Posted by: thaishin | August 12, 2017

Is the Anti-Christ a homosexual?

Daniel 11

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.  -kjv

37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.  -niv

37 He will not show regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all.  -hcsb

Haggai 2

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.  -kjv

I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty.  -niv

I will shake all the nations so that the treasures of all the nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,” says the Lord of Hosts.  -hcsb

Question from moody radio listener:

I read Daniel 11:37, talking about the Anti-Christ, “He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, could we take it that in today’s context, with the worldwide rise of homosexuality, that Daniel may have give us a glimpse. Is the anti-Christ a homosexual? Moody commentary gave an interpretation, but I wonder if current events would give an additional theory?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

The commentary says that these are the characteristics he will have: he will be temporary successful, he will prosper till the indignation’s finished, he will be irreligious, he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers, he will be opposed to Christ, he will show no regard of the desire of women, a reference to the longing of the Jewish women to give birth to the Messiah, the desire of whom He is the one, a sort of a nominal way of saying that who is the one desired of women, the Lord Jesus the Messiah, that every Jewish women wanted to give birth to the Messiah, that was the desire of women.  In Haggai 2, the Lord Jesus is described in similar way as the desired of the nations.




Posted by: thaishin | August 11, 2017

Why is external wear part of a woman’s christian walk?

Question from moody radio listener on Aug 5, 2017:

Really happy to ask you this question because it’s your Jewish heritage from your perspective. My question is about head covering in Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians and really what my question is was this something that was in Judaism or was it something that was new or was it a practice that was neglected but more importantly what really troubles me is why would Paul call for an external practice such as something you wear to be part of a woman’s Christian walk?

Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik:

Good. That’s a really good question. 1 Corinthians 11 really begins with the structure of authority, the authority listed this way: I want you to know that Christ is the head or ruler of every man and the man is the ruler (this not talking about every man being a ruler of woman but it’s talking about male leadership in the local congregation), the head or the male is the ruler of the woman, so there is male leadership (just like what 1 Timothy 2 is talking about) and then it says God is the ruler of Christ.  They are fully equal in essence just like man and woman are fully equal but God the Father has functional authority over Christ. In essence, who they are, fully equal, co-members of the God head but the Lord Jesus says I’ve come not to do my will but the will of the one who sent me, always submissive to the Father’s will, that’s in John 6. What this is saying is God the Father is the authority, the functional authority over Christ, just as man in the local congregation is the functional authority over the woman in the congregation, just as Christ is the authority, the functional authority over man. That I believe, because of that essence over there, that doesn’t change in this passage. But one of the things in that culture and in that day, the way a woman show respect for authority, on God’s authority on her life, one of the ways that she dress modestly in worship is by wearing a head covering, a veil. Now, that’s true for Jewish people but also true in the gentile world of Corinth that woman respect and honor by wearing a head covering, to show their modesty. Now, today, people say what do we do with this? The system remains intact. The functional authority of God the Father over God the Son, of God the Son over the man and the man over the woman, the function and leadership of the congregation, that remains the same. How woman expresses her submission to that authority is still with modest dress, of course today, being veiled,  wouldn’t express that. So what we have to do today is to find other ways that woman can dress modestly, fashionably if they like, but modestly, so that they are respectful of the authority structure in the congregation.  It’s one of the reasons why I don’t believe woman don’t have to wear veils today because that wouldn’t reflect that modesty and that respect that’s required but woman do need to dress modestly to reflect that respect. So, today there are other ways that woman can find to dress modestly without wearing a head covering.

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.


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.



Older Posts »