Posted by: thaishin | May 6, 2017

Is there anything lacking in Christ afflictions?

Passage to be considered:

Colossians 1

24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:  -kjv

24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.  -niv

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for His body, that is, the church.  -hcsb

Question from moody radio listener on April 8, 2017:

There’s a verse colossians 1:24 and I have an amplified bible and it says:

24 [Even] now I rejoice in the midst of my sufferings on your behalf. And in my own person I am making up whatever is still lacking and remains to be completed [on our part] of Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the church.

Can you shed some light on that? I mean I feel that Jesus did it all, you know and what is Paul talking about?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

The word that is used here for affliction is never used in the new testament of the Messiah’s death. Never. It means distress, it means pressure or trouble and it refers to trials in life. I don’t believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his passion has to be supplemented by anything but rather I think it has more to do with … do you remember when the Lord Jesus meets Paul on the road and he said why do you persecute me? Paul was not persecuting Jesus, he was persecuting His body but yet it was taken personally because we have this organic bond as from the body to the head and so as we suffers, he suffers, it’s not his suffering on our behalf was not complete, that’s a different word but it completes the man of suffering so to speak as described in Isaiah 53, acquainted with grief, it is part of his identification with humanity and as we suffer, we identify with him in doing that and that’s what we are talking about. It’s not talking about we somehow supplement the substitionary suffering and the passion of the Lord Jesus on our behalf. It’s a different idea, it’s more of the affliction of life, in this world we will have tribulation and we have the organic bond with him and we are connected as a body to the head, therefore he suffers with us.

 

 

Posted by: thaishin | April 16, 2017

Happy Resurrection Sunday!

Christ is risen!

Posted by: thaishin | April 14, 2017

Where did baptism come from?

Question from moody radio listener on openline on April 8, 2015:

I want to know where baptism came from? It’s not mentioned in the old testament as far as I know and then new testament starts with John the Baptist baptizing.  So where did baptism come from?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

It’s really simple. If you go to Leviticus, you see all these washings, like the priestly washings and purity washings, that’s the source of baptism. By the time you come to the intertestamental period,  the rabbis have established all kinds of ritual baths that people participated in and there are a variety of reasons, there are some for converts to Judaism, the ritual purity for women after their monthly cycle, men with all sorts of symbol cleansing from sin, there are all kinds like the high priest would undergo ritual washing to enter into his office, all sorts of ritual washings that are rooted in the book of Leviticus, Numbers and all sorts of places like that. That’s where it comes from and so when John the Baptist shows up and he’s baptizing, no one says hmm what’s he doing? It fully fits the culture of the day. They understood exactly where it is coming from. It develops from the pentateuch, goes into intertestamental period with all the  rabbinic washings and then we get new testamental washings that are just part of the culture on that day and time and then John the Baptist and then the Lord Jesus gives it its own special believing significance. Hope that helps.

Posted by: thaishin | April 14, 2017

His nail scarred hands will still be visible to us

Remembering Good Friday April 14, 2017

 

Posted by: thaishin | March 31, 2017

Were there more than two criminals?

Matthew 27

38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.  -kjv

Matthew 27

44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.  -kjv

Question from moody radio listener on Mar 25, 2017 on openline:

Could you help me understand regards to the passages that referred to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus? Matthew, Mark implied that multiple criminals taunted Jesus. In Luke’s account, one of the criminals acknowledged who Jesus was and rebuked the other one. Could there have been more than just two? Normally, we just assumed there have been three of them, two criminals, one who believed and one who did not and Jesus in the middle. Could there have been more criminals crucified who would have been taunting Jesus?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik and his wife Eva Rydelnik.

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

I don’t think there were just Jesus and the two criminals there. When the Romans executed people, they did a whole bunch. Probably there were more people taunting Jesus than just the two there. It appears that what you have in Luke is one of those who were there being crucified with the Lord Jesus, he’s the one who repents and that’s the one whom Jesus says “this day you will be with me in Paradise” and there’s probably a wide street where many people were being crucified for a variety of reasons. The word that is used here for thiefs is better rebels, these were probably …

Eva Rydelnik:

They were zealots against Rome. They were political activist against Rome, which is why one of the charges against Jesus which led to him being crucified was …

Dr Michael Rydelnik :

The king of the Jews trying to bring down the Romans.

Eva Rydelnik:

They use a political accusation against him.

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

So they were people who were involved in revolt against Rome.

Eva Rydelnik:

In Matthew 27:44, it just say the robbers who were crucified with him were insulting him but it doesn’t say they were dissidents. In verse 38, it says at that time, two robbers were crucified with him. One on the right, one on the left, so in verse 38, it says there were two, in verse 44, it says the robbers. The fact that there were two does not limit that there was only two.

Posted by: thaishin | March 24, 2017

How does God relate to His people?

Question from moody radio listener on openline on March 18, 2017:

In Leviticus, it seems that God is continually telling the Israelites that if they do positive things toward Him, then they will be blessed and if they lived wrongly, they will be punished. Is that how God related to His people back then and is that how He relates to His people now?

Answer from Michael Rydelnik and Larry Feldman:

Michael Rydelnik:

I think there was a general principle, back in the days with the Law of Moses, Deutronomy 28 to 30, Leviticus 26. It taught that God blesses His people for obedience, and He will discipline them, not punish them, for lack of obedience.  I think that was the general principle but even in the days when Israel was living in the land, at that time, they still struggled because they saw that there were times when it wasn’t quite working out that way. The premise that the writer Asaph has, in Psalms 73, is God is indeed good to Israel, to the pure in heart. He says that God is going to bless them who are pure in heart but then he says as for me, my feet almost slipped, my steps nearly went astray and then He starts talking about the prosperity of the wicked.Then he says, wait a minute, it’s not going like I thought, here the wicked are prospering and I am suffering. The basic principle is God blesses those who are obedient, disciplines those who are disobedient but sometimes, God allows difficulties into the lives of those who are obedient so that we can become more obedient.

Larry Feldman:

I think also sometimes people also lose sight of the fact of the fact that God made an unconditional covenant through David and the new covenant in Jeremiah 31, he makes many an Abraham but they forget that the Mosiac covenant is a conditional covenant. God says that as long as you are obeying and walking with me, I will bless you. If you get out of line, God has grace but He will discipline their disobedience and we see that thoughout Israel’s history.

Michael Rydelnik:

Yeah, you look at Hebrews 11:32 to 40, you talk about believers who are faithful, it talks about some people who had great victories like Gideon and Barack and all those but others suffered extremely, many of whom the world are not worthy. I would say we can’t play hard and fast that this will always be, we don’t know the mind of God.

 

Posted by: thaishin | March 12, 2017

Who is Nabonidus?

Question from moody radio listener on Mar 11, 2016?

Nabonidus? Belshazzar? Nebuchadnezzar? Nabonidus, where does he fit in as far as heritage as is concerned, grandfather? father? I am studying this a lot and I am just baffled by it.

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

There is nothing to be that baffled about, Nabonidus is the son of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who is mentioned in Daniel 5, is his son, so some people say that the king should have been Nabonidus but in scripture, it says to be Belshazzar, what we know now is that Belshazzar is co-regent with Nabonidus and that’s why in Daniel 5, he says anyone who can interpret the handwriting on the wall will receive a third of my kingdom, could not give half because he had half and basically was co-regent with his father, Nabonidus. So, even though Nabonidus is not mentioned, but Belshazzar, his co-regent was and then Daniel interprets the hand writing on the wall. So, does that make sense to you?

Moody Radio listener:

It becomes very confusing, Amel-Marduk is Nebuchadnezzar’s son and then Nabonidus, I can’t figure where he’s at?

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

He is the king who came third after Nebuchadnezzar.

 

 

Passages to be considered:

Psalms 103

12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.  -kjv

1 Corinthians 3

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

-kjv

2 Corinthians 5

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.  -kjv

Question from moody radio listener on March 4, 2017:

My question is as we talk about repentance and asking for forgiveness of our sins, I am not sure where it is written but it says that as we repent, our sins are forgotten as far as the east is from the west, but then it also talks about how we would also stand in judgement. So, I am kind of confused on if I repent and I am aware of my sins, I assume that it is kind of immediate and my sins are forgiven and forgotten but then, still standing in judgement makes me think that maybe my sins are not forgotten as far as the east is from the west. It does not make sense.

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik :

You know the question is when God says that our sins are forgiven as far as the east is from the west, it says that in Psalms 103:12. This idea that God removes our sins is that when we are forgiven, it removes the penalty of sin. So, when it comes to penalty, when we stand before God, we are never going to be punished for the sins that we have committed because He has forgotten them in a sense that He has truly forgiven us. Now, the thing is God is omniscient, so He can choose to forget those sins, even as I would say when it comes to punishment. On the other hand, he is omniscient, so he still will know our sins. There’s no question that He knows that because He knows all things and the bible does say that one day we are going to stand before the judgement seat of Messiah. That is not about the penalty of sin, that has to do with rewards. There’s a  couple of passages that kind of direct us that way. In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, it compares the things that we do in this life, our work to either wood, hay, straw or gold and silver and precious metals and jewels. If any one’s work survives the fire, he will receive a reward. If any one’s work is burnt up, it will be lost. Now, this is not really talking about sins, what is it talking about? That which we do to serve God. Some of us are doing stuffs for all sorts of reason. I am often concerned of my own motives in serving God, just want to be sure that I am doing this to serve Him, not to try to draw attention to myself. We don’t always know our motives but I am hoping, praying, longing to do any service with the Lord with the right motive. It that work is burnt up and that’s possible, we will be lost but in the last verse 15, he will be saved. I like the NASB puts it, yet he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. All our works will be burnt up but we will still be saved. So, it’s not a loss of salvation, it’s not God restoring the penalty for sin, he doesn’t but there will be a loss of reward, that’s what’s that talking about.  And then 2 Corinthians 5 describes that as the judgement seat of Messiah, where we stand at the bema seat and He determines what rewards we will receive. At the end of it all, even if we receive those rewards, we will toss them at His feet and says He deserves them all.

 

 

Posted by: thaishin | March 3, 2017

Is Jesus a lesser God?

Passages to be considered:

John 14

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.  -kjv

John 6

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  -kjv

1 Corinthians 11

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  -kjv

Question from moody radio listener on openline program on February 18, 2017:

I am doing a bible study in John and in John 14:28 towards the end of that verse, Jesus says the Father is greater than I, in that discussion on John, we are also talking about the trinity and how there is only one God and He has existed eternally as three distinct persons, each fully and equally God. So, I am trying to reconcile those two different statements there.

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

People who held views like the Arians and even various religious groups today argue from the statement that the Father is greater than I that somehow that Jesus is less than God or a lesser God, that somehow he is a created being, that is clearly not true. The Father and Son have the same essence. So what does it mean that the Father is greater than I? I think one of the clues to that is found in John 6 (actually John 6:37 to 40 is one of my favourite passages because it is really one of the great assurance passages for the believer), if you look at verse 38, what it is saying is the Lord Jesus submits his will to his Father. So, when the Lord Jesus says the Father is greater than the Son, what he is saying is greater in authority and it’s only because of the relational aspect in the Godhead, the Son is submissive to the Father, and it is not because in essence one is greater than the other but it’s sort of a functional relationship, functional greatness, not essential greatness. It is in function the Father is greater, some of you say that the Father is greater in office or greater in glory but the Son was humbled or taking the form of the man but in my understanding in the gospel of John, you go right to the beginning in John 1, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and then it says the Word became flesh. So it is saying the Father and Son are equal in essence but different in function. The Father is the one the Son submits to for He has greater authority, it’s just a functional difference, not an essential difference.

Listener:

So, in the functional difference, there’s an order and in essence, there’s equality?

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

There’s a  verse in 1 Corinthians 11 that I think it’s kind of helpful in seeing that. In terms of male, female relationships in 1 Corinthians 11:3. That’s talking about male leadership in the congregation and so the male elders  in the congregation is the head of women but essentially male and women in essence are equal before God but in function, there’s different function between men and women and the reason we see rather clearly in this passage because it says God is the head (speaking of the Father) of the Messiah, Christ the Son, well it does not mean He is greater in essence but just in function, just as men and women have equal essence but different function.

Listener:

See that makes a great example. I didn’t know it is partly because when Jesus became flesh, he lowered himself.

Dr Michael Rydelnik:

Yeah, that’s part of it, it’s the humbling of the Messiah, somebody called it the humiliation of the Messiah, that’s part of the reason for the Father has a greater authority than the Son and the Son humbling himself and obeying the Father’s will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: thaishin | February 17, 2017

Timothy and circumcision

Question from moody radio listener on Chris Fabry Live on February 17, 2017

I am currently teaching the book of Acts in our home bible study. And we just did the Jerusalem Council in Acts Chapter 15 and when we did that, we went through the Chalcedon Creed, the Nicene Creed and I taught the next week on Acts chapter 16 and I don’t understand why Paul chose to circumcise Timothy when the Jerusalem Creed was so clear in its teaching that circumcision was not being the issue.

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

That’s very good reading and a very good question. The circumcision of Timothy showed that the decision by the Jerusalem Council was limited to Gentiles not being circumcised, not Jews. Timothy’s mother was Jewish and so Timothy should have be circumcised as an outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, which continues by the way, requiring Timothy to submit to circumcision. Paul avoided offending Jewish people for the purpose of ministry and recognized the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant for Jewish believer. In Acts 15, the limitation there is Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised or convert to Judaism before they can become follower of Jesus.

Older Posts »

Categories