you have asked

The answers will be posted with the most current ones at the head of this page.

QUESTION #10 From Barbara 3/20/02
What is the justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites?

Deuteronomy 20:16-18: Comments on the slaughter of the Canaanites

 QUESTION #9 From Bill 3/14/02

bh>I recently heard a tape of Dr. J Veron McGee. He was asked the question is Israel's current possession of Israel fulfillment of God's promise to them. His answer was no and he based this on statements from Dr. Dwight D.Penecost but could not remember the text. He said it is based on the last parts of Isaiah.
Do you have any knowledge of this.<

Israel is back in her land in UNBELIEF, which is a fulfillment of OT prophecy, but it is not the FINAL gathering in BLESSING that is also prophesied. whether Israel will now ever LEAVE the land or not is not an issue. They are there and they are being oppressed, and have no real security, and there is not fulfillment of the language found in MANY passages throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah and some of the minor prophets.

See Chapter: The Re-gathering of Israel

Concerning the last two chapters of Isaiah, there is language there that is not fulfilled at the present time.

See commentary on these two chapters

And Ezekiel 38-39 have not been fulfilled
And the kingdom passages of Ezekiel 43-48 have not been fulfilled.


QUESTION #8 (3/01/02)

Does the title, Jew, refer only to a member of the tribe of Judah or does it refer to the entire nation of Israel?


During and after the Babylonian Captivity of 605 to 636 BC, since the people of the Northern kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) had been mingled with the people of the Southern kingdom of Judah, there was only ONE nation. Since after the captivity this nation was centered in Judah, the people became known as Jews. But this term applied to ANYONE of any tribe who was an Israelite.

1. Jer. 34:8-10, The term Hebrew is equated with the term Jew. (587 BC)
At Acts 26:7, Paul associates the term Jew, with the 12 tribes.

2. In Esther, the term Jew(s) refers to a member of the nation of Judah, which was comprised of people from all the tribes. Ezra 2:70, all Israel.
2 Chron. 36:23, "whoever there is among you of ALL HIS PEOPLE."

2 Chron. 34:5-6, 33; 35:18

A. Concerning Israel/Ephraim: Hosea 11:11

"They will come trembling like birds from Egypt, And like doves from the land of Assyria; And I will settle them in their houses, declares the LORD."

B. 1 Chron. 9:2-3,

"Now the first who lived in their possessions in their cities {were} Israel, the priests, the Levites and the temple servants.

And some of the sons of Judah, of the sons of Benjamin, and of the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh lived in Jerusalem."

C. Ezra

2:1, people of Israel
2:28, Bethel and Ai (Northern kingdom cities)
2:70, All Israel in their cities.
3:1, Now, no designation of Southern Kingdom and no king.
6:16-22, the feast of unleavened bread - sons of Israel.
7:6-7, 13; Sons of the people of Israel

D. Post-captivity status = one nation

1. Zech. 8:9-13
2. Malachi 1:1; 2:11 (3:4-6 = all 12 tribes).

E. Thus, a person could BECOME a jew, by becoming a member of the nation and basically accepting the religious practices of the NATION. Esther 8:17

3. Jew is used in John and Acts to refer to a member of the nation and not specifically a member of the tribe of Judah.
John 3:25; 4:9; 18:35; Acts 10:28; 18:2; 19:34; 21:39; 22:3

4. Romans 3:1-2, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
This has to refer to the people of Israel, for ALL the tribes were given the law at Sinai.

5. The comparison in Paul's theology is between Jew and Gentile (Greek), not Jew, Israelite and Gentile. This is because Israelite and Jew were synonymous. Rom. 1:16; 2:9;10:12; Gal. 2:14; 3:28; Col. 3:11

6. The adjective, "Jewish" is used in John to refer to that which pertains to the nation of Israel. John 2:6; 19:42; Acts 12;11; 16:1; 19:13-14;

7. Christ's title: the King of the Jews. He is king of all Israel, not just those from Judah.

8. Other documentation:

A. Unger's Bible Dictionary: page588
B. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE, original edition) page 1675.

QUESTION #7 from Larry

lw>Can you show me scripturally that "lying" to protect oneself in a hostile/violent situation such as being a POW or the unfortunate victim of a criminal break in and takeover is right or wrong? If someone breaks in my home and wants to know where my wife and kid's are, would I not be morally justified in this case to lie about there whereabouts, in order, of course, to protect them?<<


Lying is a type of verbal sin - category DECEPTION.
It is done usually for self-protection, but sometimes for the protection of others.
But in all cases it is always a HUMAN VIEWPOINT attempt to solve a difficult situation instead of using DIVINE VIEWPOINT and trusting in God's perfect TIMING, WISDOM and PLAN.
I don't think that one REALLY needs to DEFINE lying, we all know what it is, but we do need to understand what CONSTITUTES lying.
Lying is ANY misstatement of facts no matter how MINOR in the mind of the speaker.
So-called "white lies" are still lies. Even EXAGERATIONS are lies.

Key passages on lying: Proverbs 6:16-19 (notice both lying tongue and false witness are mentioned here); 12:22; Ephesians 4:25; Col. 3:9
Bearing false witness is included: Exodus 20:16

However, while lying is deception. SILENCE is not deception.
When someone asks you for information you do not want to divulge - KEEP SILENT.

Comments on Rahab's lie: James 2:25
Rahab's demonstration of righteousness was through the function of faith AFTER she had accepted Yahweh as her God. She trusted in Him, knowing a little bit about His plan and making a value decision based on those facts. She was NOT justified by lying later, for lying always was and always will be a sin, but she was justified PRIOR TO the lie when she made the decision to help the spies. Her deficiency in growth hindered her consistent expression of faith, and the lie was simply a human viewpoint attempt to "assist" God in that which He needed no assistance.

Later, she would be taught to deal with personal sins and failures in application of truth to every area of her life. She was victorious when she made the decision to help the spies but she sinned when she failed to extend her faith just a little bit further.

The preservation of life is in God's hands; He is in control. The consistent maintenance of INTEGRITY allows God to get the glory instead of your own imaginative human viewpoint attempt to do God's work for Him. One certainly does not need to TELL where people are or divulge sensitive, important or compromising information, BUT one does not need to FALSIFY - unless of course one's intent is to PROTECT self or others from harm - which, as I suggest, takes the handling of the situation out of God's hands.

A PERFECT example that involves something other than lying is what happened with Shad, Me and Abed at Daniel 3. Neb wanted them to bow down to the idol image or else be thrown into the furnace of fire. Their answer is CLASSIC and applies to many different situations. Daniel 3:16-18 (NASB)

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be {so,} our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But {even} if {He does} not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."

BUT LET IT BE KNOWN that I will not compromise my integrity no matter what threats you make toward me or mine.

QUESTION #6 from Keith via email

KE>Titus 2:11 seems to say that the grace sufficient for salvation has appeared to all men. What exactly does this mean? Please expound on these verses liberally. Please include a exhaustive grammatical and syntactical exposition of these verses. <<


The grace of God has appeared: This is the verb, epiphaino as an aorist passive indicative. The aorist tense communicates a point of time arrival in history and refers to the universal salvation provision that was accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This salvation provision is called GRACE, because it is something that God does for man without any merit or contribution from man. Man does not and cannot earn or deserve the loving expression of God the Father that did not spare his only son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom. 8:32).

At verse 3:4, it is the kindness and love of God that APPEARED in that SAME point of time, and is thus the basis for Him saving us - not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy. And that is why Paul writes at Ephesians 2:8-9, that by GRACE we have been saved through faith, and THAT (salvation) is not of ourselves but is the gift of God - not of works.

Now the issue is argued - whether this grace that appeared is RESTRICTED to only SOME, or is a universal provision to all mankind.

The adjective that occurs next is soterios, which is an ACTIVE adjective and it means saving, delivering and thus BRINGING salvation or deliverance. So grace BRINGS salvation, but to whom does grace bring salvation - some or all? The prepositional phrase, "to all men," is the dative case of the adjective pas, which means ALL, plus the noun it modifies - anthropos (plural) to give us the translation, all men.

The Calvinist has to water this down and desert the literal INTENT of the statement, and claims that it refers to all TYPES or categories of men. But I am unable to see and certainly cannot accept such a rationalization of this very clear statement. Thus, the literal, natural, grammatical and COMMON SENSE understanding is that God's grace appeared in a particular point of time, and in that appearance (manifested by the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross) PROVIDED salvation to all men.

But although such a LITERAL understanding is the most natural, it is necessary to find contextual support for it, JUST as it is necessary to find any contextual support for alternate suggestions, such as what Calvinistic theology offers. Calvinism however, comes up short and quite deficient of any contextual support and can only perpetuate the same convoluted watering down of the word ALL, instead of letting it stand on its own merits. Accordingly, I appeal to 1 Timothy 2:6, which says of our Lord Jesus, that he "gave Himself as a ransom FOR ALL," which was BECAUSE God "desires ALL MEN to be saved," as stated at verse 4.

In view of this, it was quite appropriate for Paul to proclaim to the people of Athens, "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance (Old Testament period), God is now declaring to men, that ALL everywhere SHOULD REPENT, because He has fixed a day when He will judge the world." (Acts 17:30-31). But again, is this all, as in ALL CATEGORIES of men, or should we let the all stand on its own merits and refer to a universal invitation in view of a universal judgment?

Furthermore, if God's grace has provided salvation for all men, then He stands as the Savior of all men. Is He the savior of only the ones chosen - the elect? Or is He also the savior of those who are not elect? If salvation is provided ONLY for the elect, then He is the savior of only the elect. However, Paul informs us that "the living God is the Savior of ALL men, ESPECIALLY of believers," (1 Timothy 4:10). This tells us that He is the POTENTIAL savior of all men, but only the ACTUAL savior of those who believe. If there were no valid potential for ALL men to be saved, then Paul could not have used this language under the inspiration of the Spirit.

For more details see topic: Unlimited Atonement

The rest of the verse in this context refers to what the gospel teaches to those who become believers. The gospel (the GOOD NEWS) of God's provision of NEW LIFE involves both the ACQUISITION of eternal life, and the LIVING of eternal life here on earth. The grace of God appeared - and accomplishes TWO things. (1) it brings salvation to all men, and (2) it THEN instructs any out from among those "all" men, who believe, HOW TO LIVE in this present age.

QUESTION #5 from Russ

Does your idea of volitional theology incorporate "antinomy" or two views that seem to conflict, but, nevertheless, exist concurrently and can not really be understood this side of Heaven? Any comments?


No, volitional theology does not see a conflict between God's sovereignty and man's volition, because God IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY has CHOSEN to give man that free expression of his mentality.

There is a great deal of information on the Bible Fragrances website that explains volitional theology. The following is an excerpt from the introduction and I trust it answers the question more completely.

The term volitional theology is used to designate the view that both the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man function together in the universe, with neither being compromised. In His sovereignty, God has CHOSEN to give to His creatures the capacity and the responsibility to make MENTAL decisions concerning the standards of right and wrong as revealed by God. This capacity was not altered through the fall and remains the basis for entering into a relationship with God. God provides the plan of salvation for the entire human race, and individuals relate to that plan through a personal choice of either accepting or rejecting it. Sovereignty does not affect that choice by either "causing" or "preventing" any particular thought expression. But once an individual makes the choice to accept God's plan of salvation, then God's sovereignty seals and secures that person in the plan. All throughout a person's life, he will make both good and bad "mental" decisions; this is the expression of volition or free will. Whether he is ABLE to physically follow through with those decisions is an entirely different issue, for he is finite and may indeed be impotent in "causing" something to happen. Furthermore, God may Himself, choose to prevent the ACTION that is decided upon, but in such cases, the normal function of human volition is still unimpeded.

Questions 1-4 from Matthew

REGARDING 1 Corinthians 15:24-25, Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
If Christ is reigning right now, is He sitting in David's throne?

Christ is not reigning on David's throne right now. He is sitting at the right hand of the Father until he makes his enemies his footstool (Heb. 10:12-13). This SESSION is only an OFFICIAL location of His humanity, and does not mean that He has to SIT there continually.

The session of Christ has two parts:

(1) Preparation for David's kingdom, which began when Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Father, during which time His bride is being completed through the building of the church, and (2) the actual physical reign which is on the earth for 1000 years when Jesus will sit on David's throne.

Christ's location at the right hand of the Father is a place of HONOR and GLORY. It is an OFFICE rather than a physical location where He must always stay. This allows for Him to stand up (Acts 7:55-56), to come at the rapture (1 Thes. 4:14-17), to descend physically to the earth at Armageddon (Zechairah 14:4), and to reign personally on the earth for 1000 years (Matthew 19:28; Rev. 20:4), all without vacating his OFFICIAL place of session at the right hand of the Father.

David's throne is an earthly throne and Jesus will sit on it during the 1000 year kingdom. There is an idiom that is used in association with this reign - "forever and ever." This is idiomatic to refer to the duration of human history, not for all eternity. In the Old Testament the reign of the Messiah was not given a specific time frame (1000 years) as it is in the New Testament, so the idiom, "forever and ever" was used to indicate a time span that theoretically embraces all of human history.

This reign is seen as future at Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And at Matthew 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

And at Matthew 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.

And at 2 Timothy 4:1 I solemnly charge {you} in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:


QUESTION 2: At 1 Corinthians 15:25, with the word "until" does this mean that He will stop reigning when (until) He has put all His enemies under His feet?

The reign is the reign of his humanity on the earth. It begins right after the Armageddon campaign and continues for 1000 literal years.

Both His OFFICIAL session at the right hand of the Father and the physical reign end after the last judgment when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power, and turns over the physical kingdom to the Father.


QUESTION 3: 1 Corinthians 15:24 indicates He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. Whose rule and authority, etc. is He abolishing?

This refers to the fallen angels (Satan and demons) who were strategically (spiritually) defeated by Christ's victory on the cross (Colossians 2:15), but will not be tactically (physically) defeated until the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10). It also refers to the administration of the final destiny for all His enemies, including all unbelievers, after the last judgment when all are cast into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41).


QUESTION 4: 1 Corinthians 15:24, in relation to verse 25; does this mean that Christ's reign ends completely when He delivers the kingdom?

The reign refers to the reign of his humanity on the earth during the millennium, which ends after the great white throne judgment.

After the final enemy is destroyed (physical death, 1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 20:14) at the last judgment, then both the session of the Son and the reign of his humanity will be terminated.

Then from that time onward, all throughout eternity, the Son and the Father (and the Spirit) will function in a way that parallels the function of the Godhead prior to the incarnation.

1. Before the incarnation: John 1:1; Philippians 2:6

2. During the incarnation: John 1:14; Philippians 2:7-8

3. After the last judgment: 1 Corinthians 15:28

And when all things are subjected to Him (The Father), then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.





İRon Wallace, Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it,
but it may not be sold under any circumstances whatsoever without the author's consent.


Home | Recent Additions | Studies | Commentary


Prophecy | Articles | Topical | About Us