QUESTION #6 God told the Israelites that He would conditionally bless them if they kept His commandments and walked in them (e.g., Leviticus 26:3-4; Deuteronomy 4:1, 6:24-25, 8:1). In “keeping His commandments,” is God referring to a general following after Him, knowing that the Israelites would sometimes disobey, but that God would still bless them if their heart was set on Him (dismissing their imperfection)? Or does God mean complete perfection here, even though He knew they couldn’t keep His commandments without spot (making them depend on God’s grace)? I know God requires complete perfection for eternal life with Him (and that’s where the gospel comes in), but these verses are more about material blessings for the Israelites. Was God just looking for their faith in His promises, ready to count their faith as righteousness like He did for Abraham? RESPONSE Acknowledgement — In every dispensation, the truth that our actions do bring consequences (positive and negative) has always been in effect. While God would not punish children for the sins of their parents (cf. Deuteronomy 7:10; 24:16; Ezekiel 18:19-32), the children would indeed be affected by the disobedience of their parents, either in continuing their sin or in facing the repercussions of it (cf. Exodus 20:5-6). Correspondingly, the same was true of an individual’s righteousness and obedience—it brought blessing. The New Testament continues to teach this truth, for example, in its reference to “reaping and sowing” (cf. Galatians 6:7-8). Background — In essence, I think the question being asked here is, “Was the Mosaic Covenant/Law intended to provide salvation?” The easy and clear biblical answer to that is, “No!” Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone in God’s person and promises. Before the Mosaic Covenant, God’s relationship with Abraham in the unilateral, unconditional, eternal Abrahamic Covenant provided mankind with a picture of how one is restored to a relationship with God—by grace through faith (cf. Genesis 15:6). Abraham’s “amen” (the Hebrew word for “believed”) echoes throughout the rest of Scripture, testifying to the sufficiency of grace and faith (also cf. Habakkuk 2:4 and its reverberation throughout the NT). The “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11 reaffirms the timeless veracity of such classic NT texts as John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Titus 3:5. Obedience to the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 6:24-25) was supposed to be a manifestation of a heart of faithful love (Deuteronomy 6:5-6, 13-14). So, then, what was the purpose and essence of the Mosaic Covenant?[i] (1) Unlike the Abrahamic Covenant, the prototype of God’s dealing with sinful mankind by grace through faith, the Mosaic Covenant was bilateral in its nature and goal of the Mosaic Covenant—that is, both God and the people had commitments/responsibilities in this covenant relationship. It was also a conditional covenant, meaning that if the Israelites failed to live up to their end of the bargain, then God wasn’t bound to fulfill His (cf. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 27-28). What was the condition of this covenant? God shared it with Moses when Israel first arrived at Mount Sinai, “The Lord called to Him out of the mountain, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant [Exodus 19-31], you shall be My treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel”’” (Exodus 19:3-6). Tracing their spiritual progression, this nation was already a redeemed nation, for the Exodus and Passover was behind them. Now, the Lord desires to enjoy fellowship with them and engage them in mission—but to do so, they had to adhere to the Mosaic Covenant. The commitments and responsibilities of the Mosaic Law were given in order for Israel to become, not “saved” or “justified,” but a special and distinct and “priestly” nation. As we know, Israel drastically failed in this goal, and after hundreds of years of patient warning, God punished them with the curses He had promised during their captivity (and beyond). He also prophesied of a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) that would replace the old, broken one and would become everlastingly effective. The Mosaic Law itself contained language to describe what would happen if one treated it as a means of salvation. Perfect adherence and complete obedience was required, nothing less (James 2:10; Galatians 3:12 [Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5]); otherwise, failure to adhere to this covenant brought a curse (Galatians 3:10; from Deut. 27:26 [Jer. 11:3; Ezekiel 18:4]). (2) In its failure, we actually discover, then, the ultimate purpose of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:19-26)—to serve as a guard, proving the sinfulness of every person and imprisoning them in its guilt (cf. Romans 7:5-13), and to serve as a guardian, pointing to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (cf. “shadow”: Hebrews 8:5; 10:1; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13). And in the New Covenant ratified by Christ’s blood, we are no longer under Law (Romans 7:1-4).[ii] ENDNOTES
[i] “A covenant is a legally binding promise, agreement, or contract. Three times in the NT the word “covenants” is used in the plural (Gal. 4:24; Eph. 2:12). All but one of God’s covenants with man are eternal and unilateral—that is, God promised to accomplish something based on His own character and not on the response or actions of the promised beneficiary. The 6 biblical covenants include: 1) the covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:8-17); 2) the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; see note on 4:13); 3) the covenant of law given through Moses at Sinai (Ex. 19-31; cf. Deut. 29, 30); 4) the priestly covenant (Num. 25:10-13); 5) the covenant of an eternal kingdom through David’s greatest Son (2 Sam. 7:8–16); and 6) the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 37:26; cf. Heb. 8:6-13). All but the Mosaic Covenant are eternal and unilateral. It is neither, since Israel’s sin abrogated it and it has been replaced by the New Covenant (cf. Heb. 8:7-13)” (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1710). [ii] “Paul uses the two mothers, their two sons, and two locations as a further illustration of two covenants. Hagar, Ishmael, and Mt. Sinai (earthly Jerusalem) represent the covenant of law; Sarah, Isaac and the heavenly Jerusalem the covenant of promise. However, Paul cannot be contrasting these two covenants as different ways of salvation, one way for OT saints, another for NT saints—a premise he has already denied (2:16; 3:10-14, 21, 22). The purpose of the Mosaic Covenant was only to show all who were under its demands and condemnation their desperate need for salvation by grace alone (3:24)—it was never intended to portray the way of salvation. Paul’s point is that those, like the Judaizers, who attempt to earn righteousness by keeping the law receive only bondage and condemnation (3:10, 23). While those who partake of salvation by grace—the only way of salvation since Adam’s sin—are freed from the law’s bondage and condemnation” (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1796). QUESTION #5 How are we to understand the prevalence of polygamy among God’s people in the Old Testament—especially considering passages like 2 Samuel 12:8, where God seems to have given multiple wives as a blessing? RESPONSE[i] Background — The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists: Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others. Is It God’s Moral Will? — God’s blueprint for marriage was given in the perfection of pre-Fall creation and is summarized as one man and one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime (Genesis 1:27; 2:21-24). Polygamy (and adultery, homosexuality, sex before marriage, etc.) clearly violates this divinely revealed blueprint. Furthermore, the picture of the gospel that is on clear display in the marriage relationship (Ephesians 5:22-33) is completely undermined by any other model of other romantic intimacy, including polygamy. Why Did God Allow It? — (1) Unmarried women in ancient times were completely dependent on their family members, such as their fathers, brothers, etc. If for some reason a woman had no family members or her husband had died or divorced her, she would be left with few options for survival. Most women in ancient times were uneducated and unskilled in a trade. Providing for themselves was very difficult, and they were vulnerable to those who would prey upon them (especially during war). For many women in dire situations, becoming a second wife or concubine was a much more suitable option than prostitution, homelessness, or death. At least she would be provided a home and afforded a certain amount of care. This seems to be in part what happened in the case of Abigail, David’s second wife (cf. 1 Samuel 25). (2) Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts (Matthew 19:8). We can assume the same hardness of heart led to the allowance and regulation of polygamy and concubinage (cf. Exodus 21:10-11). Sin is never ideal, and just because God allows a sin for a time, does not mean God is pleased with it. Many Bible narratives teach that God can take what some people mean for evil and use it for good (e.g., Genesis 50:20), as seems to be the case in reason #1 above. (3) Remember that God “does not deal with us according to our sins [whether that is polygamy or pride], nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him” (Psalm 103:10-11). Otherwise, who could stand—Abraham, David, you, or me?! Did God Reward People with It? — No, in fact the opposite is consistently true in biblical revelation: polygamy brings complex and far-reaching consequences. A study of the lives of men like King David and King Solomon (who had 700 wives and 300 concubines; 1 Kings 11:3) reveals that many of their problems stemmed from polygamous relationships (e.g., 2 Samuel 11:2-4)—family problems (cf. dysfunctional families like Jacob’s), societal tensions (cf. between Hagar’s son Ishmael and Rebekah’s son Isaac; 1 Kings 11:14-25), spiritual adultery/idolatry (Exodus 34:16), and divine consequences (2 Samuel 12:14) inevitably followed marital plurality. God had explicitly prohibited Israel’s kings from practicing polygamy, warning, “[The king] shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). A tragic case study in the veracity of that warning is seen in Solomon’s life. Although he started his reign being reminded by his dad to “keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses,” including the prohibition of plural wives (1 Kings 2:2-3). Later on, however, Solomon disobeyed that command and took 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3). As a result, the text says twice that they “turned away his heart after other gods” away from the true God (1 Kings 11:1-4). It was not until towards the end of his life that Solomon provides us with an autobiographical evaluation of his polygamous pleasure. He admits in Ecclesiastes 2:8 that he “gathered for [himself]…many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.” Then, three verses later he also admits that the fulfillment for which he was searching in polygamous intimacy was non-existent: “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (2:11). So, he ends his book by exhorting us with the counsel he undoubtedly wished he had followed, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). But what about 2 Samuel 12:8, which makes it sound as if God blessed David with multiple wives (“I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms”)?
What Does The Bible Explicitly Say about Polygamy for Today? — In most cultures today, polygamy is seen as violation of moral norms. That change, however, is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed, as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Thus, God’s standard for a pastor or deacon is that he be a “one-woman man” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), and He uses the singular “husband” and “wife” when teaching the local church about marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33 and 1 Corinthians 7:2. Summary — Norman Geisler writes, “There is ample evidence, even within the Old Testament, that polygamy was not God's ideal for man. That monogamy was His ideal for man is obvious from several perspectives. (1) God made only one wife for Adam, thus setting the ideal precedent for the race. (2) Polygamy is first mentioned as part of the wicked Cainite civilization (Gen. 4:23). (3) God clearly forbade the kings of Israel (leaders were the persons who became polygamists) saying, ‘And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away again’ (Deut. 17:17). (4) The saints who became polygamists paid for their sins. 1 Kings 11:1, 3 says, ‘Now King Solomon loved many foreign women...and his wives turned away his heart.’... (5) Polygamy is usually situated in the context of sin in the OT. Abraham's marriage of Hagar was clearly a carnal act of unbelief (Gen. 16:1f). David was not at a spiritual peak when he added Abigail and Ahinoam as his wives (1 Sam. 25:42-43), nor was Jacob when he married Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29:23, 28). (6) The polygamous relation was less than ideal. It was one of jealousy among the wives. Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen. 29:31). Elkanah's one wife was considered a ‘rival’ or adversary by the other, who ‘used to provoke her sorely, to irritate her...’ (1 Sam. 1:6). (7) When polygamy is referred to, the conditional, not the imperative, is used. ‘If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights’ (Exod. 21:10). Polygamy is not the moral ideal, but the polygamist must be moral.”[iii] ENDNOTES
[i] www.gotquestions.org/concubine-concubines; www.gotquestions.org/polygamy; www.gotquestions.org/Solomon-wives-concubines [ii] John MacArthur Jr., ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 1997), p. 443. He further explains, “Ahinoam, the wife of David (2:2; 3:2; 1 Sam. 25:43; 27:3; 30:5), is always referred to as the Jezreelitess, whereas Ahinoam, the wife of Saul, is distinguished clearly from her by being called ‘the daughter of Ahimaaz’ (1 Sam. 14:50).” [iii] Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), pp. 204-205. QUESTION #4 What does Paul mean in Colossians 1:24 when he says, “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church” (italics added for emphasis)? RESPONSE Option #1 — Purgatory: “Roman Catholics have imagined here a reference to the suffering of Christians in purgatory. Christ’s suffering, they maintain, was not enough to purge us completely from our sins. Christians must make up what was lacking in Christ’s suffering on their behalf by their own suffering after death. That can hardly be Paul’s point, however. [1] He has just finished demonstrating that Christ alone is sufficient to reconcile us to God (1:20-23). To do an about face now and teach that believers must help pay for their sins would undermine his whole argument. The New Testament is clear that Christ’s sufferings need nothing added to them. In Jesus’ death on the cross, the work of salvation was completed. [2] Further, the Colossian heretics taught that human works were necessary for salvation. To teach that believers’ suffering was necessary to help expiate their sins would be to play right into the errorists’ hands. [3] The idea that Paul refers to suffering in purgatory is ruled out by both the general content of the epistle and the immediate context, as well as the obvious absence of any mention of a place like purgatory in Scripture. [4] Finally, thlipsis (afflictions) is used nowhere in the New Testament to speak of Christ’s sufferings.”[i] Option #2 — Eschatological: “These sufferings are part and parcel of Christ’s afflictions—not His death on the cross or redemptive sufferings which are ‘finished’—but the afflictions of His people which He endures [cf. Acts 9:4]. The expression Christ’s afflictions is to be understood against an OT and Jewish background with its notion of the afflictions of the end time. These were called the ‘birth-pangs of the Messiah,’ those pains and woes which would occur before the arrival of God’s anointed ruler, the Messiah. In the NT they occur between the first and second comings of Jesus. The exalted Christ is in heaven and before His return He suffers in His members [that is, His spiritual body, the church], not least in the life of Paul himself [cf. 2 Corinthians 11:23-29]. These afflictions have been limited by God; the quota will be complete when the end comes. All Christians take part in these sufferings; it is through them that we enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22; 1 Thes. 3:3, 7). Suffering with Christ is essential if we are to be glorified with Him (Rom. 8:17). Through the sufferings he endures in his own flesh, Paul contributes to the sum total, to what is still lacking. The more he suffers the less the Colossians have to.”[ii] Option #3 — Individual: “We may simply understand it to refer to “the persecution that was intended for Christ.” MacArthur explains, “Jesus, having ascended to heaven, was out of their reach. But because His enemies had not filled up all the injuries they wanted to inflict on Him, they turned their hatred on those who preached the gospel. It was in that sense that Paul filled up what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions. In 2 Corinthians 1:5 he wrote that ‘the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance.’ He bore in his body the marks of the blows intended for Christ (Gal. 6:17; cf. 2 Cor. 11:23–28). God is sovereign over these afflictions and knows what is each of our lot [cf. Acts 14:22; 1 Thessalonians 3:3, 7]—so also they might appropriately be enumerated in our lives as ‘filling up…what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.’”[iii] I prefer this understanding over Option #2, (1) because Option #2 is not a clearly delineated doctrine in Scripture but is instead a bit of a logical leap, (2) because the context is not dealing with eschatological matters but rather present realities, and (3) because Option #3 takes a simple approach to Paul’s statement that is in keeping with his expressions elsewhere (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:5; Galatians 6:17). The Point — Twice in this verse, Paul uses the Greek preposition huper, which means “on behalf of, for the sake of.” Paul saw himself as suffering for the sake of the Colossian believers—yes, even suffering on behalf of the universal body of Christ, His church. While the same preposition is used for Christ’s suffering (cf. 1 Peter 2:21), it obviously carried a different meaning.[iv] Paul’s suffering wasn’t sacrificial, atoning, or propitiatory, as was Jesus’ (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18); nonetheless, it was still experienced “on the behalf of” or for the benefit of the church. See, Paul practiced what both Peter and John wrote concerning our response to Christ’s sacrificial suffering. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:21, “For even [unto suffering] were ye called, because Christ also suffered for [huper] us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps.” John concurred in 1 John 3:16, “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for [huper] us, and we ought to lay down our lives for [huper] the brethren.” Therefore, while Christ’s suffering and death was more than just an example—it was atoning!—it also serves, for His followers, as an example. That is, just as Jesus suffered and died for our spiritual benefit, we should suffer (and perhaps die) for the spiritual benefit of others. As a servant of the gospel, Paul willingly faced suffering so that others might come to know the hope of the gospel and thereby be reconciled to God (vv. 21-22) and continue in the faith (v. 23). In fact, Paul understands that some would hear the gospel only because of his suffering, like Caesar’s household, for example (cf. Philippians 1:12-13; 4:22). So, he willingly sacrificed his own temporary comfort and convenience for the everlasting glory of gospel fruit (cf. 2 Timothy 2:10).[v] He surrendered himself to temporal suffering, so that others might not experience eternal suffering! Christ suffered in death to save the church, and Paul is suffering in life to help the church! Paul recognized that his suffering served God’s gospel purposes—it “filled up” the ordained afflictions of Christ’s body and gave the Colossians the opportunity to hear the message of salvation and respond in faith. For him to avoid suffering could only have come by his ceasing to proclaim the gospel, thereby forfeiting the opportunity of salvation for those who might hear. So, while suffering is never pleasant, in God’s sovereign plan for His gospel-ministers, it is purposeful. ENDNOTES
[i] John Macarthur, Colossians (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), pp. 74-75. [ii] D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994). Cf. Richard R. Melick, Vol. 32, Philippians, Colissians, Philemon, electronic ed., Logos Library System in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), pp. 139-140. [iii] MacArthur, p. 75. [iv] “Jesus’ afflictions became Paul’s sufferings. Paul carefully distinguished between the two. He suffered in his body (‘in my flesh’), and there was a real struggle. The text reveals some parallels between Jesus and Paul. Both suffered in the flesh; both suffered vicariously; both suffered for the gospel; and both suffered for the church. Many differences between them occur, however. Paul did not suffer redemptively. Jesus completed the work of redemption for all people. Paul’s task was to open the door for a universal proclamation of the gospel. At the least, he hoped to convince all people of the validity of the gospel and its application to all persons, Jew or Gentile” (Melick, p. 240). “Participating in the sufferings of Christ is a spiritual experience which is born out of the believer’s union with Christ. Paul is one of a great army of believers who, having taken up their cross and followed Jesus, contribute to the growth of the church worldwide. Christ suffered in death to save the church, and Paul is suffering in life to help the churches. Paul can add nothing to the redemptive work of Christ; there is no sacrificial act of atonement suggested here, rather a participation in the reproach of the Saviour which Paul faced as God’s messenger” (Ian S. McNaughton, Opening Up Colossians and Philemon [Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006], p. 33). [v] John Foxe, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” QUESTION #2 What is the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19-20 regarding Christ preaching to spirits in prison? RESPONSE Principles — (1) God’s word is inerrant and does not contradict. So, apparent contradictions can be explained, and God’s Spirit will be our teacher. (2) Always move from clearer passages to less clear in your Bible interpretation; let the clear passages be your foundation and help you interpret the less clear passages. (3) Beware of building a theological dogma on an unclear passage. (4) Use the context to help you understand the unique nuance the author is seeking to convey. Option #1 — (1) Rather than suggesting Purgatory, this text must be interpreted in light of clearer biblical teaching, like Luke 16:26 and Hebrews 9:27 which teach that there are no second chances to respond to the gospel after death. Furthermore, the word for preach is not “preach the gospel” (euangelizo), but “preach” or “proclaim” (kerusso), so the idea of those who die having a second chance to hear and respond to the gospel is not substantiated by this text. (2) Jesus preached to these “spirits in prison” “in [the Spirit]”—that becomes quite helpful. It was not, then, a physical preaching in which His presence was materially present. (3) Who are these “spirits in prison”? I believe that the grammar, context, and purpose of the passage strongly indicates that they are those who didn’t obey Noah’s preaching during the time of God’s patience when the ark was being prepared for judgment (v. 20).
So, because of the grammar, context, and purpose of this passage, I believe these are the unbelievers who used to be alive in Noah’s day, and after they died, having rejected his preaching, they were imprisoned in eternal condemnation (i.e., they are “the spirits now in prison who once were disobedient…in the days of Noah,” NASB). Both the NET and NASB translations favor this interpretation. John Piper explains it this way, “I think it refers to the time when people in Noah’s day were disobedient, mocking him as a righteous man obeying God (like the situation in the lives of Peter's readers), and that Jesus, in the spirit, was sent by God in those days to preach to those people through Noah. Just like in [1 Peter] 1:11 the Spirit of Jesus was in the Old Testament prophets predicting his coming, so the Spirit of Jesus was in Noah preaching to the disobedient people of Noah’s day. They are NOW in prison—that is, in a place of torment awaiting the final judgment (Luke 16:24).”[ii] Option #2 — While the NET Bible argues for this interpretation, it also suggests a viable alternative: "Christ’s announcement of his victory [cf. v. 18] over evil to the fallen angels who await judgment for their role in leading the Noahic generation into sin [cf. Colossians 2:14-15; 2 Peter 2:4-5; Jude 6-7; Genesis 6:1-8];[iii] this proclamation occurred sometime between Christ’s death and ascension”[iv] (cf. MacArthur Study Bible). The Point — (1) God the Son has always been concerned with the salvation of sinners, even in His pre-incarnate state. (2) The ark is a prophetic event, a shadow of the gospel, pointing forward to the gracious provision of God through the substitutionary Atonement on a wooden cross. God provides a way of salvation from His wrath on our sin, and we must take our refuge in Him in order to be rescued! Just as Noah and his family were only saved by being “in the ark” which bore the brunt of God’s punishing waves, so we are only saved by being “in Christ” who bore the wrath of God for us. QUESTION #3 What is the meaning of 1 Peter 3:21 regarding baptism? It seems like it is saying that baptism is necessary for salvation. RESPONSE Starting with the clearer truth, we know from Scripture that baptism does not save a person. So, we have to figure out what this passage means, when it appears on a surface level reading to contradict that clearer truth. It is helpful for us to observe that Peter writes that baptism “corresponds” (i.e., “like figure whereunto,” KJV; “antitype,” NKJV; “symbolizes,” NIV; “prefigured,” NET; BDAG: a representation, copy, corresponding situation) to the ark.
ENDNOTES
[i] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2006). [ii] http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/strengthened-to-suffer-christ-noah-and-baptism [iii] Noting that the word for “preaching” or “proclaimed” here is not the Greek word euangelizomai, but kerusso, Gleason Archer suggests a slight variation to this option: “the proclamation made by the crucified Christ in Hades to all the souls of the dead may have been to the effect that the price had now been paid for sin, and all those who died in the faith were to get ready for their departure to heaven—shortly to occur on Easter Sunday [cf. Ephesians 4:8]” (Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982]). [iv] The NET Bible First Edition. [v] http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/strengthened-to-suffer-christ-noah-and-baptism QUESTION #1
Matthew 12:40 says, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Also, Matthew 28:1 describes how Jesus rose to life on Sunday, the first day of the week. I have always heard that Jesus was crucified on Friday. But if you take Matthew 12:40 literally, does that mean Jesus was crucified on Thursday? RESPONSE Background — Jesus died at 3:00 PM (the “ninth hour” of the day was in reference to the start of the Jewish day at 6:00 a.m.; Matthew 27:45, 50; Mark 15:33-34, 37; Luke 23:44-46) and was interred around 6:00 p.m. (cf. Luke 23:54) on the same day (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:42), which is called “the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath [Saturday]” (Mark 15:42; cf. Matthew 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:31 [Deuteronomy 21:22-23], 38, 42). He was clearly resurrected around dawn on the day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week, Sunday (Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 23:56-24:9; John 20:1-19). Option #1 — Jesus died on Wednesday or Thursday and was raised on Sunday. Option #2 — Jesus died on Friday and was raised on Sunday.
[i] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), pp. 325-326. |
|