Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?

Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?

-Thomas R. Schreiner

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is an excerpt from 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas R. Schreiner (Kregel Academic & Professional).

Believers today continue to dispute whether the Sabbath is required. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a covenant sign, and Israel was commanded to rest on the seventh day. We see elsewhere in the Old Testament that covenants have signs, so that the sign of the Noahic covenant is the rainbow (Gen. 9:8-17) and the sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17). The paradigm for the Sabbath was God's rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen. 2:1-3). So, too, Israel was called upon to rest from work on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17). What did it mean for Israel not to work on the Sabbath? Figure 5 lists the kinds of activities that were prohibited and permitted.

The Sabbath was certainly a day for social concern, for rest was mandated for all Israelites, including their children, slaves, and even animals (Deut. 5:14). It was also a day to honor and worship the Lord. Special burnt offerings were offered to the Lord on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9-10). Psalm 92 is a Sabbath song that voices praise to God for his steadfast love and faithfulness. Israel was called upon to observe the Sabbath in remembrance of the Lord's work in delivering them as slaves from Egyptian bondage (Deut. 5:15). Thus, the Sabbath is tied to Israel's covenant with the Lord, for it celebrates her liberation from slavery. The Sabbath, then, is the sign of the covenant between the Lord and Israel (Exod. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12-17). The Lord promised great blessing to those who observed the Sabbath (Isa. 56:2, 6; 58:13-14). Breaking the Sabbath command was no trivial matter, for the death penalty was inflicted upon those who intentionally violated it (Exod. 31:14-15; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36), though collecting manna on the Sabbath before the Mosaic law was codified did not warrant such a punishment (Exod. 16:22-30). Israel regularly violated the Sabbath—the sign of the covenant—and this is one of the reasons the people were sent into exile (Jer. 17:21-27; Ezek. 20:12-24). 

FIGURE 5A: WORK PROHIBITED ON THE SABBATH 

Kindling a fire-                  Exod. 35:3
Gathering manna-             Exod. 16:23-29
Selling goods-                   Neh. 10:31; 13:15-22
Bearing burdens-               Jer. 17:19-27 

FIGURE 5B: ACTIVITIES PERMITTED ON THE SABBATH 

Military campaigns-           Josh. 6:15; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Kings 3:9
Marriage feasts-               Judg. 14:12-18
Dedication feasts-             1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron. 7:8-9
Visiting a man of God-       2 Kings 4:23
Changing temple guards-   2 Kings 11:5-9
Preparing showbread and putting it out-   1 Chron. 9:32
Offering sacrifices-            1 Chron. 23:31; Ezek. 46:4-5
Duties of priests and Levites-  2 Kings 11:5-9; 2 Chron. 23:4, 8
Opening the east gate-      Ezek. 46:1-3 

During the Second Temple period, views of the Sabbath continued to de­velop. It is not my purpose here to conduct a complete study. Rather, a number of illustrations will be provided to illustrate how seriously Jews took the Sab­bath. The Sabbath was a day of feasting and therefore a day when fasting was not appropriate (Jdt. 8:6; 1 Macc. 1:39, 45). Initially, the Hasmoneans refused to fight on the Sabbath, but after they were defeated in battle they changed their minds and began to fight on the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2:32-41; cf. Josephus,Jewish Antiquities 12.274, 276-277). The author of Jubilees propounds a rig­orous view of the Sabbath (Jubilees 50:6-13). He emphasizes that no work should be done, specifying a number of tasks that are prohibited (50:12-13). Fasting is prohibited since the Sabbath is a day for feasting (50:10, 12). Sexual relations with one's wife also are prohibited (50:8), though offering the sacri­fices ordained in the law are permitted (50:10). Those who violate the Sabbath prescriptions should die (50:7, 13). The Sabbath is eternal, and even the angels keep it (2:17-24). Indeed, the angels kept the Sabbath in heaven before it was established on earth (2:30). All Jewish authors concur that God commanded Israel to literally rest, though it is not surprising that Philo thinks of it as well in terms of resting in God (Sobriety, 1:174) and in terms of having thoughts of God that are fitting (Special Laws, 2:260). Philo also explains the number seven symbolically (Moses, 2:210). 

The Qumran community was quite strict regarding Sabbath observance, maintaining that the right interpretation must be followed (CD 6:18; 10:14-23). Even if an animal falls into a pit it should not be helped on the Sabbath (CD 11:13-14), something Jesus assumes is permissible when talking to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:11). In the Mishnah thirty-nine different types of work are prohibited on the Sabbath (m. Shabbat 7:2). 

I do not believe the Sabbath is required for believers now that the new covenant has arrived in the person of Jesus Christ. I should say, first of all, that it is not my purpose to reiterate what I wrote about the Sabbath in the Gospels since the Sabbath texts were investigated there. Here it is my purpose to pull the threads together in terms of the validity of the Sabbath for today. Strictly speaking, Jesus does not clearly abolish the Sabbath, nor does he violate its stipulations. Yet the focus on regulations that is evident in Jubilees, Qumran, and in the Mishnah is absent in Jesus' teaching. He reminded his hearers that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Some sectors of Judaism clearly had lost this perspective, so that the Sabbath had lost its humane dimension. They were so consumed with rules that they had forgotten mercy (Matt. 12:7). Jesus was grieved at the hardness of the Phari­sees' hearts, for they lacked love for those suffering (Mark 3:5). 

Jesus' observance of the Sabbath does not constitute strong evidence for its continuation in the new covenant. His observance of the Sabbath makes excellent sense, for he lived under the Old Testament law. He was "born under the law" as Paul says (Gal. 4:4). On the other hand, a careful reading of the Gospel accounts intimates that the Sabbath will not continue to play a significant role. Jesus proclaims as the Son of Man that he is the "lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28). The Sabbath does not rule over him, but he rules over the Sabbath. He is the new David, the Messiah, to whom the Sabbath and all the Old Testament Scriptures point (Matt. 12:3-4). Indeed, Jesus even claimed in John 5:17 that he, like his Father, works on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath, of course, is what the Old Testament prohibits, but Jesus claimed that he must work on the Sabbath since he is equal with God (John 5:18). 

It is interesting to consider here the standpoint of the ruler of the syna­gogue in Luke 13:10-17. He argued that Jesus should heal on the other six days of the week and not on the Sabbath. On one level this advice seems quite reasonable, especially if the strict views of the Sabbath that were common in Judaism were correct. What is striking is that Jesus deliberately healed on the Sabbath. Healing is what he "ought" (dei) to do on the Sabbath day (Luke 13:16). It seems that he did so to demonstrate his superiority to the Sabbath and to hint that it is not in force forever. There may be a suggestion in Luke 4:16-21 that Jesus fulfills the Jubilee of the Old Testament (Lev. 25). The rest and joy anticipated in Jubilee is fulfilled in him, and hence the rest and feasting of the Sabbath find their climax in Jesus. 

We would expect the Sabbath to no longer be in force since it was the covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant, and, as I have argued elsewhere in this book, it is clear that believers are no longer under the Sinai covenant. There­fore, they are no longer bound by the sign of the covenant either. The Sabbath, as a covenant sign, celebrated Israel's deliverance from Egypt, but the Exodus points forward, according to New Testament writers, to redemption in Christ. Believers in Christ were not freed from Egypt, and hence the covenant sign of Israel does not apply to them. 

It is clear in Paul's letters that the Sabbath is not binding upon believers. In Colossians Paul identifies the Sabbath as a shadow along with requirements regarding foods, festivals, and the new moon (Col. 2:16-17). The Sabbath, in other words, points to Christ and is fulfilled in him. The word for "shadow" (skia) that Paul uses to describe the Sabbath is the same term the author of Hebrews used to describe Old Testament sacrifices. The law is only a "shadow (skia) of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities" (Heb. 10:1). The argument is remarkably similar to what we see in Colossians: both contrast elements of the law as a shadow with the "substance" (sōma, Col. 2:17) or the "form" (eikona, Heb. 10:1) found in Christ. Paul does not denigrate the Sabbath. He salutes its place in salvation history, for, like the Old Testament sacrifices, though not in precisely the same way, it prepared the way for Christ. I know of no one who thinks Old Testament sacrifices should be instituted today; and when we compare what Paul says about the Sabbath with such sacrifices, it seems right to conclude that he thinks the Sabbath is no longer binding. 

Some argue, however, that "Sabbath" in Colossians 2:16 does not refer to the weekly Sabbaths but only to sabbatical years. But this is a rather des­perate expedient, for the most prominent day in the Jewish calendar was the weekly Sabbath. We know from secular sources that it was the observance of the weekly Sabbath that attracted the attention of Gentiles (Juvenal, Sat­ires 14.96-106; Tacitus, Histories 5.4). Perhaps sabbatical years are included here, but the weekly Sabbath should not be excluded, for it would naturally come to the mind of both Jewish and Gentile readers. What Paul says here is remarkable, for he lumps the Sabbath together with food laws, festivals like Passover, and new moons. All of these constitute shadows that anticipate the coming of Christ. Very few Christians think we must observe food laws, Passover, and new moons. But if this is the case, then it is difficult to see why the Sabbath should be observed since it is placed together with these other matters. 

Another crucial text on the Sabbath is Romans 14:5: "One person es­teems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." In Romans 14:1-15:6 Paul mainly discusses food that some—almost certainly those influenced by Old Testament food laws—think is defiled. Paul clearly teaches, in contrast to Leviticus 11:1-44 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21, that all foods are clean (Rom. 14:14, 20) since a new era of redemptive history has dawned. In other words, Paul sides theologically with the strong in the argument, believing that all foods are clean. He is concerned, however, that the strong avoid injuring and damaging the weak. The strong must respect the opinions of the weak (Rom. 14:1) and avoid arguments with them. Apparently the weak were not insisting that food laws and the observance of days were necessary for salvation, for if that were the case they would be proclaiming another gospel (cf. Gal. 1:8-9; 2:3-5; 4:10; 5:2-6), and Paul would not tolerate their viewpoint. Probably the weak believed that one would be a stronger Christian if one kept food laws and observed days. The danger for the weak was that they would judge the strong (Rom. 14:3-4), and the danger for the strong was that they would de­spise the weak (Rom. 14:3, 10). In any case, the strong seem to have had the upper hand in the Roman congregations, for Paul was particularly concerned that they not damage the weak. 

Nevertheless, a crucial point must not be overlooked. Even though Paul watches out for the consciences of the weak, he holds the viewpoint of the strong on both food laws and days. John Barclay rightly argues that Paul subtly (or not so discreetly!) undermines the theological standpoint of the weak since he argues that what one eats and what days one observes are a matter of no concern.[1] The Old Testament, on the other hand, is clear on the matter. The foods one eats and the days one observes are ordained by God. He has given clear commands on both of these issues. Hence, Paul's argument is that such laws are no longer valid since believers are not under the Mosaic covenant. Indeed, the freedom to believe that all days are alike surely includes the Sabbath, for the Sabbath naturally would spring to the mind of Jewish readers since they kept the Sabbath weekly. 

Paul has no quarrel with those who desire to set aside the Sabbath as a special day, as long as they do not require it for salvation or insist that other believers agree with them. Those who esteem the Sabbath as a special day are to be honored for their point of view and should not be despised or ridiculed. Others, however, consider every day to be the same. They do not think that any day is more special than another. Those who think this way are not to be judged as unspiritual. Indeed, there is no doubt that Paul held this opinion, since he was strong in faith instead of being weak. It is crucial to notice what is being said here. If the notion that every day of the week is the same is accept­able, and if it is Paul's opinion as well, then it follows that Sabbath regulations are no longer binding. The strong must not impose their convictions on the weak and should be charitable to those who hold a different opinion, but Paul clearly has undermined the authority of the Sabbath in principle, for he does not care whether someone observes one day as special. He leaves it entirely up to one's personal opinion. But if the Sabbath of the Old Testament were still in force, Paul could never say this, for the Old Testament makes incredibly strong statements about those who violate the Sabbath, and the death penalty is even required in some instances. Paul is living under a different dispensa­tion, that is, a different covenant, for now he says it does not matter whether one observes one day out of seven as a Sabbath. 

Some argue against what is defended here by appealing to the creation order. As noted above, the Sabbath for Israel is patterned after God's creation of the world in seven days. What is instructive, however, is that the New Tes­tament never appeals to Creation to defend the Sabbath. Jesus appealed to the creation order to support his view that marriage is between one man and one woman for life (Mark 10:2-12). Paul grounded his opposition to women teaching or exercising authority over men in the creation order (1 Tim. 2:12-13), and homosexuality is prohibited because it is contrary to nature (Rom. 1:26-27), in essence, to God's intention when he created men and women. Similarly, those who ban believers from eating certain foods and from mar­riage are wrong because both food and marriage are rooted in God's good creation (1 Tim. 4:3-5). We see nothing similar with the Sabbath. Never does the New Testament ground it in the created order. Instead, we have very clear verses that say it is a "shadow" and that it does not matter whether believers observe it. So, how do we explain the appeal to creation with reference to the Sabbath? It is probably best to see creation as ananalogy instead of as a ground. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant, and since the cov­enant has passed away, so has the covenant sign. 

Now it does not follow from this that the Sabbath has no significance for believers. It is a shadow, as Paul said, of the substance that is now ours in Christ. The Sabbath's role as a shadow is best explicated by Hebrews, even if Hebrews does not use the word for "shadow" in terms of the Sabbath. The author of Hebrews sees the Sabbath as foreshadowing the eschatological rest of the people of God (Heb. 4:1-10). A "Sabbath rest" still awaits God's people (v. 9), and it will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors. The Sabbath, then, points to the final rest of the people of God. But since there is an already-but-not-yet character to what Hebrews says about rest, should believers continue to practice the Sabbath as long as they are in the not-yet?[2] I would answer in the negative, for the evidence we have in the New Testament points in the contrary direction. We remember that the Sab­bath is placed together with food laws and new moons and Passover in Colos­sians 2:16, but there is no reason to think that we should observe food laws, Passover, and new moons before the consummation. Paul's argument is that believers now belong to the age to come and the requirements of the old cov­enant are no longer binding. 

Does the Lord's Day, that is, Christians worshiping on the first day of the week, constitute a fulfillment of the Sabbath? The references to the Lord's Day in the New Testament are sparse. In Troas believers gathered "on the first day of the week...to break bread" and they heard a long message from Paul (Acts 20:7). Paul commands the Corinthians to set aside money for the poor "on the first day of every week" (1 Cor. 16:2). John heard a loud voice speaking to him "on the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10). These scattered hints suggest that the early Christians at some point began to worship on the first day of the week. The practice probably has its roots in the resurrection of Jesus, for he appeared to his disciples "the first day of the week" (John 20:19). All the Synoptics emphasize that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, i.e., Sunday: "very early on the first day of the week" (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1). The fact that each of the Gospels stresses that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week is striking. But we have no indication that the Lord's Day func­tions as a fulfillment of the Sabbath. It is likely that gathering together on the Lord's Day stems from the earliest church, for we see no debate on the issue in church history, which is quite unlikely if the practice originated in Gentile churches outside Israel. By way of contrast, we think of the intense debate in the first few centuries on the date of Easter. No such debate exists regarding the Lord's Day. 

The early roots of the Lord's Day are verified by the universal practice of the Lord's Day in Gentile churches in the second century.[3] It is not surprising that many Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath as well. One segment of the Ebionites practiced the Lord's Day and the Sabbath. Their ob­servance of both is instructive, for it shows that the Lord's Day was not viewed as the fulfillment of the Sabbath but as a separate day. 

Most of the early church fathers did not practice or defend literal Sab­bath observance (cf.Diognetus 4:1) but interpreted the Sabbath eschatologi­cally and spiritually. They did not see the Lord's Day as a replacement of the Sabbath but as a unique day. For instance, in the Epistle of Barnabas, the Sab­baths of Israel are contrasted with "the eighth day" (15:8), and the latter is described as "a beginning of another world." Barnabas says that "we keep the eighth day" (which is Sunday), for it is "the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (15:9). The Lord's Day was not viewed as a day in which be­lievers abstained from work, as was the case with the Sabbath. Instead, it was a day in which most believers were required to work, but they took time in the day to meet together in order to worship the Lord.[4] The contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day is clear in Ignatius, when he says, "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death" (To the Magnesians 9:1). Ignatius, writing about a.d. 110, specifically contrasts the Sabbath with the Lord's Day, showing that he did not believe the latter replaced the former.[5] Bauckham argues that the idea that the Lord's day replaced the Sabbath is post-Constantinian. Luther saw rest as necessary but did not tie it to Sunday.[6] A stricter interpretation of the Sabbath became more common with the Puritans, along with the Seventh-Day Baptists and later the Seventh-Day Adventists.[7] 

SUMMARY 

Believers are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer applicable now that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called upon to honor and respect those who think the Sabbath is still mandatory for believers. But if one argues that the Sabbath is required for salvation, such a teaching is contrary to the gospel and should be resisted forcefully. In any case, Paul makes it clear in both Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-17 that the Sabbath has passed away now that Christ has come. It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest. But the New Testament does not specify when that rest should take place, nor does it set forth a period of time when that rest should occur. We must remember that the early Christians were required to work on Sundays. They worshiped the Lord on the Lord's Day, the day of Jesus' resurrection, but the early Christians did not believe the Lord's Day fulfilled or replaced the Sab­bath. The Sabbath pointed toward eschatological rest in Christ, which be­lievers enjoy in part now and will enjoy fully on the Last Day. 

REFLECTION QUESTIONS 

1. What is the strongest argument for continued observance of the Sabbath? 

2. What evidence in Paul suggests that the Sabbath is no longer required? 

3. How does Hebrews contribute to our theology of the Sabbath? 

4. What is the relationship between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day? 

5. What is your view on observing the Sabbath today? 

__________

Footnotes:

1. John M. G. Barclay, "'Do We Undermine the Law?' A Study of Romans 14.1-15.6," in Paul and the Mosaic Law, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 287-308. 

2. So Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God," in Pressing To­ward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble (Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), 33-51. Gaffin argues that the rest is only eschatological. I support Andrew Lincoln's view that it is of an already-but-not-yet character (Andrew T. Lincoln, "Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 197-220). 

3. For a detailed discussion of some of the issues raised here, see R. J. Bauckham, "The Lord's Day," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 221-50; idem, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 257-69. 

4. So Bauckham, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," 274. 

5. Cf. the concluding comments of Bauckham, "The Lord's Day," 240. 

6. Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," in Luther's Works, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (general editor) and E. Theodore Bachman (Phil­adelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 165. 

7. Bauckham's survey of history is immensely valuable. See Bauckham, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," 251-98; idem, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Medieval Church in the West," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 299-309; idem, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 311-41.  

Copyright 2010 Thomas R. Schreiner. 
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Kregel Publications
P.O. Box 2607
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

A Brief Commentary on the Doctrines of Eternal Security & Assurance

For me, the issue of eternal security (as well as most of the other seemingly contradictory doctrines) rest upon the basis of does Scripture contradict itself. If we believe that Scripture teaches that it cannot contradict itself because it is true in its entirety (Ps. 19:7-9; 33:4; 119:160, Jn. 17:17, 2Tim. 3:16-17), then Scripture isn't the issue, rather our interpretation of it is. Does Scripture teach eternal security? I would say yes. Does Scripture teach conditional security? I would also have to say yes. But this then poses a contradiction, which means how I and others have interpreted these passages are off.

I personally hold to the position of eternal security. The reason why I hold to eternal security rest primarily in several interwoven passages: John 6:39; 10:14-16, 27-29; 14:16-17, Romans 8:29-30, 1Corinthians 1:8, 2Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 1:5-6, 13-14, 1John 3:7-9; 4:13. Time does not permit for me to explore in this setting contextually all the passages I have cited. Nevertheless, from these passages we find that...

(1)Jesus will not lose (in context "let perish")(*1) anyone that comes to Him,
(2)Jesus will bring all His sheep into His one fold,
(3)absolutely nothing and no one can take away Jesus' sheep from Jesus,
(4)believers receive the Holy Spirit, and He is in them forever,
(5)believers are predestined by God to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus,
(6)believers are foreknown, called, justified, and glorified all by God,
(7)God will confirm (in context, "establish")(*2) believers blameless (literally "without fault in His sight")(*3) to the end,
(8)God has given and sealed (literally "stamped for ownership")(*4) believers with the Holy Spirit as a pledge (in context, "a deposit given as a guarantee")(*5),
(9)God has predestined believers to adoption as His children to the praise of the glory of His grace,
(10)believers have been sealed(*4) in Jesus with the Holy Spirit as a pledge(*5) of our inheritance to the praise of God's glory,
(11)a person cannot be truly born-again and still live in (practicing) sin because God's seed is in them, and
(12)believers have the assurance of knowing they're in God because God has given them the Holy Spirit.

I cannot read these handful of passages and believe somehow I, even with my free-will, can be truly born-again and still lose my salvation. I'm not denying free-will. I know full well I have a responsibility in working out my salvation and discipleship, in walking in the Spirit, in standing firm in the faith, and so forth. But just seeing from these handful of passages how active God is in keeping what He Himself has redeemed, it would be arrogant of me to say I can be truly born-again (regenerated) at one point and then, despite God's seed, seal, pledge, predestination, foreknowledge, call, justification, authority and power not to lose what He has, obligation to gather all of His sheep, confirming believers to the end, and the Holy Spirit being in us forever, I can become unborn-again (unregenerate). I acknowledge that their are passages that do speak to this very thing. However, while I may not fully understand what they mean just yet, I stand on the basis that Scripture cannot contradict itself, thus those passages somehow correlate with the truth mentioned in the above passages rather than the other way around. Those passages above do not fit whatsoever with conditional security. For example, to be able to somehow reverse or resist predestination contradicts predestination. I believe this is where our free-will and God's sovereignty work hand-in-hand. We do our part of working out and walking out our discipleship. God does His part of keeping us and sanctifying us along the way.

True born-again believers will bear fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives and will look more like Jesus over time (Jn. 14:16-26; 15:1-17, 26-27, Rom. 6:12-22; 8:9-14, Gal. 5:16-26, Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:12-16, 1Thess. 4:1-8, Tit. 2:11-14, 1Pet. 1:13-19, 2Pet. 3:18, 1Jn. 2:3-6); otherwise, they cannot say they have been truly born of the Holy Spirit if there is no evidence of the Holy Spirit in one's life. There is no one basic standard every Christian must reach. Each Christian who truly has the Holy Spirit will bear His fruit, but we all grow and mature differently--that is, at different times and in different areas. But there will be growth, for growth and maturity is a fruit of sanctification. Can true born-again believers fall back into sin? Sure. We see clear examples in Scripture. However, repentance is ever-present for a true believer because the Holy Spirit is ever-active in them. True believers may fall, but it will only be temporarily, not completely (Ps. 37:23-24, Prov. 24:16, Rom. 6:17-18, Phil. 1:6, Jude 1).

The doctrine of assurance is closely connected to the doctrine of eternal security. Our assurance of our salvation is the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is also one of our assurances of our eternal security, for He is our seal and pledge from God. Furthermore, in my estimation, the doctrines of eternal security and assurance do not create complacent, lethargic Christians, rather sin and selfishness does. Yet, on the contrary, the work of the Holy Spirit in believers' lives is to produce His fruit, Christ-likeness, and growth/maturity.

To be honest, I feel bad for the believers who are not so solid in their faith, because these types of arguments can very well have them second guessing what they believe. We have to do a better job of disagreeing in love and working toward some type of  common ground amid controversial doctrines.

__________
References:
*1: http://concordances.org/greek/622.htm
*2: http://concordances.org/greek/950.htm
*3: http://concordances.org/greek/410.htm
*4: http://concordances.org/greek/4972.htm
*5: http://concordances.org/greek/728.htm

6/28/12

Sin & Infant Salvation

It is a difficult thing to talk to parent who just lost a child. What do you say? How do you console them? Do you say anything? It’s even more difficult when they ask you how could God do this or is their child in heaven. How as a Christian can we hold to the truth of inherent sin and believe as well as assure people that their infants and small children go to heaven when they die without sounding contradictory? This question is what I will be answering in this blog article.

Without thinking, majority of Christians and non-Christians believe infants and small children are essentially innocent of sin and guiltless. And someone would say, “Aren’t they? Infants can’t sin right?” You’re absolutely right. An infant would be “innocent” of committing a sin. And yet, someone else would say, “But, wait, how can this be when the Bible teaches that everyone is born in sin?”

David said in Psalm 51:5, “For I was born a sinner—yes, from the moment my mother conceived me” (NLT).
Job speaks on this as well, “So no one can be good in the presence of God, and no one born to a woman can be pure.” (Job 25:4, NCV).

Right here is where it can get tricky if we don’t understand sound theology. Yes, an infant would be “innocent” of committing a sin, but they are not without sin. Every human born is born “in” sin because Adam’s sin has been imputed (transferred, credited) to everyone born of the seed of man (Rom. 3:9; 5:12, 16-19). This means no person, infant to adult, is “guiltless” or “innocent” (Ps. 143:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20).

Now this begs another question, is the atoning work of Christ somehow applied to infants without their making a volitional decision to trust in Christ for salvation?
     This question is a much more difficult to answer. If I answer this from an Arminianist soteriological perspective, I’d say I believe God has some special grace for infants and somehow accounts the atoning work of Christ to them (cf. Matthew 18:14). If I answer this from a Calvinist soteriological perspective, I’d say only those infants whom God predestined does the atoning work of Christ apply to (cf. Ephesians 1:3-11). I do not identify as either an Arminianist or a Calvinist, but if I simply use both of the scripture references and arguments given I have a pretty good case for believing that the atoning work of Christ is somehow applied to infants without them making a volitional decision. Furthermore, David’s comment in 2Samuel 12:21-23 is very suggestive that he is speaking of seeing his dead child again in eternity. So between David’s story and what Jesus states in Matthew 18:14 is enough to make a case that in God’s sovereign plan, even though sin has been imputed to an infant, He--without violating His own law--makes some special provision for infants and small children who die.
     I believe this is one of those cases of Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belongs to the LORD our God” (NKJV). I’m okay with giving reasonable answers to this question rather than definitive ones in this case.

I hope this has helped us as Christians know and more certainly assure someone who’s lost an infant or small child that their infants and small children go to heaven when they die without sounding contradictory.

6/2/2012

1Tim. 2:11-12: Women Teaching & Leading in the Church

Lately, I have been in several conversations regarding women not being able to teach or lead men/mixed groups within the church. This is controversial, so I've responded as balanced and objective as I could. Yet, these conversations have made me want to revisit this topic scripturally again. I know my position, but then it's always good to know why you hold to that particular position. I remember me writing about this topic before in my systematic theology class. However, when I went and read over that paper I realized I only skimmed this passage, and not from this angle. This blog is me exploring this topic and passage concisely and objectively to see what Paul's intent was and was not.

Please allow me to share this disclaimer, THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE writing. I will not answer every question regarding this topic. I will not answer every objection regarding this topic. I will not be attacking any one side or the other. I am simply exploring this passage in a concise, objective approach; following the evidence like the First 48 TV show. (I would have said forensic investigators, but that would equal me going exhaustive).

Let's begin shall we.

Context, Context, Context
A key rule in hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) is "context determines meaning". It goes from immediate context, to surrounding context, to context of the whole scope of Scripture. While the passage of focus is 1Timothy 2:11-12, for context we'll start at verse 9 and go to verse 15, and then broaden out to the whole letter itself, and then to the New Testament.

In short, this passage (vv. 9-15) is mainly addressing women's internal and external godliness expressed in the local church. For it starts with outward modesty (v. 9) from inward godliness (10), to godly submission unto God's headship structure (vv. 11-15). The questions that follow are: What made Paul write this? Were there any issues in the church Timothy was pastoring? Is Paul addressing women teaching and leading in all areas in the church? Does that mean a woman can't teach any man in anything in regards to the local church, or be in any authority over any man in regards to the local church? Is this "teach" speaking of teaching in general or teaching doctrine or a different specificity of teaching? Was this meant to be a timeless theological principle or an instruction for the church culture of that time? And trust me more questions could be presented.

Some Historical Context
Some of the things the church in Ephesus were battling, in regards to women, was fertility cults, idol worship of the goddess Diana (Artemis) (Acts 19:24-41), promiscuity, attention-seeking, women possibly exploiting their new liberties in Christ, among other things. This helps bring into light the reason for the call to outward modesty from inward godliness (vv. 9-10). Paul is challenging the women not to dress nor act like the unsaved women of Ephesus. It further helps by providing some backdrop for why Paul is telling them to learn in a non-disruptive manner and why they are not to teach or have authority (vv. 11-12). In other words, don't take your freedom to learn and speak too far. Scholars say this instruction to learn was a big deal then, because women up until that time were not allowed to even learn from a man (rabbi/teacher) except for their husband. Jesus broke that mold, and Paul is following suit. But some of the women were probably taking it too far.

Exploring the Text...Contextually
In verse 11, "learn in silence" does not mean in context "learn but never speak", but rather it means "learn in a quiet, non-disruptive manner" (cf. same Greek word for "silence" with 2Thess. 3:11-12, but different from the "silent" in 1Cor. 14:34). Here Paul is saying a woman learning is okay to do, just learn in a non-disruptive manner under the leadership of the church (i.e. "with all submission"). Verse 12 is saying, in context with the surrounding texts in this letter (vv. 8, 13-14; 1:3-7, 18-20; 3:1-7; 5:17), that a woman is not to teach from the place of elder/pastor nor to try to usurp the eldership/overseer/pastorate authority given to the man (or usurp even the headship authority given to the husband, vv. 13-15 cf. 1Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:23), but rather be non-disruptive (i.e. "but be in silence").

Exploring the N.T...Contextually
So how do we know Paul (or shall we say the Holy Spirit inspiring Paul) is not saying or implying that women cannot teach "a man" or be in leadership over "a man"? Here's how:

• We see in Acts 18:24-26 that Priscilla and Aquila both taught (Gr., expositorally) Apollos "the way of God more accurately". Priscilla was a leader alongside her husband in their house church (Rom. 16:3). Thus, there was teaching and leading by a woman, and not only over other women or simply kids, and under the headship authority of her husband and leadership authority of Apostle Paul.
• Phoebe was a deaconess ("servant of the church" implies a position compared to a servant in the church which implies just someone helping out) (Rom. 16:1). What's more, Paul even instructed others believers (with no distinction between men or women) to receive her and to "help her in whatever manner she may have need of you" (Rom. 16:2). This implies some authority (probably temporarily and only on occasions, but nonetheless it's still authority) over those who are to assist her as "she may have need".
• Who knows if some of the other sisters Paul mentions in Romans 16 were leaders as well. Paul speaks of these women using the same terms as his male leader counterparts. "The verb "worked very hard" (16:6, 12) is used of ministerial service" (*3, p. 1283).
• Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures (2Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15).
• Apostle John writes a letter to a fellow sister who is leading and teaching both male and female believers in her home (2John). In the Greek the term children used in 2John is gender neutral and the Greek term is unclear if it means her literal children (whether grown or young is unconfirmed too) or children in the faith. John goes as far as instructing this sister to watch themselves from falsehood (2Jn. 8-9), and what to do when traveling false teachers come to her house (2Jn. 10-11). That would be her exercising leadership in discerning falsehood, and exercising authority over a man by restricting him entrance to teach if she discerned he was a false teacher. All the while she's under the authority of the Apostle and Elder John.
• We know women are disciples and called to make more disciples, with no distinction between discipling men or women nor any distinction with it being during a worship service or not (Matt. 28:18-20).
• Every believer is a priest (1Pet. 2:4-10).
• Scripture does not indicate that the Holy Spirit is limited to only giving men the spiritual gift of teaching or leadership, nor does Scripture indicate that these gifts are gender specific while they're being administered (1Cor. 12:4-7, 11, 27-28).

Thus, Paul would not be saying or implying something contrary to women teaching and leading in these modes. Paul is instructing Timothy that women are not to teach or have authority from the office of elder/pastor, not restricting them from teaching or leading mixed groups of men and women in the church in general or even during worship services (for there are no Scriptures that definitively state elders/pastors are the only ones who must teach during worship services).

But what about Paul's admonishment in 1Cor. 14:34-35? How does that fit into the not teaching or no authority over a man? In context, Paul was addressing disruptive and unruly married women who were using their gifts in a disorderly manner (1Cor. 14:26-33, 40). Therefore, Paul's admonishment was for order among some disorderly married women (v. 35), not a mandate for all women to not speak. Disorderly women are to stay silent (Gr., hold their peace/tongue). Disorderly women are not permitted to speak (Gr., be talkative, babbling) in the assembly but to submit to leadership, and if they want to speak they are to ask their own husbands at home. Why? Because it is a disgrace to them to be disruptively talkative in the church (i.e. during the service); it's shameful for them to be seen as disruptive and disorderly. Paul's admonishment here comes with concern for them as well as the church. This passage, in context, can fit into the overall point in 1Timothy 2:9-15, that is, the internal and external godliness expressed in the local church; however, it does not fit into the underlying point of teaching and leading in 1Tim. 2:11-12.

Conclusion
To quote The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,

“Many complementarians continue to disagree concerning the extent of the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12. While there is agreement that pastors/elders should be qualified males, there is disagreement concerning what the Bible says about women teaching mixed adult audiences. Some complementarian churches do not allow women to teach mixed adult audiences, while other complementari­an churches do allow it. On this particu­lar point, there is agreement in principle (observing headship), but disagreement in practice (teaching mixed audiences).” (http://bit.ly/HZBt9b) (emphasis added)

I believe that's where this concern and difference boils down to, we agree in principle (observing headship) but disagree on what it looks like in practice (teaching mixed audiences), and this is not worth the time spent arguing or dividing over. No one's salvation or discipleship is at stake over this.

What about churches/denominations who use these verses to not allow women to teach from the pulpit or to not teach mixed groups of men and women in the church or to not be in leadership over mixed groups of men and women? That is that church's preference. There are no scriptures that clearly state or instruct women to teach men/mixed groups or lead over men/mixed groups. Thus, it's not a matter of Scripture, but a matter of preference. Those who use these passages for this reason don't need to. Each church has its own right to implement their own governing principles and rules. And as a member of that church you should be sure to know what your church's governing principles, rules, and beliefs are, and if you agree then uphold them, so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you do not agree, but you have no desire to depart for that reason, then respectfully uphold the governing principles, rules, and beliefs---so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you have questions, pray and ask, and then research their answers. If you have concerns, pray and ask, and then research their answers. Repeat this process as much as needed. But this issue is not worth being divided over or causing an uproar in the Church. Again, it's not a matter of Scripture, but a matter of preference.

What about the churches/denominations who have women as pastors/elders? This is different than the above question. This is not a matter of preference, but a matter of interpretation. Some argue that the passages in 1Timothy 3 & 5 and Titus 1 are overruled by Galatians 3:28 and similar verses. Others may use different verses to minimize or eradicate the male headship authority in the church (and maybe even in the home). While others say Paul's use of masculine nouns when describing elders/pastors/overseers was more cultural than theological. Personally, for me, this is a harder thing to overlook than those who prefer to not allow women to teach or lead as stated in the first question. Those who hold to the view of women as pastors/elders open up the whole counsel of God to be interpreted and modified to fit one's personal view and not the author's original intent. However, like I said above, each church has its own right to implement their own governing principles, rules, and beliefs. As a member of that church you should be sure to know what your church's governing principles, rules, and beliefs are, and if you agree then uphold them, so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you do not agree, but you have no desire to depart for that reason, then respectfully uphold the governing principles, rules, and beliefs---so long as they aren't contrary to Scripture or treating them as a component of your salvation. If you have questions, pray and ask, and then research their answers. If you have concerns, pray and ask, and then research their answers. Repeat this process as much as needed. This issue is not an essential of salvation. Yet for some it is a non-negotiable. Thus, you have to decide what this issue is worth to you and means for you. Personally, I choose to uphold the Scripture as it states in it's original intent and context in this area.

Last Words

I hope this blog has helped you the reader in someway. If not, then forgive me for wasting your time. It started out as a simple refresher and turned into this. I told my wife I wasn't writing a blog, and here I am, blogging away. We as believers should be able to discuss and explore controversial topics and passages without devouring each other. And we can graciously challenge one another to hold tight to what Scripture says and not what we prefer or what we think it means. But let our resolve be to continue to fellowship in what we do agree on (the essentials), and not spend so much time focused on what we disagree on (the non-essentials and non-negotiables). A lost and dying world is watching us, and especially how we handle controversial issues.

Jesus said, "I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me." (John 17:20-21, NLT)

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1Tim. 1:17, NASB)

______
References:
1. BibleLexicon.org
2. Discovery Series: "What does the Bible say about Women in Ministry" (RBC Ministries)
*3. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Book House)
4. Find It Quick: Handy Bible Encyclopedia (Ron Rhodes)
5. InterlinearBible.org
6. MacArthur's Whole Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson)
7. NASB Life Application Study Bible (Zondervan)
8. The New Testament and Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Moody)
9. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Moody Press)

Originally posted 5/8/12
Updated 11/20/13

Salvation: Does Baptism Save?

About a week ago, a brother from my church called me asking for some assistance. His problem was that a new convert in his small group had been targeted by another religious group. The religious group eventually planted its claws in this new convert and he was telling my brother (the small group leader) that he was confused about his salvation. The religious group told him that baptism is a requirement for his salvation, but his small group leader was telling him that is false teaching. The religious group told my brother to meet and discuss this issue with the new convert. So, I and another brother from my church (Lance Evans) started to prepare an outline to specifically defend what the Bible says about salvation and baptism and give it to our brother to use. I wanted to share this outline with everyone (which has been cleaned up and turned into a blog), so we all can see the truth about this matter.

Most Christians are familiar with what apologetics is—the rational defense of our Faith for those outside our Faith. But what do we call it when we have to soundly defend the truths of our Faith from others who claim to be sharing truth from within the same Faith? This “defense within” is called polemics. This outline is a polemical writing meant to defend the truth about salvation from the false teaching of salvation through baptism.
____________________________
1. Putting Acts 2:38 in Context

*Acts 3:19 - Once again Peter addresses a different crowd about salvation and leaves out water baptism, but mentions repentance and faith.
*Acts 8:35-37 - Phillip clearly makes it plain to the Ethiopian Eunuch that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 10:34, 42-27 - Peter clearly makes it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 16:30-33 - Paul and Silas clearly make it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.

In Acts alone we see 2 Apostles and 2 church elders who have taught that believing is what saves and baptism proceeds but is not a necessity for salvation.

2. Putting 1Peter 3:21 in Context
(The same Peter in Acts 2:38 now speaking in his own Letter/Epistle)

*What is Peter not saying? Peter is not saying water baptism saves a person, because that would contradict the point Peter makes in verses 18-20; which is Jesus died for sin to save people from God’s judgment on sin, just as the Ark saved Noah and the 8 souls from the water, the water didn’t save anyone—the water was God’s judgment on the world (Gen. 6).
*The Ark is an Old Testament prefigure of Jesus. And just as the Ark carried them through the water, our Ark—Jesus, after we believe in Him as shown by multiple people in the multiple passages in Acts—leads us to the water in baptism (Rom. 6).
*This point, belief in Jesus first for salvation and then baptism proceeds, goes along with Peter’s introduction in 1Peter 1:17-25. If he showed us in chapter one that it is the blood of Christ and the Word of God that redeems us, why would Peter teach a blatant contradiction in chapter 3 that baptism saves us?

3. The Apostles learned their theology on salvation from the Old Testament & Jesus who affirmed it (i.e. the theology of salvation) in the New Testament.

*Matt. 26:26-28 - Jesus confirming that it’s through His blood where we receive the forgiveness of sins.
*The Old Testament clearly teaches that God required blood (of animals) to provide forgiveness for the people. Hebrews chapter 9 all to 10:18 talks about the blood of Jesus being the fulfillment of that Old Testament requirement for the forgiveness of the sins of those who believe. If the blood of Jesus does this, what need/function is there for baptism? There is nothing left to do! The blood Jesus shed when He died as a sacrifice/atonement for sin has paid it all. God’s wages for sin has been paid in full!
*This clears up what Mark and Matthew penned in the last chapter of their gospels (Mk. 16:16-17, Matt. 28:18-20). These two learned their theology from Jesus and the Old Testament (Mark from Peter and the Old Testament, but Peter learned his from the Old Testament and Jesus). Thus, this understanding is essential because in both we see belief still precedes the act of baptism, and if belief is absent (not baptism, but belief) the person is not saved.

4. Putting Eph. 2:1-9 in Context

*Anything added to the grace of God freely given in the life and death of Jesus Christ, and our faith (our believing) in what God’s grace through Jesus Christ has done, is works! God’s grace and our faith is it for salvation. Baptism is a work! Furthermore, before Apostle Paul nailed this point in chapter 2, he actually introduced his letter to Ephesus by making it clear that it’s through God’s grace in Jesus’ blood and our belief in what God did through Jesus that we have forgiveness and redemption (Eph. 1:7, 13-14, cf. Col. 1:13-14).

5. Putting John 3:3-8 in Context

*The context of the term “water” in John 3:5 is ambiguous (to some extent). It could mean water as in physical birth (flesh v.6), baptism (but that would be a work added to grace and faith which contradicts scripture, so that’s out), or water as the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5-6. The point Jesus is making in John 3:3-8 is the same point he reiterates in John 6:63, the Spirit gives Life (eternal life), the Flesh profits nothing. The water is not what gives life to the person dead in sins and trespasses, but rather the Holy Spirit.

Scripture does not, will not, nor cannot contradict Scripture. Whatever verse/passage is pulled out, it MUST stay in line (agree with) the whole scope of Scripture, not just part. If not, then whatever the interpretation of that verse/passage is should not be taken as biblically sound and thus not accepted, since the whole biblical context doesn’t agree with it. We can conclude with this, water baptism does not save a person. Salvation is through the grace of God in the blood of Jesus and our believing in what He’s done—death/atonement and resurrection. Anything more than this is a false gospel!

1/2011

The Holy Trinity...for those who don't know

A lot of issues arise from not clearly and properly defining the meaning of the Trinity. The Holy Trinity, as expressed in Scripture, is nothing more than the one and only Covenant God (I AM Who I AM) revealed in three co-equal and co-eternal but distinct persons (members): the Father, the Son (Jesus the Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

This short writing is to speak against the “modalism” teaching and there not being distinction within the Godhead. According to this false doctrine, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are simply modes (simultaneous manifestations) of one God, not distinct co-equal and co-eternal divine members of one Godhead. I will show 9 distinctions between the three, which then also affirms their co-equal divine mono-nature.

Distinction #1: Jesus says of the individuality of the Father, “My Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28 cf. Phil. 2:5-11)

Distinction #2: Jesus says to the Father of the individuality of Himself, “Glorify Your Son” (Jn. 17:1)

Distinction #3: Jesus said of the individuality of Himself and the Holy Spirit to the scribes and Pharisees that they will be forgiven if they blaspheme Him but not if they blaspheme the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-33)

Distinction #4: Jesus speaks of the individuality of the Holy Spirit, Himself, and the Father (Jn. 14:25-26; 16:13-15)

Distinction #5: Jesus quoted to the Pharisees David’s prophetic divine distinction and equality of the individuality of Himself and the Father (Matt. 22:41-46)

Distinction #6: Peter, in the first sermon recorded after Jesus, mentions the individuality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:22-36)

Distinction #7: Paul speaks on the individuality of one Lord, one Spirit, and one Father of us all (Eph. 4:4-6 cf. Rom. 8:26-27, 1Cor. 15:15-28)

Distinction #8: John talks about fellowship with the Son and the Father (1Jn. 1:1-3) and that the Spirit serves as a witness to Jesus coming in the flesh (1Jn. 5:6-8)

Distinction #9: Jesus said if He bears witness of Himself by Himself His witness is not true. So Jesus says the Father and the Holy Spirit bear witness of Him––showing a distinction of the individuality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Jn. 5:31-37; 15:26; 8:14-18).

Just from these 9 alone we see this is not some doctrine picked up in later centuries as some suggest. Not to mention the book of Hebrews by itself displays––based on the Old Testament laws, the tabernacle, and such––the distinct persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! That’s some good company to have (Jesus, David, Paul, Peter, John) if you’re going to hold to a doctrine!

The Holy Trinity, or the plurality of the Godhead, is apparent in Scripture (e.g. Gen. 1:26; 11:7, Isa. 6:8, Jn. 3:11; 17:11, 21) and supported in history––for it is recorded that the first century and second century believers also believed, accepted, and worshipped the Triune God (e.g. Justin Martyr AD150, Polycarp AD116 [disciple of the Apostle John], Irenaeus AD185 [disciple of Polycarp], and in the late 2nd century/early 3rd century AD, Tertullian).

The Apostles got it from Jesus, the early church got it from the Apostles, and we got it from the scriptures passed on to us from the early church.

_________________________________________________________________

For those who may have questions about the heretical "Oneness/Modalism" doctrine, please check this site...Trinity versus Oneness.

2009

"Does God repent, make mistakes, or really know all things?"_Questions about God Pt. 1

Does God repent? If not, then why does the KJV display God responding by way of repenting? If so, does God make mistakes? Does not God know all things?
     Just a couple of questions I would like to discuss and possibly provide some clarity. Let's begin shall we.

Does God repent? Obviously yes if the KJV records it over 20 times. Although, I think we sometimes forget the words used in the Bible are not originally English words, they are Hebrew or Greek. In this case they are Hebrew, because God repenting is all within the Old Testament.
     There are only two Hebrew terms for repent. Repent (ed, est, eth, ing) in Hebrew is [nacham] which means: properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue [regret]; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself)-- comfort (self), ease (one's self); and, [shuwb] which means: to turn back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point); generally to retreat; often adverbial, again… Repentings in Hebrew is [nichuwm] which means: from nacham; properly, consoled; abstractly, solace. Repentance in Hebrew is [nocham] which means: From nacham; ruefulness…

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." (Gen. 6:5-7, KJV)

As you can see, the only Hebrew term for repented or repenteth is nacham. So does God make mistakes? No. This verse (and every other verse that uses nacham) is indicating God expressing an emotion, not making a mistake. The NASB Life Application Study Bible comments this passage like this, 

"The people's sin grieved God. He was expressing sorrow for what the people had done to themselves, as a parent might express sorrow over a rebellious child." 

Just like our sin grieves the Holy Spirit within us (Eph. 4:30), God was repented [sighing/sorry- nacham] and grieved in His heart with the sins of His creation back then as well.

*Note: The NKJV, NASB, & CEV say "sorry" in place of repented, and the AMP says "regretted". They all say grieved. (There is a great site to see what actual Hebrew and Greek words are being used in each verse for each word: http://www.biblos.com/).

The grieved used in context in Gen. 6:5-7 in Hebrew is [atsab] which means: to worry, pain or anger-- displease, grieve, hurt, make/be sorry, vex.
     Again, with the context of this word being used you'll see God is expressing an emotion in this passage, not displaying a mistake.
     Repent (ed, est, eth, ing, ings, ance) is used a total of 45 times in the Old Testament. The Hebrew term nacham is used 39 times in scriptures, and shuwb is used only 3 times. Repentance (nocham) and repentings (nichuwm) are only used once. No your math is not off, that does bring the total to 44. The verse (1Sam. 15:29) where "repent" is used twice the Hebrew only counts once, unless it's a different term being used. I should note also that all 45 do not belong to God repenting. Furthermore we can see that the writers of the Old Testament only use the term [shuwb] indicating a turn or change 3 times. Not a convincing amount for evidence of God making mistakes.

Does not God know all things in advance? Yes, and I'll explain it in minute. But I want to stay with "repent" for just another moment. If we look at the "repent" that God does from the context of the appropriate Hebrew definition/term we see He's not turning away from what He planned (Job 23:13) or surprised like He didn't know this was going to happen. He is simply displaying an emotional expression (e.g. like His grace and mercy exhibited in other passages) from the things He sees going on with what He created. The same was done by Jesus. "And when He had looked around at them with anger, being grieved by the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored as whole as the other." (Mk. 3:5, NKJV).
     I would like to insert a cause and effect here. We have to remember, God is eternal (Deut. 33:27, Ps. 90:2, Isa. 57:15, Jer. 10:10). He sits in eternity, we sit in the temporal. He sees everything as one scene, not like our moment by moment vision. The Bible tells us God is not the author of confusion (akatastasia- instability, i.e. disorder- commotion, confusion, tumult) but of peace, decency and order, righteous, and perfect in all His ways (1Cor. 14:33, 40, Deut. 32:4, Ps. 11:7; 18:30; 19:7-9). Therefore before God created anything, He would have to have a plan for it first. Thus, the lifetime of all He created has its specific lot in what He planned before He created it. From this understanding it is clear that the verses or passages where He's showing/displaying emotions (whatever that may be, in this case repenting) is simply Him showing Himself as an emotional God, just as Jesus did (Jn. 11:32-38, Lk. 19:37-41ff), and nothing more.

"But let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD." (Jer. 9:24)

Onto answering does God know all things? Here are two quick rhetorical questions. How can God be Creator and not know everything in advance involving what He created? How can God be the first and the last, the beginning and the end, eternal, and not know everything beforehand?

"The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions (yatsar- to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine) their hearts individually; He considers (biyn- to separate mentally (or distinguish), i.e. (generally) understand) all their works." (Ps. 33:13-15, NKJV)

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly;
therefore from now on you shall have wars." (2Chr. 16:9, NKJV)

"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." (Ps. 139:7-8, NKJV)

"…His understanding is unsearchable." (Isa. 40: 28, NKJV)

"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him
to whom we must give account." (Heb. 4:13, NKJV)

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord,
“who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev. 1:8, NKJV)

Now you tell me, with these verses displayed (and there are many more than they), the abundant prophecies and promises given by the mouth of God Himself (which means He must know the ending from the beginning in order to tell what's going to happen beforehand- ref. Isa. 44:6-8; 46:9-11; 48:3-5), and the content of scripture references like these (Ps. 139:1-16, Prov. 5:21; 15:3, Jer. 17:10 ref.11:20- Ps. 7:9- Jer. 20:12; 23:23-24), how can God not know all things in advance?

2007