Announcement of Radio Ministry

Thank you to all of you who have been reading and enjoying my Precepts writings for many years! I wanted to let all of you know that I am entering on a new and exciting ministry. My teachings will be broadcast on the radio starting Sunday, January 20, 2013. My new ministry will be called “Knowing God in the Word,” and it will be a half hour radio show on a local Twin Cities Christian Talk radio station, KKMS, 980 AM. The show will be at 9:30AM Sunday mornings.

The good news for those of you who do not live in the Twin Cities is that you can also stream KKMS over the Internet at their website, http://www.kkms.com. Listen in at 9:30AM (Central Time) on Sundays on KKMS to hear my teachings.

My new ministry also has a new website, http://www.knowinggodintheword.org . Stop in to see more about my exciting new ministry! I will be posting old shows as well, for those of you who are busy at 9:30 AM on Sunday mornings.

We are self-funding this ministry, so any of you who care to help us by sending in donations, that would be most appreciated. We are incorporating as a 501c3 non-profit organization, so soon your donations will be able to be tax deductible, if you itemize deductions.

I appreciate your prayers and support. Thank you for reading Precepts, and your interest in God’s Word!

Nathan

Paul’s Appeal to Caesar

1. Now when Festus had come to the province, after three days he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem.

So the newcomer Festus, Felix’s replacement, arrives in the province. In Greek, his name is actually spelled “Phestos,” there not being any “F” in Greek. Although the exact time he was procurator is unknown, his tenure there was short-lived. History tells us that he died in 62AD. The Companion Bible suggests he was procurator starting in 60AD, which would place for us the time this is taking place.

Festus comes first to Caesarea, the Roman capital of the region. He spends several days there, perhaps resting up from his journey and familiarizing himself with his new capital, but he does not remain there for long. After three days, he heads for the Jewish capital of Jerusalem, no doubt to meet with the leaders there, for interacting with them will be an important part of his job as governor.

Notice that Festus goes “up” to Jerusalem. Caesarea was near the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, whereas Jerusalem was in the mountains. Thus, it was definitely “up” in elevation to go to Jerusalem. Not only so, but as we have said before, in the Bible, one always goes “up” to Jerusalem.

Eternal Security Passages

I received the following questions:

I know you claim that 2 Timothy 2:11-13 teach that we cannot lose our salvation.

11. This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
12. If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
13. If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.

This might seem long, but I will go through several verses that I still don’t understand how they go with what is written in 2 Timothy and the idea of not being able to lose salvation; please take your time to go through this, don’t rush through it:

Some of these passages might not go with the idea of not being able to lose salvation, because they might deal with truths from before the great dispensational change at Acts 28:28. ALL the verses you gave me are from earlier, Acts period books. Yet there is a lot of things I could say about all these verses, and so I will comment on them below.

Paul and Felix

Acts 24 Continued

15. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

Paul has stated that though they call him a heretic, yet he still believes all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets. He has not abandoned these things, so they cannot claim that he has started up his own religion. Moreover, he now insists, he has hope in God which they themselves also accept. The word “hope” means an expectation, or something that you are waiting for that you know will happen, not something you are only wishing will happen. Paul was looking expectantly for the same thing to happen that they were. That is, he was looking for a resurrection of the dead. Of course, when he says this, he must be referring to his fellow Pharisees among the group that was accusing him, for both Ananias and any other Sadducees who were in the group accusing him were not looking for this at all. Yet they had better not argue this, for then their coalition against Paul will quickly fall apart, just as it did in chapter 23.

Paul states his confident expectation of this resurrection of the dead, stating that it will be both of the just and the unjust. Some have tried to argue that only believers will ever be raised, and that the unsaved will never experience resurrection. In this passage therefore they try to make out that the “unjust” are saved people who have done things they shouldn’t have done. There are two obvious problems with this. First of all, it seems almost impossible that Felix would have understood Paul’s words this way. What did Felix know of “being saved”? He would not have divided all men into two groups this way, and then assumed that the “unjust” were only those from the “saved” group. He would have understood this as applying to all.

The Oration of Tertullus

Acts 24

1. Now after five days Ananias the high priest came down with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus. These gave evidence to the governor against Paul.

Paul remains a prisoner in the Praetorium for five days, while the Sanhedrin and their cronies back in Jerusalem learn of Claudius’ actions to foil their plot and determine their new strategy for how to deal with Paul. Finally, Ananias the high priest himself, along with certain elders, comes down from Jerusalem to Caesarea. These elders, in Greek presbuteros, were simply representative men. In this case, they were probably the leading men of the Sanhedrin who had the authority to represent the rest of the council in this matter.

Now the high priest and elders bring with them a man whom the Scriptures describe as an orator named Tertullus. This will make more sense to us if we understand the way that trials worked in their culture. This comes from the Greek way of doing trials, in which great emphasis was placed upon the oratorical skills of those arguing the two sides of the matter. The arguments of what we would call “lawyers” on both sides were crafted to be masterful works of oratory, and were created as much to be elegant speeches as they were to actually argue the case. Thus instead of experts in law to help in a trial, one was more likely to hire one who was an expert at speaking. This is what the high priest and his cronies have done. They have hired a man known for his great speaking skills, hoping that he will dazzle the governor into agreeing with them due to his excellent oratorical presentation. Tertullus’ name means “Triple-Hardened,” a name which would be most appropriate for many who make their living in the field of law, yet who have no scruples about lying and twisting the truth in order to win a case.

Metanoia and “Change Your Mind”

I received the following question:

Here is a rather erudite article on the Greek word ‘metanoia’.  Please read it and give me your impressions.

http://bible.org/seriespage/new-testament-repentance-lexical-considerations

Well, first of all, it is a rather biased way to promote your proposed meaning of a word by quoting a lot of English translations with the word you are trying to prove something about already translated to the meaning you are promoting. While this proves that your meaning can fit in these passages, it does not prove that your meaning is actually the meaning of the word, since you are dependent upon whatever translator you are using.

I teach that metanoia means literally, “after-mind.” To translate it to English in a single word, I would use either “submission,” “yieldedness,” or “easing.” This based on my translation of metanoeo as “to submit,” “to yield,” or “to ease.”

In the example of the Athenian counsel, one of the second two meanings would fit well. They yielded (to pressure to be more lenient,) or eased (the penalty they thought to impose.)

The Plot to Kill Paul

11. But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.”

This was certainly another traumatic experience for Paul as well, for it could not have been overly pleasant for him to experience such hostility and murderous hatred from men who at one time had been his fellows. Yet the Lord knows well when one of His servants needs encouragement, and so that night He appeared to Paul, as we see it here. In fact, we read that “the Lord stood by him,” which is very interesting, since there is no suggestion that this was a dream, but every indication that the Lord was there in reality. It seems He personally came to Paul at this point to encourage him. This reminds us of Samuel in I Samuel 3, who also received such a visit from the Lord at night, and the Lord came and stood at his bedside.

So the Lord comes the following night. This sounds to us as if He waited more than twenty-four hours and then came, but that is wrong. We need to keep in mind that the Jewish days started at sunset, and went from there through twelve hours of night, and then twelve hours of day. Paul stood before the Sanhedrin in the morning of one day, and the Lord came to him on what they would call the following night, but we would call the night of that very same day. There was no delay in His coming to see Paul.

The Lord advises Paul to be of good cheer, calling him by name. Then, He tells Paul why he should be comforted. His testimony for the Lord in Jerusalem is completed, but the Lord has yet more work for him to do. As he has testified for the Lord in Jerusalem, so must he also do at Rome. This offers several sources of comfort. First of all, the Lord has received his testimony here as being for Himself, and the Lord is pleased with it. Secondly, he can now know that the actions of all these enemies of his against him will not prevail. He cannot die without completing the Lord’s mission for him, and the Lord has yet more work for him to do.

Paul Versus the Sanhedrin

1. Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

Paul now stands before the Sanhedrin. No doubt some of their number has changed in the many years that have passed since Paul last stood before them, but among them would have been many who had been his friends and colleagues back when he himself had been an up and coming Pharisee, and had led the persecution against the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now he stands before them once again, this time as a representative of the same One he had formerly persecuted on their behalf.

This is the third time in Acts we have read of Paul looking earnestly or fixing his eyes upon someone. The first time was in Acts 13:9, when he fixed his eyes upon the sorcerer Bar-Jesus. The second time was in Acts 14:9, when he fixed his eyes on the man crippled in his feet and saw he had faith to be healed. Now, Paul fixes his eyes on the Sanhedrin. These three passages provide the best evidence we have that what many imagine was Paul’s “thorn in the flesh,” eye problems of some kind, is not actually the case. It is unlikely someone with weak eyes would be able to fix his eyes in this manner. Squinting with watery eyes at someone would not seem to fit with this word atenizo at all. If Paul was able to fix his eyes, his eyes must not have been all that bad.

Now Paul speaks to them. We will be examining his address here, but one thing we need to keep in mind, and that is that Paul’s words were not just his own. Remember the promise Christ made to His disciples. He told them in Luke 12:11-12:

Was James or John First?

I received the following question:

Hey so I’m going thru a Beth Moore book studying James.  I’m absolutely loving it and enjoy the group of women I get to study it with.  I’ve learned so much already and we’re only in week two. There’s a video that goes along with the book for each week.  One thing she mentioned was the James was possibly the first book of the N.T written so if so then Jesus’ originally doubting half-brother broke the 400+ years of God’s silence?!!?!?!  Thoughts?

I don’t try to determine I, II, and III John versus James. They are written at about the same time, and there is no real way to determine which one(s) were written first. I would say they are written at about the same time, and during the Great Scattering period. I John is written to those scattered in the scattering, whereas James is written to those leaders in the new gatherings of believers started by them. This could perhaps point to John being first. Yet John also seems to be writing to his former students as being current leaders, so the new groups of believers had been set up. Ultimately, then, I don’t think there is any way to tell which is first.

It is crazy to think that James, the one who didn’t believe during the Lord’s ministry, was the first to write a book of the Bible after the hundreds of years of silence following Malachi and Chronicles. Very cool thought!

How Many Mighty Men?

I received the following question:

Why does David have or what’s the difference of “3″ “30″ and “37″ mighty men?  

There seem to have been a certain three mighty men who were the greatest of all of them. These are listed as Josheb-Basshebeth the Tachmonite, Eleazar the son of Dodo, and Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite in II Samuel 23:8-12. These we might call the “top three.” Then, there was a second three. The first two of these are Abishai the son of Zeruiah and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in II Samuel 23:18-23. The third of this second three was probably Joab, though he is not listed due to his final disloyalty to David when he followed Adonijah.

After these two sets of three there was a group called the “thirty mighty men.” These were not as great as the first two sets of three, but they were great enough to be considered “mighty men” over just regular officers in the army. Their number, even in II Samuel 23, does not seem to have been exactly thirty, as thirty-one names are listed, even once one subtracts the first two “threes.” Yet this name was probably a name they came to be known by, and once it caught on, it remained, even when their numbers swelled to larger than thirty. This is true in college football, for example, wherein the “Big 10″ has twelve teams, the “Big 12″ has ten teams, and the “Pac 10″ has twelve teams. Or something like that. Who can keep track? Anyway, the name “thirty mighty men” stuck, even when they had more members. In I Chronicles 11, the number had expanded by at least sixteen more members, though they are not actually called the “thirty” in this case.

The “37″ is a number not actually mentioned, but one can attain it by counting up all the names mentioned in II Samuel 23, and then adding Joab.

Which James Is James?

I received the following question:

A question from Acts 15 concerning James not being the James of the twelve. I had a discussion with (my wife)’s sister about there being more Apostles than just the twelve.  She couldn’t accept that this could be. How would you answer someone’s claim that since there are two James’ in the list of the twelve, that this James in Acts 15 is the other James of the twelve?  Not James, the brother of John, since he had been put to death, but James, the son of Alphaeus. Luke 6:13-15.  Thanks.

Also I find interesting the language in v.13.  
“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” After choosing them, He ALSO named them Apostles.  For some reason my Strong’s doesn’t list the Greek for “named” in this verse.  Is it some form of Kaleo? It’s interesting that after choosing the twelve, He then also “named” them apostles.   If this is some form of Kaleo, then it  is seen here to designate, name, or position, as you teach.  It brings more understanding to words with some form of Kaleo in them such as Ekklesia.  “Out positioned ones” is so far superior of a translation of Ekklesia and it is sad that the major portion of Christendom is ignorant of its meaning. 

There is no way to confirm that the James of Acts 15 was the Lord’s brother and not James of Alphaeus. There is a trail of clues that makes this likely, however. Most significant, and blowing out of the water her claim that only the twelve are apostles, would be Galatians 1:19.

19. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Here, James the Lord’s brother is called an apostle, as clear as can be.