I Timothy 1 Part 2

New King James Version 5. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,

The Resultant Version 5. Now the consummation of the charge is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of a faith that is without acting.

While the result of fables and endless genealogies might be disputes and debates, the desired end of God’s charge to us is far different. Instead of debating over myths or disputing over fables, He wants His charges to us to result in love displayed in our lives. The Greek language is much more specific in naming different kinds of love than we are in English. We speak of “loving” our children, parents, and siblings; “loving” our spouses; “loving” God; “loving” pizza; or “loving” sports. It is obvious that different kinds of love are meant, but we do not specify just what kind of love we mean in each case. Yet the Greeks had different words for different kinds of love. In this case, the word is agape, which is the very highest, God-type of love, a love that sacrifices itself for the one loved. Such a love, we must admit, is a far different outcome than debates and disputes! Read the rest of this entry »

onlyone02I Timothy 1

New King James Version 1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,

The Resultant Version 1. Paul, a commissioned one of Christ Jesus, by the injunction of God our Savior, even our Lord Christ Jesus, Who is our expectation,

The book starts with the name of the human author, Paul. This is the same, familiar author of so many of the New Testament epistles, and the main character of the latter half of the book of Acts. In the Acts period, he was the apostle who carried the gospel to Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and the Roman province of Asia. He calls himself the “apostle to the nations” during this time, and he was the one commissioned by God to carry the word during that latter half of Acts, as the work of the twelve and of those scattered in the dispersion after the stoning of Stephen settled down in the various places where God had sent them. Read the rest of this entry »

I Timothy Introduction

In Acts 16, we first learn of the young man Timothy. Paul had just let go his former coworker and assistant Barnabas, they having argued over taking John Mark, Barnabas’ relative and their former young assistant, with them on their second apostolic journey. Paul had insisted that he should not be trusted after he had abandoned the work on their first apostolic journey, thinking that he was no more dedicated now and would abandon them again. Barnabas was determined to give him another chance, however, and so he left and went back home with John Mark, whereas Paul chose Silas as his new companion. The two of them started off on Paul’s second apostolic journey. However, they still had no young assistant. This was the situation when Paul and Silas arrived at Lystra and Derbe, as we read in Acts 16:1-3.

1. Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2. He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3. Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

Here we learn that Timothy was already a young disciple, probably having believed along with his mother when Paul and Barnabas were there previously. He had been little more than a child at that time, but now he was a young man of fifteen or sixteen, well spoken of by all the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. He was a young man who had quite a reputation! He seems the perfect new assistant to Paul, and so he wants to take him with them on their apostolic journey. Read the rest of this entry »

manwoman02Warning to my readers with young children: this letter contains explicit language.

I received the following question:

I have a question:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and put the two first humans in a garden. After surveying his creation and declaring it good repeatedly, the first fact that displeased God was that Adam was alone. God’s mandates in the Garden of Eden (Eden means pleasure, by the way) were not “remain celibate,” “eat only tasteless grains,” and “submit.”

The God of Genesis is more an Epicurean than a Stoic.  He does not design bodies without pleasure sensors, but instead squeezes onto the human tongue 10,000 taste buds.  He does not make reproduction an onerous or bland affair, but loads human genitals with thousands of erotogenic nerve endings.  In his extravagant kindness, he engineered eating and intercourse to give us pleasure and then commanded his first two humans to engage in both.  It’s no wonder the first two chapters of Genesis declare creation “good” seven times over.  The second chapter of the Bible concludes with two humans, in a garden of Pleasure, totally naked, who are commanded to have sex, eat fruit, and rule the world. Read the rest of this entry »

housepets02I received the following question:

I am wondering what your conclusions are about animals and whether or not we will ever see our beloved pets again. Today, we were listening to some of your lessons in the car, and we heard you say that we don’t know if animals will have “eternal life.”

I think that was the short answer to my question (!!), but I don’t know what Ecclesiastes 3:21 means. Also, in comparing Genesis 9:5 in the KJV and the NIV, the latter makes it sound as though God “will” (in the future, regarding animals) demand an accounting of them if they have taken a human life.

I can see that you also love animals, and it would be such a happy outcome if we do see them in the kingdom. We can’t help but regret that they suffer death because of man’s sin.

Thank you!

Oddly enough🙂 , I do agree with myself that we simply do not know if any animals will be raised back to life to live again in the Kingdom of God. Many preachers give the foolish answer of quoting Revelation 22:15, “But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.” As if God is condemning people, and He speaks of sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters and liars, and oh, yes, those blasted canine puppy dogs. He really can’t stand the things! It just doesn’t make any sense. I think some preachers need to learn how to use their minds before they ever decide to stand in front of people and pretend to set forth the Word of God. If they would actually have studied their Bibles before they attempted to teach them, they might have read Deuteronomy 23:18, “You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.” Then they would have learned that a “dog” is a male prostitute, not a puppy dog. Read the rest of this entry »

angelart02I received the following question:

Hi Nathan, clear this up for me from the last Bible study you said Satan at one time was guarding Gods throne and he was a Cherubim. In Isa. 6:1-7 it has the Seraphim hovering over God’s throne and they have six wings the highest order. That would make the Cherubim the 2nd order of Angels. Talk to you soon.

Thanks for the good question!

I would agree that the cherubim are guarding the throne of God, as we see in Ezekiel 10, which reveals that the living creatures surrounding the throne of chapter 1 are the cherubim. Read the rest of this entry »

alarm02Another mysterious instance of time reckoning not seeming to align in different parts of Scripture is in the tally of the years of the children of Israel in the land as they are added up by Paul in the New Testament and as they are added up by the author of Kings in the Old Testament. Paul, in his address in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, speaks of the length of time the Israelites spent in the land. First, he starts off in Acts 13:18.

18. Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness.

Paul speaks of “about” forty years as it was a round number. Two years were spent in coming out of Egypt, coming to the Mount Sinai, making the covenant, etc. The wandering after that took thirty-eight years. Thus a number of forty is achieved. Forty years passed from the exodus from Egypt to the entrance into the land.

Paul then speaks of their entrance into the land.

19. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.
20. “After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

So we now have a total of 40 years in the wilderness plus 450 years in the land until Samuel, for a total of 490 years. Next, he speaks of the time of King Saul. Read the rest of this entry »

bigben02The way time is reckoned in the Scriptures can sometimes be confusing and even seem contradictory. Time intervals do not seem to fit, dates do not add up, and altogether it can seem confusing. Do the Scriptures contradict when it comes to time? How can we explain these seeming “contradictions in Scripture”?

In our first message, we examined the idea of inclusive and exclusive time reckoning, whereby one can either include parts of days as full days (inclusive reckoning), or one can exclude parts of days as not being days (exclusive reckoning). We also examined the reigns of kings, and saw that sometimes, from comparing the kings of Israel to the kings of Judah, that we can see that there were gaps between or overlaps between kings, and considered the causes of these things. In our last message, we considered whether Christ was in the grave “three days and three nights” or whether He rose “on the third day.” We discovered that the “third day” was a figure of speech meaning when death was complete, and the Lord truly was a full three twenty-four hour days in the tomb. In this message, we will consider how the Hebrews marked time regarding their hours and days, and then consider the puzzle of Anno Dei versus Anno Mundi time. Read the rest of this entry »

grandfather02Of the problems that trouble the student of Scripture, one of the more puzzling is the discrepancies sometimes seen in the way time is reckoned in the Scriptures. Dates do not seem to add up, time intervals do not seem to fit, and confusion is the result. Does the Bible contradict Itself when it comes to time? How can we explain these seeming “contradictions in Scripture”?

In our last message, we examined the idea of inclusive and exclusive time reckoning, whereby one can either include parts of days as full days (inclusive reckoning), or one can exclude parts of days as not being days (exclusive reckoning). We also examined the reigns of kings, and saw that sometimes, from comparing the kings of Israel to the kings of Judah, that we can see that there were gaps between kings (caused, perhaps, by a disagreement over succession, or by a child being too young to take the throne when his father died). We also saw that there are overlaps sometimes, and suggested this was from co-regency, when a father would allow his son to take the throne and reign alongside him. In this issue, we will examine the topic of how long exactly Christ was in the grave. Did He rise from the dead on the third day, or was He in the tomb three days and three nights?

How long exactly was the Lord Jesus to be dead and in the tomb? The Lord Himself says so most plainly in Matthew 12:40. Read the rest of this entry »

sundial01A startling puzzle when we consider the reigns of the various kings of Israel and Judah is that sometimes the numbers in the years of their reigns simply does not work out. One who is familiar with the book(s) of Kings knows that the reigns of the kings of the one kingdom are dated by comparison to the reigns of the kings of the other kingdom. This should make everything plain and easily confirmable, and yet what often happens is that the numbers do not seem to add up. Are there historical errors in this record? Is the Biblical author simply guilty of bad math skills? Or is there another reason?

Let us consider an example of some of these badly overlapping reigns. One example is in the reigns of Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab. This period is well marked out, since King Asa of Judah reigned for forty-one years, so his reign spanned that of Elah and Omri. In I Kings 16:8, we learn that Elah began to reign in the twenty-sixth year of Asa.

8. In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Baasha became king over Israel, and reigned two years in Tirzah.

So if Elah reigned two years, he would have reigned from Asa’s twenty-sixth year to his twenty-eighth year. The next king after him is Zimri, who kills him and takes his place. We read when his reign started in I Kings 16:15. Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers