Matt Postiff's Blog RSS Feed

I received a question via email as to what the lamp in the tabernacle represents (Leviticus 24:1-4). The inquirer suggested that it may represent the work of the Holy Spirit.

My response was as follows:

The lamp has been variously identified. I believe the oil has been identified with the Holy Spirit, and the light of it has been identified with the Word of God (Psalm 119:105, for instance).

At best, however, these are only analogies. Now, analogies are often helpful for understanding and I don't discard them entirely. But I am unable to think of a Bible text that teaches any typological relationship between the tabernacle lamp and some other New Testament person, idea, or event.

The question really boils down to a hermeneutical question. In the absence of a specific revelatory proposition that makes an identification, I cannot identify a relationship between the lamp and anything else. In other words, when Leviticus 24:1-4 talks about the lamp of the tabernacle, it represents...the lamp of the tabernacle! That's what plain, literal, normal hermeneutics would guide us to realize. The words do not represent a hidden spiritual truth. The meaning of the words is plainly written. Now, if Hezekiah 14:45 were to say, "Christ is that lamp of the tabernacle," then I would have to deal with that revelation. Absent that, I am not required to hunt for a deeper meaning.

Why should we believe there is no hidden meaning? Because, first of all, God intended to communicate something, and hidden truth does not communicate well. In Lev. 24, God desired to tell the priests how to arrange the operation of the tabernacle. If God had wanted to teach something about the Spirit, He would have done so openly and plainly (I leave room for parables and so forth here). Second, hidden meanings (if there were any) can only be extracted by certain "interpretation experts," yet these experts often differ as to their conclusions. Who is right? Third, if you (generic use of 'you') make a specific identification of what the lamp represents, then you are going beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches. How could you then stand in front of the church and say "this means that, and this is the application of what is represented..." with any level of certainty? The person listening would have to wonder where in the world you got the idea from. This brings up a fourth objection to hidden meanings, and that is that preaching them provides a bad example of Bible study to the Christians listening to the preaching.

Hope that is helpful. --MAP

Romans 15:1 - We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves (NKJ).

Romans 15:1 - We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves (ESV).

In my reading this morning I paused at this verse. A few thoughts came to mind. What struck me first is that believers have a moral obligation to be patient with those who are weak. The previous chapter discusses the specific kind of weakness Paul has in mind.

Whatever kind of weakness or failing that some believer or church has, we have an obligation to bear with them. Our first reaction may be to leave the church (read: separate), but that approach is not in accordance with the spirit of this passage. (I assume we are not talking about a matter of heresy or failure to carry out basic Biblical duties.) Someone may say, "Those people are unspiritual, weak Christians. I'm going to find a better church." I do not believe that approach fits what Paul has in mind here. "Bearing with" does not equal "writing off." "Bearing with" requires spiritual maturity and hard work. The goal of edification is not easily achieved (15:2).

Sometimes the "writing off" approach comes from a deep seated attitude that the church has to provide what I need/want, or what my kids need, or whatever. "If this church is too weak to get that done, then I'm going somewhere better." A better approach would be to dig in and use your spiritual gifts to help provide some ministry that fills a gap rather than leaving the church in the same state you found it. "Ask not what your church can do for you. Ask what you can do for your church."

I haven't read on the Lordship salvation controversy in a while, but I recently picked up Lou Martuneac's In Defense of the Gospel and have read through most of it.

I'm not planning to do a full review of it here, but I have to ask at least one question about the interpretation of Romans 10:9-10 he offers on page 203. There, Martuneac writes, “From the above quotations and the biblical evidence the consensus is confession with the mouth of Christ's position as Lord is required for salvation, not a promise of future obedience to Him as Lord.”

This portion struck me as odd. It seems he is not dealing very carefully with the text, in that his statement could easily be construed as an addition to receiving the gospel by faith. Is he teaching a way of salvation that requires a work—public verbal confession—in order to procure salvation?

Don't get me wrong: I am convinced that the Bible demonstrates that faith without some kind of fruit is dead. But given that Martuneac is trying to press the case that Lordship salvation is a faith plus works message (p. 229), he should give a more clear explanation as to what he is saying about this verbal confession. What Martuneac has written reminds me of gospel invitations given with a call to step forward and confess Christ publicly, seeming to make it sound like such an act is a requirement in order to be saved. We need to be very clear to our listeners as to what is required and what is not required. We should not leave them wondering if they need to stand up and give a public word on the Lordship of Christ, or not. Martuneac's statement is clear enough, but it seems to contradict the overall thesis of his book.

An interesting conversation on seeing Christ in the OT started with Mark Snoeberger's post, with a response at the paleoevangelical blog, and some more by Snoeberger in the comments of the post here.

In light of this conversation, we are faced with at least three choices, the main ones being: reading the lines, reading between the lines, or a combination of both. I am voting for "reading the lines."

It is not at all necessary to read between the lines to find most of what Ben and Chris and the other commentators see in the OT about the Messiah. Furthermore, it is hermeneutically dangerous to read between the lines. Why? First, the meaning of the text of the Bible is in the text, not the whitespace. Second, the text, not the whitespace, is inspired. Third, between the lines gives away too much of the idea of progressive revelation.

Perhaps I am taking "between the lines" a bit too literally (!), but it seems that the propositions communicated in the OT are clear enough without having to hunt behind or under the Scriptural text.

Now, the above is not a full endorsement of what Mark has written, particularly the idea in his original post that Christ is not a theme in the OT. I would beg to differ...ideas such as God raising up an ideal prophet/priest/king (Deuteronomy 18:15 / 1 Samuel 2:35, Psalm 110:4 / 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 2:7, Amos 9:11) and the servant motif (Isaiah 53) are very important forward-looking ideas in the OT that are clearly Messianic. But, that said, I think Brother Snoeberger has made a helpful, if slightly overstated, point.

This post is about the sometimes puzzling texts Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 "... there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

One important rule of Bible study to keep in mind is this: don't let the chapter divisions fool you. They are not inspired.

Matthew 16 ends abruptly with this announcement. Chapter 17 would initially seem to leave the reader dangling as to what Jesus means with those words. But actually we should read 16:28 and continue into chapter 17 as if there is no chapter division at all.

As with many Bible difficulties, the answer to the question about who and when this "not taste of death" will be fulfilled is right in the text. In this case, chapter 17 gives the fulfillment of 16:28. Peter, James, and John were the "some standing here" who did not die before they saw a glimpse, albeit very brief, of the glorified Jesus with Moses and Elijah. What they saw is how Jesus will be in His kingdom, with dazzlingly white clothing and shining face, and interacting with resurrected saints of past ages.

The idea that we should not let chapter divisions fool us is backed up by the Mark and Luke passages, where there is no chapter division between the "not taste death" and transfiguration passages.

By the way, in 2 Peter 1:16-17 the apostle reflects on this transfiguration experience. He uses some "kingdom" language when he refers to Christ's power and coming, His majesty, honor, and glory.

First, let us be sure we understand the term "Law." The Law (capital L) refers to the Mosaic Law given at Mount Sinai to Moses. It started with the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 and has many other elements to it. Some say there are 613 specific commandments. In any case, the whole Mosaic Law is what we are referring to. Second, we must understand that no one has or could fulfill that Law, apart from Jesus Christ. All people find even the 10 commandments impossible to follow, particularly when considering Christ's high standard given in the Sermon on the Mount.

So this brings us to the question of how Jesus fulfilled the Law. He said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-18). There are two ways that He did so. First, he perfectly kept all the commands and did fall short in any one of them. From the very beginning, at His birth, until the end of His life, he did no sin (1 Peter 2:22), he knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21), in Him was no sin (1 John 3:5), and He was totally without sin (Heb. 4:15). This is sometimes called Christ's "active obedience."

The second way in which Christ fulfilled the Law was by taking upon Himself all of the penalty of breaking the Law. The Law also has penalties in it for any infraction of the Law. Now despite the fact that the Lord Jesus did not have any infractions, He still took upon Himself the penalty of being cursed by hanging on a tree (Gal. 3:13). This is sometimes called Christ's "passive obedience."

In other words, the Lord fulfilled the Law as to its positive demands (actively doing all of them), and He also fulfilled the Law as to its penalties (passively taking them).

There is a third way in which Christ fulfills the Law today, and that indirectly is through believers. Romans 8:4 says that "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This does not mean that believers keep the Law directly, for Christians are not under the law per se (Rom. 6:14), and Rom. 10:4 says "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes." Putting these facts together, we understand that while believers are not keeping the Law directly, and they are not trying to do so in order to attain a righteous standing before God, they are, by their very nature as Spirit-indwelt Christians, fulfilling the righteous standard of the Law in their behavior (albeit imperfect) and also because of their perfect standing in Christ. He fulfilled the Law so that we, who could not and cannot perfectly do so, might be seen by God as in Christ and so fulfilling the righteous requirement of the Law.

The issue of the forgiveness of sins is obviously dear to all Christians. But some believers have found it difficult to understand how a Christian's sins can be said to be completely forgiven (Col. 2:13, 1 John 2:12) and yet at the same time that confession of sin is a necessary element of the Christian's life (1 John 1:9, James 4:8, 5:15-16; see also Lev. 5:5, Num. 5:7, Ezra 10:1, Neh. 9:2-3, Psalm 32:5, Prov. 28:13, Daniel 9:4, 9:20). They might ask, "Why should I confess my sins when they are all forgiven already?"

The answer is that there are two aspects of forgiveness: the initial and the ongoing. All of the Christian's sins have been totally forgiven at the point of salvation (Eph. 1:7, Rom. 4:6-8, Heb. 10:17). God will not deal with us according as our sins deserve (Psalm 103:10-13).

Sins are committed in a believer's life, however, and affect the believer's communion with God. Though sin does not sever the relationship (Heb. 13:5), it does disturb or unsettle things in that relationship. These sins do not expose the believer to eternal punishment, but God calls us to deal with them seriously (1 Cor. 11: 31) and may chasten us in order to make us more holy (1 Cor. 11:32, Heb. 12:5-11). In so doing, God deals with us as children, and this gives us assurance that we are indeed His children.

Note carefully that both types of forgiveness do have to do with the believer's relationship to God. The initial aspect of forgiveness deals with the establishment of the relationship, and the ongoing aspect of forgiveness deals with the temporal harmony of the relationship.

It cannot be denied that sin does affect the relationship that a person has with God. It does not void the relationship, but it does have an impact on it. This is evident from the passage in 1 Peter 3:7, in which husbands are told to live with their wives in an understanding way, lest their prayers be hindered. The hindrance obviously refers to sin in the marriage relationship, and such sin causes a breach in the believing husband's prayers with God.

Burdick explains it this way: "The forgiveness and cleansing which follow [confession] are necessary for a person to be in fellowship with God. It must be remembered that this epistle was written to those who already are forgiven (2:12). John is not here speaking of the initial forgiveness of sin which occurs at the point of salvation. At that time the guilt of all one's sins--past, present and future--is forgiven. The forgiveness of this verse, however, is an experience which comes after salvation. Its function is to remove that which has disturbed the believer's fellowship with God. Whereas the former is a legal remission of guilt, the latter is the Father's forgiveness of His child to restore undisturbed communion. To those who confess their sins, this forgiveness, like initial forgiveness, is assured by the faithfulness and justice of God." (Donald W. Burdick, The Epistles of John [Chicago: Moody Press, 1970], p. 26-27, in the Everyman's Bible Commentary series).

The verse about sin leading to death in 1 John 5:16 is one of those knotty passages that has really bothered people. The idea is this:

1. The sin is not a specific one that is the same for every person. It could be sin A or sin B, but it is God's determination whether it is punishable by death. Notice that it says "a sin," not "the sin."
2. The death spoken about is physical death, not spiritual death. The person in question is a "brother" and because he is a Christian, he cannot lose his salvation. So the passage has to be talking about the physical end of one's life.
3. There are examples of various sins in the Bible that led God to discipline his children with the ultimate physical punishment. In the NT, Acts 5 records the death of Ananias and Sapphira because they lied. 1 Corinthians 11 records the folks who had "fallen asleep" (a euphemism for death) because of abuse of the Lord's Table. These are two totally different sins, but God in his infinite wisdom chose to punish them with death.
4. Why such strong punishment? God is concerned about the purity of His church. He doesn't want people running around sinning and always getting away with it. Sometimes he lets people go on sinning for a long time. Other believers are to confront those folks about their sin. When it gets to a certain point, however, God calls these folks out of this life and into the next so that His reputation will not be tarnished any further.
5. What is the character of such a sin? It is a high-handed, premeditated, rebellious sin. This is why John says don't pray for that kind of sin--if you can discern that this is a sin that God will punish with death, no prayer is going to change God's mind. It's tough for us to know for sure, however, in our limited human knowledge. The right response on the part of the sinner is to repent and confess that sin and not do it again. If the sin is evidently not a sin leading to death, then we ought to pray for that person so that they will get straightened out.
6. This is not the unpardonable sin of Matthew 12. That sin has to do with a repeated rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the work of His Spirit. It is only committed by those who are unbelievers. In fact, it is the very essence of hardened unbelief. The type of sin mentioned in 1 John is committed by a Christian brother or sister.
7. It is also not a "mortal" sin as opposed to a venial sin. These terms come from Roman Catholicism. The mortal sin is supposedly one that causes the soul to suffer eternal damnation unless it is confessed to a priest. The venial sin can be atoned for through good works. There are not two such categories of sin listed in the Bible.

It is a much debated text, but I’m convinced that it is an oblique reference to the Holy Spirit and particularly His presence in the church during this age of grace. This is evident because:

1. Only the divine power of the Spirit of God can truly restrain the full operation of evil (Isaiah 59:19). We cannot. We are not allowed to rebuke the Devil. Instead our disposition should be, “The Lord rebuke you” (Jude 9).
2. The grammar in the text indicates that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit (neuter “what” now restrains and masculine “he” who restrains) because other texts in the Bible that clearly refer to the Holy Spirit exhibit this same characteristic (John 15:26, 16:13-14). The Spirit’s role in restraint of sin is also seen in Gen 6:3.
3. The rapture will remove the Holy Spirit, the restrainer, and the Antichrist will be free to do what he wishes.

In my September 14, 2007 post, I probably raised more questions than I answered with respect to the issue of polygamy and its practice in the Old Testament. One statement I made elicited some response from at least one reader. I said that "though Exodus 21:7-11 regulates polygamy, this does not necessarily endorse it." The question was whether that is a valid principle. If something is regulated, shouldn't we suppose that it is within God's will? That is to say, since God regulates polygamy, it seems that, at least in some cases, it must be allowable and God does thus endorse it. Of course, later in the same post, I said that the Levirate institution causes tension with my view "in that God gave this as part of the Law and so in some sense endorsed it."

I supported my position with a similar statement regarding divorce. In the case of divorce, God definitely regulated its practice in the OT (Deut. 24:1-4, among other passages). In fact, Exodus 21:10-11 sets forth some case law in the situation where polygamy and divorce together are at issue and again God "endorses" divorce by way of commanding that the first wife go free. However, Matthew 19:6-8 makes it clear, at least to this reader, that God did not endorse the general practice of divorce "from the beginning" of creation. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that God would positively endorse an act which is always the result of other sins. What marriage ended in divorce where there was not some sin leading up to the divorce? So I still believe the principle to be valid on the face of the texts--what God regulates he does not necessarily endorse. The specific cases cited are exceptions with regard to polygamy and divorce. But not all things that God regulates are within the boundaries of what he desires. (Of course, all things that come to pass are within the bounds of his decreed will. I am speaking of his "moral" or "desired" will.) Sometimes he regulates things simply to prevent total anarchy from taking over.

As both polygamy and divorce are disputed examples in this area, the reader asked if there are other examples. I could not think of any others besides the example of sin in general. God does not endorse sin of any type, but he does legislate punishments when it happens. In the OT, he regulated sacrifices that were to be made for particular sins and types of sins. He decreed for sin to occur, but clearly he is not the author of it, nor does he endorse it in some positive way. But he very definitely does regulate it. So, it is regulated but not endorsed.

Still this leaves me with an uneasy feeling regarding those exceptional cases with divorce and polygamy. Are those things that God "endorses" themselves sin? Would God command something to be done that is sin? Certainly we would agree that even if divorce were OK in some cases, it is definitely sin in others. When God commands it, we would not be correct to say that it is sin, for God cannot sin nor does he tempt any man to sin (James 1:13). It was somewhat of a help to me to think of the example of the killing of a person. If it is murder, then it is sin according to the 10 commandments. But God regulates this sin with another act that, on the surface, seems to be sin: namely, the killing of the murderer himself. This killing would seem to be sin, but as it is commanded by God, it is not sin. In fact, it is right and just as a punishment to extract a life for a life. God regulates murder with the death penalty but he is not thereby endorsing murder. It is only that without capital punishment, the end result would be more egregious than if capital punishment were not done, and the murderer was allowed to live. This would be a great miscarriage of divine justice, for the loss of life made in God's image would not be recompensed with a punishment of commensurate weight.

So I'm still sticking to the notion that though polygamy and divorce did happen in the OT, we do not have to bow to the idea that they were or are institutions that must necessarily continue in the present age because they carry God's stamp of approval. They do not. Perhaps you have some more thoughts that will help me refine my thinking.

There is a proposed hermeneutical principle in the study of the Bible which its proponents call the principle of first reference. When a word or concept is encountered, the first reference in the Bible to that word or concept is consulted as the most significant defining or foundational passage. (If anyone reading can supply a better definition, please send it to me.)

Even though I had studied quite a bit of theology, the first time I remember running into this concept was a couple years ago in the book Velvet Elvis by post-modern/emerging church guru Rob Bell. I then ran into it in a Days of Praise devotional last week (November 24 - Magnified Mercy).

It strikes me as a very unreliable and unbiblical principle--I considered it nonsense from the first time I heard it. For one thing, "first" reference has to be defined--is it first in chronological composition of the Bible? Or first in "Bible order" in the 66-book English Bible? Or is the order of books as it is found in the Hebrew Bible (which is different)? Second, there is no mention of such a principle in the Bible. Third, we do not apply this principle to any other book. Finally, there is no inherent reason that just because a word is used for the first time that this use defines its characteristics. That use could be the odd use, the opposite of normal, or a bad example of the practice of that word or concept.

One of the tensions with my "no polygamy" stance is how to understand the Old Testament, where polygamy abounded. It is first mentioned in Gen. 4:19 where Lamech took for himself two wives. We see many men, including Abraham and Jacob, with multiple wives. Kings David and Solomon had a huge number of wives.

It should be noted first that God never specifically commands men to take multiple wives; rather, the teaching from the time of Adam is one man, one woman, and one flesh (Gen. 2:23-24). Second, it is obvious that God allowed polygamy, and that, good or bad, it accomplished certain things like allowing prominent men to have many children more quickly than they would have been able to have with one wife. It also resulted in intra-family rivalries (e.g. 1 Sam. 1:6). Third, though Exodus 21:7-11 regulates polygamy, this does not necessarily endorse it. Similar regulations were given to regulate or curb the sin of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4) but this did not change God's desire for marriage (Matt. 19:6). Fourth, God's allowance of David to have Saul's wives is simply that--an allowance which indicated a complete transfer of the kingdom rule to David (2 Sam. 12:8). In the midst of the rebuke given by God through Nathan, God is saying that He gave David everything he could ask for and then some, and then David was still not satisfied and wanted yet another wife from a man who only had one! Here is a clear-cut case when taking another wife was done so in adultery.

There is another problem with respect to the Levirate marriage institution which was used for the propagation of the family name and inheritance rights (Deut 25:5-10). The brother of the deceased could do the levirate marriage or not. Presumably if he were already married, then he would have two wives after taking his deceased brother's widow as his own. Fortunately for my position, we are not under the Mosaic Law today so I don't have to worry about this case in the present day as if it were legally sanctioned by God. But it is a legitimate tension in that God gave this as part of the Law and so in some sense endorsed it. I'm willing to live with that tension for now until I have time to think it through more fully. In western cultures, this is not a problem because polygamy is outlawed anyway. In other cultures where polygamy is legal, we should explore why is it used. Is it done for religious or pragmatic reasons? Is it tied to certain religious beliefs, as in Islam? Or is it related to the culture's view of inheritance, property transfer, and sustaining the family name? Or is it simply a way for men to indulge their sinful desires?

All of that may be somewhat less than perfectly satisfying, but I am trying to deal honestly with the Biblical text. What we can say without any doubt, gentlemen, is that God wants you to love your wife as yourself and enjoy her as the gift from God that she is. Solomon might say, "My son, keep my words. Don't look elsewhere to satisfy your desire for love."

I did get some feedback on the Polygamy entry from August 16. One query had to do with whether my use of Romans 7:1-3 is valid at all. That is, does Romans 7:1-3 really have any bearing on the issue of polygamy, since that is not at all what Paul is teaching about? Good question--since I am committed to the belief that we must teach the Bible in context and not lift passages out of context to make a point we desire to make.

The answer to this is basically that there is an implication in what Paul is teaching that does have to do with polygamy. It seems quite clear from the passage that polyandry is adultery. "Polygamy=adultery" seems to be a straightforward extension to this. Certainly Paul's point is not to teach about polygamy or polyandry. But based on this implication, a man who runs off with another woman and commits adultery with her, but remains married to his original spouse all the while, is in egregious sin. I don't see anything "sanctifying" about parading that adulterous relationship up to a civil magistrate, having him declare it a "marriage," and then pretending it is better than if you didn't have it legally declared a marriage. Just saying it is right doesn't make it right. Dressing up adultery with marriage vows and a marriage license does not make it any more righteous.

For the inaugural entry in my blog, I thought what better than to tackle a tough theological issue like polygamy? There are many "sub issues" to this one, such as whether men with multiples wives can be members of a local church (say, in Africa), whether they can take communion or be in leadership roles, how they should handle their wives after becoming saved, whether they should divorce all but one (and which one?) or support them without having relations, and whether the law of their home country has any bearing on the question at all.

Before we can get to those questions (perhaps in future blog entries), it is important to note that Romans 7:1-3 has some bearing on this issue. It speaks of a wife becoming an adulteress if she marries another man while her first husband is still alive. By implication, a man who marries another woman while his first wife is alive also becomes an adulterer. This seems quite obvious to most Christians. The application to the case of polygamy is just that the man who marries a second wife is an adulterer with respect to his first wife. It does not seem to make a difference to me if you call it a marriage or not, as it is no different than if the man has an ongoing affair with another woman. This comes to bear on the question of whether the second marriage is valid, and would have significant impact on the answers to the questions posed in the previous paragraph.