The word paradise conjures up images of somewhere peaceful and beautiful, and where no one has a care in the world. But what is the Biblical meaning? Some would say the Garden of Eden, or Heaven, or the Millennium, or maybe the New Jerusalem as part of the New Earth. Well, let’s see how the Bible used the word ‘paradise.’ Surprisingly, it is only used three times:

Lk 23:43 – Jesus answered him, “I tell you [thief on the cross] the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

2Co 12:4 – [Paul] was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.”

Rv 2:7 – He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

As we first look at these, it would appear three different places are being called paradise. Let’s investigate each one. In a previous post, we saw that prior to Christ’s resurrection, everyone went to Sheol. Was Christ calling the part of Sheol for the righteous, paradise? If that is the case, then this would be the only place in Scripture where Sheol is called Paradise.

King David referred to Sheol differently. Even knowing he would one day go to the portion for the righteous, he referred to it as a place like the following:

•Of captivity

•Where worship at temple cannot occur

•Where joys of life cannot be experienced

Therefore, he did not consider it a place he wanted to go, but a place to be released from.

There was an expectation of future joy after death, but that would occur only after their resurrection. After Babylonian captivity, some Jewish sects did teach of experiencing Gan Eden after death. Yet, most taught this would occur after their resurrection.

Christ would have known the correct time of Gan Eden, or Paradise, so he would not have used it inappropriately.

So, how do we make sense of three different places being called ‘paradise’? Well, what do all these references have in common? It would seem that in all cases, Jesus Christ himself is present. He was in the Garden of Eden; he was in Sheol when the thief on the cross went to Sheol; he is in Heaven today; and we who accept him by faith will be with him in his Millennial Kingdom and in the New Earth. It would seem, then, that paradise is wherever he is. He could tell the thief he would be in Paradise because Christ would be with him in Sheol. This was the only time it could be called Paradise as this was the first time happiness and joy entered there. Christ is today in Heaven, and so it would be correct for Paul to state he went to Paradise. And, in the future, Christ will be a part of the New Heaven and Earth when the Tree of Life will once again be available as John stated in Revelation.

It seems appropriate that Paradise is wherever Christ is. He is the one who brings hope and joy. Paradise is associated with praise, and praise is void without Christ being the subject of it.

Now, if that is the case, how does this play a key role in the transition of Christ’s followers going from being in Sheol after death to being in Heaven in Christ’s presence after death? Stay tuned for our next post.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

I thought we would summarize what we have gone over so far regarding hell before we move on to the more positive side of things.

We first saw several Biblical translations used the world “hell” for four main terms: Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. Yet, these were not always translated consistently in this manner. The main drawback to this is that it hides some of the subtlety the original writers were trying to convey with these terms. We then explored these terms in more detail.

Sheol was the place described in the Old Testament as the place where all the dead resided. Yet, it seems there were three areas to Sheol: the place where the righteous went, the place where the wicked went, and the place which contained certain rebellious angels. The word “pit” was sometimes used for where the wicked resided. The term “Abyss” or “Tartarus” was used for where these rebellious angels were kept. From these terms, it seemed as if there were three layers with the highest layer being for the righteous (Sheol), the second layer being for the wicked (pit), and the third and deepest layer being for the rebellious angels (Tartarus).

Hades was synonymous to Sheol and was simply the Greek word used for the same place as the Hebrew word Sheol. We also learned that Sheol/Hades is a temporary place. At some point, everyone in Sheol/Hades will be brought out, judged, and then spend eternity somewhere else. Both the wicked and the rebellious angels will be taken from their intermediate abode, judged, and then be cast into Gehenna – also known as the Lake of Fire – a place of eternal punishment.

But what about the righteous in Sheol? When do they come out? Well, that will be in our next post. They were the first to be taken out of Sheol. For us today, that event occurred in our past. The event in the previous paragraph is still in our future. Understanding when the righteous left Sheol helps us understand the seeming discrepancy between the Old Testament and New Testament. The New Testament teaches to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That can’t happen if souls of the righteous today still go to Sheol. Where do they go? And when did that change? Well, come join us next week and find out. I’ll give you a teaser. Maybe paradise is more than you thought it to be.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Tartarus is a term only used once in scripture: “. . . God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to Tartarus, putting them into gloomy dungeons (chains of darkness) to be held for judgment” (2Pt 2:4).

As we stated in previous posts, many translators used the term “hell” here. While that does covey a since of punishment, it doesn’t distinguish this from the other terms that were also translated as “hell.” Since Peter here uses a term not used elsewhere, it would seem he is conveying a message different from any of the other terms that have been translated as hell (i.e., sheol, hades, gehenna). So, what is he trying to convey?

Before we answer that, perhaps we should try to understand this term better. While this is the only place it is mentioned in scripture, this is not the only place it is used in literature. Actually, for those fond of Greek mythology, it is not an unfamiliar term. I’ll try and be brief. In all honesty, Greek mythology gives me a headache trying to keep everything straight. Apparently, in the beginning, Gaea (goddess of the earth) and Uranus (god of the sky) produced twelve Titans. Two of those, Cronus and Rhea, then produced the Olympian gods. There was war between the Titans and the Olympians. The Olympians originally won and Zeus, the chief Olympian god, banished the Titans to Tartarus. Tartarus was an abyss that was described as being  far below Hades as Heaven was above the earth. It seems all was envisioned as a sphere with Heaven being the highest part of the sphere and Tartarus the lowest part with earth in the middle.

So, what does this have to do with what Peter is talking about? Did he believe in Greek mythology? I don’t think so. However, with every myth comes a grain of truth. The Titans, were, well, titans: giants by comparison to everyone else. Does that start to ring a bell? Where do we have giants in the Bible? If we turn back to Genesis, chapter six, we read of the “Nephilim.” These were believed to be giants and were produced by angels who came to the earth and mated with mortal women. While some believe that to be a tall tale, apparently Peter didn’t think so. These angels stepped outside of their designated place appointed by God, and God punished them and sent them to the Abyss. This is what Peter referred to as Tartarus. See the connection? Zeus sent the Titans to Tartarus, the Abyss, just as God did with these angels who caused the chaos on the early earth. Peter was saying that if God did not spare angels for their transgressions, should not the ungodly be worried?

You may have rolled your eyes there. Yet, it was not only Peter who believed this. Other demons believed as well. Recall when Jesus healed the man near the Galilee Sea region who was possessed by legions of demons? What did these demons plead to Jesus about? “And they [the demons] begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss” (Lk 8:31). They had rather go anywhere than to the Abyss. Pigs for them was even better. It seems it was a place no demon wanted to go.

What was Peter’s final conclusion about this? “If this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the Day of Judgment, while continuing their punishment” (2Pt 2:9). So, unless we feel we are better than angels and have more authority, then Peter is saying we will also be held into account. Hmm, that should give us reason to pause. Thank goodness for a Savior. Wouldn’t you agree?

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Although several Biblical translations used the word “hell” for the term “Gehenna,” let’s see if we can understand why this particular term was used. The term is used 12 times in the New Testament. Each occurrence, but one, was used by Jesus himself. The other instance is found in the book of James.

We saw last time that Jesus used the term ‘Hades’ when he described the fate of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31). Because he also used the term ‘Hades’ in one place and ‘Gehenna’ in another, it is likely this was intentional. This gives us a clue that there is a difference between the two even if some translate both as ‘hell.’ So what message was he trying to get across?

First, we need to understand how this term came about. We need to go back to the book of Joshua to find its first occurrence. We find that the border between Judah and Benjamin was the Valley of Ben Hinnom (Js 15:8), just south of Jerusalem. We don’t really know anything about who Hinnom was or his son, but the term became renowned. This valley also became the place where child sacrifice was practiced by Kings Ahaz (2Ch 28:3) and Manasseh (2Ch 33:6). King Josiah desecrated the place to prevent sacrifices from reoccurring there (1Ki 23:10). Over time, this area became used as a refuse dump and a fire was continuously burning. The Hebrew word for ‘valley’ is ‘gei’ and the Hebrew term Ge-Hinnom when stated in Greek is Gehenna.

When Christ used the term Gehenna, he was admonishing people to avoid being cast into it at all costs and do whatever it would take to avoid it (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Lk 12:5). It would seem he used people’s knowledge of the Gehenna of the day as a reference to what God would do at some point in the future.

This is not just a New Testament idea. The prophet Isaiah did present this concept (Is 66:22-14). The context of these verses is when the new heavens and new earth will be created. In Revelation 20, this same context talks about the Great White Throne judgment and those not found written in the Book of Life being cast into the Lake of Fire (Rv 20:11-15). From this, it would seem Gehenna and Lake of Fire are synonymous. Therefore, Christ’s warning about Gehenna is his warning about the final, and eternal, Lake of Fire. These verses also reveal that Hades and Gehenna are not the same as even Hades is cast into Gehenna (Rv 20:14). As stated in a previous post, Hades is an intermediate state. We see here that Gehenna is a final state (Mk 9:48; Is 66:24).

All these scriptures show the Bible has a cohesive message and, therefore, we should pay special attention as it has everlasting relevance for each individual.

In our next post, we will look at another term that many times gets translated as hell, but the term has a very distinct meaning.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

In the last two posts we learned that Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) were names for the same place where the souls of the dead resided, were an intermediate state, and were where both the righteous and the wicked would go, but likely to different areas.

Now, we want to see if we can understand why this term was not always translated into English in the same way at each and every occurrence. In our first post, we found that hell and grave were the most common translations with a few also translated as pit, death, and depth. Why was this?

When one looks more closely, it would appear in most cases, the word “grave” was used when referring to the righteous and “hell” was used when referring to the wicked. The purpose here may have been to highlight that the righteous and wicked did not have the same fate. However, this now puts two different Hebrew words translated as “grave” in English. Hebrew has a different word for grave and never interchanged the meaning with Sheol. The grave was always a place in the physical world for the body and never implied a place for the soul. Therefore, clarity in one area created confusion in another.

The term “pit” almost always referred to the place of the wicked and typically implied the wicked were below those of the righteous. This denoted a place of inferiority and a separate and distinct place. This is different from the term “Abyss” which we will get to in a future post.

One of the other controversial spots in scripture has been the story Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31). Some claim this was a parable, and we shouldn’t take it as a true story, so the idea of torment in hell should not be taken too literally. Others claim this is the only place in the Bible which supports such a tenet, and we should therefore not link doctrine to this one area. There are others who claim it was true and, therefore, we must believe all aspects of the story. Who’s right?

We need to understand that even the parables Jesus gave were based upon fact with only the story itself being fiction. Places and events were literal and/or possible/believable. The same would be true here. Not all true stories Jesus told had named characters (e.g., Mk 10:17; Lk 14:1), so we shouldn’t quibble over whether it was or was not a parable. Both contained truth. We also saw in the last two posts that the Old Testament was not devoid of punishment of the wicked in Sheol, and did support different places within Sheol for the righteous compared to the wicked. Therefore, this story told by Jesus was supportive, and not against, other scripture.

In this story, Jesus used the Greek term ‘Hades’ which was the same as ‘Sheol’ in the Old Testament. Jesus was describing the same Sheol as the Jews of that day believed in at the time. In addition, Jesus was criticized for many things, but nowhere in scripture did the Jewish leaders of the day mention he had stated anything about the afterlife they did also not believe.

There were other terms mentioned in the New Testament translated as ‘hell.’ One, Gehenna, was one that Jesus himself mentioned many times. This term is totally different from the term ‘Hades’ he used in the passage above. Next time, we’ll investigate this term and see what it implies and why Jesus said so much about it.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

In the Old Testament, Sheol is noted as the place where all dead go: both the righteous and the wicked. Before we get deeper into the controversy of why translators did not always translate the world Sheol into the same English word, let’s first get an understanding of what the Old Testament stated about Sheol.

We first need to understand that while all the dead went to Sheol, not everyone went to the same place in Sheol. It seems there was a different place for the righteous versus that for the wicked. There are passages within scripture that mention at least three different sections within Sheol (Dt 32:22; Ps 30:3; Is 14:15; 2Pt 2:4) with the righteous occupying the upper part, the wicked the lower part (sometimes called the “pit”), and some angels occupying another, separate, section of Sheol. We will discuss this latter section in a separate post. In addition, the Talmud supports this belief as well (see ref).

What are some of the characteristics of Sheol? Many Old Testament passages tell what Sheol is not rather than what it actually is. Many passages contrast Sheol to life and hence the term “land of the living” in contrast to the land of the dead – the opposite of each other (Ps27:13; 52:5; 116:9; 142:5; Is 38:11; 53:8; and Ezekiel 26:20; 32:23-27; 32:32). Sheol is a place where activities of physical life are no longer possible: they do not marry, procreate, or carry on business transactions; they cannot attend public worship in the temple and give sacrifices or praise; they cannot eat or drink; they do not have any wisdom or knowledge about what is happening in the land of the living; they are cut off from the living; they have entered a new dimension of reality with its own kind of existence (Ps 6:5, 30:9, 88:10-12, 115:17; Ec 9:5, 10; Is 38:18). It is a place hidden to us and of a different dimension. Some scripture calls it a “shadowy place” or “place of darkness” (Jb 10:21-22; Ps 143:3) and a place of disembodied spirits (Jb 26:5; Ps 88:10; Pv 2:18, 9:18, 21:16; Is 14:9, 26:14, 19). Other scripture tells us Sheol is found “down”, “beneath the earth,” or in “the lower parts of the earth” (Jb 11:8; Is 44:23, 57:9; Ek 26:20; Am 9:2). Since the rebellion of Adam, Satan is the ruler of the earth (Mt 4:8-9) and of death (1Co 15:26). During Old Testament times even the righteous were not in God’s presence after death.

Yet, Sheol was also not a place of inactivity. Ps 115:17 states, “It is not the dead who praise the LORD, those who go down to silence.” Yet, this is not a verse that supports the idea of “soul sleep.” To a Jew, praise involved the temple in Jerusalem, especially in David’s case. There is no temple in Sheol and, therefore, no place to adequately praise God. David was making a statement of contrast between the live, physical world and the dead, spiritual world. We have contrast here – silence of praise, not silence in totality.

Princeton scholar Charles Hodge stated: “That the Jews believed in a conscious life after death is beyond dispute.” There are Biblical examples as well. Jacob expected to see his son Joseph in Sheol and interact with him (Gn 37:35). There are numerous other scriptures that support expectations of interacting with loved ones who had passed on before (Gn 15:15, 25:8, 35;29, 37:35, 49:33; Nu 29:24, 28, 31:2; Dt 32:50, 34:5; 2Sa 12:23). Those in Sheol can converse with each other and can make moral judgments on new arrivals (Is 14:9-20, 44:23; Ek 32:21).

Although there are not many Old Testament passages that directly state torment occurs in Sheol, Old Testament scripture is not exactly silent on this issue either. Some scriptures do allude to the fact that Sheol is a place of God’s continuing judgment. The wicked in the lowest part of Sheol experience the fire of God’s anger (Dt 32:22), experience distress (2Sa 22:6; Ps 18:6, 116:3, 118:5), and may writhe in pain (Jb 26:5). Although no other passages in the Old Testament directly speak of torment in the intermediate state, there are other passages that speak of “everlasting humiliation and contempt” which awaits the wicked after the resurrection (Is 66:24; Dn 12:2). Peter was clear in stating the unrighteous are in torment until their resurrection: . . . the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the Day of Judgment, while continuing their punishment (2Pt 2:9).

What about the righteous? While they were certainly not in torment, scripture does not paint it as a place of paradise either. They feared death (Ps 6, 18:4, 55:4, 116:3); yet, still had hope (Ps 73:23-25). They knew they were not abandoned (Jb 26:6) and were not out of God’s reach (Ps 139:8). They knew Sheol was not permanent for them (Ps 16:10, 49:14-15, 86:13). The ascension of Enoch (Gn 5:24) and Elijah (2Ki 2:11) to heaven indicated that the righteous would someday be taken into God’s presence.

So, we now know that Sheol was established as an intermediate state for everyone where activity was still occurring. The wicked and righteous were in separate areas and experienced Sheol differently. Likely the wicked were in a state of some type of torment while the righteous were in a state of peace, but not necessarily paradise. In our next post, let’s see how the translators used various English words to translate Sheol into our present Bible and what that implies.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

There probably isn’t a more controversial topic in the Bible than the topic of hell. It seems everyone is okay with heaven being in the Bible but get really upset around the concept of hell. Some say hell is not even mentioned in the Bible, others say it’s there but is not a place of torment, while others say the term is just about one sleeping until that person is resurrected.

Although controversial, I thought we should look at this topic and try to keep an open mind. After all, if it is a true concept then we really need to know about it. If it isn’t true, then we certainly want to be sure of that also. So, why is it such a controversial topic? It seems one of the biggest controversies is nomenclature. Remember the Old Testament is predominantly written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. So, if one only looks at these original languages, the word hell is not there, as the word came from the translation of these original texts into English. In Hebrew, the term is Sheol; in Greek it is Hades.

To me, one of the first questions is, if we are concerned about the English translation not keeping the original word, why are we not upset that the Greek translation did not? Translators try to find words which people will understand or words that convey the original author’s intent. Hades seemed to be a good analogy for Sheol for a Greek society to understand. They’re not exactly the same in meaning but do convey the concept of an underworld where the dead would reside. Both are spiritual places and are therefore “hidden” from those alive. Some claim that is what the definition of Hades means, i.e., hidden. In that case, the word hell may have come from the word hel also meaning “to hide.” It is a term sometimes used to describe how potatoes are stored in an underground shed for the winter (to hell potatoes) or to cover a roof (to hell a roof). Hel was also the Norse god of the underworld just as Hades was the Roman god of the underworld. From this perspective, Hades and Hel have more in common than does Sheol and Hades. Yet, we know from New Testament scripture (Ac 2:27 compared to Ps 16:10) Hades was used interchangeably for Sheol.

The second question is, if Sheol and Hades were to be translated as Hell, why were these terms not always translated as Hell? Is there a terminology issue? There are other terms like Gehenna and Tartarus which were also translated as Hell. Why is that? Is that significant? There are also other terms used that seem similar but were not translated as hell, such as Lake of Fire and Abyss. Are they related? Then, there are terms used in place of Sheol and Hades that were not translated as hell, such as depth, grave, pit, and death. Why?

Is there a reason for these seemingly mistranslations? Was this a bias of the translators or were they trying to be helpful? Let’s see if we can tease this out and make some rational sense of it all. These are the questions I would like for us to explore over the next several posts. I hope you join me.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

We have looked at the first two temptations of Christ: the first appealing to physical need and the second appealing to desire. Today we look at the third: the appeal to emotional need. Did Christ have emotional need? Let’s see what Scripture states: “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me’” (Mt 4:8-9)

Well, at first glance we see that this is rather strange. Who is Satan that he could even offer such a promise? Could he really grant such a thing? After all, doesn’t God own everything? Yes and no. God created everything—absolutely. And He controls everything—absolutely. But Adam gave something away a long time ago. God offered Adam a theocratic kingdom—one where Adam ruled with God’s authority and control (Gn 1:28). However, because of Adam’s rebellion—yes it was rebellion—Adam relinquished his kingdom to Satan. After all, that is why we are all born into sin—into Satan’s kingdom. He is not called ‘Ruler of the Kingdom of the Air’ for no reason. We are there automatically. We must want to be in God’s kingdom and make that choice. That is why the stakes are so high. That is why Scripture states we are condemned already (Jn 3:17).

Therefore, Satan had the kingdom to offer. Why would Christ want it? That was the plan—to take back the kingdom Adam had relinquished. Satan has always wanted to rule the world and has made several attempts in the past and will do so in the future. However, one of the goals of Christ is to take back that kingdom before this world ends and show that Satan is not the ultimate ruler. That is one of the main purposes for Christ one day to establish his Millennial Kingdom. So, here, we see Satan was willing to give up all of that and ‘help’ Christ out—for a price of course. What was that price? To bow down and worship Satan. Would that be so bad? After all, Christ would not have to go to the cross, would not have to endure all the pain and suffering. And he would obtain the goal of taking back the Kingdom from Satan. But it was not a win-win scenario. There was too much at stake here. What would be ultimately lost? Sin would not be atoned; mankind would remain under Satan’s control; now even the Godhead would be under Satan. Unthinkable!

So what did Christ say? Jesus replied, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only’” (Mt 4:10; Dt 6:13). Again, Christ did not ponder the request. Christ knew Satan was the father of lies (Jn 8:44). Satan, of course, always weaves in a few elements of truth to mask the lie. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish the lie from the truth. That is why Christ did not ponder, did not try to weigh the pros and cons. He knew Satan’s tactics and knew they were not worth considering. Christ stuck to Scripture; true, undiluted Scripture. We should too. Let’s take notice. We need to take Scripture at its face value and know that it is from God Himself. Let’s not try to reason and make it fit our desires. Let’s do the right thing and make our needs, desires, and emotions fit into what Scripture tells us. Then the same will happen for us as it did for Christ: “Then the devil left him” (Mt 4:11). We can be overcomers just as Christ himself was that day.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

We saw in the previous post that the first temptation Satan threw at Christ was around physical need and Christ responded that God’s will comes before His personal need. Now, Satan gets a little craftier: “Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down. For it is written: He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up on their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” (Mt 4:5-6; Ps 91:11-12). You may be asking yourself, how is this a temptation? We stated that this second temptation was about desire. What was Christ’s desire? Well, we know that the message Christ would be preaching was the same message as that of John the Baptist: “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mt 4:17). What better way to get everyone’s attention? Remember, Jesus is not yet on the scene and on everyone’s radar. Satan is saying, “Make a grand entrance. That will get everyone’s attention.” Think about it. Here they are on the temple’s pinnacle. At this time of Jewish history, the temple is a remarkably busy place. What would the people do if they saw someone falling but then angels protecting him from hitting the ground? What would you do? Would that grab your attention? That is was Satan was saying: “Dazzle them! That will get their attention. They will then be dying to hear what you have to say.” After all, when you think about it, it does not sound like a bad plan, does it?

But what did Christ say? “Jesus answered him, ‘It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Mt 4:7; Dt 6:16). Did you catch that? Jesus gave Satan a double whammy. First, Christ said Satan should not even be testing him. Why? Because of the second point: Jesus Christ is Satan’s Lord and God. In other words, “Who are you, Satan, to be giving your Lord and God advice?” Smack. Ouch! Door in the face! Christ was saying God’s way is always best and anyone else’s way—catch that: anyone else’s way—should not be followed. Jesus made up His mind He would follow the way of God the Father. Only His way is the right way. It is just amazing to me how Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter so quickly—and decisively.

What about us? Do we do that? Or are we more like Eve. We ponder the temptation. We weigh it like it has equal merit to what God has already told us. No, Christ discarded it like day-old bread. He wasn’t going to do anything second rate. He was going to do it the right way – the best way. Let’s take notes on this one! But how can we know God’s way? We need to study Scripture. Just because we get quoted Scripture to us does not mean someone is telling us the right thing to do. Jesus knew Satan was taking Scripture out of context. Jesus quoted Scripture to put the conversation back on task. We need to study so we can discern Scripture correctly (2Tm 2:15). Christ gave us the example. Let’s follow.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

The first temptation that Satan presented to Jesus was, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread” (Mt 4:3). Was that a real temptation? Well, let me ask you, if you had not eaten for 40 days and nights would that have been a temptation for you? So, as usual Satan takes the cheap shot first. Interesting how he appealed to his human side at the same time as his godly side. Satan appealed to his physical need of hunger but stated that his godly side could satisfy his human need. Of course Christ could have done that. Would that have been wrong? I don’t think the action itself is the real problem. The real problem is the first word: if. Satan is in a very subtle way asking Jesus to prove himself. Satan did not say, “Jesus you are the Son of God. You are able to satisfy your physical need of hunger. You can make these stones become bread.” No, Satan said, “If you are the Son of God…” That is a big difference. One is acting on who Jesus is. The other is proving who Jesus is. Jesus does not have to prove Himself to anyone.

So, what was Jesus’ response? “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Mt 4:4; Dt 8:3). Was this a satisfactory response? Jesus was stating that his physical need is not more important than God’s purpose. Just because Jesus could do something was not enough for Him to fulfill it. Satan was saying, “Use your power to your own advantage. After all, who is going to know?”

Now, do you let your physical needs dictate your obedience? I know when I get really hungry I get irritable and impatient. That is when my guard is down, and I am probably less inclined to focus on how I could be a positive witness. I can become a little rude and get upset with people more easily. If I have just eaten, I am more likely to be more patient with people and a little more understanding. How about you? Does that sound like you as well? But Jesus stayed focused on the purpose God had for Him to accomplish. Feel like you have just been served a piece of humble pie. You can get your piece after I get mine!

Therefore, although a simple question, it hits us all at our very core. This shows how Jesus is to be our model. His response is not the typical response but was the correct response. No wonder we are told that Jesus should be our model. Next time, we will see how the bar is raised but Jesus rises to the challenge.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

The Bible states that Jesus Christ was tempted in every way as were we (Hb 4:15). Can someone who is both 100% God and 100% man be tempted as are we? Although the three temptations that are recorded which Satan presented to Christ after his 40-day fast may not be the only temptations that he faced, these are the ones we have the most detail about. Therefore, we should explore those and see what we can glean from what is presented in Scripture.

First, we should note that these three temptations are similar in type to how Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan appealed to physical need, pride and/or desire, and emotional need. That is, she saw that the fruit on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was good for food (physical need), pleasing to the eye (desire), and good for making one wise (emotional need). Satan did the same with Christ. However, we know that Eve failed miserably but Christ was successful. We will examine the difference in how each responded to their temptation.

I think if we really think about the temptations that come our way, they will tend to fall into these three categories. If we look at how each responded to these temptations maybe that will help us to be more successful. Odds are, we will tend to fall on the side of Eve more often; yet, we can potentially have more successes if we know the tactics Satan is using.

The other thing to note is that although the category of temptation may be similar between the two (and among us), we will see that the actual temptations were tailored for each individual. Satan knows each person has different weaknesses. Therefore, what is a temptation to one person has absolutely no effect on another. I think that is another game Satan plays with us and sets a snare for us. Many times we see someone fall big time due to a certain temptation and we think, “Wow, he sure is weak,” and this sets us up to fall into our pride. Satan then gets a double run with a single hit. We need to be on guard for such things. We need to remember that everyone is struggling with something. Just because it is not the same as you, does not make it any less “big” for the person struggling with it.

This is a reminder that we should bear one another’s burdens and lift each other up – both with encouragement and with prayer. We can all be more effective if we feel and know we are not struggling alone. Let’s be the biggest advocate for our fellow Christians as we can be.

Next time we will look at the first temptation Satan extended to Christ and appealed to his physical need.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

In my last two posts, we saw that Jesus’ teachings were somewhat radical to traditional Jewish thinking and that Jesus raised the letter of the Law to the original intent of the spirit of the Law. Today, we’ll explore that Jesus’ teachings also exposed the error of their training.

The Sadducees believed in neither angels nor in a future resurrection because they believed these were not mentioned in the Law of Moses. The Law, or the first five books of the Bible written by Moses, the Pentateuch, did not use the word angel or resurrection; therefore, the Sadducees felt they were being purer to scripture by not believing in these concepts. What is translated as angel in our Bible has the meaning of messenger.

Also, these Jewish leaders prided themselves of their living their lives on the subtlety of scripture meaning. Jesus takes this element of their pride to show the fallacy of their thought process.

In Matthew, it tells us, “That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven since all of them were married to her?’ Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry not be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ He is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.”

This was sort of a one up to their subtlety. In a way, Jesus was saying that if you value subtlety of scripture so much and want to live by that so you can show how devoted you are, then you need to also study the spiritual aspects of the scriptures and not just the physical acts of obedience. Again, this angered these Jewish leaders rather than them admitting to their error. They had overlooked this subtlety: the tense of the passage of scripture implicated the reality Moses believing in the concept of resurrection when they taught Moses did not believe in that doctrine. They were embarrassed and rather than admitting the brilliance of what Jesus taught, they dug more deeply and became entrenched in their jealously and hatred for him because he had embarrassed them in front of those who they believed thought them superior.

However, this was consistent with many of Christ’s teachings, which were paradoxical. In Luke, Christ stated, “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.” At first glance, this requires a double take, but with thought it makes sense. Christ is saying that if we want to do as we want in this current life without Him, we have no eternal life, but if we give up our life by trusting in Him for our life, then we will have eternal life to look forward to when this life is over.

In Mark, Christ stated, “…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.” Again, this sounds strange at first. However, Jesus is stating that our eternal greatness will be determined by how much we served others and were concerned about other’s eternal future.

Many of Jesus’ parables had paradoxical teachings. He told his disciples that “Whoever has will be given more, and he will have abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables.” Again, this sounds strange. If he was trying to teach them, why would Jesus say this? In other words, those who wanted to understand Jesus would be able to do so and would glean more and more from his teachings. However, those who were there for the food His miracles provided would receive no benefit and even that would be taken from them.

But how new were Jesus’ teachings? Paradoxical? Yes, with their current thinking but not if one really studied the prophets of old:

The psalmist Asaph stated, “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old.” (Ps 78:2)

The prophet Samuel stated, “To obey is better than sacrifice.” (1Sa 15:22)

The prophet Joel stated, “Rend your heart and not your garments.” (Jl 2:13)

Therefore, Jesus was proclaiming similar concepts that previous prophets had proclaimed but still the Jewish leaders were not listening, just as their forefathers had not listened previously. However, Jesus is perhaps more emphatic than past prophets because the ultimate choice was now before them. The one to whom the previous prophets spoke was now standing before them in their midst and so their last chance was now being presented to them.

How are we doing? Do we just take Biblical teaching just because that is what we have always heard? Or are we willing to open our minds to the center truth of what God’s Word is trying to tell us. Let’s study with prayer for God’s understand and a mind open to the teaching of the Holy Spirit and a desire to comprehend our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

In my last post, we saw that Jesus stressed the spirit of the Law rather than just the letter of the Law. He did not shy away from making things awkward with the Jewish leaders of this important nuance. However, this turned to not be a true nuance but a very contentious matter. This week we will see another aspect of this that also made the Jewish leaders at odds with Jesus.

Jesus exposed the error of their thinking process. In Matthew 5, Jesus stated that keeping the Law was a heart matter and not a matter of ritual. He stated that although Moses commanded one to not commit adultery, this even meant that if anyone lusted after another woman other than his wife he was still guilty of breaking the command just as if they had actually committed the act.

Later, in Matthew 15, Jesus stated that “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean,” because these things come from one’s heart. There is no hedge that one can put around one’s thought process, or not very easily. This teaching from Jesus angered the Jewish leaders because for them to accept this it would mean that everything they had been doing and all their superiority in leading such dedicated lives of devotion to the Law of Moses based upon deeds was all wrong and their righteousness was indeed “as filthy rags” as stated by Isaiah (Is 64:6). They just could not accept this.

When one is faced with actual truth, there is usually two polar opposite responses. One either realizes the error of their ways and embraces the truth, or the person vehemently opposes what is being stated and rejects the truth presented. Unfortunately, the Jewish leaders responded the latter way.

Do we not do the same thing? We have our traditions that we do and like. However, sometimes we cannot even give a reason for the tradition even when we do stop to think why. The original intent is lost. Yet when someone points out the true original intent, we get mad because that does not now fit with our preconceived ideas as to why we have the tradition. Or perhaps the tradition has morphed into something not recognized by the original intent. I think this is more likely what happened here. The Jewish leaders had focused so long on the obedience component of the Law, they no longer stopped to think of the original intent of the obedience. Therefore, the obedience became the focal point rather than the intent of the Law one’s obedience was portraying. Sometimes, we, too, need to stop and look at why we do what we do and see if God has a lesson for us that is not at first obvious. God can teach us new things from old things if we stop long enough to hear what He is teaching.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

While it is true that the Jewish leaders of the day thought Jesus' teachings were radical, they were not as radical as people think. Many Old Testament prophets also preached similarly. However, Jesus did create quite a stir wherever he went. Why? Well, Jesus exposed the spirit of the Law rather than the letter of the Law. The Jewish leaders were overly concerned about people breaking the Law of Moses, so over time many self-imposed regulations were placed upon everyone to form a “hedge of protection around the Law.” As usual, although efforts have a good original intent, over time they lose their original purpose. The same was true here. Over time, these man-made, self-imposed, regulations became as binding as the Law itself and even equal in authority. They taught the more observant one was of these laws to the smallest detail, then the more spiritual, the more righteous, one became. Many of the Jewish leaders would tithe not only what the Law required but also tithed from the very spices they obtained. Of course, any time one’s goodness is tied to actions, pride can take hold and make one feel superior to others. Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders for this attitude they had against others. He told them they neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness—the spirit of the law. It was not that they should not do the things they were doing, but they should not neglect the weightier matters of the Law.

However, can we be too critical? Don't we do the same? Aren't we sometimes very legalistic and miss the true spiritual meaning of what we are trying to do? Let's start doing what Jesus did. Let's look at what Scripture is saying in spirit and not just in deed. Jesus raised the Law to a higher plane to show we can only achieve this by allowing the Holy Spirit to work through us. This keeps us humble. If we think we are doing well, then we probably are not; we are really relying on ourselves. It is only through Christ that all things are possible. Let's learn this lesson of what Jesus was teaching for ourselves and become all we can be in Him.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Remnant is a term that is not uncommon for Israel. Here are some of the times it was used:

 1.      It was first used by Joseph when he stated that God allowed him to save a remnant of Jacob’s family (Gn 45:7).

 2.      It was used of Israel being preserved from the ravages of Assyria (2Ki 19:4).

 3.      It was used by God to state that the remnant of Judah that was saved from the sword would be taken captive (2Ch 36:20).

 4.      It was a term Ezra used to describe those that returned from Persia back to Jerusalem (Er 9:8).

 5.      It was used by Paul to state the Jews who would turn to Christ during the time of the Gentiles (Ro 9:27, 11:15).

The term has also been applied to Gentiles as well: It is also a term used by the prophets to state Gentiles who would accept Christ during the Tribulation (Is 11:16).

We can see from this that the righteous have always been the minority. In broad strokes, the righteous minority prior to Christ were the Gentiles, and the righteous minority after the time of Christ are the Jews. Even within Israel, though, were both righteous and unrighteous. We know of people like Moses, Joshua and David were righteous and followed both the spirit and intent of the Law. However, we know there were many ordinary people who did the same. We have an example with Elijah, who after killing the prophets of Baal felt he was alone in his serving God; however, God told him there were over 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal (1Ki 19:18). We also know there were many who did not serve the Lord and is the reason for the prophets’ announcements of doom and captivity.

As we stated in previous posts, the Jews were the Christian majority in the beginning of the Church Age but became the minority as more and more Gentiles became Christians. When many Christians became anti-Semitic, it caused a big rift between Christians and Jews which isolated more and more Jews from Christian contact and influence. Today, many Jews are pretty much agnostic when it comes to their relationship with God. They are strongly tied to tradition but necessarily to God Himself. Therefore, although the Jews are the Christian minority today, that will not always be the case. We read that one day, it will again be the Jews who will lead the world in the worship of God (Zc 8:23). This will occur after Jesus Christ returns. Although Israel as a nation rejected Jesus Christ the first time, they will accept him when he returns; their sins will be forgiven, and Israel will once again be righteous before God (Zc 12:10). Then they will fulfill their original charge to lead to world in the worship of God (Ex 19:6). It is good to know that God always fulfills his promises no matter how long it takes.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

We have seen that Paul was appointed by God as an Apostle to the Gentiles. So what caused so much controversy between Paul and the Christian Jews? Paul taught that circumcision was not necessary for salvation (Ac 15:1-2) and that Gentiles did not have to keep the Law to be a Christian (Ga 2:16). Many of the persecuted Jewish believers had fled to Antioch and other churches teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in addition to accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior. In other words, you had to first be a Jewish proselyte to become a follower of Jesus Christ. Paul was opposed to this and went to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem where they heard how God was blessing Gentiles and were receiving the Holy Spirit without being circumcised. This created quite an argument, but Peter also told how he had seen the Holy Spirit given to Gentile believers without them being circumcised (Ac 10, 15:7-11). From Peter’s statement, the Jerusalem council said they would be satisfied if the Gentile believers would not eat meat sacrificed to idols, not eat meat from strangled animals, not eat blood, and would keep themselves sexually pure (Ac 15:20). This Paul did (Ac 16:4).

So did Paul give up his Jewish customs? At times he did, for he did not want to be a stumbling block to others and confuse them (1Co 9:20-22); however, for the most part he kept a lot of the Jewish customs. On his second missionary journey, he hurried back to Jerusalem to keep Passover (Ac 18:21). On this journey he also seemed to have kept a Nazarite vow (Ac 18:18). On his third missionary journey, he observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Philippi (Ac 20:6) and wanted to get to Jerusalem in time for Shavuot [Pentecost] (Ac 20:16). Therefore, Paul did not live like a Gentile in every aspect. However, he was not bothered by blending the two.

So how do we reconcile this? Paul’s main emphasis was that Jesus Christ came and died for the sins of mankind and everyone needs to hear about him, accept him, receive salvation through him, and receive the Holy Spirit in order to live a life then pleasing to God. Everything else was just tradition. The Law of Moses had shown them their sin (Ro 3:20); keeping it did not save them (Ro 3:23, 28). Salvation through Jesus Christ is for all, both Jew and Gentile (Ro 3:21-31). Paul saw no problem with keeping the Jewish traditions/customs, or even the Law itself, as long as it was kept in its proper context. It is something one chooses volitionally to do but not committed to do. Therefore, there was no need to impose this on Gentiles as it was not necessary for salvation. However, anyone, either Jew or Gentile can decide to keep the Jewish feasts and any other customs if they know this is not making them any better than anyone else (1Co 8:8).

Paul’s teaching is a good lesson for us today. Our customs and heritage are especially important to us, as well as they should be. However, we should not let any custom or tradition make us feel superior to anyone else. We are all equal in Christ. Jesus Christ came to die for the salvation of all. It is our faith in him that saves us and that is the equalizer. All other things we do or do not do are based upon personal conviction and have no bearing on our goodness or righteousness. It is not how much faith we have but the object of our faith that makes the difference. Let’s let Paul’s example be our guide.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Many people are surprised that there are many connections between Christians and Jews. Some see them as quite diverse. After all, Christians believe Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies about the promised Messiah, but Jews don’t believe he did. Also, some Christians believe God has removed Israel from any of his future plans. However, let’s look at the commonalities:

 1. Both pay allegiance to the same God. While many modern Jews are somewhat agnostic, there are many Jews who still pray to the God of Abraham. This is the same God to whom we as Christians pray and serve. There are other religions that claim they worship and serve God; however, the characteristics of the god they serve are different. The God of the Christians and the Jews have the same characteristics.

 2. Both have the same history. The Jewish scriptures are the same as our Old Testament. Christians feel connected to the members of Jewish history just as do the Jews: Abraham, Moses, David, etc. These are key figures of the Jews but are key figures for Christians as well. Both revere them highly.

 3. Christianity would not exist without Judaism. Actually, the first Christians were Jews. For a while there were no Gentile Christians. Although not called Christians at the time, but people of The Way (Ac 9:2), they were all Jewish or Jewish proselytes. For a good period of time, these Christians were considered a sect of Judaism (Ac 28:22) because they still attended the synagogue and the temple in Jerusalem, and they still kept all the Jewish festivals. It was not until more Gentiles than Jews became Christians when Christianity was no longer considered part of Judaism. If one did not have a Jewish history, Paul and others taught that since salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, there was no need to keep Jewish traditions (Ac 15). However, Paul was not against Jewish traditions—just that they were not essential for salvation.

 4. Both share a similar future. Many Old Testament prophets prophesied that Israel would spend an eternity with their Messiah when he sets up his kingdom. Some feel that because most Jews and the Jewish leaders at the time rejected Jesus’ message, God has altered his promises and given them to the Christians. However, Paul, who revealed the mystery of the church and the present time of the Gentiles, did not believe this (Ro 11:1). Paul stated that this present time is when Gentiles are the prominent Christian group (Ro 11:25), but Israel will again in the future accept Jesus as their Messiah and will rule with him (Ro 11:26-27). Yet,Christians are considered the Bride of Christ and will rule with him in his millennial kingdom (Ep 5:23; 2Tm 2:12).

 5. The “age of Gentiles” was made possible by the Jews. Throughout the past centuries, a lot of anti-Semitism has developed because they were labeled “Christ killers.” This has caused a large wedge to be created between Jews and Christians. That is very unfortunate, for, as you can see from this post that there are a lot of similarities. Actually, it is the Jewish leaders rejection of Jesus that has allowed the age of Gentiles to arise and provide Gentiles the opportunity to become Christians (Ro 9:30-33). When Jesus first came, his message was of his coming kingdom (Mt 4:17). Therefore, if the Jews had accepted that message, the millennial kingdom would have been established then. If that had occurred, what would have been the fate of Gentiles? One can only speculate. None of this caught God by surprise, though. It all went as God knew it would. Therefore, we as Gentiles can be grateful of our opportunity.

 6. Both Jews and Christians have been persecuted. This is not to say that other ethnic groups have not been, but these two groups have been persecuted most often. During the early church times in the Roman Empire, they were persecuted because they would only recognize one king and it was not Caesar but their beloved Jesus Christ. Christians have been labeled as exclusionary because we state there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ (Ac 4:12). However, although that sounds exclusionary, it is really inclusionary because the offer of meeting Jesus Christ is offered to all. And, if one does not, they are not coerced. While history does not always bear out this sentence, it is true if one really follows the teachings of the Bible. The Jews are persecuted because if they are wiped out, God’s ultimate plan cannot come true. They are also a reminder of the reality of a one true God. I think most would have a hard time denying that the holocaust was not demonic in nature. If one believes the Bible, then Satan is real and his work is as well. He wants to be the ultimate victor and is the true mimicker of God. Others may not believe the Bible, but he does. He knows how crucial Israel is to the future of mankind and to God’s ultimate plan. Therefore, if they are no more, then God cannot complete His plan. Thankfully, the Bible also records the end and everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, who has put their faith in him will be on the victor’s side.

Although this has been a very brief summary, one can see that through Israel we have a lot to be thankful for. That is also one of the points of this website. We cannot be Christians and ignore the contribution that Israel has played in our genesis, our present state, and will be in our future. The world is forever tied to Israel. Please read by book, Why is a Gentile World Tied to a Jewish Timeline? For further information on this topic.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

What was Paul’s background? Paul was trained to be a Pharisee and he seemed to be top of his class (Ac 22:3; Pp 3:4-6). He was also a Roman citizen (Ac 22:27) which gave him special privileges. Peers would say he had it all—all that any Jew could ever hope for—wealth, special spiritual training, respect of their Jewish leaders and all the privileges that a Roman citizen could receive. Paul also had a zeal for doing God’s work—just misguided. No one else could see his potential, but it was truly clear to God.

So, why was Paul’s background so important? Well, let me ask you. If you were going to accomplish a paradigm shift: going from using a Jewish nation to individuals and not just Jewish individuals but Gentile individuals also, who would you want to help accomplish that? You would need someone who could understand Jewish law and how that now relates to the teachings of Christ. You would need someone that could stand up to criticism of this new paradigm and be able to defend it with Jewish scripture. You would need someone who could gain the respect of the Gentiles as well. What better person than Paul? He had special training in Jewish law. There was no one who could argue he did not know the Jewish Scriptures. He had originally hated the Christians, so he could identify with how the Gentiles must feel going from their current culture to becoming a Christian which would seem rather foreign at first. He would be able to tease out from Scripture what was necessary for the Gentiles and what was optional and was just Jewish tradition. He could tease out the meaning behind the Jewish traditions and not just feel the tradition, in itself, was sufficient. He could put Christ’s teachings into their proper Jewish scripture context and explain it in a way that would make sense to the Jew as well as to the Gentile. Yes, God needed someone like Paul. And Paul did not let God down. Yet, God had to be quite blunt with Paul and stop him dead in his tracks in order to get his attention (Ac 9:1-6). Once on the right road, however, there was no stopping him.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

So, how many apostles are there? It seems the number has always been reported as 12. Jesus had twelve disciples, but Judas betrayed him and committed suicide. Peter initiated a replacement and Matthias was chosen (Ac 1:12-26). Then, later, Paul states that God called him to be an apostle (Ac 9:15; Ro 1:1). So, are there 12, 13, or 14 apostles? Well, if we take at face value that the information in Revelation is speaking of the future, it seems to indicate there are only 12 (Rv 21:14). If this is true, how do we come to grips with this? Well, let’s go through this step by step.

The first question would be did Judas have faith in Jesus as the Messiah before he died? There are several things that would seem to indicate he did not. Several scriptures suggest Judas did not have faith in Christ’s reason for coming (Jn 17:12; Ps 41:9). This point is addressed more fully in my book, Why is a Gentile World Tied to a Jewish Timeline?. However, Peter, knowing the state of Judas, and knowing that scripture stated he should be replaced (Ac 1:20; Ps 109:8), likely felt Judas had not been a true follower of Christ, and is likely one of the reasons Peter was advocating a replacement for him. However, let’s look at the circumstances around this event. This was on the heels of the disciples seeing Christ ascend back into heaven. But let’s see what Christ told the disciples. Christ stated the disciples were to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit (Ac 1:4, 8). Peter, as his previous actions imply, was not a patient person. He was a man of action—sometimes to his detriment. Yet, he was definitely a leader. Perhaps because there was not a specific time given to them and knowing that the Feast of Pentecost (Weeks or Shavuot) was fast approaching, which would bring a lot of activity, Peter may have felt they should be doing something. However, if Jesus had wanted the disciples to choose another disciple at this time, it is likely he would have given that request before his ascension or even chosen another before his ascension. Remember, Christ’s request was for them to wait. Waiting usually implies just that—to wait.

The other thing to look at is how the decision was made. They used lots (Ac 1:26). This is similar to flipping a coin and making a decision as to whether it lands heads or tails. Now, granted, this was not something unusual. The casting of lots was a customary thing to do to know if a decision was of the gods or not (Jh 1:7). However, for the Jews, this was usually done by the High Priest (using Urim and Thummim; Nu 27:21) because they were expecting an answer from the One True God. Sometimes lots were cast (Nu 26:55) and God was expected to be in the correct decision of the lot. Therefore, Peter most likely thought this was an acceptable way of making the decision. After all, they did pray before casting the lot. However, the way this was done, a decision would be made whether God was in the decision or not. Two candidates (Justus and Mathias) were chosen, and the lot was to choose which one would become the replacement for Judas. Once the Holy Spirit came to indwell each believer, the need for lots was no longer required as the Holy Spirit could minister and impress upon one’s human spirit the right course of action. Maybe this was why Jesus asked the disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit? I am sure both of these men were very good men, or the disciples would not have put them up for nomination. It is interesting that scripture does not mention Mathias again after this selection process. Could this be a silent statement of scripture that this was not really God’s plan? Did the disciples know their error after the Holy Spirit came to indwell them? Again, scripture is silent. However, if Paul was indeed called to be an apostle, as he claimed (see 30-Jan-2013 post), then Paul would complete the 12, and not Matthias. It seem obedience is always the best choice.

A caveat here, though. The Bible does not condemn Peter for his actions, so we can’t know for sure if this was indeed rash on his part or not. As they say, time will tell. Or, in this case, eternity. There does seem to be historical evidence that Matthias was just as dedicated to the spreading of the gospel as any of the other apostles and met a martyr’s death as did almost every apostle.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Paul definitely claimed to be an apostle (Ro 11:13; 1Co 9:1; 2Co 12:12; Gal 2:8; 1Tm 2:7; Tt 1:1) and even claimed his appointment as an apostle was given by God (Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Ga 1:1; Ep 1:1; Cl 1:1; 1Tm 1:1). So was there any proof of this being true? There were two things that usually defined an apostle: (1) being an eye witness to Jesus Christ and (2) being able to do signs, wonders and miracles (2Co 12:12).

Paul was born under the name Saul in the city of Tarsus, Cilicia (which is now part of Turkey) around 3 to 5 AD. Therefore, by the time Jesus was crucified, Paul would have been around 30 years of age. Since Paul was taught by Gamaliel (Ac 22:3), who was a key figure in the Sanhedrin in the middle of the first century and the grandson of the great Jewish teach Hillel the Elder, it is likely Paul would have met Jesus during his lifetime since he would have been in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus’ ministry. Yet, he would likely have been opposed to the teachings of Jesus like many of the other Pharisees would have been. Therefore, he would not have had an intimate relationship with Jesus and his teachings—at least not until Jesus met him on the road to Damascus (Ac 9:1-9). It really shows how Paul had the zeal to serve God, but his zeal was just misguided. After he understood that Jesus was indeed Lord, he had the same zeal to serve Jesus Christ as he did previously to stamp out those proclaiming to be Christians. This wasn’t the only experience with Jesus Christ, though. We find that he had a vision where he was translated into the third heaven and heard inexpressible things (2Co 12:4). This was an experience not held by any other apostle. This likely occurred not too long after his conversion—maybe when he spent his time in Arabia (Ga 1:17). This is also likely when God revealed to him the mystery of the church and how the Gentiles will be heirs with Israel (Ep 3:4-11; Cl 1:25-17), and how the rapture will occur before Christ’s second coming (1Co 15:51-52; 1Th 4:13-18). Do these events not qualify him for the first criterion of being an apostle?

Miracles were usually characteristics of an apostle. One could point out that Stephen, who was a deacon, also performed miracles (Ac 6:8). Yet, as the church grew, the people capable of miracles remained mainly around those characterized as apostles (2Co 12:12). There were many miracles that were accomplished by Paul: he told Elymas that he would become blind for a season, and he did (Ac 13:9-11); he performed signs and wonders in Iconium (Ac 14:3); he healed a crippled man in Lystra (Ac 14:8); he healed a demon possessed girl in Philippi (Ac 16:18); he performed extraordinary miracles in Ephesus where people were healed with handkerchiefs that had touched him (Ac 19:11-12); he brought Eutychus back to life in Troas (Ac 20:9-10), and even though bitten by a poisonous viper, he had no ill effect from it (Ac 28:3-6).

Based upon these criteria, it would seem Paul would meet the criteria for being called an apostle. So what about Matthias who was chosen by Peter and the disciples shortly after Christ’s ascension (Ac 1:12-26)? And what about Judas? Do we have 12, 13 or 14 apostles? We will discuss this next time.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens