What does "known of Him" mean in 1 Corinthians 8?

What is the meaning and context of "known of Him" in 1 Corinthians 8:3" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:3?

Some at Corinth seemed content in knowing that idols were not actual gods. They therefore were free to eat in their own homes meat that had been dedicated to idols before they bought it. Their knowledge inflated their view of their own value; love would actually have increased the spiritual value of others (8:1). Anyone whose supposed knowledge inflates his view of self has not begun to grasp true knowledge (8:2). The ultimate in knowledge is not to know about divine things, but to know and love God. Such a relationship excels mere knowledge. A believer enjoying a divine relationship is "known of Him" (8:3).

Since Paul doesn’t seem to question the reality of his readers’ salvation, this expression, "known of Him," hardly seems to be in contrast to the Lord words to unbelievers, "I know you not." Nor does it seem significant to say that God is acquainted with ("known of Him") a believer who enjoys a relationship with Himself. Paul is carrying his thought forward, though, if we view the expression as being similar to "the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous" (Psalm 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 1:6) or "He knoweth them that trust in Him" (Nahum 1:7)." TARGET="_blank">Nahum 1:7). This is "approving knowledge." The meaning, therefore, seems to be: the Lord is aware of and smiles on one ("he is known of Him") who is living in relationship with Him, that is,who loves Him.

The Lord taught that love for God and love for others are interdependent (Matthew 22:37-40)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:37-40) and inseparable (see 1 John 4:20, 21)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:20, 21). Such a relationship with God manifests itself in caring for others, a thought continued in the passage (see verse 12). This is well-pleasing to God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What events tell us that the Lord's coming is imminent?

What events tell us that the Lord's coming is imminent?

The proof that the Lord is coming soon is that "Jesus died and rose again" (1 Thes 4:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thes 4:14). Although future events cast their shadows before them, we should never look for events or dates, but for the Lord Himself. Paul twice included himself among the living at the rapture (1 Corinthains 15:; 1 Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:). He taught that it is an any moment event. This truth has had sanctifying and satisfying power in the lives of first century and present century saints. Paul and all these believers were wrong if it was necessary to wait for 2000 AD to begin the millennium. Peter taught that God is beyond time, not that there is a 2000 year period between the advents (2 Pet 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">2 Pet 3:8). The best of chronologies makes 1996 the 2000th year since the birth of Christ.

Hosea 6:2" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 6:2 is a false profession of repentance by Ephraim (v 4), not two days (2000 years) before the millennial age which is the third day (1000 yrs).

In spite of Scripture's strong warnings, men still set dates. The Lord could come at any moment and this has been true ever since He went back into Heaven. "Yet a little while, how short, The Coming One will come"

N. Crawford

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Atonement a truth that belongs only to the Old Testament?

THE ATONEMENT
It has been stated that Atonement is an Old Testament truth, which has no place in the New Testament, Is this so?

I am surprised that any Christian “apt to teach,” should make such a statement. Perhaps it is owing to the fact that in the one place in our King James Version, where the word “atonement” occurs, it ought to be “reconciliation”: “By Whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11). This however, does not prove that the truth of atonement is not expressed in other passages of the New Testament, under a different form of words, for which “atone” or “atonement” might be correctly substituted.

The fact is that the atonement of the Old Testament is only a shadow of the truth, and that if we had not the substantial, divine thing in the New Testament, we could not have the shadow in the Old. The Hebrew word for atonement constantly occurring in the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus is the root, “Kaphar,” which primarily means “to cover,” then by a simple transition, it gets to mean that by which alone God can righteously cover sin—namely by full satisfaction being offered to His holy claims, or in other words, by atonement. The word, “atone,” has long since lost its philological, or derived, meaning of “at-one,” for that by which God and the sinner can be “at-one”—the atoning work of Calvary.

This root,”Kaphar,” also occurs in the substantival form,”Kapporeth” (mercy-seat)—the place where the blood of atonement was sprinkled, therefore, one would suggest, better translated the “atonement-seat.” The verb is sometimes translated in our version—”make reconciliation” (e.g. Ezekiel 45: 15, 17;" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 45: 15, 17; Daniel 9: 24)," TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9: 24), “purge” (Psalm 79:9), “pacify” (Proverbs 16: 14)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 16: 14), “appease”—”I will appease him (Esau) with the present” (Genesis 32:20)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 32:20), but in the vast majority of occurrences “atone” or “make atonement.” What then, we may enquire, is the Hellenistic Greek equivalent used in the Septuagint? In nearly every case, “exilaskomai,” or in a few cases simply, “hilaskomai”—which is, we see, the same verb without the preposition “ek”—denoting here “entirely,” “perfectly”—though we need not press this, as “hilaskomai” means practically the same thing, for atonement, if of any value, must be complete. Turning to the New Testament, we find this same root (hilaskomai) employed (and N.T. Greek is much the same as found in the Septuagint) in six passages: In the publican’s prayer we read, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18: 13," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13, lit, be propitiated). As the publican was standing in the temple area—”afar off,” i.e., probably outside and in full view of the altar of burnt offering, we can see no reason to assert, as Alford does, that the publican could not have had any idea of the ground of his acceptance—though he would naturally not know what the lamb prefigured.

Then in Romans 3" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3: 25 and Hebrews 9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9: 5 there occurs the substantival form—”mercy-seat.” In Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 we have, “A merciful and faithful high priest.. . to make reconciliation for the sins of the people”; and finally in 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10 the translation is, “propitiation for our sins.” I think it is clear and reasonable that we have in these passages the sense of atonement, applied, except in the case of Hebrews 9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9: 5 and Luke 18: 13," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13, directly to the work of Christ, as the ground on which God can come out to man in grace and the gospel be preached to every creature.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there to be forgiveness without acknowledgment of wrong?

FORGIVENESS
Is there to be forgiveness without acknowledgment of wrong?

There are various categories of forgiveness in the Scriptures, which must be distinguished—God’s forgiveness of sinners; the Father’s forgiveness of His children; ecclesiastical forgiveness; and personal forgiveness.

As to the first named, though it is a mistake to apply to the conversion of the sinner, the words of 1 John 1:9" TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, etc.,” which have to do directly with God’s children, yet it may be confidently affirmed that no sinner ever received divine forgiveness without acknowledgment of sin in one form or another, tacit or explicit, leading on to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, when revealed. But here it is not so much a confession of particular sins, as of sinnership—”God be merciful to me a sinner.” This corresponds with “repentance unto life,” the result of the Holy Spirit’s work in conviction, without which there can be no true conversion to God.

In the case of the Father’s forgiveness to His erring children, it is conditional on confession of sins; then “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It is perfectly true that God’s forgiveness has already covered the sins in question, but His forgiveness as Father is needed, if communion with Him is to be restored. The confession should be real and full, and at once forgiveness and cleansing follow, though not often realised to the full at once. David was forgiven the instant he confessed his sin in the presence of Nathan, but later he wrote the 51st Psalm. This may correspond to the application of “the water of separation” on the third and seventh days (Numbers 19: 12, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 19: 12, 19).

As for ecclesiastical forgiveness, this is that which is referred to in Matthew 18:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23" TARGET="_blank">John 20:23—the “binding or loosing,” the remitting or retaining, of sins, not by ecclesiastical officials, the pretended priests of Christendom, but by the local church. Nothing is said in these passages of the condition attaching to the forgiveness, but the case that arose in the Corinthian Church (see chap. . i), throws light on this, for in the second epistle, the restoration of the offender is recommended by the apostle on the ground of his repentance—”lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow”—and if they forgive him, he (Paul) will forgive also (2 Corinthians 2: 7-10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2: 7-10). Paul does not appeal to some leaders in the Corinthian Church, but to the Church as a whole. This ecclesiastical forgiveness has been perverted into what is known as auricular confession, and priestly absolution, things, as we believe, totally foreign to the New Testament and Christianity. As for individual forgiveness, there should be from the first a forgiving spirit on the part of the offended person; he must not bear a grudge or count the offender as an enemy, but be ready to forgive (Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22), but he must not express his forgiveness until the offence is acknowledged. To do so would be a subtle way of putting your opponent in the wrong, and be an insult rather than a favour. “If thy brother tresspass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him” (Luke 17:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:3, 4).

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is capital punishment right when God says "thou shalt not kill"?

Does God's Word support capital punishment?

Yes. God's decree to Noah in Genesis 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:6 has never been rescinded, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." In Romans 13:4" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:4 we read about civil leaders, '...for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The reference to "the sword" would indicate that civil rulers have the God-given right - and responsibility – to execute capital punishment when it is necessary to do so justly. However, the Word of God does protect the innocent by teaching that there should be clear proof of guilt before anyone is put to death. We read in Deuteronomy 17:6," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 17:6, "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why does the Lord Jesus emphasize the title "Son of Man"?

Why does the Lord Jesus emphasize this title?

In the Gospels, the Lord refers to Himself as the Son of Man on 53 occasions. In all but one of these, the words could be translated literally "the Son of the Man," a form only used of Christ in the Scriptures. On the other occasion, the form is "Son of Man," the same construction used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament on every occasion "son of man" appears. To give some perspective, in the gospel records the Lord referred to Himself as "the Christ" on eight occasions. He referred to Himself as Lord on ten occasions. We have five recorded incidents when He stated He is the Son of God.

But why this emphasis? In Daniel’s prophecy (7:13), at least three truths are related to the Son of Man: His authority, His coming, His rejection. In contrast to others whose dominion would be taken from them, the Son of Man receives authority that will never pass away (v 14). His coming is with the clouds of heaven (v 13). That His rejection precedes His coming is evident in linking two other Old Testament passages with this prophecy. He is a man Who comes from heaven. This is parallel to the teaching of Psalm 110" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 110 (verses 1-3), where the coming ruler has enemies and his own people are unwilling for Him to reign over them while He is sitting at God’s right hand. Add to that verse 17 of Psalm 80," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 80, which appears to be messianic and links "the Man of Thy right hand" (His ascension) with "the Son of Man."

In at least seven of the recorded 53 occasions, He emphasizes His authority: over the Sabbath, the forgiveness of sins, all judgment, and entrance to the kingdom. Comparing Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8 (v 4) and Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2 (vv 6-9), we conclude that the dominion over all the works of God’s hands was lost by Adam, the son of man, and now belongs to Jesus, the Son of Man, although all things are not yet put under to Him.

On at least 17 of these 53 occasions, the Lord is referring to His coming again - and always His coming to earth. He is anticipating His coming glory.

At least 26 of the occasions when He calls Himself the Son of Man, the Lord is emphasizing His rejection - including His death, burial, resurrection, or ascension. This is then a predominant thought associated with His title as the Son of Man.

As in Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8 and various other passages, the term "son" does not always refer to physical generation, but refers rather to character (e. g., sons of Belial; see also Eph 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Eph 2:2 JND and Mat 23:31," TARGET="_blank">Mat 23:31, JND). The Son of Man embodies all that God ever intended a man to be.

His reasons for using this title so often, then, may be to emphasize His messiahship, coming glory, rejection, authority, and perfection, showing that He was both like, yet distinct from, every other man.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

In Ezekiel 28, is the Garden of Eden the same as the home of Adam and Eve

In Ezekiel 28," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28, is the Garden of Eden the same as the home of Adam and Eve?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

The Garden of Eden in Ezekiel 28" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28 is the same as Genesis 2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2 and 3. Like Isaiah 14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14, Ezekiel both compares Satan and the king of Tyre and also exposes "the hand behind the throne," Satan. Perhaps people talked of the perfection, wisdom, and beauty of the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:12), but God uses those same words to describe Satan. Figuratively speaking, he was adorned with rich and rare gems in creation (v 13). He had the highest rank in God’s spirit creation, the winged cherub that defended the throne of God and had full access to the immediate presence of God (v 14). Though Satan was perfect, iniquity (due to pride, v 17; see also vv 1-10) "was found" in him (v 15). His abundance caused his problem, because he allowed it to fill him with pride; therefore, he was expelled from God’s presence and cast down to the earth (vv 16, 17). God now speaks to the king, so filled with abundance and likewise so lifted up with pride, yet he would be cast down in shame before other kings (v 17).

However, the statement about Satan’s being in Eden is out of chronological order. Perhaps it precedes the other statements in order to emphasize the greatest affront to God; in Eden Satan acted as a spoiler, attacking what God valued. So, God describes the king of Tyre as a spoiler of what should have been for God (v 18a). This was the immediate reason God razed his kingdom to the astonishment of all (vv 18, 19).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the parable of the 10 virgins teach a second chance of salvation after the Rapture?

Does this teach a second chance of salvation after the Rapture? (Matthew 25:1-13)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:1-13)

Perhaps the question comes from the suggestion of the wise virgins that the foolish go to buy oil. Both classes are Jews who are waiting for the coming of the Bridegroom, the Son of Man returning with His Bride, the Church. The Lord does not give us their history (as to whether they had heard the gospel before the Rapture), but he does give us their heritage. They had the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures to assure them of the Lord’s return to earth in keeping with the signs, the times, and seasons. The issue of a second chance after the Rapture is not in this passage.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I talk to a friend about the gospel without making it sound unnatural?

When entertaining an unbelieving neighbor, is it best to force a conversation about the gospel?

God’s Servant knew how to speak a "word in season" (Isaiah 50:4)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 50:4). In teaching, He was sensitive to any factors that would limit His effectiveness; He spoke "as they were able to hear it" (Mark 4:33)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 4:33). Getting to know people helps us to discern what will be effective. Seizing a one-time opportunity is different from building a relationship that strengthens effective communication.

Our relationships with unbelievers should enhance, rather than limit, our ability to communicate the gospel. Build relationships with unbelievers in a way that is consistent with Biblical principles.

But this question addresses our motivation for hospitality. Are we offering a meal as a means of obligating them to us? Are we posing as hospitable in order to be evangelical? Showing kindness is "normal Christianity" (Luke 6:35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 6:35; 1 Corinthians 13:4;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 5:22)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:22). This should characterize our interaction with unbelieving neighbors. We do not show kindness in order to manipulate them to our desired end, as good as that end may be. We serve the Lord and others by showing kindness. We need the Lord to guide our service. We pray for an opportunity to serve others by telling them the message that has blessed to us.

A forced conversation about the gospel will not be as effective as a door of opportunity that the Lord opens. Showing kindness and developing a relationship with unbelieving neighbors so we can be a blessing to them may involve other service than speaking to them about Christ. It may involve trimming their hedge, caring for their children, helping in times of difficulty, or maintaining a joyful and gentle spirit. If the Lord opens the door for a word of testimony on the first visit, respond in a way that increases the likelihood of further open doors in the future.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

In what ways does the Spirit of God lead us?

In what ways does the Spirit of God lead us?

Since it identifies us as sons of God (Rom 8:14)," TARGET="_blank">Rom 8:14), being led by the Spirit of God should characterize our lives. Paul’s teaching assumes that all believers are led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 5:18). The Spirit leads us both rationally (through our minds) and mystically (through an inexplicable awareness). The former needs to be emphasized and is more easily explained. If we are not willing for be led by the Spirit daily, we will not likely be sensitive to His leading in "special experiences."

The Spirit of God and the Word of God both reflect the same source and must agree. Generally, therefore, the Spirit leads through the clear directives of Scripture. Thankfully, He not only directs but also enables our walk (Gal 5:16-18)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 5:16-18).

The more we walk in the Spirit, the deeper will be our acquaintance with "the things of the Spirit of God" (1Co 2:10-16)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 2:10-16). As the Spirit unfolds to us the mind of God, we learn through the Word of God the principles by which God works. Increasingly, therefore, the principles of Scripture will guide us. Daily subjection of our will to the Scriptures cannot be distinguished from the leading of the Spirit in our lives. To more fully know the mind of God through His Word is a life-long challenge. The Spirit leads us rationally by enriching our minds with the practical knowledge of God. As we submit, He both directs us and enables us to please God.

One of the greatest difficulties in life is to be honest with ourselves. That is why the mystical leading of the Spirit is difficult to discuss. Too often we attribute our own preference to the leading of the Spirit. The Spirit of God superindends our circumstances and often directs us through them, but always in keeping with the Word of God.

Two verses in Psalm 25" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 25 instruct us in knowing God’s ways. Verse 12 emphasizes reverence for God, acting to please Him. Verse 10 points to meekness. The meek humbly submit to God and totally depend on Him. Who could boast about possessing these qualities? To hear a voice behind us "saying, This is the way, walk ye in it" (Isa 30:21)" TARGET="_blank">Isa 30:21) is always an evidence of God’s grace. Nevertheless, this is not something for which we need to beg God. He desires to lead us through His Word (rationally) and to prompt us as we are sensitive to His will (mystically). Self-consciousness and self-occupation will not produce this. In many ways, this is a sacred secret between the soul and God. We obey His written Word and, through the Spirit, He takes care of the rest.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu