Would You Please Explain Romans 9:18?

Would you please explain Romans 9:18?

Romans 9:18 states, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” The context of this particular passage is in the midst of Paul’s expressed desire for the salvation of the Jewish people. He says in Romans 9:3, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Paul wanted them to be saved and he wished that this could be done even if it meant he himself being forever cursed. However, that was not God’s will for salvation. As such, it is up to God as to how men are going to be saved. This is the discussion that he enters into in this particular chapter.

Notice he says in verse 6, “not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.” The word of God had indeed said that Israel was going to be saved. Paul makes note of this in Romans 11:26, 27. However, who is Israel? He says in Romans 9:6, 7. Those who are of the seed of Abraham are the TRUE Israel–spiritual Israel. He explains this in verse 8 that just because one is the child of Abraham in the flesh doesn’t mean that he is the child of Abraham according to promise. Those are two different things. Who are the children of promise according to Galatians 3:16? “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Christ is the seed through which all nations would be blessed. So if the Jews in the time of Paul wanted to be saved, they must be saved through Christ, just as the Gentiles must be saved.

Paul says that this is illustrated through the cases of the birth of Isaac and Jacob. Both of these children were born as a result of promise, not as a result of lineage. That is, God promised that Abraham would have a son. Isaac was born through that promise. God also promised that Jacob would be the head of the house over Esau and Jacob became the child of blessing. It was through the promise of God that these things happened, not because of lineage. The Jewish people of that day believed that they would be saved based merely upon being the offspring of Abraham. They believed that their salvation was in their physical lineage. But Paul makes it clear that this was not the case. It is not lineage, but promise that affords one’s salvation.

Paul then takes up in verse 14 the hypothetical objection that God might be unrighteous because some have thought that they ought to be saved on account of the lineage. After all, this is what they understood God to be promising. But Paul answers this by showing that just because these Jews had this understand of God�s promise does not necessarily imply that God is unrighteous. This is where the verse that we take up comes under consideration. Paul cites Exodus 33:19. He says that God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. What does this mean? It means that God is sovereign. It means that God is ultimately the one who decides what he means, not us. We must listen to His word and do His will in order to be saved. The result is that those who are saved will not be saved of their own power (Romans 10:2, 3), but by the power of God and the will of God (Romans 1:16, 17). He is the one to whom we must submit if we are going to have salvation in our life. This is true for the Jew as well as the Gentile. Paul uses Pharaoh as an example in this regard. Was Pharaoh lost because it was God’s will that Pharaoh be lost? No, but because Pharaoh made the choice not to serve God and be obedient to him. God knew that when he put Pharaoh in the circumstance that he did, that Pharaoh would choose the way he did; so the scripture says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. But Pharaoh chose his own destiny. It is through that means that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. Hence, God has mercy upon whom he will and hardeneth whom he will.

This mercy and hardening is not done merely through some arbitrary decision that God makes. It is always just; it is always righteous; it is always in keeping with the decisions that men make, but it is based upon God’s will first and if we turn against God’s will, then God hardens us. If we accept God’s will, then God has mercy upon us. This is exactly the situation that the Jewish people were in during the time that Paul wrote the book of Romans. So within the context, the statement means that God has mercy upon whom he will and those whom he has willed to have mercy are those who accept the gospel. God will harden whom he will and those who he has hardened are those who have refused to accept the gospel.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Would You Please Explain Romans 9:18?

What Day is the First Day of the Week?

Who decides what day is the first day of the week? If the first day of the week somewhere else is not Sunday, what day do they worship upon?

God has decided what the first day of the week is by deciding what the seventh day of the week is. That is, the first day of the week is defined in terms of the seventh day. We are familiar with the creation account in Genesis 1 that says that God made everything in six days and He rested upon the seventh day. That seventh day then became the Sabbath day of Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” The Sabbath day is Saturday. So the first day of the week must be Sunday as it is the day after the Sabbath. God is the one who decides what the first day of the week is.

The second question is a little more difficult. First let me say that I cannot think of a non-hypothetical situation where we wouldn’t know what the first day of the week is. Today, the daily calendar is pretty much set worldwide. International travel has pretty much set the standard in every single country in the world. So, the second part of this question can only be answered hypothetically. Let’s suppose that we were shipwrecked on a desert island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Having been washed up on shore and been unconscious for several days, we have completely lost track of the day of the week. As soon as we wake up, we wander inland and find a church building with a lifetime supply of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, so we determine that we are going to worship God. How are we going to determine which day is Sunday? Genesis 1:14 says, “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” So, using the information from the sun, moon, and stars, we should be able to determine which day is Sunday. Astronomers are able to do this today and if we ever get into such a situation, it might take some time, but we could eventually figure it out. I guess the bottom line is that we are always going to be able to determine which day is Sunday one way or the other. Currently, there are not any places that I know of where the first day of the week is not Sunday.

We should note that we are privileged in our society to have the first day of the week off from labor. In the time of the early Christians it was not so. The Jews took off Saturday to observe the Sabbath, but the first day of the week was a working day. The gentile world knew nothing of days off and if you were a slave, you would be lucky to get a decent night’s sleep. Early Christians sometimes met in the evenings after the work day was finished. The best example of this in the New Testament is in Acts 20:7-12. Paul met with the disciples in the evening. Poor Eutychus probably had just gotten off of a hard days work and sitting in that upper room with all of those oily candles burning made him sleepy. So he sat in the cool of the window probably to try and stay awake. However, it just was not enough. Fortunately, Paul was there to bring him back to life. We are indeed fortunate to have buildings, padded pews, incandescent and fluorescent lighting, heaters, and air conditioners. We are also fortunate to have the first day of the week off from our labors. Such has not always been the case for Christians.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What Day is the First Day of the Week?

What does “my judgment” mean in 1 Corinthians 7:25 and 40?

Please explain the phrase, “my judgment” in 1 Corinthians 7:25 and 40. How could Paul be giving his opinion and also be inspired of God?

Some translations (such as the NASV) render the word judgment in this passage as “opinion.” There are others as well. Most speak of this “judgment.” But whether we use the word “judgment” or “opinion,” we are basically faced with the same question. Was Paul giving personal advice to these Corinthians? Was Paul stating his opinion? And if so, how can that be inspired of God?

In order to correctly understand God’s word, one of the things that we need to remember is that there are several recorded statements in the Bible of uninspired people. For example, when Satan said to Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die,” it was a lie. Note also that in Matthew 4:1-11 we find Satan tempting Jesus and uttering words. These are the words of Satan. Are they inspired? These lies that Satan spoke are recorded in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean that just because it is recorded in the Bible that the statement itself is true. It is recorded that Satan spoke it; that is, the fact of his making the statement is true and we can be sure of that, but the statements themselves are falsehoods spoken by Satan. So for something to be inspired doesn’t guarantee the truthfulness of quoted statements of others within the Bible. Inspiration merely guarantees the truthfulness that those statements were spoken by the person the Bible claimed to speak.

Similarly, sometimes in the Bible, we find opinions given by men. For example, in the case of Paul’s trial before Agrippa, Agrippa thought that Paul should have been set free (Acts 26:32). That was certainly Agrippa’s opinion, but it is recorded for us in the scriptures. Acts 26:32 is inspired in that it portrays an accurate representation of Agrippa’s opinion. We are guaranteed by God that these were the historical words that Agrippa said. However, the words that Agrippa spoke himself were not inspired words in and of themselves. The same could be said of Pilate and Festus as well.

The case with 1 Cor.7 is a little more difficult, because we are dealing with an inspired apostle. The weight of the opinion of an apostle is heavy. But, nevertheless, Paul said that he was speaking in matters of his own personal judgment. So we must respect that fact. It is guaranteed by inspiration to be a true representation of Paul’s own personal judgment. Paul was addressing a special situation in which the people of that time were under
“distress” (vs. 26). It is due to that distress that Paul gives his own opinion on how to deal with the question of marriage. The question as to whether to marry or not is ultimately always a judgment call. There is no biblical requirement to be married. So Paul is simply saying in this passage, “since we have some persecution going on, it would be better to
remain unmarried during this time as opposed to getting married and consequently facing the prospect of seeing your mate tortured.” So, did Paul give his opinion? Yes he did. Is this passage of scripture inspired? Yes, it is. It is inspired in the sense that we are guaranteed to have Paul’s opinion on this matter. Would that opinion be binding upon us today? If we were in similar circumstances then we would do well to heed his advice. However, we note that even in this context Paul says that it is better to marry than to burn (with passion) (1 Corinthians 7:9). So the context clearly indicates that we are dealing with Paul’s own personal opinion and advice, given the situation of persecution that was upon the church.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What does “my judgment” mean in 1 Corinthians 7:25 and 40?

What is Speaking in Tongues?

What is speaking in tongues?

First let’s look at Mark 16:17-20. In this passage, Jesus tells the disciples that they would do many signs. Verse 20 says that these signs were for the purpose of confirming the word which they preached to those who heard them. One of the signs that Jesus promised they would be able to do was to speak in new tongues. What do we find in the scriptures regarding this aspect of early Christianity?

First, the Bible teaches that speaking in tongues is merely speaking in another human language. Acts 2:1-12 is the perfect example. There, the apostles miraculously spoke in languages that other people could understand. That was the point of speaking in tongues. The gospel was young and there were many who needed to hear it. To get the gospel to the most people in a short period of time, the disciples were given the miraculous ability to speak in other human languages. These were languages previously unknown to the speaker. They were given so that there would be no cross-cultural language barrier in preaching and teaching the gospel. Those who have been to foreign countries where they speak a different language know how difficult it is to communicate. It is even more difficult when trying to communicate religious concepts. So the Lord promised the disciples that He would help in this area. Notice what 1 Corinthians 14:21 says, “In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.” This verse definitively states that it is with tongues of men that they spoke. We should allow it to settle the question.

Second, we find that speaking in tongues was generally abused by the church. We have a lot of detailed information on speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14. One of the truths contained within this passage is that tongues were going to be done away (1 Corinthians 13:8). Speaking in tongues was never intended to be a permanent part of the religion of Christ. The point Paul makes was that in exercising the gift of tongues, the abusers of this gift were not using the gift in the spirit with which the gift was intended. They were not practicing it in love. They were practicing it when an interpreter was not present so the message of the gift was not being understood. The most pertinent point regarding tongues is made in 1 Corinthians 14:22 which says, “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.” Tongues were a sign for the unbeliever. They were supposed to be a help to the stranger who didn’t know the gospel so that the gospel could be preached to them. Tongues were never intended to be for the believers. That’s what prophecy is for (1 Corinthians 14:1).

Do we have the gift of tongues today? No. We noticed that they were going to be done away in 1 Corinthians 13:8. So what about all of those people who claim to speak in tongues today? Here is the problem with modern day tongue speakers. 1) They don’t speak in human languages; they speak in alleged “angelic” tongues, so there is no way to confirm whether they are truly speaking another language or not. 2) The tongues that they speak in, they speak for their own edification, not for unbelievers. 3) They don’t speak in tongues to prove what they say is true. Here are at least three things in which the Bible contradicts modern day tongue speakers.

Now, what about those “angelic” tongues? Is there any authority for speaking in “angelic” tongues based upon 1 Corinthians 13:1? The “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is first and foremost hypothetical. Paul�s point is this: even if I could speak with the tongues of angels, it would do me no good if I didn’t have love. We should not assume from this verse that there was some sort of angelic tongue that the early church spoke. In fact, given what we have already studied on the subject, it would be inconsistent to claim such. Another possibility is that Paul is using the Greek word “angelos” in the sense of “messenger.” In other words he is discussing the tongues of “messengers.” This might be someone who could speak in multiple languages. The official diplomatic messengers of the day spoke in numerous languages in order to communicate from one part of the Roman Empire to the other. We also note the languages spoken on the day of Pentecost. There would, no doubt be more, in the extent of the Roman Empire. An official messenger would need to be fluent in several to communicate official messages. This is at least one possibility other than some kind of heavenly angelic language.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What is Speaking in Tongues?

Where’s the List?

The other day I was having a conversation with someone who was, in essence, asking for a list of things that were right and wrong for Christians to do. His contention was that since we believe that we must be obedient to God and live a life that is holy and pure that therefore, we must have a detailed list of things that were right and wrong, so that we wouldn’t make any mistakes and know precisely how to be obedient. Does the Christian need such a list in order to live right and be holy? Does obedience to God’s word demand such a list of things?

The first thing that we ought to consider in this regard is that God has indeed communicated to us things that are right and wrong in the Bible. But the Bible isn’t a right-and-wrong-list. The Bible records the history of God’s dealings with man. Within that history God reveals to us how we can live in a way that is pleasing to Him by giving us various different methods of comprehending right and wrong besides a list. As God records his history with man we find attitudes and motives, emotions and desires, and actions and consequences. By dealing with the whole of man’s situation instead of simply providing man a “laundry list,” God teaches us how to know good and reject evil. God often does this through examples of people, both good and bad, who had a relationship with God of one kind or the other. Through these examples, God exhorts us to follow the good (1 Corinthians 11:1) and shun the bad. The Bible’s central character, Jesus, provides us an example of how to live a perfectly obedient life and we, as Christians, are expected to follow Jesus’ example (2 Peter 2:21). In this way God gives us everything that we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3) and for the man of God to be completely furnished to every good work (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). We don’t need a comprehensive right-and-wrong-list in order to be pleasing to God.

Now, having said that, the Bible does have some lists of things that are right and wrong. These lists are found in various places in the Bible. Jesus gives us a good start on what is right and wrong in the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7. Paul lists several things that are sinful in the first chapter of the book of Romans. He then lists several things that are good in Romans 12. Galatians 5 contains two lists, one good, the fruit of the spirit, and one bad, the works of the flesh. Peter sets forth the Christian graces (good things) in 2 Peter 1:5-7 and then he enumerates several evil things in 2 Peter 2. Here are at least a few places where lists of both good and bad things are present in the Bible. For us to not do the good things (otherwise known as the sin of omission, James 4:17) or for us to practice the bad things (committing sin, 1 John 3:4) is to be guilty of that which is wrong and when we so act (or fail to act, as the case may be) we disobey God.

In contrast, sometimes God simply states a principle upon which he expects us to discern the right from the wrong. For example, the Bible clearly teaches that God’s people are to maintain self-control in their life (Titus 2:12, 1 Peter 1:13). If we understand what that means, then that excludes a lot of behavior that would be classified as not having self-control (such as doing drugs, gambling, and pornography, none of which are specifically forbidden in the Bible). The Bible also tells us that we need to have the attitude of humility (Matthew 18:4, James 4:10). If we have this attitude, then that attitude will exclude a lot of behavior that is arrogant and rude in nature (such as inappropriate gestures, language, or behavior). God uses principles to guide our behavior from a higher altitude than the “thou shalt nots” and we must respect those principles by understanding and adhering to them. Using principles, God doesn’t have to spell everything out for us; He expects us to be spiritually mature and make appropriate judgments concerning what is right and wrong (Hebrews 5:13, 14).

Finally, our attitude itself has much to do with whether or not we are going to live obediently. This is why the first commandment has always been to love God with all of one’s heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37). When we love God we will desire to keep his commandments and those commandments will not be grievous (1 John 5:3). We won’t see them as burdensome, but rather, as the response of a heart that loves God. The person who loves God doesn’t need a right-and-wrong-list; he knows, through diligent study of God’s word, how God wants us to live and his good attitude ensures that he lives that way. No, God’s requirement of our obedience doesn’t require that we have a comprehensive right-and-wrong-list. It simply requires that we love God.

If we were to, on our own, develop a list of things that are right and wrong and then require adherence to such a list from Christians throughout the world, then that would, in essence, be contravening the purpose of God’s word itself. Why? Because God gave us his word to fulfill this exact purpose, namely, to teach us right from wrong. As has been stated by others, there’s only three possible conclusions regarding any religious documents external to the scripture upon which someone basis one’s faith: it’s either something more than God’s word, in which case we don’t need it because we’re not to add to God’s word; it’s something less than God’s word in which case we don’t need it because we’re not to take away from God’s word, or it’s the same as God’s word in which case we don’t need it because we already have God’s word. God’s word is all that we need in order to know what is right and wrong (2 Peter 1:3). God’s word is all that we need to be his people (2 Timothy 3:16,17). And as God’s word, the Bible, “as is,” is wholly sufficient to meet our needs to know right from wrong and to obey it.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Where’s the List?