Busch’s Correspondence
The following Q & A are “single issue” excerpts from some of Brother Busch’s personal correspondence that, given their nature and theological significance, he feels may be of some interest and benefit to certain saints. Be advised: These are not detailed position papers but are informal “off-the-cuff” ministry responses to questions from fellow-laborers. Furthermore, these do not tend to be basic or “introductory” issues being addressed, and for which there already exists a plethora of resources and forums.
Begin Correspondence:
Received 7/11/12
Question:
On a different note, something that I was very glad to read about in “Appointed” was your distinction between an Israelite being “saved” eternally from the debt and penalty of their sins, or being “saved” from the physical calamities they were about to face in what was a very soon coming day of the Lord’s wrath. This is an issue that trips up so many folks, especially it seems ones trying to rightly divide. I can say as much as I was one of those people. I am currently engaged in a rather long and ongoing debate with a couple people quite close to me on this subject. It is amazing to me, now that I have a good bit of godly edification under my belt, that we are so willing to throw Romans 4 to the wind, because we have a poor understanding of a few verses in God’s program with Israel. But now, perhaps you wouldn’t mind commenting on this a bit. Being keenly aware of the example of the thief on the cross and the great ramifications of that situation alone, let’s put that aside for a moment and consider another example: Say someone like Nathanael, whom we don’t know much about, at least I’m not aware of anything else said about him other than that brief glimpse spoken of in John 1, obviously he expresses a faith in Jesus being the Christ, and in my understanding is a justified individual in the eyes of God. For the sake of clarification, what would you say would be his fate if he didn’t get water baptized for whatever reason? How does the scenario play out in your mind for someone in his situation who is justified but perhaps fails to then go through the water baptism part of the “prescription for cleansing” as Keith refers to it, and separate themselves thereby from the apostate nation of Israel? The reason I say to put the thief aside is because I think he fits this description, but at the same time, had no opportunity to be cleansed otherwise. My best guess is that the individual would be considered part of the apostate nation, would suffer the physical consequences of the Lord’s day (as with those who failed to go out to king Nebuchadnezzar, and who subsequently lost their life because of it), would no doubt lose reward, may even suffer great delusion because he wasn’t protected by the separation, but would latter on still be in the eternal kingdom of God on earth, as a resurrected saint. Granted, that isn’t very specific, but it seems logical to me even though it lacks the sharpened thinking that it really needs. What are your thoughts on a situation like this, if you care to comment?
Answer:
Concerning your question regarding the place of water baptism in Israel’s program:
You hit the nail on the head with regard to Romans. It astonishes me that people cannot see that much of what Paul says concerning faith and the law has absolutely no legitimacy if what they say is true concerning justification in Israel’s program (Gal. 3:11). I guess my view is one of understanding it in the same context as the various specific demanded works throughout Israel’s program. There is not the requirement that someone be perfect as it were, which is impossible. However, there were specific things at specific times that were demanded by God, which could be done, which were manifestations and affirmations of that faith. At the same time, it is obvious that they have no efficacy in themselves in that any number of things might interfere with their ability to perform the specific “work” in question, whether it be bringing a certain sacrifice, keeping a feast, water baptism, etc. By the same token, someone could submit to water baptism for one reason or another and still not be a believer. There is therefore no inherent efficacy in the act itself.
However, things then move into the very tricky area of where do things stand if they explicitly reject the work which is itself the specific expression of faith. The real question, I think, is whether someone could truly believe God and yet reject the specific required expression of believing God. It is one thing if there is something to “hinder” (Acts 8:36) and physically keep you from expressing that faith, but what if it is simply being rejected. This becomes tough, because it certainly seems like the rejection of what that baptism signified was the rejection of the faith itself (Luke 7:29).
However, there is clearly another category. Those who believe, do not reject baptism per se, but for “fear” (Jn. 7:13; 9:22; 12:42; 19:38) of being publicly identified with Him, appear to not have been baptized. I say “appear” because it is questionable just how far this “confession” extends, but practically speaking this would seem to be encompassed in this and demanded in some part anyway. As much as I would like to believe this is not possible for the simplicity it would provide theologically, scripture seems to make a specific point of identifying just this type of circumstance. You may want to say very firmly that they will do this if they truly believe, but such would seem to not be the case.
So I affirm all of the above: Water baptism is a special and specific work in Israel’s program identified with the “gate” and “door” as a specific confession which anybody can perform, regardless of how “sinful.” You can’t “keep the law” as it were (Acts 15:10), but you can be water baptized as God has commanded. It has no merit of itself, but is required by God in the context of the program and is the specific expression of faith (intervening “hindrances” being natural and understood as not being contrary to faith). Generally speaking, when it is rejected it is done so as a rejection of the faith, the one rejecting therefore facing the same eternal fate which he already faced before the appearance of Christ as he approaches the prospect of dying “in his sins” (John 8:21, 24) by not believing on the Son. There may be instances, however, in which a “believer” may not submit to it for fear of the “offence” and what that “confession” will mean. In this case, it would seem they are considered “foolish”, perhaps the most foolish, and precisely what you outline below is what would apply to them, as it would to other “foolishness” on the part of the remnant. I can certainly understand someone perhaps saying that a disciple (whether wise or foolish) is one who was first baptized and refusal to do this makes one an unbeliever, but again, while that is pointed out in regard to certain individuals and groups, that doesn’t appear to be the case with others that are pointed out in scripture.
Ultimately, it is a matter of the heart and God will be the judge. It is moot for us since we don’t have a specific work presented to us in connection with believing Paul’s gospel, but what about the corollary belief/work in Israel’s program? Will God justify you if you refuse to bring the sacrifice he has commanded, or say that I “believe” in the idea, but just refuse to actually bring it? How will this effect the “remission of sins” issue presented in connection with it? Given the effect this would inevitably have on your fellowship with the Father and ministry of the Spirit at that time, quite honestly I wouldn’t want to find out and I imagine taking that stance would not anchor your soul or provide you much assurance in the Lord’s Day to come. This of course does not address larger and deeper issues of the nature of the justification and life they did or didn’t have prior to the arrival of Christ, but those are far beyond my scope here. That at least is my understanding, for what it’s worth. Until next time…
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
-David W. Busch
Received 11/16/12
Question:
I have a little question concerning Matthew 16:19. What I’m especially after is what that issue is when after the Lord gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” He then tells him, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” What is the issue of “loosening” and “binding”? Outside of saying that this is something of a legal nature that has to do with the business that Peter will carry out in the kingdom – I’m not sure that I can say any more than that. Could you help me understand and appreciate this a little better – and especially how heaven and earth are connected here?
Answer:
It’s good to hear from you again. I am currently taking the folks at our fellowship through the book of Matthew, however, given my track record it will probably be a decade or so before we get to chapter 16. 🙂 That said, I will attempt to address what I can in a brief manner. Simply put, it is the official recognition of transference of authority from the apostate nation and it’s leadership who were having the kingdom “taken” from them and given to the remnant (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32), the Lord’s “my church”, with its leadership (Matt. 19:28). This gets highlighted as you prepare to move into the 3rd section of Matthew (16:21-23:39) where Christ begins to shut down His public ministry, gets ready for “his hour” in the 4th section of Matthew and prepares His remnant for the rest of the program that they will have to respond to and function in.
In this context, it is specifically a confirmation of the law of “two or three witnesses”, specifically dealing with (but not limited to) the judicial issue of forgiveness among the remnant. This forms a huge issue for the life of the remnant, specifically concerning the details of provision in the Lord’s day to come and rewards in the kingdom (and by contrast lack thereof on both accounts). The foundation for this was set forth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:12-15), built upon throughout His ministry (Matt. 18:15-20; John 20:23) and applied at various times in the book of Acts as well as in the Lord’s Day (James 5:13-20). It is an affirmation of the authority that would be resident in the Lord’s “little flock” as they carried out the various aspects of the Holy Ghost’s program with them in the face of the apostate nation whom God would not hear (Isa. 1:15; Matt. 6:7; 7:7-11; James 4:3; I Pet. 3:12) which would also be true of the “foolish” members of the remnant as well who, while justified, could still suffer loss of provision and reward.
One of the most notable examples of the use of this heaven recognized authority (and it’s impact even on us) is the infamous meeting recounted by Paul in Galatians 2. The judicial “binding and loosening” decisions that were made in accordance with the law of “two or three” would be recognized, ratified and honored in heaven. Signed, sealed and delivered if you will. This will be carried out in a much larger way with the “two witnesses” that will show up in the Lord’s Day and in accordance with their calls for specific judgments, heaven will respond with an “amen” if you will and the specific curses will fall in accordance with their word (7 trumpets, etc). When the designated authorities in God’s program function in accordance with his will, their judicial rulings are in accordance with, recognized by and honored in heaven. This is quite unlike the ungodly “binding and loosening” (Matt. 23:4, 16) of the religious apostates which is not in accordance with God’s word (Matt. 15:3) and is of “none effect” as far as heaven is concerned and completely “vain” (Matt. 15:9). I hope this is of some help.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
-David W, Busch
Received 12/30/12
Question:
Lately I’ve been thinking a bit more about what Satan didn’t know, and what he did know with regard to the crucifixion of our Lord. It is obvious that he didn’t know the mystery of Christ, regarding the dispensation of grace to us Gentiles and all of the purpose with the body of Christ and all of that. However, in my consideration of what he was thinking when he worked so personally to accomplish Christ’s death, that is something that I find less clear. What was his calculation? Did he think he was risking something? What was he counting on being the case that would secure his advantage or even victory? These are the questions that I’m working on, and if you’d care to share your thoughts, I’d really appreciate it.
In reading Appointed, I so much appreciate the way you deal with how specifically Christ fulfilled the law and its requirements as he went to the cross as the sacrifice for the nation. In your dealing with that, I think your point about what is recorded twice in John about the unknowing prophecy by the high priest is excellent, and it must no doubt help to deal with why the crucifixion was fully viable as a sacrifice for Israel, and therefore why it was applicable to those who would receive it. I’ve heard it said that Satan thought Israel could not receive the benefits of the death of Christ if they did not intentionally offer Him as a sacrifice, but in effect murdered him in their rejection. I think this is an interesting plausibility. If in fact they were ignorant, as Christ attests while on the cross, and in accordance with His ministry to them in parables and such as he prepared them to be ignorant and then after his death have their true, honest opportunity to know without a doubt who he is and repent, then perhaps that ignorance would have helped to alleviate their guilt of rejecting him as their messiah. Also, in accordance with the appointment by the high priest that he should die for the people and then the sentence at the hearing also by the high priest, it seems that indeed, Israel did, again ignorantly, but did identify the lamb and then sentence the lamb to die, thus in actuality participating in the sacrifice enough to constitute their end of the fulfillment of the need of redemption. Thus, even if Satan did think the aforementioned, it actually worked out opposite. That makes some sense to me, but it seems there still may be more. If you wish to share any thoughts on this point, I’d be happy to hear them.
I’ve read some of Keith Blades thoughts on this and he focuses more on what he understands Satan to be thinking about Christ during the crucifixion, while the sins of the world were upon him. If I understand Keith correctly, he believes that Satan’s calculation was that while Christ was separated from God, with the sin of Israel upon Him, Satan could kill Him, and thus bring Him into the pit in the condemned status with sin upon His account, and hold Him in the pit forever, utilizing Satan’s greatest power, the power of death and hell. If you understand that differently, I’d be happy to hear your thoughts. But, if my understanding is correct, then I can see that thought, and with some of the passages about the battle on the cross, Isaiah 50 especially, it seems to make some sense that Satan could have been thus calculating. However, the two ideas are inconsistent, for if Satan thought the sacrifice was ineffective, then he wouldn’t believe the sin of Israel would actually be laid upon Christ while He hung on the cross. But if Satan thought is was actually a sacrifice wherein Christ was functioning as a valid substitute redeemer, then I can see where he could be thinking what Keith proposes. But both don’t seem to be compatible. So, I am left wondering.
As I consider what took place between the two during Christ’s earthly ministry, it is clear that Satan at first wanted to catch Christ in a fault and disqualify Him as the faithful son and able redeemer. That didn’t work, and subsequently Christ went about loosing Satan’s strong hold on the nation, all the while proving Himself more and more the perfect son, the perfect lamb. Satan becomes more enraged and seeks opportunity to kill Christ. He then fully participates in the taking of Christ by the authorities to kill Him. Clearly, Satan wants to have Christ dead. So, what is he thinking? Part of my thought is this: Satan seemed willing to give Christ the kingdoms of the world if Christ worshipped him. That must have been a trade that still would allow Satan to maintain his ultimate control of his usurped authority. If Christ worships him, then Christ is disloyal to God and not able to fulfill the plan God has with him, and even if Satan delivers control over all the nations of the world to Christ, Christ is in effect working in conjunction with Satan in opposition to God’s prescribed method of regaining control of those nations, thus Satan remains in power with Christ serving his will. Could it also be true that when Satan saw his opportunity to kill Christ, he thought that even if Christ was successful in accomplishing redemption for Israel, Satan would still possess the rest of the nations, and the heavenly places, and could continue to work in opposition to what God was doing? Moreover, Satan would still control much of the nation of Israel itself as the leaders were clearly His followers already and completely loyal to his will above God’s. Could it be that this was a calculated risk?
Obviously, once we bring the mystery aspects into the discussion, Satan is not calculating any of that as a risk. But, given Israel’s status as “given up” and as the unclean nation that they were, I think it was an over sight on Satan’s part to not recognize that if redemption of Israel could be had, then redemption for the rest of the nations who were in the same status and position before God could also be had. But beyond that, I feel like I haven’t got the whole picture. Satan and the blinding effects of his pride and hatred have to come into the picture. I think I see some of it, but some things are still fuzzy. I’ve gone on long enough about my thoughts; if you would care to address some of these things and your own thoughts I’d really appreciate it.
Answer:
I’m glad to hear of your progress and continued fellowship. I will delve into some of the types of issues you raise below when I get to that section of Matthew so I don’t want to teach all of that here. But let me address what I can in a brief manner anyway.
There are many things that are often said/postulated about the associated events surrounding the cross work, and as you indicated, Keith had a fairly detailed and elaborate understanding of his own about it. However, I am not fully persuaded when it comes to these various understandings. They seem, to me anyway, to take conceptual liberties that while certainly interesting to ponder, I personally am unable to justify from the various relevant texts.
Most of what Satan believes can be seen in his children, as they simply ape the thinking and works of their father. His choices and decisions are more “informed” if you will, but the basic rationales and issues are the same. “Ye shall be as gods, etc.” What is clear is that Satan understands that Christ is being presented as the new Adam. God’s claim is that this “son of God” will succeed on His behalf where the the first (and any following hopeful) had failed. Satan has always succeeded in maintaining his power with any would-be christ that he was presented with. There is an initial “trying” of the stone which puts the general issues at stake on display. This then gets played out to varying degrees in Christ’s encounters throughout His ministry and the issues presented to Him. The culmination being of course the cross. For Satan, diplomacy has ended as it were. Actually, Satan understood this following Christ’s initial testing, but nothing would be able to be done about it until “His hour” arrived, as Christ Himself understood full well.
Well then, what of the redemptive work, and Satan’s understanding of it? It seems clear to me that exactly what it meant, and what would be involved in its execution, was not clear before the resurrection, not to Christ’s own disciples, and not to the enemy. That God claimed He would be the “Redeemer” and would utilize Him to repossess this earth with its nations through His kingdom, yes, that was clear. That God claimed He would ultimately show Himself to be the “Most High” through it, yes. But of course, God had talked about redemption previously in the various contexts of Israel’s program. He talked about accomplishing redemption in connection with the Exodus for instance. Even Isaiah 53 only becomes evident in light of the cross and fulfillment. Since He stands in contrast to the disobedient servant, one might argue that this is something the nation could conceivably accomplish, which wouldn’t necessarily involve them dying for anyone. This would be incorrect and an incomplete understanding, but you get my drift. Concepts such as “bearing” can mean and be accomplished in many different ways. After all, aspects of this “taking upon himself” were accomplished during His life and ministry. So it is unclear to me that Satan, even as an avid Bible student, understood even the basics of this point let alone its full ramifications when it came to the person and work of the Christ. The tenor of all the relevant scriptures would seem to indicate the contrary. It does not appear that they understood they were helping to accomplish God’s redemption. I do think there was a lot of uncertainty on Satan’s part concerning just what God had “up His sleeve” if you will, as there always is with contentions, and he strategized accordingly. Satan would combat God’s king on the same ground he always had. And he thought he knew what all the rules were to boot. Death would obviously be one of the major weapons in his arsenal, assuming he got the chance to utilize it.
What is also clear is that in connection with this, Satan understood there was to be a contention surrounding the power and issues of death. It was very clear that what was claimed for and by Christ was that He would resurrect. The contention both on and following the cross is the issue of the power of death. Again, it seems clear to me that Satan did not have this down as it were, for it does not appear to be over on his part until the resurrection. That is, if Satan fully understood the issues of the relationship of Christ to sin (not just atonement but Adam in general and the nature of Christ’s un-“cursed” body), wouldn’t it be over at the cross? Yet, there is still apparently an issue in the mind of Satan of contending with Him, keeping Him from resurrecting following His death, etc. Christ declares “It is finished”, but it is not clear to me that Satan understood just what that meant at the time. Sin of course is the central issue when it comes to the power of death, and it is Christ’s sinlessness that enables Him to function as the substitute Redeemer in the first place, suffering the wrath of God, whereby also the enemy has no power over Him. There is a very important shift that occurs whereby when Christ’s “hour” arrives, it is the time for “the hour” of the “power of darkness” to shine. However, what is demonstrated is that at no time does death have “power” over Him. Consequently, He will take that power, along with its keys, to Himself. Moreover, others had been raised from the dead, so it is not entirely clear that Satan would necessarily understand what all the ramifications would be should Christ succeed in rising again. I do believe there are some sin footholds that Satan tries to get with Christ on the cross, but I don’t believe it is in connection with Him functioning as the substitute, and getting Him into the pit as such. As I indicated, I will delve into that more when I get to the issues of “His hour” in the Matthew study.
There may be a case to be made for the elaborate systems of Christ as substitute and the pit, what Satan supposedly attempted in connection with this, etc. but thus far I am not persuaded by what I have heard by those proposing them. I believe it is more about what Satan didn’t know, rather than what he did know. He is prideful, arrogant, and haughty. His wisdom is corrupted, which means he is a fool. He thought, and thinks, that Christ on the cross is the pinnacle of weakness and impotency. Even understanding what God claims occurred at the cross, it is not entirely clear that Satan accepts the effectual extent that God claims for it. The thought of dying for the “dirt men” is repugnant and laughable to him. He only thinks in terms of law and is ignorant of grace. He is a Bible student but not a Bible believer. He knows what God claims He will do, but questions its certainty and contests His ability to do it. Even now, it appears he questions God’s proclaimed outcome. Yes, Christ has resurrected, but he still questions its meaning and contests Christ’s right of possession and dominion. His heart growing ever harder, he still lives in the mental world of his initial fantasy when He first attempted his coup and said “I will be like the most High.” He only seems to respect power, and only seems to come to terms with it when it is executed upon him.
Anyway, this is just my understanding bro., and just skimming the surface at that, but hopefully you find it somewhat helpful. Until next time…
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
David W. Busch
Received 4/23/13
Question:
I was wondering if you could give me some help with the issue in Philippians 2:25-30 concerning Epaphroditus. It seems to be a passage that some folks who scoff at God’s word “rightly divided” point to in order to demonstrate that since God “had mercy on him” then God is still miraculously healing folks today. Was this done at a time in which the signs, miracles, and wonders of Israel’s program were still being performed as Israel was declining? or is there another explanation? Personally, I tend to think that this isn’t an issue of the often-called “transition” period but rather the explanation is to be found in that expression “God had mercy on him” – and the answer is to be found in just what way God had “mercy” on Epaphroditus. The text does not say that God “healed” him – so I’m wondering if there was something going on in his inner man in which God, through the effectual working of His word, fortified Epaphorditus’ heart and … (and that’s where my thinking trails off). I would very much appreciate your help with this.
Answer:
It’s good to hear from you. Well, without going into the extensive issues of the advanced section of our curriculum, let me try to give you very succinctly my understanding of it:
Firstly, I think you are right in not embracing the “transition” view concerning this incident. I will not rehash all the reasons for this, which you already undoubtedly know, and which have contributed to you rejecting it. The bottom line is that it would be inconsistent with what Paul presents even during that time. Where there is one of those unique issues, Paul always makes a point of highlighting that fact so there is no confusion in light of the standardized doctrine he is instructing the saints for this dispensation.
Second, Epaphroditus clearly wasn’t healed. What Paul gives thanks for, rather selfishly 🙂 , is that he didn’t die. He was still in less than “stellar” shape. “I sent him therefore the more carefully…” Especially when that is understood, keeping him on life support as it were (or whatever his sickly condition) hardly seems “merciful” if God is performing this “miracle”.
So then, the issue revolves around what exactly it means that God “had mercy on him”. This is a very unique phrase, especially to be used in this context.
First of all, “had mercy” would seem to be inappropriate if being used for God supernaturally healing him (whether fully, or as I think is clear, just keeping him from dying). In addition to the fact that this phrase would not be used in this context (and if it were would only highlight how limited and out of place healings are today), it has the further problem of not really making any sense doctrinally. If the word were effectually working in Epaphroditus, then being kept from death would in no wise be viewed as being “merciful” (to him anyway) and we indeed are not to view death this way. It is in this very epistle (no coincidence I believe) that Paul has given some of his best known statements concerning the outworking of the doctrine in how we are to view sufferings, the circumstances of life, and particularly death “far better”, etc. It would not make sense linguistically or doctrinally. Did God answer prayers that Paul instructs them not to pray and are at odds with His program today?
Further, “had mercy on him” wouldn’t really seem appropriate to describe the “strengthening” going on in his inner man. This undoubtedly was occurring, and is incredibly important in the context of the advanced curriculum, but generally would be described differently if this were the issue being highlighted.
So then, what would it mean. The mercy does seem to be specifically tied to Epaphroditus not dying. Mercy is a very specific and technical concept. It can have variation, but there are basic parameters to its meaning and the contexts in which it will be used. It goes hand in hand with grace and is an incredibly important aspect of the outworking of godliness and how we are to think of both ourselves and others. One of it’s most base and fundamental like concepts is pity, which says something about the person on the receiving end being in a position of needing help. The word “mercy” is often used in a more legal or judicial context, but is closely tied to the outworking of “love” and “charity” which is obviously a huge issue of the advanced epistles. This has many practical applications with respect to meeting needs, and of course is why you will often find certain organizations with names like “Mercy Hospital”, etc. One of the other places where it is used in a like way as Philippians is in 2 Timothy 1:16-18. In light of the mass apostasy in Asia, and the implications that would have for the actions taken by the “faithful”, Paul there gives a directive for mercy to be shown to a certain house. The difference being that in Epaphroditus’ case thanks was being given for what had already occurred “God had mercy on him”. In the other, Paul’s prays to focus the saints attention and labours on future work “The Lord give mercy unto…”
Paul of course had his own “mercy minister” in the form of “Luke, the BELOVED physician”, and no doubt “beloved” for that very reason. My understanding from the text is that Epaphroditus was the recipient of mercy. This ministering to his needs kept him from dying when he was very ill, for which Paul was extremely thankful (v25). The details of who did this we are not told but any number of people were aware that he was sick (v26) and would have wanted to do whatever they could as they found his own ministry “needful” (Phil. 1:24) . What we do know is that God’s word was effectually working in the inner man of certain saints who acted as ministers of mercy and responded in kind to Epaphroditus’ ministry (Phil. 2:25). Epaphroditus had laboured in ministering to the “wants” of the saints and now that had returned to him. Paul teaches us to be “content” and “glory” regardless of the “wants”. However, he equally calls upon the saints to labour with God and minister to those wants (Phil. 4:10-23). He is passionate about this, because he knows if the word of God does not effectually work in the saints then these “wants” will not be met. His inner man “need”, however, will always be met as long as the word is effectually working in him.
I will take it for granted that you are already familiar with Paul’s repeated phrases where he attributes all things to God and especially with respect to the working of His word being manifested in the saints. The particular effectual working in this instance was the shewing of mercy. That at least is my understanding, so hopefully you find this helpful.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
-David W. Busch
Received 6/18/13
Question:
I have a question concerning I Corinthians 15:29 and the issue that Paul states there about those “which are baptized for the dead.” Setting aside the goofy ideas of Mormonism, and setting aside the issue of water baptism itself – is this an issue of using the word “baptism” as being ‘identified’ as dead, and thus Paul is speaking about himself and those properly educated adopted sons like him that (as Paul says) “stand in jeopardy every hour” and who “die daily” (which to me, connects back to Romans 8:35-36) and who are undergoing the “sufferings of Christ?” Is this the way your understand this issue? and would you please give me your understanding of it?
Answer:
I don’t really see the “for the dead” language fitting or allowing for that understanding. Furthermore, Paul seems to separate himself from this group and makes a point of doing so. When properly understood, water baptism need not, and I believe ought not, be set aside when it comes to this passage.
The basics of my understanding are this: He is returning to the fundamental and powerful premise that started him off on this discourse in the first place combating their thinking concerning resurrection, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead…But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen…And if…then…etc.” I basically understand him to be identifying those that have been baptized “for” Christ, who in this case would not be risen, but dead. So I see this as being the primary issue with regard to the “dead” issue and reference in this verse as it is the culmination of the discussion. This then leads to further issues as to the precise nature of the “baptism” under discussion which would be taking place “for” an “un-risen” Christ.
Now, there are several things in the way that it is said which makes it very interesting to me. First of all, he says “they”, so it would seem to be a separate identifiable group that would be known to the Corinthians by this reference. Since I don’t see their baptism in connection with a special “effectual working” among certain saints there (ie. following Paul’s example in “dying daily”) I see this reference being a natural one in the overall context of this epistle. If it were a reference to those following Paul’s “dying” example, then it would apparently have to be referring to another assembly of saints as the Corinthians were explicitly not following him in this and numerous times he seems to indicate that there is none wise among them. Furthermore, the way he contrasts the “they” with “we” would seem odd if he were referring to another group of saints following him in his example. But as I said, I don’t really see the “for the dead” language allowing for that understanding. The “we” that are “in jeopardy” would include saints that are following Paul in “dying daily”, but the “they” are a separate group who, given the logic of the Corinthians’ thinking, were baptized “for the dead”. This is an identifiable group that is known to the Corinthians and notable for their “baptism”. This “baptism” had its own “offence” and “jeopardy” because of who it was done “for” and the “beasts” that it stirred up who Paul contended with (1 Thess. 2:14).
The core of his argument concerning “resurrection” in the previous verses has been primarily derived from the prophetic program. Baptism figured prominently in this regard, particularly in the “witness” and testimony of Christ’s resurrection throughout the book of Acts, which Paul was separated in accordance with and gave special “testimony” to (1 Cor. 15: 8,15) in his foundation “provocation” ministry. The Corinthians were made partakers of this special witness to Israel, along with the various signs and gifts that accompanied it. Tongues has already figured very prominently in connection with the errors he has had to address at this fellowship, and it goes hand in hand with water baptism and its testimony to Israel concerning Christ. Paul began this epistle off bringing special attention to the issue of water baptism, and making a point of putting it in its dispensational place as he will with tongues later. In connection with the witness of Christ’s resurrection, those under the ministry of the twelve were to be baptized “for the remission of sins”, but, “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:16-18).
Paul’s Acts epistles repeatedly highlight the things of his provocation ministry, but he equally repeatedly highlights at the same time in those epistles their dispensational place and passing away. “…were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:13-17).
That at least is my understanding concerning this “dead” issue. Hope you find it of some help. Until next time.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
-David W. Busch
Received 1/30/14
Question:
I have a couple of questions concerning Enoch (the seventh from Adam).
1) As Hebrews 11:5 makes clear, Enoch “was translated that he should not see death” – in your understanding, why did God do this with Enoch?
My thinking is that it must have something to do with that “old world” the “world of the ungodly” that existed prior to the Flood. And that God did what He did with Enoch as a witness and a testimony to that ungodly world perhaps concerning the issue of eternal life and resurrection and that he “walked with God” and “pleased God” in stark contrast to the ungodliness of that “world that then was.”
2) Along with this issue – how does God translating Enoch so that he should not see death not become a problem to either Romans 5:14 (“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, …”) or Hebrews 9:27 (“As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”)?
My thinking is that in regard to the Romans 5:14 passage, God can certainly “take” a man to be with Him (or translate him that he should not see death), and yet death still did reign, was reigning at the time, and continued to reign until the cross-work of Christ when grace reigned superior to death. And in regard to the Hebrews 9:27 passage, it may be that what is stated there is a general rule, but Enoch is an exception to that rule. (Although, I must admit that I’m a little uncertain to the “exception to the rule” type things).
It’s interesting that you’ve got similar type situations in 1) the time before the Flood: Enoch; 2) the time in God’s program with Israel: Elijah (although he’ll come back and eventually see death); and 3) Paul in our dispensation of grace (being stoned at Lystra and taken to the 3rd heaven, but eventually seeing death himself). Is there any connection with these three? or no?
No rush, but if you could give me your understanding I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you so much for your time.
Answer:
1.) The answer is two-fold.One, there is the testimony he was to the “world that then was”. But two, and more importantly, there is why he is being brought to the attention of the remnant in the Lord’s Day. He was “taken” somewhere and was not “found” (Heb. 11:5; Rev. 12:9).Because of this he did not “see death”. The remnant will be brought into the wilderness and preserved unto “the end”. He was/is kept alive by eating of a certain tree which God denied access to after the curse (Gen. 3:24; Rev. 2:7; 22:2). This is the tree that will show up with Christ when he brings all the “saints” with him as prophesied by Enoch (Matt. 24:13; Luke 21:19;36). Those living at that time will also not see death in connection with being given access to that tree. While the resurrection aspect of eternal life is obviously implicated, it has more to do with “not seeing death”. This is something which it does not appear the “world that then was” knew about Enoch. They only knew they couldn’t “find” the intolerant prophet of judgment, which means they were looking for him (like Elijah). That violent ungodly world subsequently perished in a world changing cataclysm, and Noah’s family (another type) was preserved through it to populate the new world. Unlike what you might expect, Enoch does not return to earth after this judgment. He will only show up in the kingdom after the judgment he prophesied about takes place.
2.) I don’t see any alternative to the general rule conclusion, nor any reason to look for one. It is clearly not the case in any absolute sense. Some men in scripture die more than once. Some men don’t die at all.
- Elijah could conceivably qualify as he will end up dying (though it seems a stretch to say he is keeping his appointment as a man in the way God apparently means it as a consequence of the curse). He will die, but only because God has him come back and be killed.
- Moses will apparently show up again, and die again (assuming he is one of the two witnesses).
- Then of course there is obviously Enoch who doesn’t see death.
- Then you have several individuals who have been resurrected throughout scripture only to eventually die natural deaths again.
- Believers alive at the rapture will never die.
- The remnant of Israel alive at Christ’s return will never die.
- Many people during the Millenium will never die.
Scripture constantly assumes the exception principle. This is the way God talks. This is what is divinely “appointed” for man in connection with death and the curse. This is absolute in this sense. This is why any deviation from this requires a special intervention on God’s part. Hebrews itself will point to the “exception” of Enoch, and indeed it is notable for precisely that reason. It is seen in light of the “appointment”, not as negating its truth. Scripture does not feel any need to explain this as it sees no contradiction. Miracles are miracles by definition. They assume a non-miracle status quo. Neither side negates the other, it only strengthens it. As the old saying goes, “the exception proves the rule”. The exception in this case, however, is no mere accident or happenstance like a baby being born without ten fingers and ten toes. This is man’s fate in connection with the curse, but God is obviously well aware of the exceptions he has made, which he points to in the same book of Hebrews. It is “appointed” unto men, but not all men have kept that appointment. Death reigns physically because God denies access to his tree (Gen. 3:22). This is tied to sin, which is given strength through the law (1 Cor. 15:56).
As for the three examples: 1.) See my answer above for the significance of Enoch. 2.) Elijah is significant in that he appears with Moses on the mount of transfiguration where the disciples get a taste of Christ’s kingdom glory and the feast of Tabernacles to be celebrated at that time. They signify both the law and the prophets, as well as the two groups of saints in Israel’s program, those who will be resurrected for the kingdom and those who will go into the kingdom and never see death. 3.) Paul is two in one. He is a picture of both the living and the dead at the rapture, and makes the odd point of telling us he doesn’t know which one he was to drive this pattern home. He is our pattern for when we are “caught up” in connection with the first and last trump.
That is my understanding anyway. I hope it is of some help to you. Until next time…
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
-DWB
Received 10/23/14
Question:
And now I have an issue that I would like to bring before you and solicit your help in gaining a full appreciation of. I think there is something I am missing. The only thing I I can think to do is lay out my understanding and then ask you to help me see where I am “off track.” I am talking about the issue of prayer.
In order to “ask my question” I will bullet the foundational thinking that is presently in my mind and then at the end I will present my problem. The following is my understanding:
- God is not intervening in the physical circumstances of life in this dispensation of grace
- God is concerned with doing a work in our inner man whereby we are conformed to the image of His Son
- God accomplishes this work in us by the effectual working of His word
- God’s word is the only means by which God is accomplishing this work in our inner man
Therefore, with these things in mind:
- Our prayers are not for physical blessings (healing, rain, a job, etc.) such as it was in God’s program with Israel
- Our prayers are for the accomplishment of the spiritual work that God desires to do in us (i.e. strengthen us might by His Spirit in our inner man, that we might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and understanding, that we might stand perfect and complete in all the will of God, etc.)
Now, if I am correct in my thinking, God is not going to do the above examples (or any of the things contained in Paul’s prayers) apart from His word. I do not believe that God will circumvent His word to get any of those things done in us. Therefore, if I pray for the saints in our church to have the “eyes of their understanding being enlightened,” and that is only going to happen by their proper response to the doctrine, then what am I asking God to do? Am I asking Him to “magically” make it happen with them? I do not think so.
If I am praying for their proper response to the doctrine, am I asking God to make them or force them to believe it? Again, I do not think that is right either.
Or, am I praying that in view of them being presented with the doctrine that God will now do that which the doctrine is meant to produce? Or, to say it another way, if something has been presented to our church and they believe the doctrine, it seems unnecessary for me to pray for God to do His part, for, it seems to me that the word will do its effectual work in them regardless if I pray or not.
Or, is prayer only a expressed desire that is not meant for God to actually “do” something, but a desire for believers to have the spiritual benefit of the doctrine presented?
Let me lay this out one more way. If I am praying for someone to be saved, what am I asking God to do? I am not asking Him to override their will and force them to be saved. I am not asking him to supernaturally manipulate some preacher to go by and see them. I do not think I am asking to do His part to save them if they trust Christ as their all-sufficient Savior, for He will always do that regardless of my prayer. So what is my prayer asking to be done? Or, is it more of reflection of a desire for something?
I have some other ideas about this and I have put a lot of time in on this, so please do not think I am asking you to do the work for me without any effort on my part. In a way, it seems as though the way to legitimately pray for something for someone is after we have provided the word for them to respond to. In other words, after I have talked to someone in the hospital about the sufferings of this present time, then I really can pray for them to “suffer with Him” and endure those sufferings of this present time to the glory of God. That kind of makes sense to me, but that still does not tell me what was going to happen differently if I did not pray from that which would happen if I did.
I believe prayer is critical to our life as sons. I do pray. I talk to my heavenly Father about all kinds of things. But when I am asking Him for something for someone else, I believe I either am missing something or I have misunderstood something that has led me in the wrong direction.
You see, even in this issue of prayer, I do not think I should just ask God to help me understand prayer and then sit back and wait for some kind of epiphany. That seems very subjective to me. And it avoids the word as the conduit for how the Spirit will instruct me. If I pray for understanding and then go to the word, what is God going to do for me then, that He would not have done for me if I had not prayed but just gone straight to word to look for my answer? Do you see my question? What is the critical difference prayer makes to what God is doing?
I believe I have missed something because what I have laid out here would give someone the opening to question why we should pray in the first place. It kind of makes prayer look non-essential and I know that is not a correct understanding.
I have studied much on my own on this. I have listened to dozens of hours of grace preachers teaching on prayer. But I cannot find an answer to what I am asking. Can you shed some light on what I am missing, overlooking or just plain have wrong? Thank you for this.
Answer:
I have written rather extensively about the issue of prayer, so I would direct you to More Than Conquerors and The Fulness of Christ (particularly the chapters titled “Prayer Warrior” and “Epaphroditus: A Philippian Case Study”. Okay, let’s get down to business.
Your very question is an evidence of the effectual working of God’s word in you concerning the issue of prayer, and a manifestation of prayer. As you grow in your understanding you are learning what you should pray for as ye ought. This means asking questions about what prayer is (and is not) for, what it is (and is not) supposed to accomplish and how it is (and is not) supposed to accomplish it. When these are fully grasped, you will then understand what a powerful tool and weapon of sanctification that sonship prayer is. This is what the intercessory ministry of the Spirit is about. As we are “led of the Spirit” through the Pauline wisdom curriculum, he will remedy these deficiencies so that as we are educated we will know what we should pray for as we ought, and why. You have grasped that you should pray in connection with edification and not miraculous healing. But prayer is more than just a dispensational exercise. The question is what is prayer and what is it for? Equally important is what it is not and what it is not for. Namely, it is not an occultic incantation.
While I understand what you mean when you speak of God not intervening (and insofar as you are distinguishing it from particular physical miraculous aspects and workings in Israel’s program you are correct), I would challenge slightly the way you are thinking as I think it is limiting your ability to see what God is in fact doing, not just what he isn’t. God is not intervening as he does in Israel’s program, but he is intervening. When this modification in your thinking concerning the first component listed below has been made, I believe the rest of the components will fall naturally into place.
It is not simply that our prayers are for the “spiritual” work, for the work may very well involve physical things. It is understanding that if the work (whatever it is) is going to be accomplished, it is going to be done by the members of his body as the word effectually works in them. The effectual working is not for its own sake. It is a “working” and is manifested in the manifold “good works” of our sonship faith for the edifying of the body and the meeting of its many needs.
When Paul prayed concerning the eyes of their understanding it was in connection with writing to them. It wasn’t with respect to throwing an occultic incantation out there which would automatically result in it happening. When you pray that for the saints in your assembly, this is not to make God do something. Nor is it simply to stop with those limited words. This is part of the burden of your heart and ministry mission. It is giving focus, purpose and perspective and directing your labor. The question is, what does it require of me? What steps do I need to take to facilitate this. Prayer calls upon us, and others, to act. Praying that someone be saved is better than praying that they be healed. But if that is all you do then the result will be the same in both cases. Prayer is not an occultic incantation. Prayer is about the meditation of your heart concerning individuals and your labor in connection with those prayers as the word effectually works in you. Stated another way, intelligent prayer in not asking God to save someone. This is pious in its intention no doubt, but it is vain and is “prayer” in name only. It is not intelligent and will accomplish nothing on its own. Godly prayer is about the doctrinally intelligent meditation of your heart concerning seeing that person saved, and the actions you will take accordingly.
Prayer is not about moving God. It is about moving both ourselves and others through targeted wisdom. Prayer is not about bringing things to God’s attention for action. It is about bringing things to the attention of ourselves and others for action. It is used as a meditation of the heart where we deal with the doctrine and direct ourselves and others through prayer. When we pray, we are not to expect God to take action. We are to examine what action we are to take to facilitate those ends in accordance with the relevant doctrine. This is where we get to put to full use the full panoply of our wisdom life involving its justice, judgment and equity. Simply put, prayer is what activates the doctrine in our life and puts what’s in our heart to work. This involves exposing what is, and is not, in our heart, concerning our ignorance, bitterness, etc. and brings us to the point of taking corrective action when necessary to fill in the gaps and deficiencies in our “ought” prayer life. We must first have the basics of godly program wisdom. With that, we can then identify the proper godly needs. With that, we can then identify the proper godly decisions and actions to meet those needs. In other words, prayer must be intelligent. If it is not “led of the Spirit” and therefore not “in the Spirit” in accordance with the terms of our program, then it is ignorant and often foolish. Depending on where we are in our edification this is not necessarily wrong, but is something that is supposed to be remedied by the intercessory ministry of the Spirit in his leading. If you are “led of the Spirit” then your prayer life should reflect that.
A perfect example of sonship prayer is seen with Paul and Philemon. Paul says “But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you”. We know what this is not. But what then is it? There are two answers that would be consistent with sonship prayer:
1.) Paul is calling upon the resources and labor of Philemon using his influence and connections in the government and Ceasar’s household to free him. While this is certainly possible, it doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the tenor of what Paul has been writing to Philemon. It also doesn’t seem to explain his confidence and assurance.
2.) My understanding is that he is referring to Onesimus. Paul has repeatedly told Philemon to receive him “as myself” and put it on “mine account” (12,15,17,20). He has confidence concerning Philemon’s obedience to “do more than I say”. Paul ends by completely driving it prayerfully home by no longer imploring Philemon to “receive” him “as himself”, but with confidence is assured (and skillfully assuring Philemon), that “he” will in fact be “given”, which is what Paul is doing in returning him to Philemon. In light of what Paul has written to him, he expects him to utilize godly sonship prayer concerning the matters of his heart and in light of God’s wisdom and justice make a godly sonship judgment decision with the most excellent equity.
Attributed to God: All of these “workings” in the members of the body are attributed to God. It is God that “worketh” in us. This is how he “had mercy” on Epaphroditus (Philip 2:27) and would “give mercy” to the house of Onesiphorus at Paul’s direction (2 Tim. 1:16). Likewise with comfort, consolation, etc. As the word effectually works in us producing comfort and consolation, and then further works as we provide that same comfort and consolation for others, it is God at work.
Simply put, God is at work today. He is at work through his body. There are many “good works” he wants accomplished through his body. This work will not be done apart from his body. This is why our burden is the “effectual working” in the “measure” of “every part”. It is in the light of that knowledge and understanding that we pray and use it as a tool and weapon of sanctification. We are to be ever prayerful concerning the work of the ministry and all its ramifications for our lives. Sonship prayer is both a producer and product of sonship labor (I Cor. 3:9).
In other words, this email is an “answer” to your prayer bro. God did not miraculously direct me to you, or you to me. I have studied to be equipped. As the word effectually works in me, through godly wisdom, I am able to offer and answer prayer. You wisely identified certain things through prayer. You then took certain action in light of it. So did I. Hopefully, through prayer, you will be able to do the same for other members of the body. Together, we can rejoice with God as his “workmanship” (Eph. 2:10) where he works in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philip. 2:13).
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
– DWB
Received 11/27/14
Question:
In Isaiah 24, he say’s in chapter 24: 19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
My pondering is, if the earth is to be shaken and dissolved, where will the remnant be at that time, and the ones who escape the wrath of God?
Fall and not rise again? All things to be made new, Is the earth, dissolved?
Are these terms of accommodation, or literal?
Answer:
The short answer to your question is that it is literal, but what it literally means is different than what many people might think. This is in connection with the events of the Lord’s Day, particularly the great and terrible day of the Lord. There is a great earthquake that will occur causing the “seas and the waves roaring” and men’s hearts “failing them for fear”, etc. It is in connection with the events of this time that the “new” heavens and earth are established. As I have written extensively about in books such asUp & Away and Through the Looking Glass, these are brought in at the beginning of the thousand years, not at the end of them as commonly taught.
It is a new world the same way it was after the flood. The difference is that after this second judgment it will be a world “wherein dwelleth righteousness”, not a “world of the ungodly”. This new world will be “new” both physically and socially. The remnant will be actively “looking for” these things as we do the “blessed hope”. They will see all this burning occur. Peter explicitly makes reference to this “dissolving” that occurs in connection with the fire baptism of the Lord’s Day whereby fire will come from heaven and the “elements will melt with fervent heat” and the earth will be “burned up”. The first judgment was in connection with water and the “world that then was”. The earth and heavens which are now are reserved for the second judgment of fire spoken of by Enoch. The Revelation will discuss this “burning” of the earth extensively. I would especially point you to the chapters on the “Foundation Beams” and “Tabernacle & Temple” in Through the Looking Glass and “The World to Come” in Up & Away on the issues of when things get “moved” in connection with the world versus it “never being moved again” after Christ’s return. Once Christ takes the throne at the end of the Lord’s Day, things will be very different for the world as we know it and will never be changed again.
Concerning the remnant, there are those who will be specially protected during the various judgments at that time as they were during the plagues and exodus from Egypt. It is also clear, however, that there will still be those among the nations who will survive and go into the new world. The judgments of the Lord’s Day destroy a massive amount of the world’s population, but not all of it. The Revelation makes it clear what this “burning” looks like. The destruction of the Lord’s Day is targeted in such a way to facilitate Christ taking possession and dominion in the earth in connection with his city and the “foundation of the world”. This is what is contained in the “seals” of the book in The Revelation and Christ will orchestrate and unleash the events of the Lord’s Day to that end. This will result in him being recognized as “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” and the world will never be the same again. This is made abundantly clear by Christ’s response to the rebellion at the end of the thousand years. There will be no repeat of the garden and the world being “made subject to vanity” and the “bondage of corruption”. This is God’s world now and he will never “give it up” again.
Hope this helps.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
– DWB
Received 2/13/15
Question:
I have been going through your books “Appointed” and “The Assyrian“. I am so thankful for them. I really appreciate the consistency of the 4 installments in contrast to the 5. It helped me greatly when I studied out the time schedule. I always equated the 34 years of the gospel account and Rome with the 4th Beast instead of the 3rd. I have a lingering question that I cannot settle; that is, when Gabriel explains the breakdown of the 70 weeks (490 years) he gives the first two installments of time: seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. I understand the 7 weeks (49 years) being that under the Medo-Persian Empire and King Cyrus decree for Israel to go back into the land and rebuild Jerusalem starting this time and I also understand the “threescore and two weeks” (62 weeks = 434years) to be with the 3rd Beast (Grecia & Grecia’s 4 Head and Wings representing Grecia’s Kingdom Divided (aka Rome); however, I don’t understand why he says, “unto the Messiah the Prince”? It seems with this and :26 that “after threescore and two weeks Messiah shall be cut off” that they are speaking of roughly the same time. Or in other words, 483 years will transpire “unto the Messiah the Prince” and that “after” the 434 years “Messiah shall be cut off”? If 483 years should be “unto the Messiah the Prince” how would it be that it was talking about either His birth (after 400 years) or His ministry (430 years {Luke 3:23})? Or does “unto” simply indicate something else beside His arrival (birth) or His ministry? I see 434 taking place “unto the Messiah the Prince”, but according to the 400 years (time of silence) and Him arriving around the 400th year not fitting, or His ministry starting at 430th year not fitting to the description of “unto”? Could you share your understanding? Could “the Messiah the Prince” be indicating the “antiChrist (Messiah)”, the same “prince” referenced in :26, and the 3rd King of the North of Daniel 11? And the designation of “Messiah” alone, no “the Prince”, refer to Jesus Christ and Him being “cut off”, implying He must come before being “cut off”??? There is probably more I am not factoring in and was wondering if you could shed light on this? If you came across this when you had gone through it? Your conclusion?
Do you understand where I am coming from?
Also, how does Mark 1:15 play into this? What “time is fulfilled”? Any insight would be helpful?
Answer:
I do not believe “Messiah the Prince” is a reference to the Antichrist. It is in contrast to the other “prince” that shall come which does refer to the Antichrist and has been detailed in the previous visions of Daniel (the third king of the North, etc.). Simply put, there is a specific reason it says Messiah “the Prince”. It is not a reference simply to the birth or life of the Messiah. It is a reference to a certain time in his ministry when he is formally presented to the nation in connection with the so-called “triumphal entry”. Up until that time, he is simply preaching certain things as being “at hand”, “shewing” the glad tidings of the kingdom and proving his legitimacy to rightfully claim the throne when the time comes. Before then, there are those who try to make him king but he consistently declares his “time” for that has “not yet come”.
Daniel’s time schedule specifically concerns the city and temple. Other necessary prophetic things are accomplished during this time (silence, forerunner of the Messiah, life and ministry of the Messiah, etc.) but they do not change anything concerning the determined prophetic status of the city and temple. The clock ceases to tick in connection with this event involving the formal presentation of Christ as Messiah the Prince following the proofs of his ministry (Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 19:44). This event ends the third installment. It is “after” this time that Messiah fulfills the spring feasts and is “cut off”. As a result of their rejection of “Messiah the Prince”, the city and temple are then officially “left” for the coming “desolation” of Daniel’s visions to occur within the remaining 70th week at the hands of the other prince. While there is a period of time to come before the 70th week in connection with the “iron” phase of the 4th installment and the “beginning of sorrows” (see Appointed & The Assyrian), the clock for the city and temple only begins to click again with a particular covenantal event involving the other prince formally beginning the seventieth week and the “iron/clay” phase of the 4th installment. It is “after” the seventieth week is over that Messiah will fulfill the fall feasts and establish the kingdom on earth (again, see Appointed & The Assyrian for the time schedule of the events of the Lord’s day).
As I detail in Appointed, The Assyrian and Behold, the 34 years are incredibly significant as they herald the arrival of the climactic stage in Israel’s program, but they do not constitute a separate 4th installment in the visions of Daniel. Rather, they are part of the 3rd installment of 434 years. As indicated at the beginning of Mark, the “time is fulfilled” for him to begin a certain ministry (this is in relationship both to John’s ministry and the events that must transpire in Daniel). Given where they are in Daniel’s time schedule, and what must be prophetically involved in him being offered as “the Prince” and subsequently “cut off”, certain calculations can be made concerning Messiah’s life, calculations which are confirmed and made indisputable by the previous angelic birth announcements and actual ministries of John and Christ. The time for preaching certain things involving “the Prince” were now “at hand” (Mark 1:15; Luke 16:16), particularly in connection with the forerunner having been cast into prison.
Hope this helps.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
– DWB
Received 9/16/15
Question:
I read through Chapter 1 in The Fulness of Christ and your view of the “remnant according to grace”. I can see that it makes sense if I take Paul out of them! I know the Remant of Israel is saved by grace too 🙂 The reason I thought Paul was including himself is because of verse 1 in Romans 11.
Answer:
I address this in the section “Sign Language for the Blind” in chapter 1 of The Fulness of Christ (pgs. 24-25). This is part of a larger argument concerning whether God must resume his dealings with the nation. It is clear from the verses that Paul is not including himself in the election of grace that obtained it, see the section “Firstfruit” in chapter 1 (pgs. 26-27). He is part of the blinded crowd who, like Paul, may still be saved. This is the some that are being saved today (Rom 11:14).
He is a Jew who believes, but so what, the election is obviously not being fulfilled today. This is what Paul has been addressing all throughout Rom 9-10 concerning what has and has not occurred to Israel in light of their unbelief. Jews are saved today, but this doesn’t answer the questions raised by Rom 9-11 concerning their program “fall”. Paul points to himself to demonstrate one thing about what God’s current dealings don’t mean and the sense in which they have not been cast away. Unbelief in the nation is nothing new, and was never going to stand in the way of God fulfilling his promises with the nation, which was always through the remnant. Paul pointing to himself simply demonstrates that Jews can be, and are being, saved today. This has implications for the unbelief he has been discussing up to this point. However, even though Jews believe today, they have still “fallen”. If Jews believe today, then the reason for their current “fallen” status lies elsewhere. But this doesn’t answer whether God has to do anything with the nation in the future, which is the sense in which they have been cast away (Rom 11:15). Jews being saved today means nothing in this regard. Jews are saved today in accordance with the fall, not prophetic election. The proof of that to come election being fulfilled was the Israel of God that was still in existence at that time which he repeatedly points to in his Acts epistles. Unlike Paul and Jews who believe today, they had a distinct election in keeping with Israel’s remnant which they had obtained.
All of this then is summed up by the tree. There are still natural branches in the tree, like Paul, but it is not in accordance with Israel’s election. Israel’s election, however, still stands, in accordance with the goodness of God. They may, and will, be graffed back in per their dispensational election when God decides to break off his current dealings with the Gentiles. The tree concerns dispensational dealings, not individual salvation.
Again, my understanding of the election of grace and exposition of Romans 11:1-10 is very different from what you will generally hear from anyone else so take it for what it’s worth.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
-DWB
Received 4/1/16
Question:
There are those out there who think the doctrine taught in Gal. 4:2-5 and thus Rom. 8:14-15 occurred or was made to happen by the Lord when the dispensation of the grace of God was ushered in through Paul.
So, “the time appointed of the father” began with the ushering in of the dispensation of the grace of God and so all believers are sons of God and have received the spirit of adoption. And, crying Abba Father if not even done consciously by the believer, is dispensationally done on our behalf by the Spirit.
Answer:
I deal with this specific issue in More Than Conquerors, particularly chapter 12, “Cats in the Cradle: From Rags to Riches & Back Again”.
The short answer is that I would agree in part with what is set forth above. We are all sons of God, and this is involved with things that have taken place dispensationally. This involves positional truth. Being a son and acting like it are different. The same goes for every area of our sanctification walk. If we, as children, act like servants rather than sons, we might as well be servants (Gal. 4:1; Rom. 8:14-17). It is as sons that we are being presented with an opportunity by our Father in light of our liberty. It is up to us whether we take it and walk as sons, which is to say, be led of the Spirit.
However, I don’t believe crying Abba Father is done on our behalf by the Spirit. There will be serious ramifications for our sonship life if we don’t, which I begin to set forth in More Than Conquerors. This of course goes to larger issues in mishandling the intercessory ministry of the Holy Spirit, which was one of the major reasons I wrote the book. What he has done on our behalf is something we must partake of. He leads, but we must follow. He teaches us what we ought to pray for, but we must learn-and pray accordingly, etc. He is not off praying for us somewhere. As I detail in the book, he has an intercessory ministry, but this is not the same thing as mystically making something happen. His ministry will teach us how we should walk as sons, but it will not guarantee we do so – it must “beareth witness with our spirit”.
Hope this helps.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
– DWB
Received 5/8/16
Question:
I’m in the midst of Romans 8, actually getting into the latter section and of course, people have Calvinistic thinking about it, that I will need to deal with and move them back into just following what the scripture is teaching. I’m very comfortable doing so, however, this one verse does prove a bit puzzling. I believe I need to define “ordained” and who is the one ordaining, and what is actually being ordained.
It seems that ordained here matches well with ordained in Romans 13:2, where God is setting up that something will be as it is, and that he has a purpose with that, so what He is “appointing” and determining will be. Thus, God does seem to be the one ordaining. Now I’ve wrestled with if this is ordaining of the kind of faith that they exercised, but honestly, I have a difficult time justifying that from the passage. “As many as…” would indicated that it is the people who are ordained.
My take is simple, and I’m curious if you can help refine it. As I read this, I see a group of Gentiles (13:26) listening in to Paul’s preaching the salvation offered by Jesus Christ, and there most certainly are those that “fear God,” among them that are not Israel, but do have faith in the God of creation, and perhaps even a type of saving faith that looks for God to be merciful to them, and trusting that he will somehow be, but without the details of its operation. If that is the case, then once they hear the truth of how “all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” and obviously receive it readily for they request that these same words should be preached again the next Sabbath, and they go invite friends and family to attend, might they then be “ordained unto eternal life?” It would appear to me that it makes sense.
Almost like Cornelius: someone what obviously blesses Israel, glorifies the God of Israel, and seems to be requesting the mercy of their God, the God of creation, perhaps he too would fit this kind of a statement, being one “ordained unto eternal life,” due to his preexistent faith, though not readily recognized until Peter comes and preaches about what Christ accomplished. I’m not sure if he is a perfect match, but he does come to mind.
Answer:
As I read it, the word is being used in this context to highlight the dispensational change (1 Cor. 2:7). Particularly, the fundamental issue of salvation going to the Gentiles through Israel’s fall (in contrast to being dealt with through Israel’s rise). This is part of the first official “provocation” declaration to Israel where he turns from Israel who have judged themselves “unworthy of everlasting life” and turns to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28). This was validated by Peter and what had occurred earlier with the “like gift” where they were forced to recognize that something different was going on and God had “also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:17-18; Rom. 15:16).
Both persons and faith are therefore in view. The persons are viewed both collectively (as Gentiles that have been dispensationally granted repentance unto life in light of Israel’s fall) as well as individually (as not all Gentiles are automatically saved, but simply granted repentance unto life). They must still individually exercise true faith and respond positively in godly repentance to the “word of God” they are now privileged to hear as Gentiles (Acts 13:44,46,48; 28:28). As always, their faith must be in connection with hearing the word of God and believing (Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21). This is who God has ordained unto eternal life. Those who do are the beneficiaries of what God has ordained in connection with “the mystery”.
It involves therefore everything that has been ordained in connection with “the mystery” and God’s revelation of it. The details of which will be made known with increasing “glory” detail through the Pauline curriculum as those who have believed are further educated in their calling and election (1 Cor. 2:7). Acts, however, is primarily about Israel and its message is to them. The use of ordain is in that basic foundational setting in connection with what God has dispensationally ordained concerning the Gentiles today. While it provoked many to “envy” and “jealousy”, it should be “accepted” by them and provoke them to “emulation” (Acts 13:45; Rom. 11:11-14). For more on Paul’s “provocation” ministry and the transition in Acts, see my book The Fulness of Christ.
Believing unto eternal life has never involved the erroneous ideas of Calvinism and its misteaching of biblical doctrines like election, predestination, etc. It concerns the opportunities that God has ordained and extends program wise, and the belief that must be exercised by men in light of it. God has ordained some particular things in connection with “the mystery”, which we Gentiles are privileged to specially partake of today. Hope this helps.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
– DWB
Received 9/25/16
Question:
I have a question regarding Israel’s commission. The “great commission” of Matt. 28 seems to me to be a continuation of the commission of Matt. 10. According to Matt. 10:23, Christ would return before the apostles finish their ministry to Israel, and then after the establishment of the kingdom would continue to minister to the nations at large according to Matt. 28:19. This view has left the commission intact for the twelve to yet fulfil in the future in spite of the current dispensational interruption. However, I am unable to reconcile this with Matt. 24:14, which indicates the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world BEFORE the end comes. Jesus does not say who will be preaching this gospel. If it happens before Christ’s return, then I assume it will be preached by someone other than the twelve apostles. If this is in some fulfillment of the Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15, or Luke 24:47, then why were those commissions directed specifically at the twelve only to be fulfilled by others? Why does Jesus say that He will return before the twelve finish their ministry in Israel according to Matt. 10:23, yet He says in Matt. 24:14 the gospel will be preached in all the world before the end comes? Any help with this would be much appreciated.
Answer:
I break down the components of Israel’s great commission(s) as found in the 4 Gospel accounts in Behold: A Brief Introduction to the Gospels, particularly the chapter “Here Comes the Son”. I deal with the edificational context of Matthew 10 in the Matthew audio series I did at Columbia River Bible Fellowship.
The short answer is that there is a difference between the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom (which takes place before the arrival of the kingdom), versus the kingdom itself, and the “rule” of the kings and priests that will be overseen by the twelve in the kingdom.
The commissioning, and its “witness”, involves more than just the twelve (Lk. 10:1-24; Mk 16:17-18) and anticipates the events and curses of the Lord’s Day with its bitter water, biting serpents, famine, etc. In Matthew 10 Christ is beginning to introduce them to the doctrine for the day of vengeance, the further details of which will be given in the Olivet Discourse. The context is the persecution of the great tribulation, and preparing the remnant for it. He begins to make reference to those who will be “fleeing” in connection with the “hatred” of that time (Mt. 10:16-42; 24:9-16; 25:31-46). This “testimony” will also therefore be in the context of being “against” many who do not aid the remnant. They are assured of when the arrival of the Son of Man will take place in connection with these events as they wait for him in the mountains (Mt. 24:16, 29-30).
With regard to the gospel “preaching” in Israel’s program which is “for a witness” (both for and against), there is a development to its progression in connection with Israel’s rejection of Christ and the ramifications this has for “the world”. The kingdom itself does not go out to the world until “all Israel is saved” and Jerusalem begins to “shine”. The gospel of the kingdom is naturally therefore first preached to Israel, with further components added in Acts 1-7. In light of their rejection in Acts 1-7, further components are then added to it whereby the world is confronted with the arrival of the day of vengeance, its indictment of apostate Israel and the world, and the events that will lead to its ultimate “end”. There are numerous means by which this preaching will take place, as The Revelation details, but it centers on what is taking place in connection with the remnant in the land. All the world will be well aware of the two witnesses and the judgments they are bringing to the earth. They, and the remnant, will be “hated” all the more for it (Rev. 6:15-17; 11:10; 14:6-8).
The gospel of the kingdom prepares people for the kingdom of heaven. There is no gospel to be preached in the kingdom of heaven, for that gospel testifies of its coming arrival and the program developments until that time. There will, however, be “teaching” in the kingdom in connection with its establishment on earth, and the law going forth out of converted and glorified Zion (Isa. 2:2-4; Zech. 8:22-23; 14:9,16). Hope this helps.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
– DWB
Received 12/28/16
Question:
Having read Seen of Angels, I wonder if you could explain a bit more on the things that follow “the mystery of godliness”; that is, “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”?, with specific focus on “justified in the Spirit”?
My understanding although unclear is a justification that is connected to conduct/behavior and godliness in the life that now is. 1 Timothy 3:14-16 seems to be an encapsulation of what he has talked about from the first chapter that is, the doctrine unto godly edifying especially starting in chapter 2, in connection with one’s conduct and behavior whether it be “leading a quiet and peaceable life”, “men praying everywhere”, “women professing godliness” thus dressing a certain way, or the bishop and deacons conducting themselves in a godly manner that meets the godly qualifications to fill such offices.
Then comes the statement, “that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Which is followed by the greatness of the mystery of godliness summarized as it is:
“God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.”
I understand this to be a summary of godliness according to the mystery and is speaking of godliness effectually working in those that believe and behaving consistently; that is, those who have the truth are able to behave godly and thus God is manifest in our fleshly bodies as Paul describes foundationally in Romans 6:11-13, 8:10-11, and Galatians 2:20. Justified in the Spirit seems to summarize the righteousness that ought to come from God manifest in the flesh as it relates to our conduct and behavior from godliness; that is, Romans 8:4 we fulfill the righteousness of the law by not only living in the Spirit, but walking after and in the Spirit (Galatians 5:25) and thereby we are justified or made righteous as it relates to our walk that is in the Spirit. I also think of the word of God via the Spirit sanctifying and cleansing us to be a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, but holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:26-27), and being unreproveable and unblamable in His sight (Col. 1:22). I don’t think it is necessarily speaking of the judgement seat of Christ, but the righteousness that comes from walking in the Spirit as God is manifest in the flesh through us who live godly in Christ Jesus now.
Therefore, when God is manifest in our flesh through godly edifying He is, through us, justified in the Spirit that is declared righteousness by virtue of godliness in the conduct and behaviour that stems from the Spirit.
Answer:
There are many ways to approach it, and things to be appreciated about it, but I think that pretty much nails it. I would only add that it is fundamentally God being justified by what is occurring with the saints. It is our life in Christ (both positionally and practically), in relation to God and his glory purposes, that is in view. Our sonship life in relation to God is seen primarily in terms of his justification (Luke 7:29,35; Rom. 3:4,7). God is true regardless of what we do. Whether we justify him or not in our walk, however, is another matter. Each part of the passage in First Timothy flows from the previous part. He is justified, or not, in connection with what is currently being manifested by the Spirit’s new testament mystery ministry today with the Gentiles. This justification, and corresponding mystery glory, is primarily in connection with it being “seen of angels”. There is potentially blame, shame, reproach, etc. on the part of his saints in connection with this (1 Tim. 5:14-15). In light of what is being made “manifest” today, there are those who may, and do, question God about the wisdom of what he is doing in the Spirit today with the new testament, both redemptively and dispensationally (Rom. 16:25-27; 1 Tim. 1:15-17). We, therefore, play a major role in this. We, therefore, not only affect the justification of God now but the glory that Christ will have through us as joint-heirs in the future.
It has pleased God to subject himself to a sonship relationship with us whereby we justify him. God has linked his glory with his sonship work. God is justified, or “grieved”, in connection with his work of conformity today (Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 2:4). Our ongoing sanctification is seen in terms of this larger justification and what we have the privilege of “proving” (Rom. 8:30-31; 1 Cor. 6:11). I deal with this in The Fulness of Christ, and will be getting into this more in the Romans commentary, but simply put, it means we have been given great responsibility in connection with being able to justify God with our sonship position in Christ. This justification was perfect with the “Firstborn”. We, therefore, should “let that same mind” be in us, be “followers of God as dear children”, and manifest the conformity work that God is seeking to accomplish with the “many brethren” today who have been predestinated to a certain glory.
What Paul says in First Timothy regarding this is nothing new. It is a summary of his entire epistolary ministry concerning what God is doing during the mystery. The things identified in First Timothy leading up to this are some of the particular manifestations of this larger “manifestation” of God today. God’s life being manifested in the flesh is what godliness is all about. Unlike Christ, we are not God in the flesh. We are not the “Word” made flesh. We do, however, have the ability, by the new testament ministry of the Spirit today, to manifest the divine “words” in the flesh. Both were true of Christ as the “Son”. Only the latter is true of us as “sons”. Christ is the “only” begotten in connection with the former. He is the “first” begotten in connection with the latter. We have been given a position of liberty “in Christ”. With respect to the circumstances of this present world, our eye is always to be on the “prize” of the glory to come, and our appreciation that it is inseparable from the conformity work going on with us today. We are joint-heirs. This has ramifications for both us and Christ. This is why he and the Father are so passionate about our conformity to the image of the one new man that God wants to be manifested today. This is an image which is currently being “seen of angels” in connection with God being “justified in the Spirit” per Paul’s “separate” sonship ministry of the new testament in accordance with the revelation of the mystery. Hope this helps.
Seated in heavenly places with him,
– DWB