What does the Bible phrase mean - "The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous"?

What is the meaning of Proverbs 21:18," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18, “The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright”?
Compare the following passages, in which a similar thought is more clearly expressed: “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead” (Proverbs 11: 8)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11: 8).
“I gave Egypt for thy ransom, . . . I have loved thee, therefore will I give men for thee and people for thy life” (Isaiah 43:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 43:3, 4).
“They hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai” (Esther 7:10)." TARGET="_blank">Esther 7:10).
“Those men which had accused Daniel. . . cast. . . into the den of lions” (Daniel 6:24)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 6:24).
And note the use of the same word “ransom” in the Isaiah passage, and of “in his stead” in Proverbs 11." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11.
The above Scriptures, and others which might be added, suggest two things. First, that God may sometimes deliver His own at the cost of severe suffering, or even destruction, to the unsaved. Second, that the wicked at times suffer the very fate which they themselves had prepared for the righteous. Proverbs 21:18" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18 contains the first of these thoughts, and probably the second as well.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it scriptural to use more than one cup for the Lord's Supper?

Is it scriptural in the light of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16-17, to have more than one cup on the table?

If so, how can we give thanks for “THE cup”?

The expression, “cup,” in the various accounts of the institutions of the Lord’s Supper refers, not to the containing vessel, but, by the figure of metonomy, to the wine contained (e.g., Matthew 26:27," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:27, and 1 Corinthians 11:25, “This cup is the New Testament in My blood”). We speak of “a good table,” meaning the food on it. The Romanisers who insist on our taking literally the words, “This bread is My Body,” should also force the words, “This cup,” to mean the literal vessel holding the wine, rather than the wine, which is not once mentioned. Now, there is certainly an important truth which demands that there should be only one loaf, “For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). The R.V. margin seems still clearer, “Seeing that there is one bread, we, who are many, are one body.” But there is no corresponding truth which obliges us to have only one original receptacle, no idea of unity being bound up in the “oneness of the wine.” Indeed, the blood of Christ was not shed on the Cross as a unity, but gradually, though finally all was poured out from His pierced side. However, any division, beyond what is absolutely necessary for the convenience of distribution, should be avoided. What is called “the individual cup” seems abhorrent to the idea of communion one with another.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are there varying degrees of punishment in the Lake of Fire?

Do Scriptures such as Luke 12:47-48" TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:47-48 and Revelaion 20:12 teach that there are degrees in punishment for the wicked dead?

Revelation 20:12" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Luke 12:47-48" TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:47-48 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

These scriptures certainly do teach degrees of punishment. The former passage especially lays down what is doubtless a general principle of God’s dealings in judgment, namely, that the punishment varies, not so much according to the amount of evil inherent in the act itself, as according to the amount of knowledge of right and wrong possessed by the sinner. It is worthy of note that “the servant which knew” is beaten with many stripes, merely for not doing things he should have done, i.e. for sins of omission; while “he that knew not” gets his few stripes for wrong things done by him, i.e. for sins of commission. Another passage in which the same principle is strongly emphasised is Matthew 11:20-24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:20-24, where Christ pronounces woes on the cities in which He had preached most, and in doing so says that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and even Sodom in the day of judgment than for them.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6?

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6?

Capable men have differed on this for years. Here are three suggestions for differentiating between these passages.

First, the phrase, "sons of God," does not necessarily mean angels. Three times it does (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but at least 4 times this word describes Israels relationship to God as "sons" (Exodus 4:22;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 4:22; Hosea 1:10;" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 14:1;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 14:1; Psalm 73:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 73:15). This expresses a relationship of favor with God, distinguished from all others; that may be its thought in Genesis 6." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6.

Second, in their context, these verses are the bridge between the genealogy of the godly in chapter five and the corruption that demanded the righteous judgment of the flood. Since other passages hold men - not fallen angels - responsible for the evil of those days (Genesis 6:12, 13;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:12, 13; Job 22:15-17;" TARGET="_blank">Job 22:15-17; 2 Peter 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:5), the context favors the view that a lack of separation by a favored generation hastened the corruption.

The context in Jude also seems to differentiate the two passages. With Egypt and Sodom, these angels form part of one of Judes many triplets. As with those referred in Jude 4," TARGET="_blank">Jude 4, these all sinned while privileged and then suffered judgment, as those in verse 4 would. If Lucifers thought brought immediate judgment (Isaiah 14:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:12, 13), the sin of these in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 must likewise have called for immediate banishment to everlasting chains. Even if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 were angels, they were previously fallen (judged) angels, who for a prolonged period - as is supposed - cohabited with women. This is not an illustration of those who sin while privileged and therefore suffer severely.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What do I do if I disagree with the leaders of my church?

What should I do if I am uneasy about a decision of the overseers and don't feel I can go to one of them about it?

Such issues involve two hazardous extremes. One is the danger of the "unapproachable elder." The people of God are not little children to be treated with a "Because I said so" attitude. Saul's rage when questioned by Ahimelech (I Samuel 22:14,15)" TARGET="_blank">I Samuel 22:14,15) was because his actions could not bear the light of Scripture. The other danger is that of the "discontented believer" who views himself (and often he is the only one who does) as the "watch-dog" of the assembly. Absalom's inquiries into problems (II Samuel 15:1-6)" TARGET="_blank">II Samuel 15:1-6) illustrate the work of a man with ulterior motives.

Ideally, spiritual elders will welcome honest inquiries by those who do not understand the scriptural reasons that guided their actions. Ideally, the believer expressing such a concern will be marked by a sincere interest to learn the ways of God. When the circumstances fall short of the ideal, as they do in 3 John 1:9," TARGET="_blank">3 John 1:9, two immutable principles remain clear: (1) wronged believers lose nothing by showing submission; (2) the testimony is God's, not ours: He will maintain the honor of His Name. No situation hinders our bringing the matter to God in prayer and leaving it with Him.

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God show His love in different ways to us, depending on our personality?

I think the answer to your question is "Yes." However, I doubt that we can take "The Five Languages of Love" (which I find very helpful) as a way to define "the languages" the Lord uses. Obviously, for instance, touch (hugs, etc.) doesn't apply. I take, it, though, that our personality, maturity, and experiences all affect our need for love. The Lord knows this as no one else can know it. His relationship with each of us is not a "one-size-fits-all" relationship, so He tailors His relationship with us to suit who we are. I think the Lord's relationship with Peter and John - and with each of the other disciples - illustrates this. John was the youngest of the disciples, according to tradition and the fact that he was alive into the 90's. Peter was the most prominent and outspoken of the group. John leaned on the breast of the Lord, but Peter apparently never did. It just wouldn't have suited his personality, as I understand him. The Lord said to peter in front of the others, "Get thee behind Me, Satan." I think if he had said that to John, he would have withered up and died.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the descent at the time of Pentecost gradual?

Was the descent at the time of Pentecost gradual?

If the question refers to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, the answer is in verses 2 to 4 of Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2: "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, … And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." With unexpected suddenness (Strong’s Dictionary), the sound filled the house, divided tongues (ESV) appeared and rested on the believers, the Holy Spirit filled them, and they spoke in tongues.

However, perhaps the question addresses the descent or decline of Israel’s place of privilege. During the period covered in the Book of Acts, the gospel went "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:16). In Ezekiel’s visions, the glory of the Lord gradually moved away from the temple, the land, and the nation. The Lord did not rush to withdraw from His people. The prophet received the message of judgment before the glory departed, but God carried out the judgment with apparent reluctance, which is both instructive and touching. So during the book of Acts, Israel’s removal from its position of privilege took place gradually. The Lord had announced it before the cross, and made it clear that the reason was the slaying of the beloved Son (Matthew 21:33-43)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 21:33-43). He taught that after He ascended back to heaven, the nation would seal its doom by sending after Him the message, "We will not have this Man to reign over us" (Luke 19:12-14)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 19:12-14) and by declining the invitation of the King’s messengers (Matthew 22:1-7)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:1-7). The same leaders who plotted the death of Christ sent their message of determined rejection ("We will not have this Man . . .") back to heaven when they stoned Stephen (Acts 7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 7). They imprisoned and beat the messengers (ch 5). They proved that their slaying of Christ was not accidental; they were not manslayers (Deu 19:1-4)," TARGET="_blank">Deu 19:1-4), but, as Stephen said (Acts 7:52)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:52), were murderers (Deuteronomy 19:11, 12)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 19:11, 12). They had no refuge from the sword of judgment. As the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome in Acts, the Jewish leaders affirmed the nation’s rejection of Christ and His messengers, although individual Jews were saved.

The nation rejected Christ and His kingdom when they crucified Him. As the gospel spread, the nation’s rejection of the message spread; the pall of darkness and blindness (Romans 11:25)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 11:25) settled over Israel. With apparent reluctance, God gradually removed the place of privilege from the nation that had rejected His Son. That generation crucified the King and therefore would not share in His kingdom. That was settled before the beginning of Acts. During Acts, God gradually removed their place of privilege as the message went from Jerusalem to Rome. After the end of Acts, the army came from Rome to Jerusalem to destroy the city (Matthew 22:7)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:7). The decline was gradual, but the result inevitable.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Printable Kids Crosswords

Create a printable kids crossword puzzle in 3 mouse clicks.

1.	Select a general crossword theme or a Bible story.

2.	Review the suggested answers.

3.	Review and print.

Printable kids crosswords are brought to you free by Gospel Hall dot org. See the extensive collection of Sunday School lessons, free activites and worksheets in the Kids Sunday School section.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu

Create a printable kids crossword puzzle in 3 mouse clicks.

1.

2.

3.