READ 2 TIMOTHY 2


Illustration: Strong men don’t run away — Liam Neeson Taken meme: “He trained Batman, Obi-Wan, and Darth Vader; He is Zeus and Aslan … Why would you kidnap his daughter?” It’s inconceivable to think of him running away!

In a passage that begins with a call to “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2:1), it seems almost contradictory for Paul to also exhort his son-in-the-faith to “flee” (2:22). Instead, we are reminded from Paul’s counsel here that the strongest of spiritual men and women display their greatest strength when they acknowledge the power of sin, the weakness of their flesh, and the wisdom of God’s command to flee! Indeed, a sign that they are “strong in grace” is that they “flee from sin.”

Those who would be “strong in grace” understand that God’s grace in no way excuses them from dealing with sin themselves. They know that if they are not careful, they might become dirty and dishonorable, unfit for the “use” of the Master. Notice that this is what Paul teaches in the two verses before our text, in verses 20-21 (READ).

See, God wants to “use” you for the “good work” (v. 21) of bringing His “opponents” to “repentance” and “the knowledge of the truth” (vv. 24-26). But to be this kind of “servant of the Lord” (v. 24), you must not “entangle” yourself with sin (like a soldier, v. 4); instead, you must “compete according to the rules” of God’s Word (like an athlete, v. 5) and “work hard” to enjoy this fruit (like a farmer, v. 6). Indeed, you must “cleanse yourself from what is dishonorable, and you will be an honorable and set apart vessel that the Lord can use (“useful”) whenever He needs to (“ready”).”

So, God wants to use you … Are you usable? Are you clean and honorable? Are you “strong in grace” by dealing with sin. Honorable and usable vessels deal with sin in their lives, by God’s grace, through three activities:


I MUST FLEE SOME THINGS — "FLEE YOUTHFUL PASSIONS"

“Flee” – to seek safety by flight; a purposeful, forgetting-all-else, “get me out of here” mentality

• Used of Jesus’ disciples at His arrest (Matthew 26:56)
  
• Used of those terrified men who watched the demon-possessed swine drown (Matthew 8:33)
  
• Used of the wolf-attacked hireling (John 10:12)
  
• Illustration: when I fled from the skunk outside the little red house as a TBC intern

“Lusts” – strong desires, particularly for that which is presently forbidden

“Youthful” – those things peculiar to the age of youth — Question: What might these be (cf. 2:23, 2:24, 3:1-7)?
 
Application:  I must understand the nature of youthful lust, that it is an enemy to be feared, not a stranger to be flirted with.  I must especially be aware of this in my youth.  Having understood its nature, I must then “run scared” until that time when the Lord gives legitimate, sanctified fulfillment to those lusts.


I MUST PURSUE SOME THINGS — "PURSUE RIGHTEOUSNESS, FAITH, LOVE, AND PEACE"

“Pursue” – to press hard after something; to seek after eagerly; to earnestly endeavor to acquire

• Used of determined persecutors (Matthew 23:34; Acts 26:11; II Timothy 3:12)
  
• Used of determined runners in a race (Philippians 3:12, 14)
  

“Righteousness” – that which is straight, right, conforming to the character (i.e., the will and Word) of God; esp. obedience to vv. 23-24

“Faith” – consistency, perseverance, and trueness that comes from believing in and conscientiously living in light of the revelation of God’s Word; faith in this passage would be the catalyst of v. 26

“Love” – self-sacrificial, volitional love that acts in the best interest on the object loved, without regard to personal cost; overcomes feeling and is consistent with righteousness and faith; love in this passage would be demonstrated by v. 25

“Peace” – harmony between individuals; peace in this passage would be to live v. 24

Application:  Rather than focusing on what is being denied to me (i.e., youthful lusts), I should focus on what has been graciously granted to me (i.e., righteousness, faith, love, and peace).  I should seek to cultivate these characteristics in my own life. In a sense, all four of these characteristics are the opposite of a “youthful lust.”

• Where a “youthful lust” seeks to undermine God’s will for one’s own timing, “righteousness” submits to God’s Word.
  
• Where “youthful lusts” seek to convince us that God is keeping something from us, “faithfulness” rests in the unchanging character of a loving, gracious Father who promises to richly bless His children; it then responds with steadfastness in its resistance.
  
• While “youthful lusts” would seek to selfishly “get” and “take,” agape “love” seeks to meet the needs of the other without considering the personal cost or sacrifice involved; it understands that “it has no rights.”
  
• And where “youthful lusts” create strife, envy, bitterness, selfishness, and anger, “peace” focuses on allowing the unity of the Spirit to be expressed in every aspect of one’s relationships.

 

I MUST PRAY FOR HELP — "WITH THOSE WHO CALL ON THE LORD FROM A PURE HEART"

“Call” – to invoke for aid; this suggests a true humility and a continuous, active dependence upon a greater power; cf. Hebrews 2:18; 4:15-16

“Lord” – the Master, who according to verse 21 is even our “Despot,” and we are his “slaves”

“Pure” – clean, undefiled, free from mixture with anything that soils or corrupts; blameless, innocent: this is, then, a humble and non-idolatrous attitude

“Heart” – denotes more than an external appropriateness; focuses on one’s inner man (i.e., who He is before God)

Application:  According to 2:1, there is “grace in Christ Jesus.”  But, since God only “gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6-10) I must humble myself and realize my own inability to consistently and righteously flee and pursue.  One manifestation of humility is an earnest, consistent prayer life.  God’s aid must be solicited, and often!

However, I must realize that God will not give grace to those who hypocritically refuse to use it.  My heart must be in keeping with my prayer.  If I ask God to give me His grace to aid me in my fleeing and pursuing, I must do so with confession and commitment, so as to receive that grace.  My heart must be clean before God, and a pure heart is attained by fleeing and pursuing. And so, we have a three-fold chain that will not be broken.  All three activities must be engaged in habitually.

Notice also that there is a mutual, corporate, partnering, accountability component to this activity of sanctifying prayer — I should pray “along with those” who call on the Lord with a pure heart!

 
Truly, then, let us therefore “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” by fleeing, pursuing, and praying. Then, we will be set apart, honorable, useful, and ready for the Master’s service!

A unique look at discipleship from an interesting passage! Learn from God how to disciple and learn from Cain how not to respond to His discipleship.

by Ryon Reasen

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”)?

• Well, this is in the context of Nathan’s rebuke of David’s sin of murder and adultery, in which he reminds David from what high and blessed state he has fallen. See God had promised that the kingdom would be wrested away from Saul (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:26) and given to young, overlooked David, a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Now, that young, overlooked king has become a confident, self-assured, careless ruler, who had allowed his heart to be distracted from devotion to God, the One who had given him such great prosperity (cf. 1 Samuel 18:14).
• So, “Nathan said to David, ‘You are the [guilty] man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight?”’” (1 Samuel 12:7-9a).
• When Nathan states that God gave David his master’s wives, he is simply referencing the common cultural practice of the day in which the succeeding king would inherit everything from his predecessor, including his harem. MacArthur notes, “This phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king, everything that was Saul’s [in fulfillment of his promises to both Saul and David]. There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul’s wives, though the harem of eastern kings passed to their successors.”[ii]
  

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).

• Grammatically, the pronoun “they” in verse 20 refers back to the antecedent (“spirits in prison”) in verse 19 and describes those spirits as “they…[who] did not obey…in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared.” Additionally, while the ESV begins verse 20 with “because,” the Greek word pote is an indication of time and is better translated “when” or “once/formerly” (i.e., the ESV acknowledges this in its note).
• Contextually, 1 Peter 1:10-11 records that the Spirit of Christ was the One speaking through the Old Testament prophets in their messages of salvation and grace, and 2 Peter 2:5 uses the same word for “preach” here (kerusso), when it refers to Noah as a “preacher of righteousness.”
• Concerning the purpose, the NET Bible notes, “These verses encourage Christians [a minority, like in Noah’s day] to stand for righteousness and try to influence their contemporaries for the gospel in spite of the suffering that may come to them. All who identify with them and their Savior will be saved from the coming judgment, just as in Noah’s day.”[i]
  

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.

• See, the ark didn't save Noah, but was the means of His salvation…God saved Noah!
• “Corresponding to that,” baptism doesn’t actually save…Jesus does according to verse 18! Even verse 21 says that “baptism saves...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
• So, like the ark, baptism is the means of salvation in as far as it is an expression of faith. Being an expression of faith is an important and clear interpretation, and is evident by the qualifier, “not as a removal of dirt from the body [which is all that water baptism can do] but as an appeal to God for a good conscience [which only He can give].” It is possible, then, that he isn’t even referring to water baptism, but spiritual baptism (cf. Romans 6:1-4).
• Piper puts it this way, “Baptism is a way of saying to God: ‘I trust you to apply the death of Jesus to me for my sins and to bring me through death and judgment into new and everlasting life through the resurrection of Jesus.’”[v]
  

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.

• “three days and three nights” = In Jewish usage, this and other similar phrases were used for emphasis, not for literal time-keeping. So, it could simply mean a period of time that includes parts of three days (cf. 1 Samuel 30:12-13; 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12; Esther 4:16; 5:1; Luke 13:32 for a similar phrase employed non-literally). “As we count time, three days and three nights points inexorably to three periods of twenty-four hours each; we thus have a problem with the use of this expression for the time between Jesus’ death and resurrection: the period from toward the middle of the day on Friday (when he was crucified) to early on Sunday morning (when he was seen alive) comes short of what we understand by three days and three nights. But the Jews did not reckon as we do: they counted the day on which any period began as one day, and they did the same with the day on which the period ended. Thus we have Friday, Saturday, Sunday, three days; it does not matter that neither the Friday nor the Sunday was complete [fn: The rabbis said, “A day and a night make an ‘Onah and a part of an ‘Onah is as the whole”; and again, “The part of a day is as the whole day” (SBk, I, p. 649).]. According to the method of counting in use at the time, this is the period during which Jesus would be in the heart of the earth.”[i]

• Support = (1) The biblical timeline, as harmoniously recorded in all four gospels, strongly suggests a Friday death/burial and Sunday resurrection. (2) Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Jesus “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (cf. Matthew’s use of this phrase and alteration of it in Matthew 16:21; 27:63). (3) A Thursday evening crucifixion would not solve the problem, for it would still not allow for three 24-hour periods.

[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.