to him. It is also telling that this happened thrice: Peter denied Jesus thrice, Jesus questioned whether Peter loved Him thrice, so that this held special significance to Peter. Not also that, but through repetition it was ensured that the receiver understood that this was of crucial importance.
God has cleansed that which was unclean before. Peter would have not gone to Cornelius had not he seen the vision, so it was God’s will that he go. Why? Because Jesus promised Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom; that he would be the one actually opening doors to the kingdom. He had been involved in that calling on the day of the Pentecost; he had travelled to Samaria to unite the warring Samaritan congregation and the new Christian congregation of Jerusalem in the name of Jesus Christ. Now he was to be the one whom Jesus wanted to reach for the pagan world (remember that the Samaritans were, should we say, not entirely pagans because of their Jewish origins).
What Peter did with Cornelius was that he preached the gospel (vv. 34-43). What happened then was that the Holy Spirit fell on all them who heard the word (44). It did not fall on them because of their own doing, it fell on them as the result of the word, which astonished those of Jewish origin greatly (45), for some had come with Peter. Peter’s statement is again crucially important. He asks:
As Peter has already said, it was unlawful for him to be there, and this made baptism very difficult. What God did, instead, was to give the Holy Spirit before the baptism. Why? Not because there would be two different baptisms, again a teaching that is heretical, but because He wanted to show to Peter that this was His doing and that He wanted them to be baptized because He was now in that moment reaching out to the Gentile world. The Holy Spirit is given in the Christian baptism, yet this is again a unique occurence in the history of the Church, because God was reaching out beyond the Jewish world with these two acts.
Concerning the baptism, it is important to see that Peter speaks of baptism in the passive. This is called the passivum divinum, a recurrent grammatical occurence in the Bible, where the verb is in passive (no direct grammatical subject present in the clause) and whose subject is actually God. So God does the baptizing, not men. It is not done by Peter, who is merely an instrument, and it is not done by Cornelius, who somehow felt that now he was ready to get the baptism. No, it was done by God, affirmed by Peter’s question: now that God has given them the Holy Spirit, is there any reason not to give them the gift of God, that is, baptism, now that they clearly are supposed to have it?
Summary
The point here has been that Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; He gave Peter authority to be the one who was there to open the door to the kingdom of Heaven not only to the Jews on the Pentecost but also to the half-pagan Samaritans and the pagans in Cornelius’ house. In Acts 1:7-8 He told the apostles how this was to be done: first they were to witness to Jerusalem, then to all Judea and Samaria and thirdly to all the world.
The is no biblical mention of two baptisms. Eph 4:4-6 should be enough of evidence for all Christians. However, some Christians, who have made the baptism of water into a man-centric event, have thus denied the active role of God in the event of baptism. Thus they have had to invent another baptism for the Holy Spirit to work, which is the so-called ”baptism of the Holy Spirit”. This is the result of a faulty interpretation of the passages we have read through: they have taken historically unique events to present the nature of the Christian baptism, which is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Luke was a historian and the Book of Acts is primarily a history book of the early Christian church. This means that the reason why such occurences as the Pentecost, the conversion of the Samaritans and of Cornelius are included in this book is because they have historical value of how God works. Their primary value for us is to show that this is how God worked during the early church. The epistles are the source whence the interpretation and doctrine should come from. For this reason many Christians have, most likely without realizing, stripped baptism of the divine sacrament that it is (and as clearly taught not only by Jesus but by Paul and the apostles, as well) and made it into a man-centric event where the supposed ”own” faith of man and his obedience is exalted and baptism is only a rite of initiation, whereas the Bible actually teaches us that it is God who baptizes us.
Thus from Acts 8 and 10 one cannot create a dogma that this is how the baptism works every time, because the point of their inclusion in the Acts was to show that this was how God worked this once. The same people do not make a doctrine out of Acts 2 where the apostles are given the Spirit, because they realize that the Pentecost was the fulfillment of not only Jesus’ promise but of John the Baptist’s prophecy as well (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). We have to realize that the Pentecost was not the only unique act by God in the Book of Acts. Just as Jesus had to die only once on the cross and be resurrected once, so had the Holy Spirit be given to the apostles only once, and the gospel be preached and the Spirit given to the Samaritans once and the Gentiles once. These are historical events, and their doctrinal attributes can only be understood in light of the teaching that is the function of all Pauline letters and everything else in the NT before the Revelation, whose primary function is to let us know of God’s divine and unique works in the future.
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
Jesus has made miracles. When He comes to the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asks his disciples whom the men say that He, the Son of man, is. All sorts of answers come up. Then he asks of the disciples themselves: ”But whom say ye that I am?” Simon Peter is the first to answer: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".
This passage can be found from Matthew 16:13-16. This invokes Jesus’ answer (all from KJV):
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Roman Catholic Church has interpreted this passage to mean that their church is the only authentic church. But I would like to introduce another interpretation. For this we will have to read four passages from the Book of Acts. We will first read them in full, then I will speak of the Samaritans and then give an interpretation for the passages and show their connection to the passage in Matthew 16:13-16.
Four Passages From The Book of Acts
Let us begin with a quotation of Jesus' words in Acts 1:
7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Let us now move forward to the day of Pentecost. This is how Peter begins to address the crowd in Acts 2:14, and Peter's speech will not be quoted here in full:
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words[.]
As we know, 3,000 people were baptized that day. The church grew stronger, but great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all ”except the apostles” were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). Philip then went to Samaria and proclaimed Christ there (vv. 4-6). The Samaritans had followed Simon the Sorcerer, but after Philip’s preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Samaritans were baptized, as was Simon (vv. 9-13). A curious passage follows:
14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
The final passage we must quote in length. It is the full tenth chapter of Acts:
1There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 5And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: 6He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
7And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; 8And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.
9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
17Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, 18And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. 19While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. 20Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.21Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? 22And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
23Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. 27And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. 28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
30And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. 32Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. 33Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) 37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The First Stage: Jerusalem
Now let us remember that Jesus gave the apostles authority to give witness of Him (in Acts 1). There were three stages in His words: (1) Jerusalem, (2) All Judea and Samaria and (3) the ends of the earth.
Indeed, the first stage where the Holy Spirit was given to the Jews occured on the day of the Pentecost. That is why I only quote the beginning of Peter’s wonderful sermon, to show that his first missionary sermon was for his fellow Jews. 3,000 Jews were baptized that day.
The Second Stage: Samaria
The Samaritans are descendants of the Israelites from the time of the Assyrian Exile. Though Samaritans worshipped their own gods, their religion is close to Judaism as they regarded the Torah, the Law, as their holy book, not any later books of the Old Testament. Because of this, there was constant antagonism between the Samaritans and the Jews.
In other words, they are not fully pagans but ”half-pagans”, if such a word is sensible. But the point is this: they were descendants of the Israelites as well, but they were hostile towards the Jews.
From the point of view of missionary work this was then a very demanding area. And this is the reason why Acts speaks so deliberately about their conversion. There are two crucial things to be understood from this passage: the behaviour of the Holy Spirit and the involvement of the apostles.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit had not descended upon them (v. 16). Why is this? The answer follows in v. 17: the apostles came, laid their hands on them and they received the Spirit.
What is the reason for God to not give the Holy Spirit before the apostles have come and blessed the Samaritans? Unlike the teaching of many baptist churches (including the Pentecostals), this is hardly proof of two separate baptisms (that of water and that of spirit; Ephesians 4:4-6 should be ample proof of only one baptism, as well). Instead, this is proof of God moving forward with his eschatological plan concerning Christ’s salvation: by not giving the Holy Spirit in baptism, as it usually is given, God made it necessary for the apostles to travel from Jerusalem to Samaria and meet with the congregation there. As you can see from the Scripture, nothing is wrong with the congregation, as the apostles give no directives, they do not prohibit the congregation from doing anything. They simply laid their hands on the people and they received the Spirit. In other words, nothing the congregation did could have brought the Spirit, as proven by this passage: it was God’s unique plan to bring the apostles there to Samaria and through them give them the Spirit.
You may have gotten my point already, but let’s ask: why did God want the apostles there? The primary reason is the antagonism between the Samaritans and the Jews. It is likely that had not the apostles come there and thus unite the Samaritan Christian church with that of Jerusalem, that Christianity would have suffered its first dividing crisis right there and then. In other words, God made the apostles travel there so that the Samaritans could have seen the power of God, and so that there could have been unity. This was a unique occurence in which the time between the baptism and the arrival of the Holy Spirit was delayed by God Himself to unify the churches.
The Third Stage: The Ends of the Earth
The final step in bringing the gospel from the Jews to the rest of the world happened with the household of Cornelius. This has been recorded in Acts 10.
The key to understanding this passage lies in v. 28, where Peter says:
Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
It was unlawful for Peter to come to pagans, to the Gentiles. Now we should ask the obvious question: why did Peter come, then? Was there any other reason apart from that being the will of God?
The answer is no. Not only saw Cornelius a vision to reach for Peter, Peter saw in a vision all sorts of animals and God saying they were free to be eaten, and that ”What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (v. 15). What is the motif behind this?
The point in Luke’s narrative in which this occurs tells a lot. Cornelius has sent his servants to Joppa already, and when Peter is still trying to figure out what the vision meant, the men arrived to him. It is also telling that this happened thrice: Peter denied Jesus thrice, Jesus questioned whether Peter loved Him thrice, so that this held special significance to Peter. Not also that, but through repetition it was ensured that the receiver understood that this was of crucial importance.
God has cleansed that which was unclean before. Peter would have not gone to Cornelius had not he seen the vision, so it was God’s will that he go. Why? Because Jesus promised Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom; that he would be the one actually opening doors to the kingdom. He had been involved in that calling on the day of the Pentecost; he had travelled to Samaria to unite the warring Samaritan congregation and the new Christian congregation of Jerusalem in the name of Jesus Christ. Now he was to be the one whom Jesus wanted to reach for the pagan world (remember that the Samaritans were, should we say, not entirely pagans because of their Jewish origins).
What Peter did with Cornelius was that he preached the gospel (vv. 34-43). What happened then was that the Holy Spirit fell on all them who heard the word (44). It did not fall on them because of their own doing, it fell on them as the result of the word, which astonished those of Jewish origin greatly (45), for some had come with Peter. Peter’s statement is again crucially important. He asks:
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
As Peter has already said, it was unlawful for him to be there, and this made baptism very difficult. What God did, instead, was to give the Holy Spirit before the baptism. Why? Not because there would be two different baptisms, again a teaching that is heretical, but because He wanted to show to Peter that this was His doing and that He wanted them to be baptized because He was now in that moment reaching out to the Gentile world. The Holy Spirit is given in the Christian baptism, yet this is again a unique occurence in the history of the Church, because God was reaching out beyond the Jewish world with these two acts.
Concerning the baptism, it is important to see that Peter speaks of baptism in the passive. This is called the passivum divinum, a recurrent grammatical occurence in the Bible, where the verb is in passive (no direct grammatical subject present in the clause) and whose subject is actually God. So God does the baptizing, not men. It is not done by Peter, who is merely an instrument, and it is not done by Cornelius, who somehow felt that now he was ready to get the baptism. No, it was done by God, affirmed by Peter’s question: now that God has given them the Holy Spirit, is there any reason not to give them the gift of God, that is, baptism, now that they clearly are supposed to have it?
Summary
The point here has been that Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; He gave Peter authority to be the one who was there to open the door to the kingdom of Heaven not only to the Jews on the Pentecost but also to the half-pagan Samaritans and the pagans in Cornelius’ house. In Acts 1:7-8 He told the apostles how this was to be done: first they were to witness to Jerusalem, then to all Judea and Samaria and thirdly to all the world.
The is no biblical mention of two baptisms. Eph 4:4-6 should be enough of evidence for all Christians. However, some Christians, who have made the baptism of water into a man-centric event, have thus denied the active role of God in the event of baptism. Thus they have had to invent another baptism for the Holy Spirit to work, which is the so-called ”baptism of the Holy Spirit”. This is the result of a faulty interpretation of the passages we have read through: they have taken historically unique events to present the nature of the Christian baptism, which is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Luke was a historian and the Book of Acts is primarily a history book of the early Christian church. This means that the reason why such occurences as the Pentecost, the conversion of the Samaritans and of Cornelius are included in this book is because they have historical value of how God works. Their primary value for us is to show that this is how God worked during the early church. The epistles are the source whence the interpretation and doctrine should come from. For this reason many Christians have, most likely without realizing, stripped baptism of the divine sacrament that it is (and as clearly taught not only by Jesus but by Paul and the apostles, as well) and made it into a man-centric event where the supposed ”own” faith of man and his obedience is exalted and baptism is only a rite of initiation, whereas the Bible actually teaches us that it is God who baptizes us.
Thus from Acts 8 and 10 one cannot create a dogma that this is how the baptism works every time, because the point of their inclusion in the Acts was to show that this was how God worked this once. The same people do not make a doctrine out of Acts 2 where the apostles are given the Spirit, because they realize that the Pentecost was the fulfillment of not only Jesus’ promise but of John the Baptist’s prophecy as well (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). We have to realize that the Pentecost was not the only unique act by God in the Book of Acts. Just as Jesus had to die only once on the cross and be resurrected once, so had the Holy Spirit be given to the apostles only once, and the gospel be preached and the Spirit given to the Samaritans once and the Gentiles once. These are historical events, and their doctrinal attributes can only be understood in light of the teaching that is the function of all Pauline letters and everything else in the NT before the Revelation, whose primary function is to let us know of God’s divine and unique works in the future.
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
23 June, 2009
Faith, The Gift of God
There are three NT passages that are elementary to this, crucial in its understanding: that God gives faith for men.
The first is from Romans 12:3—
The second from Hebrews 12:2—
The third is from Ephesians 2:8-9—
Some argue that in Ephesians 2:8 Paul does not mean that faith would be the gift of God but salvation. But this is faulty, this logic, because even if Paul referred to grace and salvation as God’s gifts, it cannot follow that he could not refer to faith, as well, as both Hebrews and Romans testify it true. Some argue that such a reading is not in harmony with v. 9 (”not of works”) yet can they not see how their own doing is in exactly in question? That God provides the faith of men and if we try to make faith into a human construct we try to get salvation through our own works?
There are two articles I want to write about this subject: one about baptism and the other about faith. But the underlying point is this: the Bible teaches that God provides us with faith, not us. The only thing we can do is hinder God's work in us.
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
The first is from Romans 12:3—
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. (KJV)
The second from Hebrews 12:2—
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (KJV)
The third is from Ephesians 2:8-9—
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. (KJV)
Some argue that in Ephesians 2:8 Paul does not mean that faith would be the gift of God but salvation. But this is faulty, this logic, because even if Paul referred to grace and salvation as God’s gifts, it cannot follow that he could not refer to faith, as well, as both Hebrews and Romans testify it true. Some argue that such a reading is not in harmony with v. 9 (”not of works”) yet can they not see how their own doing is in exactly in question? That God provides the faith of men and if we try to make faith into a human construct we try to get salvation through our own works?
There are two articles I want to write about this subject: one about baptism and the other about faith. But the underlying point is this: the Bible teaches that God provides us with faith, not us. The only thing we can do is hinder God's work in us.
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
22 June, 2009
βρέφος In Luke 18:15 And On Baptism
In Luke 18:15 the Word says the following—
I am a Lutheran myself, baptized as an infant, but I have spent quite some time in a Pentecostal congregation, mainly interpreting the sermons from Finnish to English. You may realize the shift in the paradigm: whereas Luther realized that baptism is an act of God, the Pentecostals have turned it into a man-centric display of our obedience, which is very unbiblical. They have, however, invented a separate baptism, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us they are not two separate things but that the Holy Spirit is given us in baptism with water. This is why Jesus speaks of "water and spirit" in John 3:5. I will write about this more in the future, but this will have to do until then on the subject of the relation of baptism to salvation.
Anyway, I have heard many people tell me there that the baptism of babies is wrong. This is based on the false teaching that one has to have made a conscious decision to believe before being baptized, which is again another topic for another article. But when we go to see Jesus' attitude towards children, we find something very different altogether when compared to the sneerful attitude many "teachers" have: in v. 16 Jesus rebukes them and says that these children should be allowed to come to Him because He actually holds little children as the example for us adults.
God makes it implicitly clear when He has Luke use the word βρέφος, brephos. The meaning of this word can be 1) an unborn child, embryo, a foetus and 2) a new-born child, an infant, a babe. So they brought all sorts of children to Him, from fetuses in their mothers' wombs to infants and a bit older children. Jesus blesses them and actually sets them as an example for us adults.
We have to remember that the faith that we have is a gift from God (Eph 2:8; Heb 12:2; Rom 12:3). If you abandon the reality of baptism as an act of God (as a sacrament), you have to get around it somehow. But baptism clearly is not just a rite of initiation, as it is made to be by men. Paul writes about it extensively in Romans 6. Also, everytime someone is baptized in the New Testament, the passivum divinum (the divine passive) is used. What it means is that the verb form is in passive, man is the object and God is the real initiator of action. This is consistent throughout the Bible (see for example Matthew 3:6, 20:22-23; Acts 1:5, 2:38, 10:48, Romans 6:3. For a more detailed list based on the KJV, follow the link here). Consequently, God is the subject and man the object in baptism. It is God's beautiful sacrament for us!
Again, consequently, as God gives faith and as baptism is God's work, not of men's, there is no reason to blaspheme His baptism. If we deny young children their baptism, we are in direct opposition to Jesus' words, as He Himself rebuked His disciples that they should not hinder them from coming to Him. It seems that this is such a big problem in some churches because they cannot admit that what they have done is they have abandoned the grace God gives us in baptism and made it into an idolatrous joke where our decision to follow God is uplifted when we go to be baptized. In ourselves we are nothing, but God is everything!
These are harsh words, but I believe the integrity of the Scriptures is at stake if you make baptism into a mere initiation rite, and for this very reason I feel in the Holy Spirit that it is not only my right but also my obligation to defend the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Scriptures in the Holy Spirit.
If you know Finnish, I wish to recommend a book for you on the subject. Pyhä Kaste Raamatussa and Pyhä Kaste Kirkossa, written by Matti Väisänen, is a two-volume exegesis on this very subject, an exhaustive and blessing read, written clearly in the humility of a Christ's servant, full of the Holy Spirit. Much of the articles that appear here in the future concerning baptism are based on the things the Holy Spirit opened to me through that book.
15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (KJV)
I am a Lutheran myself, baptized as an infant, but I have spent quite some time in a Pentecostal congregation, mainly interpreting the sermons from Finnish to English. You may realize the shift in the paradigm: whereas Luther realized that baptism is an act of God, the Pentecostals have turned it into a man-centric display of our obedience, which is very unbiblical. They have, however, invented a separate baptism, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us they are not two separate things but that the Holy Spirit is given us in baptism with water. This is why Jesus speaks of "water and spirit" in John 3:5. I will write about this more in the future, but this will have to do until then on the subject of the relation of baptism to salvation.
Anyway, I have heard many people tell me there that the baptism of babies is wrong. This is based on the false teaching that one has to have made a conscious decision to believe before being baptized, which is again another topic for another article. But when we go to see Jesus' attitude towards children, we find something very different altogether when compared to the sneerful attitude many "teachers" have: in v. 16 Jesus rebukes them and says that these children should be allowed to come to Him because He actually holds little children as the example for us adults.
God makes it implicitly clear when He has Luke use the word βρέφος, brephos. The meaning of this word can be 1) an unborn child, embryo, a foetus and 2) a new-born child, an infant, a babe. So they brought all sorts of children to Him, from fetuses in their mothers' wombs to infants and a bit older children. Jesus blesses them and actually sets them as an example for us adults.
We have to remember that the faith that we have is a gift from God (Eph 2:8; Heb 12:2; Rom 12:3). If you abandon the reality of baptism as an act of God (as a sacrament), you have to get around it somehow. But baptism clearly is not just a rite of initiation, as it is made to be by men. Paul writes about it extensively in Romans 6. Also, everytime someone is baptized in the New Testament, the passivum divinum (the divine passive) is used. What it means is that the verb form is in passive, man is the object and God is the real initiator of action. This is consistent throughout the Bible (see for example Matthew 3:6, 20:22-23; Acts 1:5, 2:38, 10:48, Romans 6:3. For a more detailed list based on the KJV, follow the link here). Consequently, God is the subject and man the object in baptism. It is God's beautiful sacrament for us!
Again, consequently, as God gives faith and as baptism is God's work, not of men's, there is no reason to blaspheme His baptism. If we deny young children their baptism, we are in direct opposition to Jesus' words, as He Himself rebuked His disciples that they should not hinder them from coming to Him. It seems that this is such a big problem in some churches because they cannot admit that what they have done is they have abandoned the grace God gives us in baptism and made it into an idolatrous joke where our decision to follow God is uplifted when we go to be baptized. In ourselves we are nothing, but God is everything!
These are harsh words, but I believe the integrity of the Scriptures is at stake if you make baptism into a mere initiation rite, and for this very reason I feel in the Holy Spirit that it is not only my right but also my obligation to defend the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Scriptures in the Holy Spirit.
If you know Finnish, I wish to recommend a book for you on the subject. Pyhä Kaste Raamatussa and Pyhä Kaste Kirkossa, written by Matti Väisänen, is a two-volume exegesis on this very subject, an exhaustive and blessing read, written clearly in the humility of a Christ's servant, full of the Holy Spirit. Much of the articles that appear here in the future concerning baptism are based on the things the Holy Spirit opened to me through that book.
11 June, 2009
Take Now Thy Son, Thine Only Son
These words are spoken by God to Abraham in Genesis 22, in the famous passage in which He commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, for a burnt offering.
We know the rest, how Abraham rose up early in the morning, took two young men with him and Isaac his son, went to the land of Moria, continued awhile with Isaac, who has now noticed that the lamb for burnt offering is missing. Abraham soothes him by saying that God provides a lamb for himself; then he builds the altar, bound his son and at the moment he was about to strike, God stopped him. Not only this, the Angel of the Lord Himself called him out of heaven saying, ”Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” Can you realize the shattering reality of this? And behold, a ram was caught in a thicket by his horns, and Abraham took it and offered it up for a burnt offering.
The point of reference is Christ, of course. 2 Chronicles 3:1 testifies that in that very same place, in mount Moria, Solomon built the temple, the house of the Lord at Jerusalem. This is heart-shattering: God takes Abraham to sacrifice his son, does not let him do it and some thousands of years later shows to this world that He indeed will ”provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (8): Abraham’s only son Isaac is spared, but Jesus was sacrificed instead. On that very same spot where Abraham was ready to sacrifice his only son God did the only thing possible to redeem us, and whereas Abraham proved his loyalty and faithfulness to God that day, God proved his loyalty and love for us on the day He did not even spare His only Son. This is in the core of the expression ”did not even spare His only Son”, the link between these two moments.
In Jesus’ Name, forgive us, O Lord!
For what do we know of sacrifice?
1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (KJV)
We know the rest, how Abraham rose up early in the morning, took two young men with him and Isaac his son, went to the land of Moria, continued awhile with Isaac, who has now noticed that the lamb for burnt offering is missing. Abraham soothes him by saying that God provides a lamb for himself; then he builds the altar, bound his son and at the moment he was about to strike, God stopped him. Not only this, the Angel of the Lord Himself called him out of heaven saying, ”Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” Can you realize the shattering reality of this? And behold, a ram was caught in a thicket by his horns, and Abraham took it and offered it up for a burnt offering.
The point of reference is Christ, of course. 2 Chronicles 3:1 testifies that in that very same place, in mount Moria, Solomon built the temple, the house of the Lord at Jerusalem. This is heart-shattering: God takes Abraham to sacrifice his son, does not let him do it and some thousands of years later shows to this world that He indeed will ”provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (8): Abraham’s only son Isaac is spared, but Jesus was sacrificed instead. On that very same spot where Abraham was ready to sacrifice his only son God did the only thing possible to redeem us, and whereas Abraham proved his loyalty and faithfulness to God that day, God proved his loyalty and love for us on the day He did not even spare His only Son. This is in the core of the expression ”did not even spare His only Son”, the link between these two moments.
In Jesus’ Name, forgive us, O Lord!
For what do we know of sacrifice?
24 May, 2009
About NET Bible
I have been quite happy about the NET Bible that you can peruse on netbible.org. It has offered great wisdom and all that I have read has seemed to be written in great reverence for our God. So, once again I thought perusing it to find out whether the commentary they offer has something insightful to say of the Genesis chapters I have by God's mercy and grace covered in the previous articles. Then I happened onto a footnote for 1:26, where God says "Let us make. . ." using the plural. And this is what it says in the footnote:
Then it advances to other interpretations. Truth be told, much of my appreciation for the edition just dropped. The emphasis in the the text is mine, and such an argument as presented in the commentary is far from scriptural. The argument here is, naturally, that the trinitarian concept is a later invention than Genesis and not present from the very beginning. In other words, the argument of the commentary is either that it cannot refer to the Trinity because Trinity is a Christian concept or because the writer of the book of Genesis (I have no problem calling him Moses) did not know the concept of the Trinity, which leads to the conclusion that Genesis wasn't inspired by God. Why such a conclusion? Because surely it would not have been necessary for Moses to know the concept of the Trinity because God was the one from whom the Word came in the first place.
I am writing this article as a therapeutical piece to vent a bit but also to voice concern over the overall quality of the NET commentary. I suppose this is the downside of having a group of people doing the writing as their beliefs most certainly seem to differ quite a lot. Considering this, the NET is very faithful to the Scriptures when it explains that the Creation must have taken six days (a stumbling block for modern-day preachers and commentaries).
The lesson we may learn from this is that we should use discernment in the Holy Spirit all the time we read commentaries and are exposed to teaching. They may feel good and look right, but there might be something there, even a nuance, that can throw you from your track. I admit that I was too blindly trusting the NET.
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. (source)
Then it advances to other interpretations. Truth be told, much of my appreciation for the edition just dropped. The emphasis in the the text is mine, and such an argument as presented in the commentary is far from scriptural. The argument here is, naturally, that the trinitarian concept is a later invention than Genesis and not present from the very beginning. In other words, the argument of the commentary is either that it cannot refer to the Trinity because Trinity is a Christian concept or because the writer of the book of Genesis (I have no problem calling him Moses) did not know the concept of the Trinity, which leads to the conclusion that Genesis wasn't inspired by God. Why such a conclusion? Because surely it would not have been necessary for Moses to know the concept of the Trinity because God was the one from whom the Word came in the first place.
I am writing this article as a therapeutical piece to vent a bit but also to voice concern over the overall quality of the NET commentary. I suppose this is the downside of having a group of people doing the writing as their beliefs most certainly seem to differ quite a lot. Considering this, the NET is very faithful to the Scriptures when it explains that the Creation must have taken six days (a stumbling block for modern-day preachers and commentaries).
The lesson we may learn from this is that we should use discernment in the Holy Spirit all the time we read commentaries and are exposed to teaching. They may feel good and look right, but there might be something there, even a nuance, that can throw you from your track. I admit that I was too blindly trusting the NET.
23 May, 2009
Genesis 3: A Reading
I have spent much time already on this chapter from the perspective of the Fall: what did Satan do, what did Eve do, what did Adam do and leave undone, etc., and you may read about it in an earlier article I published here. So I wondered that let us then concentrate on a neglected person in this chapter, whose behaviour we do not think in much profundity: God Himself.
God’s Long Walks In The Garden
The amazing thing we find out in v. 8 is of course the leisurely activity God is involved in: He actually walks in the garden, in the cool of the day. Not only does this sound leisurely, it sounds almost pastoral and romanticized. It is only half of the verse yet it denote an incredible truth: that God truly walked amongst the creatures in this earth, the very ground of this very same earth! Again, when we jump to the final chapters of Revelation we will see that this natural state will be reinstated: that God will live amongst His people.
So, the first thing God does is call out for Adam. Why? Adam has just hid himself and Eve from God amongst the trees of the garden, and God calls for him. This is a very fatherly thing to do at this instance, as God of course knows what has happened, but let us imagine this moment happening during any other day, as the tone of the narrative implies that this was a habitual thing for God to walk in the garden. Think of God walking around in the garden and then, when you are nowhere to be seen, He actually calls you by name to join His company. Think of it! The Bible does not bear record of such interactions but one such could have happened had Adam not fallen. The thought of being called by God in the cool air of the evening in the midst of the garden of Eden. Just the thought of it!
God’s Questions, The Curses
Sadly, we know what has happened, and God knows it as well. He calls Adam most likely to allow Adam come forth. This is telling. God does asks questions not because He does not know but because He wants to interact with Adam. ”Where art thou?”, ”Who told thee thou wast naked?”, ”Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” and ”What is this that thou hast done?” are all questions God knows the answer to. But they all invite Adam and Eve to interact with their Maker. I cannot but help see such patience, such dignity in all of this. The children He created for Himself have disobeyed, and even amidst Adam even blaming Him in v. 12 (”the woman thou gavest to be with me”) and both Adam and Eve passing the blame He does not curse them first but curses the root of the problem, Satan. What is interesting here is that Satan appears in the shape of the serpent, and God curses the serpent as species. An interesting notion in v. 14 is that the serpent’s way of slithering on its belly seems to be an effect of God’s curse and not has been its primary way of moving before.
Another interesting notion is that this curse is two verses long: the first one concerns the serpent as a species, the second one is a direct prophecy of Christ to Satan. Again, just think of the proportions of this seemingly leisurely evening walk in the breeze: the first prophecy in this world was delivered by God Himself (again, in Revelation, it is Jesus Christ whose revelation is told to John) and it was delivered directly to Satan. From the very beginning Satan has known that its time will come when it will fall definitely.
I have spoken of the loving characteristics of God. But we should understand that in the same God in whom there is love there is also anger, and this wrath is an essential part of Him just as love is, as well. We will never be able to fear Him or understand the true consequence of sin and its effect if we are not knowledgeable that God hates sin and that He will let His anger befall those who hate Him. In v. 16 He multiplies the physical pains of childbirth. Again, think of the original state: from the text it can be taken that there might have been some kind of pain during childbirth but as a consequence of sin they were ”greatly” multiplied. Then again we could not know whether giving birth in Eden was painful or not at all because there was none born in Eden.
The rhetoric of v. 17 is very important. This is God’s curse concerning us who are males. The primary reason listed is that Adam harkened unto the voice of his wife and ate of the tree. As the Scriptures teaches us, man is the head of the family, not the woman. If you disagree, you go straight against the Word of God. Adam’s fault was that he was not being a man: had he been a man he would have assumed his role as the head of Eve, said that she should not eat of the fruit of tree and be done with the problem. Instead, he was quiet through the whole dialogue between Satan and Eve (I have actually written about this in more detail earlier if you want to read further on the subject). He was passive and let the woman be beguiled. In other words, Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin because Adam was the head of Eve and as such responsible for Eve’s actions. In a similar manner man is responsible for his wife’s actions, and the actions of their children. This is why the Scriptures blames Adam for the sin, not Eve (and not for some strange misogynistic prejudice that the world tries to superimpose on the Scriptures; this is something the world cannot understand because it cannot accept that man is the head of his wife because it is the exact opposite that Satan has made the world to believe).
In v. 17 God ultimately curses the soil itself. It is no longer blessed as it used to be, but now under the same curse as everything else. Sin is thus understandable not only as an action but as a state: the whole created world is now under the sinful state.
The First Sacrifice
Later on all sorts of sacrifices to the Lord become the normal way of interaction between God and man, but in v. 21 we may witness the first killing in the created world and the first sacrifice. To our surprise we may find out that it is God who kills the animal of which He then makes garments to Adam and Eve.
Once again, this is remarkable and greatly significant. Adam and Eve have tried with the fig-leaves to make aprons for themselves in order to hide their shame, their sin. They did not succeed, and God saw what was going on. Now it is God who makes them their garments. God kills an animal and makes garments for them to cover their sin, to cover their shame. Nota bene: this is the function of the offerings God later demanded of the Israelites and in this verse we may see God setting the example, covering the sins of Adam and Eve that they themselves were unable to cover.
Out Of Eden
In the final verse of the chapter we are told that God drove Adam and Eve away from Eden, and a few verses earlier the primary reason for this is explained by God Himself: if Adam and Eve now eat of the Tree of Life, they will be forever ruined. So, perhaps the most poignant of reasons for God to drive us away from Eden was to protect us, and although it was a punishment as well, God be praised that He did so. Had Adam and Eve eaten of the Tree of Life, Jesus Christ could not have saved us because He came here to live a sinless life, actually die and suffer our sins and then rise from the dead so that we could one day rise from the dead and join our God in the new earth.
Can Eden be found? I believe v. 24 and the Flood are the two answers that will bring you the proper knowledge: we do not know the vastness of the garden of Eden but at least we know that (1) it was completely destroyed in the Flood, as everything was destroyed in the Flood, and (2) the Tree of Life cannot be accessed and could not have been accessed even by Noah before the Flood. So when the Internet is full of sensational stories about the garden of Eden, why bother, as we do not have to remember the past with such attachment because we have the New Jerusalem to look forward to. The rest of the world that tries to live their pasts over and over again through their findings do this because they think they have no future at all.
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
God’s Long Walks In The Garden
The amazing thing we find out in v. 8 is of course the leisurely activity God is involved in: He actually walks in the garden, in the cool of the day. Not only does this sound leisurely, it sounds almost pastoral and romanticized. It is only half of the verse yet it denote an incredible truth: that God truly walked amongst the creatures in this earth, the very ground of this very same earth! Again, when we jump to the final chapters of Revelation we will see that this natural state will be reinstated: that God will live amongst His people.
So, the first thing God does is call out for Adam. Why? Adam has just hid himself and Eve from God amongst the trees of the garden, and God calls for him. This is a very fatherly thing to do at this instance, as God of course knows what has happened, but let us imagine this moment happening during any other day, as the tone of the narrative implies that this was a habitual thing for God to walk in the garden. Think of God walking around in the garden and then, when you are nowhere to be seen, He actually calls you by name to join His company. Think of it! The Bible does not bear record of such interactions but one such could have happened had Adam not fallen. The thought of being called by God in the cool air of the evening in the midst of the garden of Eden. Just the thought of it!
God’s Questions, The Curses
Sadly, we know what has happened, and God knows it as well. He calls Adam most likely to allow Adam come forth. This is telling. God does asks questions not because He does not know but because He wants to interact with Adam. ”Where art thou?”, ”Who told thee thou wast naked?”, ”Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” and ”What is this that thou hast done?” are all questions God knows the answer to. But they all invite Adam and Eve to interact with their Maker. I cannot but help see such patience, such dignity in all of this. The children He created for Himself have disobeyed, and even amidst Adam even blaming Him in v. 12 (”the woman thou gavest to be with me”) and both Adam and Eve passing the blame He does not curse them first but curses the root of the problem, Satan. What is interesting here is that Satan appears in the shape of the serpent, and God curses the serpent as species. An interesting notion in v. 14 is that the serpent’s way of slithering on its belly seems to be an effect of God’s curse and not has been its primary way of moving before.
Another interesting notion is that this curse is two verses long: the first one concerns the serpent as a species, the second one is a direct prophecy of Christ to Satan. Again, just think of the proportions of this seemingly leisurely evening walk in the breeze: the first prophecy in this world was delivered by God Himself (again, in Revelation, it is Jesus Christ whose revelation is told to John) and it was delivered directly to Satan. From the very beginning Satan has known that its time will come when it will fall definitely.
I have spoken of the loving characteristics of God. But we should understand that in the same God in whom there is love there is also anger, and this wrath is an essential part of Him just as love is, as well. We will never be able to fear Him or understand the true consequence of sin and its effect if we are not knowledgeable that God hates sin and that He will let His anger befall those who hate Him. In v. 16 He multiplies the physical pains of childbirth. Again, think of the original state: from the text it can be taken that there might have been some kind of pain during childbirth but as a consequence of sin they were ”greatly” multiplied. Then again we could not know whether giving birth in Eden was painful or not at all because there was none born in Eden.
The rhetoric of v. 17 is very important. This is God’s curse concerning us who are males. The primary reason listed is that Adam harkened unto the voice of his wife and ate of the tree. As the Scriptures teaches us, man is the head of the family, not the woman. If you disagree, you go straight against the Word of God. Adam’s fault was that he was not being a man: had he been a man he would have assumed his role as the head of Eve, said that she should not eat of the fruit of tree and be done with the problem. Instead, he was quiet through the whole dialogue between Satan and Eve (I have actually written about this in more detail earlier if you want to read further on the subject). He was passive and let the woman be beguiled. In other words, Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin because Adam was the head of Eve and as such responsible for Eve’s actions. In a similar manner man is responsible for his wife’s actions, and the actions of their children. This is why the Scriptures blames Adam for the sin, not Eve (and not for some strange misogynistic prejudice that the world tries to superimpose on the Scriptures; this is something the world cannot understand because it cannot accept that man is the head of his wife because it is the exact opposite that Satan has made the world to believe).
In v. 17 God ultimately curses the soil itself. It is no longer blessed as it used to be, but now under the same curse as everything else. Sin is thus understandable not only as an action but as a state: the whole created world is now under the sinful state.
The First Sacrifice
Later on all sorts of sacrifices to the Lord become the normal way of interaction between God and man, but in v. 21 we may witness the first killing in the created world and the first sacrifice. To our surprise we may find out that it is God who kills the animal of which He then makes garments to Adam and Eve.
Once again, this is remarkable and greatly significant. Adam and Eve have tried with the fig-leaves to make aprons for themselves in order to hide their shame, their sin. They did not succeed, and God saw what was going on. Now it is God who makes them their garments. God kills an animal and makes garments for them to cover their sin, to cover their shame. Nota bene: this is the function of the offerings God later demanded of the Israelites and in this verse we may see God setting the example, covering the sins of Adam and Eve that they themselves were unable to cover.
Out Of Eden
In the final verse of the chapter we are told that God drove Adam and Eve away from Eden, and a few verses earlier the primary reason for this is explained by God Himself: if Adam and Eve now eat of the Tree of Life, they will be forever ruined. So, perhaps the most poignant of reasons for God to drive us away from Eden was to protect us, and although it was a punishment as well, God be praised that He did so. Had Adam and Eve eaten of the Tree of Life, Jesus Christ could not have saved us because He came here to live a sinless life, actually die and suffer our sins and then rise from the dead so that we could one day rise from the dead and join our God in the new earth.
Can Eden be found? I believe v. 24 and the Flood are the two answers that will bring you the proper knowledge: we do not know the vastness of the garden of Eden but at least we know that (1) it was completely destroyed in the Flood, as everything was destroyed in the Flood, and (2) the Tree of Life cannot be accessed and could not have been accessed even by Noah before the Flood. So when the Internet is full of sensational stories about the garden of Eden, why bother, as we do not have to remember the past with such attachment because we have the New Jerusalem to look forward to. The rest of the world that tries to live their pasts over and over again through their findings do this because they think they have no future at all.
Your brother in Christ,
Antti
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
