A response to the question, 'Can a Christian sin?'

Does 1 John 1:9 Apply to Believers Today?
response by Tami Jelinek

The question often arises in discussions of the implications of our completely fulfilled redemption:

“What about 1 John 1:9? It says that if we confess our sins, He will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. How do we apply this verse today if we have already been forgiven and cleansed?”

Hebrews 10:14 tells us that by one sacrifice we have been "perfected forever." Colossians 1:22 tells us that we are now "holy and unblameable and unreprovable in His sight." 2 Corinthians 5: 21 says that we have been "made the righteousness of God."

Yet many of us grew up in church being taught, as Christians, to practice 1 John 1:9 daily:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

And thereby, we were taught that God's forgiveness was conditional, and must be re-sought, re-applied, and in effect: re-earned every day. It is no wonder that most Christians, even those calling themselves “preterists", have a hard time believing they have been completely forgiven and entered His glorious rest.

Since we have come to see redemption as fulfilled, and the cross as completely efficacious and victorious, we must revisit formerly “familiar” passages and examine them within this new, Biblical paradigm. So what about 1 John 1:9? Does it apply today? Notice that it reads very much like a gospel message:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Compare it to:

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

John is telling his readers how to be born again. He is preaching the same message Peter was in Acts. We should also keep in mind that later in John's epistle we read:

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

One who has not yet been born of God must confess his sins, and he will be forgiven and cleansed. But one who has been born of God cannot sin. There seems to be a clear progression between chapters one and three of John's epistle. Isn't this the definition of a Christian: one who has been forgiven and cleansed?

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, [cleansed from all unrighteousness--1 John 1:9] but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

One might say that John's epistle was written only to those who were already Christians. But look at this wording at the beginning:

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Yes, it was written to the church, but it was a church to which many were being added daily, as people believed "that which [the apostles had] seen and heard" so that they would enter into fellowship with God and His people. In other words, there were clearly people listening who had not yet entered into that fellowship. Otherwise, why would John have said, "we are telling you this so that you may have fellowship with us?"

It is also important to recognize that this particular gospel delivery in 1 John 1 was tailor-made for a Jewish audience. Imagine yourself back there preaching the message of the cross and justification by grace alone through faith to law-abiding Jews. It is reasonable that many of them might have trouble admitting they were “sinners“. So John starts off by saying:

1 John 1:8 If we [we Jews, who have obeyed the law our whole lives] say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (John understood their mindset, and knew what they needed to hear.)

But

1 John 1: 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Also significant is the plural pronoun we, as well as the present continuous tense of the verb confess. This passage cannot be properly understood apart from the covenant change going on in the first century, and the corporate body to which that change was being applied:

2 Corinthians 3:16...when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Notice that as each one (individually) turned to the Lord (or confessed their sins and were forgiven and cleansed) they individually experienced the liberty of the Spirit; and as that process continued, they all (as a body) were being transformed from old covenant glory to new covenant glory, into the image of Christ.

So although the transformation process to which 1 John 1:9 primarily refers came to complete fruition in the first century when the body of Christ was raised incorruptible; it applies today just as the gospel applies today and forever more.

Can a Christian Sin? ( I John 1:8,9 and I John 3:9 )

How should we treat this ( seeming ) contradiction in John's first letter?

First of all: I think that when John, in the first passage, says that we 'call Him ( God ) a liar' if we say that we have no sin, and that if we 'confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness'; he is not speaking of those whom God has already forgiven and cleansed, those who have been clothed with the righteousness of Christ ( become 'in' Christ ), but rather, in historical context, to those who 'say they are Jews, but are not', those who trusted in their own 'righteousness' ( Isa. 64:6 ) and even today, of the un-repentant unbeliever.

Secondly; I think that John is speaking of the deadly spiritual sin, the rejection of the Holy Spirit of Christ, the sin that will 'not be forgiven, not in this age or in the age to come' ( Jesus is speaking, respectively, of the Old and New Covenant 'ages' ); rather than the physical sin that Paul speaks of, in his letter to the Romans ( Romans 7 ), among other passages.

In the second passage from John's first letter, that we are looking at here; I think that he is speaking of those who are children of God ( have become 'in' Christ ), having been 'clothed' with the righteousness of Christ, and thus cannot commit the deadly spiritual sin of rejection of, and blasphemy against, the Holy Spirit of Christ, that Jesus Himself spoke of, in Matthew 12. It is obvious to me, and I'm sure to my readers as well, that Christians ( those who have been 'born of God' ) still commit sin in their physical bodies, and anyone who denies that they still sin 'makes God a liar, and the truth is not in him', but is only deceiving ( fooling ) himself.

The only other option that we have here, is that he who still sins ( in the flesh ), has not been born of God, and that we will not be truly 'born of God' until we die physically ( I believe that some actually teach this! )! I don't know about you; but I'd rather say that, although we still sin ( in the flesh ): we have been 'covered' by the blood of Christ ( His righteousness ), thus becoming 'in' Christ, and unable to commit the spiritual sin of rejection of Him and of His Holy Spirit!

In his letter to the Romans ( Romans 6 ); Paul says that we have indeed died ( to sin ), having been 'crucified with Him' and 'buried with Him'. He told them that they should reckon themselves 'dead to sin, but alive to God'. In the next few verses ( 12-15 ) he agrees with John by saying that, even though they were dead to sin, and were 'crucified with Him ( Christ )', they ( and we ) needed to make sure that they did 'not let sin reign' in their ( our ) mortal bodies, but, as he said later in his letter ( Romans 12:1 ), that we should present our 'bodies a living sacrifice to God, which is your ( our ) reasonable sacrifice'. In verse 14, Paul seemingly contradicts himself ( verse 12 ) by saying that 'sin shall not have dominion over you', not, as previously, that we are 'not to let sin reign' in our mortal bodies, but now tells us ( verse 14 ) that 'sin shall NOT have dominion' over us: and why? Because we are 'no longer under Law ( the letter ), but under grace ( the Spirit )'!

Paul begins to wrap up his thoughts, in the next paragraph, by asking the same question that he began this part of his letter with: 'Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace?'

The answer obviously is, 'Certainly not!'

Another way to state this question, in terminology that I've already used, is; 'since we are 'covered' by the blood, or Christ's righteousness, and no longer capable of the spiritually deadly sin of rejection, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit of Christ: should we continue to sin in the flesh since we are 'covered'?'

Paul, in his letters; while realizing ( acknowledging ) God as Sovereign, also realizes that man is responsible for his actions in the flesh. James also realizes this, later, in his letter; when he observes that 'faith without works is dead'. Although 'sin shall ( will ) not have dominion' over us, we still are responsible, in actuality , to 'not let sin reign' in our mortal bodies. James tell those who would claim to have faith without 'working' it out in their lives ( Romans 12:1 ), that their 'faith' is no faith at all, but a 'useless' blind trust in the letter of the law, and not the Spirit thereof, which 'gives life'!

I know that this is a 'hard' study, in many ways, and many, I think, hopelessly 'wrangle' it 'to their own destruction' ( not, I hope, in the spiritual sense, but in a purely physical sense ); but my hope is that this little study, along with a deeper spiritual understanding, will help those to see that it is because of God's Sovereignty, not in spite of it, that we can and should ( in other words are responsible to ) 'work out' our salvation by not letting 'sin reign' over our mortal bodies!

In God's Kingdom,
and 'under' His grace,
Charles Shank

A Better 'Focus on the Physical'

Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee, God of glory , Lord of love;

Hearts unfold like flow'rs before Thee, hail Thee as the Son of love.

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away;

Giver of immortal glad- Thou'st filled us with the light of Day!

All Thy works with joy surround Thee, earth and heav'n reflect Thy rays,

Stars, like angels sing around Thee, center of unbroken praise;

Field and forest, vale and mountain, bloss'ming meadow, flashing sea;

Chanting bird and flowing fountain, call us to rejoice in Thee.

Thou art giving and forgiving, ever blessing, ever blest,

Well-spring of the joy of living, ocean-depth of glori'us rest!

Thou our Father, Christ our Brother- all who live in Love are Thine:

Teach us more to love each other, lift us with Thy joy divine.

Now ' we've joined the mighty chorus which the morning stars began;

Father-love is reining o'er all, brother-love binds man to man.

Ever singing, march we onward, victors in the midst of strife;

Joyful music lifts us Son-ward, in the triumph song of Life!

I realize that in the past, I've spoken disparagingly of, and even degraded a focus on the physical, but I will strive now, to show how taking our focus off of the physical ( not necessarily a bad thing ), and focusing instead, on the greater spiritual aspects of Life, will allow us to have a better focus, or outlook, on the physical aspects of this life, in Christ.

First, we'll take a look at Paul's words to the Roman believers, in Romans 12:1 & 2. Paul told them to 'present your bodies a living sacrifice.........................acceptable to God...........and be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind'.
Paul, here, is clearly not telling them to stop living as in the world ( I Corinthians 5:9 & 10 ), but rather, to be 'transformed' in their minds/consciences, thus enabling them to truly live their lives in this world in a way that is pleasing ( acceptable ) to God!

I've chosen the words ( revised by this author ) of 'Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee' to start this article, because I think it shows well my purpose here, in that it is impossible as Christians, especially believers in His fulfilled kingdom, to denigrate any part of His wondrous creation, but rather to worship Him through our appreciation of those works and our love and mercy toward those parts of His creation that, to our human eyes, may seem unworthy of our love and mercy.
As I hinted at above, and have said before; it is only *because* we have experienced His love and mercy, and have been 'transformed' in our minds, that we are able to reflect, or show, that love and mercy, to others who were created in His image.

One idea that Paul stresses in his letters is the idea that we should not think of ourselves higher than we ought, or to think ourselves as better than another, for 'God has dealt to each one a measure of faith'.( Romans 12:3 ) Paul gently reminds his brethren in Corinth that they have nothing that they did not receive from another, in other words that they should not boast as though they had not received it, but had gained this gift, or Gift, on their own.
( I Corinthians 4:7 )
He further reminds them, in chapter 8, verse 2, that even though they thought they had the knowledge that they needed, through this Gift, they knew nothing yet as they ought to know.
Several chapters over, Paul then adjures his readers to 'do all to the glory of God' .
( I Corinthians 10:31 )
Earlier in this chapter, Paul also reminds his readers to seek 'each one the other's well being', a thought which he echoes a little later, in his letter to the Philippians, where he told those brethren to look out not only for their own interests, but also for the interests of others.
( Philippians 2:3 & 4 )
Back in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he reminds them that they were not discerning the Lord's body (others in the church ), by thinking of themselves before others, in eating to the full before those who may not be as fortunate as they ( I Corinthians 11: 20-22, 29 & 33 ).

Paul himself realized that even his knowledge, or 'sufficiency', was not of himself; as he told the Corinthians in his second letter, but that his sufficiency was of God, who alone enabled him to 'accomplish' his ministry ( see also Ephesians 2:8-10 ).

On a more personal note here, and I'm sure that others can relate; when I try to do something on my own, I usually have a harder time than if I remember that God is the One who gives me the strength to do anything at all; thus taking my focus off of the daunting physical before me, and enabling me even thus to view ( focus on ) the physical in a better light, 'realizing' that it's not up to my feebleness, but that His power is what enables me in the first place.

Along these lines; this human existence, with all the trials and tribulation of everyday life becomes alot easier to 'grin and bear' when we begin to 'realize' and understand that, since we are 'covered' by the Righteousness of Christ and are thus 'under' His grace; we can thus focus, once more on the physical aspects of this human, physical existence, and the weightier matters of the law of Christ, which are 'justice, mercy, and faith' ( Matthew 23:23 ).

I think too, that when we 'realize' that, in reading passages like 'the love chapter' ( I Corinthians 13 ), it is Christ's righteousness ( imputed to us-Romans 4:11 ) that enables ( I John 4:19 ) us to love our neighbor as we ought; we, through the 'clearing' of our conscience, are able thus, to 'focus' our attention, not on our own physical ability ( or inability ) to love God, and our neighbor as ourselves, but on the spiritual, and thus physical 'ability' that God has granted us to love Him, and our neighbor.

As always, my hope and prayer is that my readers will not only be Bereans, and 'search the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so', but that they will begin to 'realize' ( as I am, slowly ) that 'these things' are so, that we have been given life ( to share ) in Christ, and that we have not only the 'ability', but the responsibility, to love as we were ( and are ) loved!

In His Kingdom and glory,
Charles Shank

The Middle Wall of Separation

Reading through the book of Isaiah, chapter 25, this morning; I was 'hit' with the thought that the 'middle wall of separation' described in Ephesians 2, was typified by God's creation, in Genesis 1:6 & 7, of the firmament, or, the 'barrier' between the physical heavens and the physical earth.

No: I'm not denying that God DID create a firmament between the aforementioned places, nor am I implying that Gen. 1 is 'merely' allegorical, and not historically accurate ( although it is NOT; I believe, scientifically precise! ), I'm only saying that every 'event' recorded in Scripture was written for a Purpose, that Purpose; I believe, being to 'point' us towards a deeper, spiritual Truth!

As believers in 'Fulfilled Eschatology' and in particular, consistent users of a grammatico/historical hermeneutic; we believe that the 'new heavens and new earth' promised in such Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 65 and Jeremiah 31, and in II Peter 3 and described in Revelation 21 & 22, are speaking of, not a physically new creation, but the deeper spiritual truth of the new creation in Christ, the Church, His elect ones, so it should not be too much of a 'stretch' to purport that the original, physical creation, described covenantally and allegorically in Gen 1 & 2 was atypical of the new, spiritual creation in Christ!

Speaking, I believe, of the Church; Isaiah records, in Isaiah 25:7, that God would 'destroy the surface of the covering cast over all people', thereby removing 'the veil that is spread over all nations', the veil that is 'taken away in Christ' ( II Corinthians 3:14 ).

If Genesis 1-2 is a covenantally historical description of the original creation, and the finality of Christ's Parousia in AD70 was the passing away of the original 'creation', as per II Peter 3, and the fullness of the new ( Paul describes the inauguration of this in II Corinthians 5:17 ), then why could not the creation of the 'firmament' in Genesis 1, be typical to the veil that Isaiah and Paul describe?

In the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD70 ( and especially when you look back prior to that, in the events described in Matthew 27:51, signifying the tearing down of that 'wall' that Paul talked about, and remember that the veil that was torn signified the separating 'wall', or the firmament, between earth and sky, or heaven/Heaven, see also Exodus 26:31.), the last vestige of that 'wall' was destroyed, thereby removing the 'covering cast over all people, or the firmament that separated the 'waters', or blessings, of heaven from those of the earth.

More could probably be written on this subject, and possibly will be, but for now, and the sake of time, I will end with the prayer that these thoughts will be a blessing to my readers, but; as always: I adjure you to be a Berean, and 'search the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so'.

May God bless you richly in His Kingdom and Glory,
Charles Shank

The Tree ( s ? ) of the Garden, and the Birth of the Conscience

I've been thinking for some time, and listening to some recent sermons ( # 1 & 2 ) by one of my friends brought it back to my remembrance; working on the assumption that the story chronicled was primarily allegorical, though most probably based on factual historical events; that the tree of life mentioned in Genesis 2:9, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, mentioned in the same verse, are one and the same tree!

Right off, some more conservative and traditional people would most likely object, saying something like, "The Bible says that there were two different trees", or "God is not the Author of evil, therefore since the tree of life typifies, or typified, Christ, all throughout Scripture; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must typify, or have typified an opposite, or the fallen spiritual being, known ( traditionally ) as Satan".

I will explain now, why I've made this interesting, and maybe even frightening statement.

Going to the first mention of these two ( as is traditionally thought ) trees, that God planted in the midst of His garden, ( This could bring up another interesting subject, or, as I've said before, 'open another can of worms'! ) in the second chapter of Genesis;

8 "The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the eye and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

I'll skip a few verses here.

15 "Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die'."

The next time we hear of either ( ? ) tree, is in the next chapter ( 3 ); from which I'll quote, starting with verse 1;

1 "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Has God indeed said, "You shall not eat of every tree of the garden"?' 2 And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' 4 Then the serpent said to the woman,'You shall not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil'."

My thinking here, was that Eve mentioned only one tree that was 'in the midst' of the garden; whereas the first mention of any certain tree, or trees, was back in verse 9 where, at first glance, it would seem like two separate trees are mentioned, and then, in verse 17, God told Adam that he was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, else he would die. Let me submit, though, concerning the first mention of the trees, or tree; that the latter part of verse 9 might be a sort of a 'biblical parallelism', which I have mentioned before to my readers, and to others as meaning that the Author, or author says the same thing twice, in two different ways. I think that, in the context of the whole passage, and other Scriptures that I'll bring to your remembrance as we continue; that this may be the case here.

Now, about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: we need not remind ourselves that this tree, if indeed different than the tree of life, was planted by the Lord God, as we see in verses 8 & 9, cited above, 'The Lord God planted a garden............and out of the ground the Lord God made every tree that is good for food and pleasant to the eyes". Let's remember too, that in verse 6 of the following chapter ( 3 ), that Moses ( traditional author of Genesis ) records that the fruit of the tree in question was 'pleasant to the eyes' and further 'a tree desirable to make one wise', which according to David and Solomon, in the Psalms and Proverbs, and later, Christ, in the Gospels, that wisdom is spiritual food unto true life, or life ( eternal ) in and with Christ and God!

Also remember, in connection with these trees being planted by God, that it is recorded in Genesis 1:31 that;

" Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good................"

Here's a good question; how did Adam know which of these ( two? ) trees 'in the midst' of the garden was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, if indeed there were two separate trees?
One might say, 'God must have told him"; but if indeed God did tell him, why did Moses not record it? Do you think the tree looked so different from all the other trees of the garden that Adam would have remembered which was which? Eve seemed to imply that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the center, or in a prominent place, 'in the midst' of the garden: so was the tree ( singular ) that she mentioned, planted in a more prominent area of the garden, so that there would be no mistake, or did the the tree have a different kind of fruit on it than all the other trees around it?

Ok: So that was more than one question ( and there are so many more that could be asked ), but it just goes to show that a strictly literal, and scientifically factual reading of this whole passage ( Genesis 1-3 ) brings up so many needless ( and useless? ) questions!

From my understanding; the traditional interpretation of this passage is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the 'wisdom' gained thereby, was, quite 'simply', the ability to know the difference ( for one's self ) between good and evil, in essence, the ability to judge for one's self what is good and what is evil. I am fairly satisfied with this understanding, but I think that it is by no means comprehensive of the full import of the words of this passage!

Here's another good question for you; did the serpent really lie to Eve??

Well; yes and no!

Yes: he told Eve that they would not 'surely die'; but then he told her that 'you will be like God, knowing good and evil'. Look at Genesis 3:22, and the first part of the verse;

"Then the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.......' "

That much was true: my friend, in his sermon ( #3 ), recalled the likeness of the temptation of Eve in the garden, to the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and I thought that he made a very good observation there. Without going into why God told them that they would 'surely die' the day that they partook of the tree ( another can of worms could be opened here ), and then later, after they did exactly like they were told not to ( just like most children ); He agreed with the serpent that they were now like God, knowing ( Heb. yada-to ascertain by seeing ) 'good and evil'.

To get back to my original purpose for this paper, and my argument that there were not ( necessarily ) two separate trees, one called the tree of life, the other the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, planted, by God, in the 'midst' of the Garden: I now have a better understanding ( I think ), thanks to my friend's sermon ( #3 ), of the purpose of the temptation of Eve with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 'a tree desirable to make one wise'; which brings up another good point; even though Eve, like her daughter Sarai, after her, went about it the wrong way; I think that she correctly understood that this 'knowledge of good and evil' which was forbidden them, would make one wise ( but not unto salvation: that was to come later through Christ-who was signified by the tree of life, interestingly enough! ).

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was, I believe, as Eve correctly ascertained, a tree that could make one 'wise'. As I pointed out though, she ( they ) made the same mistake that countless others have made, in thinking that God's promise ( of life ) was obtainable by human means. Let's look at a few examples from the Old Covenant Scriptures:

Genesis 15:4 "And behold, the word of the Lord came to him saying, 'This one shall not be your heir, but one who shall come from your own body shall be your heir'." context


Let's skip over to the next chapter for a bit more;

Genesis 16:1 :Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, 'See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her'. And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai." context

First; we have the promise of God, just like with Abram and Sarai

Genesis 25:23 " And the Lord said to her: 'Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger'." context

Skipping over several chapters now, to another example of faithless impatience;

Genesis 27:19 "Jacob said to his father, 'I am Esau your firstborn; I have done just as you told me; please arise, sit and eat of my game, that your soul may bless me'." context

Now, in reading these examples; one must understand that these acts of impatience were ordained by God, like all things, for His good purpose.

Back to my thoughts on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; First of all, the knowledge of good and evil would imply the ability to judge, would it not? Let me quote now, from Genesis 32:

28 "And He said, 'Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel.......'" context

I'm sure that most, if not all of my readers are aware of this; but according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Hebrew word, or name, Yisra-el means, 'he will rule as God'! Pretty interesting, when you think too, of Israel ( as God's chosen people ) being typical of the Church ( God's Elect ).

Young's Analytical Concordance basically agrees with this, saying that the Hebrew meaning of Yisra-el is 'ruling with God'.

Here's something interesting, though: Zondervan's NIV Exhaustive Concordance has Yisra-el as meaning 'he struggles with God', which is interesting; because, not only does it fit in better with the context of the renaming, it also conveys thoughts that are reminiscent of John 5:18 and Philippians 2:6.

Returning once again, to our topic: it is interesting that the forbidden tree is named 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. From this tree then would assumably come, not only the knowledge of evil ( which, I think, is where we tend to throw the spotlight ), but also, the knowledge of good would come from eating of this tree!To illustrate my point further; the Hebrew word rah, that is translated 'evil' here, simply means 'bad', as in 'something distasteful, unpleasant, etc. It can mean 'wicked' ( certainly so if applied to God's distaste or displeasure! ), but not ( necessarily ) mean 'wicked', as in 'wrongful', etc. Several examples, from the book of Ecclesiastes, are;

6:1 "There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: 2 A man to who God has given riches and wealth and honour, so that he lacks nothing of all that he desire; yet God does not give him power to eat of it, but a foreigner consumes it. This is vanity, and it is an evil affliction." context

9:3 "This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all..." context

From the book of Isaiah, chapter 45;

7 "I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create calamity
( KJV says 'evil' here ); I the Lord do all these things.' context

One last reference, from Jeremiah 24;

3 "Then the Lord said to me, 'What do you see, Jeremiah?' And I said, 'Figs,the good figs very good: and the bad figs, very bad, which cannot be eaten, they are so bad'." ( In every instance of the word 'bad' here; KJV translates rah, as 'evil' ) context

We can see that, as I alluded to, most of the context's of these passages that I just quoted contain usages of the word 'evil', that most definitely have a direct connotation of 'wickedness', 'sinfulness', but we can also see, from the passages that I quoted, and others like them, that the use of the word 'evil' ( Heb. rah ) does not ( necessarily ) connote 'wicked', 'sinful', etc.

By saying, above, that 'also, the knowledge of good would come from eating of this tree!'; I didn't mean to imply that Adam had no knowledge of good, before he ate of the tree: he most certainly did! However; when they ate of the tree, which they were forbidden to do, they became aware ( conscious ) that they were naked; a fact of which neither seemed to have noticed, before they partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:25 "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

Interesting, that even though, as the story traditionally goes; God 'walked' with ( dwelt with? ) Adam and Eve, in the Garden; Moses still records them as being 'naked'. I'm not denying the historicity of the account; just noting how Adam and Eve's nakedness before the Fall was a picture, or type, of the nakedness of the unbeliever before God, until Christ clothes hiim in His own righteousness.

Genesis 3:7 "And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made coverings for themselves."

Most importantly here, I think, is the last phrase: "and made coverings for themselves". They knew ( from eating of the tree of knowledge? ), whether instinctively, or by some other means
( ? ), that they needed to be covered; however, like most children with their parents, they also figured that, since they had disobeyed God and found out something that they didn't want to know ( they weren't ready for it! ), they had better provide their own coverings, and just try to avoid 'Daddy' for awhile! As I can personally attest; this doesn't work; for sooner or later, daddy comes calling; 'where are you?', and the 'jig's' up!

Maybe a better way to put it, would be: knowledge ( or consciousness ) of good would also come from eating of this forbidden tree: For one thing, Adam learned how good he really had it, in the Garden, where he walked ( and presumably, talked? ) with his Creator, where his food was more pleasantly and easily obtainable ( no sweat, man!-metaphorically speaking ), and he wasn't (presumably ) 'bothered' by wild animals. For another, since he was 'booted' out of the Garden, his 'race' was propagated throughout the known world ( his 'world' ).

Now, putting two and two together, or tree and tree, as the case may be: take a look at this familiar passage, in the book of Numbers, chapter 21;

8 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live." context

First of all, and I think everyone would agree with me; this passage ( 6-9 ) is typical of Christ on the Cross, in a figurative way, but what I think is interesting, is that these people were 'saved' ( physically ) by gazing upon, with faith in God's promise. the very image of their destroyer, or 'enemy'.

Secondly; I think Scripture itself, shows us that God is both the Punisher of 'evil' ( in the sinful sense ) deeds and the Rewarder of good deeds. In the book of Ezekiel, chapter 18, He shows this;

30 "'Therefore, I will judge you,O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways', says the Lord God" context

Earlier, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 60, God instructed Isaiah to write;

10b "For in My wrath, I struck you, but in My favor, I have had mercy on you." context

Isaiah also writes, of God, in chapter 59;

18 "According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, recompense to His enemies......" context

Ezra realized this, in the 9th chapter of Ezra, when he cried to the Lord;

13 "And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since you our God have punished us less than our sins deserve, and have given us such deliverance as this, 14 Should we again break Your commandments, and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?" context

In the 32nd chapter of Deuteronomy; God makes it very clear;

39 "Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver from My hand." context

When taken in the context of Numbers 2:6-9, I think it's pretty clear that God alone is Judge, Jury, and Executioner; for as Moses records above, 'I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal".

So, were there actually two different trees, one leading to life, and the other leading to the knowledge of good and evil?

It is my opinion that the account that we read in Genesis 1-3, although undoubtedly based on historical events, is not a scientifically accurate account, and most definitely not to be taken literally. Therefore, I have no problem saying that the 'trees', as they are presented in Genesis 2 & 3, are 'both' meant to represent, or were typical, of Christ.

Having said all this; let us now look at the word 'knowledge' as it found in the scriptures;

Exodus 31:3 "And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship," context

Numbers 24:16 "The utterance of him who hears the words of God,and has the knowledge of the Most High, who sees the vision of the Almighty, who falls down, with eyes wide open:" context

Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." context

Think of this passage in connection with this one, in Isaiah;

Isaiah 7:13 "Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 14 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." context ( especially compare 7:16 & 8:4 )

Psalm 19:2 "Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge." context
( biblical parallelism )

Psalm 53:4 "Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up My people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God?" context

Psalm 94:10 "He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge? context ( biblical parallelism )

Psalm 119:66 "Teach me good judgment and knowledge, for I believe your commandments."
context

Psalm 139:6 "Such knowledge is to wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it." context

Proverbs 1:7 & 28,29 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" ( biblical anti-parallelism )
28 "Then they will call on Me, but I will not answer; they will seek Me diligently, but they will not find Me. 29 Because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord." context ( biblical parallelism )
Proverbs 2:6 & 10, 11 "For the Lord gives wisdom: from His mouth come knowledge and understanding." 10 "When wisdom enters your heart, and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, 11discretion will preserve you, understanding will keep you." context

Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow" context

Ecclesiastes 2:26 " For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind." context

Ecclesiastes 7:12 "For wisdom is a defense as money is a defense; but the excellency of knowledge is that wisdom gives life to those who have it." context

Isaiah 5:13 "There fore My people have gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst." context

Isaiah 11:2 "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him' the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord." context

Isaiah 45:20 "Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you who have escaped fro the nations. They have no knowledge, who carry the wood of their carved image, and pray to a god that cannot save." context

Isaiah 53:11 "He shall see the labor of His soul and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities." context

As we can see from this short list of Old Covenant usages of the Hebrew word da'ath, that saving knowledge comes from God alone, and His Spirit, and that He administers it when, where, and to what extent He pleases! David understood this: is son Solomon, although he realized that knowledge was not ( necessarily ) an evil, it could be wearisome and grievous! Solomon further tells us, and then God, later, through Isaiah, that the knowledge that God gives, through Christ and His Spirit alone, is the essence of salvation, and that those who do not have it, are without God!

Let's look now, at some of the Greek usages of 'knowledge' in what is called the New Testament;

As we can see, the two Greek words, epignosis and gnosis ( 1922 & 1108 ) are the most approximate in meaning to the Hebrew da'ath, having both a connotation of familiarity, or intimate perception.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered." context
( for more context on this verse and passage, read Matthew 23:13 )

Romans 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;" context

Romans 11:33 "O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out." context

Romans 15:14 "Now I myself am confident concerning you my brethren, that you
are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another." context

I Corinthians 1:4&5 "I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, 5 that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge." context

I Corinthians 8:1 "Now concerning things offered to idols: We all know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." context

I Corinthians 12:7&8 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all, 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit," context

I Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand (1492 ) all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." context

II Corinthians 4:6 "For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." context

II Corinthians 10:4&5 "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and everything that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ," context

Ephesians 1:17 "( I pray ) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him," context

Ephesians 4:13 "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;" context

Philippians 3:8 "Yet indeed I count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered all things, and counted them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ." context

Colossians 1:9 "For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;" context

Colossians 3:9&10 "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him," context

I Timothy 2:3&4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." context

II Peter 1:2&3 "Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue," context


As we can see from the examples we've looked at ( and there are many more ), gaining knowledge is not ( necessarily ) a bad thing, in fact, from most of the examples that I've shown, knowledge ( of God, spiritual things ) is a good thing: as with most things, it depends on how you choose to use that knowledge: if you choose to use that knowledge to become intimate with God in Christ, then you've chosen wisely. On the other hand; if you decide to use that knowledge to become intimate with the things that displease God, as Paul told the Romans;

Romans 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind..............." context


It's interesting, as I noted above, in the Luke passage; that if you compare the two gospel accounts of Jesus' saying, it looks like He is equating the knowledge of God with the kingdom of heaven! That may, however; be a subject for another time, and possibly another paper.
Paul realized, as he told the Corinthians, that knowledge, in itself, can be a good thing; for instance, in chapter 8 of his first letter, when combined with love ( of God ), and he echoes this again in chapter 13 of the same letter. In his second letter to the Corinthians, and then to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and in his first letter to Timothy; he reiterates the fact that it is the knowledge of God that, as I've also said in a previous paper; brings life, and true life at that!

You might be asking yourself at this point ( if not earlier ): "What does it matter, whether there were two separate trees in the midst of the garden ( as a literal interpretation would tell us), or even, maybe, whether or not it has any bearing if the account written down for us, in Genesis, chapters 1-3 are a covenantal, rather than a scientific, physically accurate history of the Creation and the Fall?" Well: I think it does; and here's why:

Many Orthodox 'traditionalists' would say that it does indeed matter if one says that the Creation account in Genesis 1, to say nothing of the mentions of the creation of the Garden in chapter 2, and the Fall in chapter 3; for one thing, because if we don't 'swallow it, hook, line, and sinker', no matter how weird that may seem; we might be branded 'liberals', or even worse, 'heretics'! I think however, with a more careful study of the covenant context of passages like Genesis 1:1-3, and remembering the historical scene in which it was written ( at least 2,000 years after the 'fact' ), it should not be too hard to see that it was not meant to be read in a 'wooden' literal scientifically physical sense.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that contextually we need to realize that God alone is Judge and that He righteously judges evil works with an everlasting punishment ( not in the sense that it never ends, but in the sense that it is final, never to be reprieved ), and good works ( through Christ alone ) with a never ending reward, His Presence!

I spoke earlier of the trees of Genesis 2 & 3 being the same tree; that was kind of 'tongue-in-cheek' because obviously, if the whole account had more of a covenantal, rather than a scientifically accurate meaning, then there were not ( necessarily ) any special trees in the 'midst' of the Garden, one bearing fruit that would 'make one wise', and 'like God', and one that would give immortality. I think that the two 'trees' were both representative of Christ, in that if we try to make ourselves wise, as Eve foolishly thought, we will 'surely die', but if we 'Come................and take of the water of life, freely', which Christ alone can give, then we have partaken of the Tree, the Bread, the Water of Life!

I pray that this little study will be edifying to it's readers and glorifying to God alone, who is worthy of all our praise!

In His Kingdom, and basking in His glorious Presence,
Charles Shank

'A Mighty Fortress is our God' ( a preteristic revision )

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our Helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing;
For when our ancient foe, did seek to work us woe
his craft and power were great, and armed with cruel hate
on earth was not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing;
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth His Name, from age to age the same, And He has won the battle!

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His Truth to triumph through us,
The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we have endured, for lo, his doom has come,
The Word of God has felled him!

That Word, above all earthly powers-no thanks to them abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him who with us sideth;
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill, God's Truth abideth still:
His Kingdom is forever!

'A Focus on the Physical'; Revisited

I've been thinking about the after-life lately, and wondering if we ourselves, as believers in the fulfilled kingdom of God ( aka, full-preterists ) aren't focusing on the physical a bit too much ourselves, by thinking that there must be an after-life yet to come, after we have shed this 'husk' of flesh that we now inhabit. IS this all that we can expect, as some people are reported to teach ( Heaven Now ), or can we expect to someday, as we all dream about ( I know I do ); be literally free of this 'body of death', to be without all of our physical ailments, including the lusts which ravage our flesh, to be pure spirit ( as I've been known to speculate ) and more free to worship, and commune with Christ, not having the 'flesh' present with us to vie for our attention?!

Let me quote a fairly lengthy passage here, from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 20;

27 "Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 28 saying: Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife, and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. 31 Then the third too her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all, the woman died also. 33 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife. 34 Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection'."

This may open another whole 'can of worms', but I must quote the next two verses also;

37 "But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob', 38 For
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him."

Jesus told them ( Sadducees ) and reminds us, in language reminiscent of Matthew 24: 37 & 38; that the sons of the age in which He lived in the flesh ( the Old Covenant age ) were focused on the physical aspects of life, marrying and giving in marriage; while those who were counted worthy ( notice; He didn't say 'those who are found worthy' ) to attain that age ( the everlasting age in which we as Christians live, ie., His kingdom ) would be focused, not on the physical aspects of life, but on the spiritual aspects of true life, in and for Him! Notice too; that He equates 'us' ( the sons of 'that' age ) with the angels, and, in language reminiscent of John 11:25 & 26; that 'we' will never die!

Here is another lengthy quote: this time from Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthians, and the fifth chapter;

1 "For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 for we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality might be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord."

I think that the traditional ( futurist ) understanding of this passage is that Paul is speaking of his physical body, and the 'fact' that, while we are in this physical existence, or this body; we cannot be present with the Lord, but I find it interesting that Paul speaks of being in this 'tent' or 'tabernacle'. I know that Paul, earlier in I Corinthians 6:19 and later, in Ephesians 2:21, says that their bodies were now the 'temple of the Holy Spirit' and that they were being 'built up' into a holy temple for the Lord ( not just His Spirit; notice! ); but remember that the writer to the Hebrews wrote to them that 'the way into the ( true ) Holiest of all was not yet made manifest while the first temple was still standing' ( Hebrews 9:8 ), which temple, I would propose to you, was the same temple that Paul spoke of, in II Corinthians 5!

Paul further told them how much he desired, not 'to be unclothed, but further clothed', that 'mortality (or this 'simple' human existence ) may be swallowed up by life ( true life, in Christ-please read "The Meaning of Life' and 'A Spiritual Body' by this same author )'. Paul desired, not to exit this physical existence, but rather to be further clothed ( with Christ )! He further says, reminding them, that God has ( already ) prepared them for this very thing!

So, when Paul says, in the next verse, that while they were at home in the body, they were absent from the Lord; I think that he was saying, not only that while they made their home, or found their rest, or comfort, in the flesh, that they were absent from the Lord; but also as the writer to the Hebrews wrote above; that while 'the first temple was still standing' the heavenly
( or true ) temple, or their 'habitation from heaven' ( see also Deut. 26:15 & Isa.63:15 ) had not yet been revealed.

Let us go a little further now, in chapter five;

7 "For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him."

Combine with this the last two verses of the preceding chapter;

17 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."

If we have been 'further clothed' with our 'habitation from heaven' ( which I think, most of my readers will agree-we have! ); then what further awaits us? What further biblical hope of an 'after-life' do we look for?

Do we now walk by sight, waiting for an after-life in Heaven, or do we still walk by faith in the
( true ) life that we now live in Christ? ( see "The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven" by Ward Fenley )

As the author to the Hebrews wrote, in chapter 11;

1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Admittedly, in the context of this passage, the author was speaking of the faith ( in Christ ) that the Old Covenant 'saints' had, before Christ ( the Messiah, or 'Anointed One' was 'incarnated in the flesh'; but even though this 'hope' has been fulfilled in the Coming of Christ ( full and final ), our faith in His fulfilled Kingdom, though 'realized' by many, is still 'the evidence of things not seen'! As Jesus Himself said, in Luke 17:20 & 21;

20b "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!', or, 'see there!', For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

It would seem like some un-realized hope for an after-life ( and like I noted before-I'm as guilty of this as ANYBODY! ) among ( especially ) 'preterists', or believers in Fulfilled Eschatology
( among other things Fulfilled ) is akin to 'our' own special kind of focus on the physical!

In his letter to the Philippians, chapter one; Paul again speaks, almost in the same vein as in
II Corinthians 5, of his overwhelming desire to 'depart and be with Christ';

21 'For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. 24 Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you. 25 And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, 26 that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again."

From a cursory reading of this oft-quoted passage; one could easily read ( understand ) that Paul is looking forward to departing this ( physical, temporal ) life to be with Christ, but when read in the context of other passages like the one I just quoted; might not Paul 'simply' be speaking of the 'change' that he spoke of in I Corinthians 15:52, of what I like to call the 'changing of the guard', or the full implementation of the New Covenant economy, as opposed to the Old Covenant economy which Paul lived in, and fought against? If 'the flesh' which Paul ( in particular ) refers to in his writings, is speaking, not of our physical bodies, but of the Old Covenant economy, or system, under which he labored: why would it be strange to think that Paul's dilemma was not whether to give up his ( physical ) life, so that he could be with Christ, or to stay alive ( physically ) so that he could further minister to the Philippian believers; but rather, as he hints at in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 9;

19 "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law ( not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak, I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Now, I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but lest some wrest this from it's historical context: we must remember that Paul was speaking of the coming conflagration, under which those who still clung to the remains of the Old Covenant economy would forever be shut out of the New!

Let's return now, to the passage in the letter to the Philippians, for a bit more context;

In speaking of the glorious blessing of the gospel 'simply' being preached, Paul wrote;

19 "For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life, or by death."

Now, I will freely admit that it looks more and more like Paul is speaking here of physical death, but would it not be a safe 'bet' to say that Paul looked for the same 'deliverance' that we now enjoy, that he spoke longingly of in passages like Romans 7:23-25, and the 'change' that he mentioned in I Corinthians 15:52?

In words not unlike those to the Corinthians, chapter 15: 33 & 34, Paul wrote to the Philippians;

27 "Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in the Spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not in anyway terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God."

Like I wrote, in a previous paper, I think that these two verses are a 'turning point', like
I Corinthians 15:33 & 34, in Paul's discussion: Paul is admonishing the ( new ) Philippian believers to walk according to the Gospel which he taught, thus seeking the deliverance
( salvation ), or the 'change' that Paul taught the Corinthians to hope for, the very same 'change' that believers received, and still receive, in Christ!

I hope that I have sufficiently noted the conjunction between these two passages
( II Corinthians 4:17-5:9 and Philippians 1:19-28 ), so that we can see that Paul was not 'simply' looking forward to departing this life ( or normal human existence ), in order to be with Christ,
' which is far better', but he was looking forward to, and rejoicing in, his deliverance
( full and final ) from that Old Covenant, or Mosaic economy, 'that of the letter, and not of the Spirit' ( II Corinthians 3:6 ).

My point, in this little study; is that 'we' as believers in Fulfilled Eschatology, Redemption, etc, need to 'realize' that we are IN the after-life! In other words, Christ is the after-life!

I have come to see now, that any ( biblical ) hope for an 'after-life', or life after death
( remember John 11:25 & 26, et al ? ) was, and is, fulfilled in Christ, who is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life", and, as He told Martha, 'the resurrection and the Life'!

My hope ( and for some it may be a 'realized' hope already ) is that my writings here, will not only bring glory to His Name, but that they may help others begin to 'realize' that God's Kingdom and the after-life are synonymous terms, and that we need to begin to live our lives for His glory alone, and not in some hope for a ( future ) 'after-life'!

( please read "The Fulfilled Life' by this author )

As Paul wrote to the Ephesians, in chapter one;

3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ."

Are these ours now? Do we truly have every blessing ( in Christ ), or do we 'look for another'?

in His Kingdom,
and for His Glory,
Charles Shank

The Strength and Simplicity of the ( fulfilled ) Gospel

The Strength and Simplicity of the ( fulfilled ) Gospel Message

I think that the strength of the Gospel message is, first and foremost; it's simplicity: Believe and receive! Sounds simple enough; does it not? But wait: it gets even better!

Probably THE most familiar verse that people use for evangelistic purposes is John 3:16:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

This is probably also one of the most misused and misquoted verses in the Gospels! How is it misused; you may ask? First of all, Jesus told Nicodemus ( I assume that He was still speaking with just Nicodemus ) that 'whoever believes' would inherit eternal life, right? This verse is most often used to convey the idea that it is ALL dependent upon our choice ( true, to a point ); IF only we would believe, then our belief would make the love of God, for which cause He sent His Son to die on the cross ( for the ( whole ) world ), effectual ( for us? )!

The first problem that we should see with this idea, is found in the Old Testament Scriptures, or rather, the Old Covenant Scriptures; in Jeremiah 17:9:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

This is also a well known and oft-quoted ( not as often as it used to be, I think ) verse, and, in context, is speaking of the vanity of the man who trusts in his own worthiness to accomplish his own deliverance, or salvation! Now, I know that in the immediate context, Jeremiah is speaking to his own people, the Israelites, but I think that, as typical of men, as a whole, this applies to un-believers today as well as yesterday.

One of my favorite passages pertaining to this subject ( the 'heart' of salvation, you might say ), is Ezekiel 36:25-27, but for our purpose here, I'll only quote verse 26:

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”

Two things immediately jump to attention here: first, 'I ( God ) will' is a statement that is most prevalent throughout; and two, this passage speaks of the need of a new heart, a heart of flesh that is pliable, able to be shaped by ( God's ) hand, rather than a hardened heart of stone that is not open to outside ( God's ) influence, and only able to be broken, or crushed in His judgment ( Romans 9:22, James 2:12 )!

The second problem that should immediately jump to our attention is also found in the Old Covenant Scriptures, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 55, verse 11;

'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return void, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it”.

(Another reading of this passage might be; “So shall My Son do, that I send forth; He shall not return to Me empty, but shall fulfill the Purpose for which I send Him.” )

The problem, which I have outlined in these two passages, is this: since God must first grant us the 'new heart', which He told Old Covenant Israel through Ezekiel; 'I will', and since He sent forth His Word ( John 1:1-3 ), which will not return to Him void, or emptily/ineffectually: IF indeed, as some would posit; God's Word DOES return void for those who choose NOT to accept, or receive His wondrous Gift; we have a problem, and a very serious one at that, for we have called God a liar and His Word is not in us! ( I John 1:10 )

Now an argument that I've heard, with which some suppose to lessen the effect of Christ's sacrificial work of atonement and redemption on the cross, is “Christ came to die for sin”, which is true enough, I suppose; but that's a very vague statement, because God told Matthew to pen these words, in Matthew 1:21;

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sin.”

Is it unreasonable to assume that 'His people' of Matthew 1:21 and 'the world' of John 3:16 are both speaking of the same people: are Matthew 1:21 and John 3:16 contradictory? God forbid!

I said before, that John 3:16 is also miserably misquoted often, by taking passages like Revelation 22:17 ( 'whoever desires, let him take of the Water of Life freely' ), and transcribing that, over passages like John 3:16, etc.

So; one might now be thinking, “What does this have to do with that?”, or, “What do all these reasonings have to do with the title that he's given to his paper?” Well; I'll tell you! If John 3:16 ( for example ) is telling us that God loved everybody in the whole wide world ( individually ) so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die for their sins ( meanwhile; in His omniscience knowing that some would reject Him, thus making His precious blood-sacrifice ineffectual for them ); that whoever chose to believe in Him, would not perish, but have eternal, everlasting life; then we not only have a simplistic Gospel: we have a very simplistic view of God, and the Love which He showed us in sending His Son to save HIS PEOPLE from their sins! If the aforementioned explanation is true; then we have a God who is impotent to effectually save us from our sins UNLESS we will believe in Him!

Here; I think, is a much simpler ( and plainer ) explanation of John 3:16, in the context of passages like Matthew 1:21:

“ For God so loved the world ( His people-Matthew 1:21 ) that He gave His only begotten Son ( Jesus ), that whoever ( 'His people'-Matthew 1:21, 'My sheep'-John 10:27 ) believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life ( eternal life-John 10:28 ).”

I think that the biggest mistake that some people make, is to look at passages like John 3:16, and, not only pull them out of their context ( the context of Scripture-comparing Scripture with Scripture ), but they attach a 21st century, English meaning to it!

By reading ( out of context ) passages like John 3:16, “For God so loved the world........”, one could easily assume that God DID send His Son to shed His precious blood for the sins of every individual person on planet earth, but when read in context with passages like Luke 1:21 and John 10:27 ( for instance ), we plainly see that God did not send Him for the purpose of dieing for EVERYONE'S sins, but only for those of His people, or His sheep, especially when read in the light of Isaiah 55:11!

When I speak of simplicity being the strength of the Gospel message; I'm not talking so much of the plainness of the message, but of the simplicity which is inherent in the Gospel.

He says, in Micah 6:8;

“He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before your God.”

Compare this with Hosea 6:6;

“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Compare this again, with Christ's words to the Pharisees, in Matthew 12:7;

“But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice', you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

Compare this once again with His words in Matthew 23:23 ( also to the Pharisees );

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, but have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”

Yes; it is important that we make the right choice, as Joshua said, in Joshua 24:14 and 15;

“Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

As Jesus said, in Matthew 23:13; it is MORE important that we serve Him, as Joshua also said, by dispensing justice and mercy to our brother, thus proving, or showing our faith in and commitment to Him! Jesus told them ( and tells us ) that these things ( justice, mercy, and a saving knowledge of God ) are the weightier matters of the Law, rather than 'simply', or woodenly, obeying it's plain precepts! Now, this may not sound like such a simple thing to do ( show justice and mercy to our brother ), sometimes; but I find simplicity ( and comfort ) in the fact that God gives us, through the 'new heart' that He promised in Ezekiel, the ability to choose the right, to show mercy toward our brother, and to know Him; but also in the fact that He promises, in Ezekiel 36 that “I will”, and also, in speaking of this New Covenant; in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

'Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts: and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”


Here again, we should notice the prevalence of the 'I will' statement, thus putting it ALL on God, and off of our ( rather their ) feeble shoulders,and not to say that we shouldn't strive to show mercy and justice to our brother; but God has forgiven our sins, and forgotten our iniquities; that we might be free to show justice and mercy to our brother, for we are recipients of His great Justice and Mercy ( I John 4:19, Matthew 6:12 )!

The simplicity of this message is also that we have God's perfect law written in our minds ( consciences ) and on our hearts, rather than on tablets of stone ( or on scrolls of papyrus-as the case may be ) which are rigid, and immovable. The simple fact that, in the New Covenant; God, rather than the law written in stone, and certain men-even ourselves, is our Teacher: should be of the greatest comfort to us; Jesus said, in John 6:45;

“It is written in the Prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God'. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”

The prophetic utterance that Jesus spoke of is in Isaiah 54:13, where God spoke these words concerning the inhabitants, or inheritors, of the New Covenant;

“All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children.”

No longer 'must' we worry about obeying every precept, following every 'jot and tittle', and teaching our brother to do the same. Christ did it all for us! He fulfilled the 'handwriting of requirements' that was set in stone; that He might become for us the 'law written in our hearts'! In John 13:34, Jesus gave us a new commandment;

“A new command I give you, that you love one another; As I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

John further writes, in I John 3:14;

“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.”

He tells us, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God; that, not only does our love for the brethren show us that God has forgiven our iniquities and forgotten our sin, it also shows us proof that we are saved! How simple is that?!

I mentioned previously how some people attach a 21st century English ( or American ) meaning to passages like John 3:16. What I meant by that, is that some forget the fact that, not only were these words penned centuries, even millennia ago; but that they were originally penned in the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic languages, to a Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew audience! Others might call this 'audience relevance'. Although this is not to say that these Scriptures are not somehow applicable for 'us' today, I think we can safely say that the hope that Jesus gave His contemporaries in passages like Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Revelation 1:1-3, 22:6,7,12, and 20, were realized by His generation ( else, as above; we make Him a liar ), and are for us in the sense that we can have a greater peace knowing ( realizing ) that our salvation is complete!
Paul, in his letter to the Roman church, penned these words, in the context of the more immediate command to love each other;

“And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed”

The writer to the Hebrews corroborates this, in Hebrews 9:28;

“So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”

To get to the point of what I am saying: if the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul said, “ was preached to every creature under heaven”, thus fulfilling Jesus' words in Matthew 24:14;

“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world, as a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.”:

has NOT been fulfilled ( ie., Christ has not fulfilled His promises yet ); then we still await our full redemption and salvation! Now; wouldn't it just be simpler ( and a whole lot easier, theologically speaking ) to believe that Christ did what He said, when He said He would; rather than trying to apply all those promises to some future generation, thus implying that Christ, John, Paul and the apostles were all wrong, or simply mistaken about these things; or coming up with ( wrangling ) a whole system of theology to try to prove that He really didn't mean what He said ( audience relevance )?

As always, I recommend ( plead with you, really ) that you not simply take my word for it, but that you be a Berean, and 'search the Scriptures daily, to see if these things are so'!

In His ( fulfilled ) Kingdom,
and to His Glory,
Charles Shank

Chariots of Fire

I was reading through I Chronicles 28 this morning, and 'happened' upon verse 18; which reads, in desribing the preparations for the Temple furnishings:

" and refined gold by weight, for the altar of
incense, and for the construction of the
chariot, that is, the gold cherubim that spread
(their wings)and overshadowed the ark of the
covenant of the Lord."

When I read this; I immmediately thought of this passage, in II Kings 2, verse 11, describing the 'ascension' of Elijah:

"Then it happened, as they continued on and
talked; that suddenly a chariot of fire
(appeared ) with horses of fire, and separated
the two of them: and Elijah went up by a
whirlwind into heaven."

and this verse, from II Kings 6:

"And Elisha prayed, and said, 'Lord, I pray,
open his eyes that he may see.' Then the Lord
opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw.
And behold, the mountain was full of horses
and chariots of fire, all around Elisha."

I guess that my point is, that if, according to the passage in I Chronicles; the chariot of the Lord was simply the cherubim ( Strong's 3742-a cherub, or imaginary figure; Ungers Bible Dictionary says that they were vindicators ( or protectors?- my addition ) of God's holiness ) that overshadowed the ark of the covenant; were Elisha ( in I Kings 2 ) and his servant ( in II Kings 6 ) 'simply' given 'visions' ( glimpses ) of God's holiness, rather than what we have traditionally understood ( especially about II Kings 2 ); that Elijah was transported to Heaven ( John 3:13?? ) ?

just some thoughts
IN Christ,
Charles Shank