Bible Verses That Confuse Me

[Question.Everything]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.


Thanks!

 

[elopez]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

The OT has been replaced with a new covenant. In the above verse Jesus was simply stating he was not their to get rid of their customs or prophets, but to fulfill something entirely else that being the new covenant. That is why we do no stone anyone for anything.

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

The elect are predestined unto salvation. Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, as when we are predestined which means God intervenes with what He wants influences us to want that same thing and to carry it out.

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.


Thanks!

Genocide obviously implies murder whereas how God acted would be killing, which is not murder and thus not genocide. In order for God to murder, He would have to act unlawfully. God does not act unlawfully as He establishes the law and is righteous. This, however, I suspect is far irrelevant to what you're really asking here. I am not sure why God didn't send Jesus earlier. All I do know is that God saw that time as the best, and while God is omniscient knowing when is best for us.

 

[wayseer]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

To fully understand the verse you have to appreciate the agenda behind the text.

Matthew was written at a time when the 'followers of the Way' were splitting into two - effectively, Christianity was being born. Matthew was knitting Jesus to Moses and the Mosaic law in order to make a continuation between the OT and what was to become what we know as the NT. Quite simple, Jesus was the 'new' Moses of the 'new' covenant.

Matthew's text is full of such connection and this example of Matthew's work is but one.

Ephesians 1:4-5

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

Essentially - Yes.

But it is questionable whether Paul wrote Ephesians - there are any number of words that appear in this text which do not appear in the 'genuine' literature.

Further, the text of Ephesians closely follows Colossians, another text not attributed to Paul which indicates that both were perhaps written by a disciple of Paul and addressed to the church in general rather than to an individual community.

But whoever it was who wrote Ephesians, he was following the example of Paul in directing his opening remarks to salutations and reinforcing the worthy efforts of all those who are 'in Christ'.

None of this necessarily answers your question as the whole notion of predestination is vexed at least.

1 Peter 1:20

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.

Valid points and one which has 'vexed' many.

There is no easy answer and much of that answer will have to do with how you perceive God. Is God a loving God or one that likes to pull strings? Do we have 'free will' in such matters? Just where do we get off the tram lines?

These are not readily answered and much of that answer depends on your own brand of christology.

Sorry for the non-answer - but it is a question that has deep roots.

 

[berachah]

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

We are all under the OT law until we die. We die when we are baptized into Christ and come out under the new law of grace through Jesus Christ. So if we are under the old law we are compelled to live by that law and that includes the sacrificial system. With no temple clearly the OT law cannnot be fulfilled, so fulfilling any other part of thr law is without purpose.

Ephesians 1:4-5

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

If you accept Christ you are destined to receive all the blessings that come from his work on the cross. God "desires that all men be saved".

1 Peter 1:20

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.
Thanks!

In the beginning Christ was the Creator of everything that is. That he was subsequently called to take on flesh and die for humanity does not means that was the original plan or his primary purpose.

 

[Publius]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean.

Correct. I've read enough of your posts to know that you rarely quote verses in their proper context and that you rarely assign assign a valid understanding to them.

if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

Through the lens of historical-grammatical hermeneutics.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated.

Any Christian that says this is just as wrong as the atheist who continues to ask why we no longer stone people even after it's been explained to hm countless times.

Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws.

Of course He does. Why wouldn't He? At the time of Jesus' incarnation, Israel was still under the Old Covenant and bound by the law.

Matthew 5:18 - "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Please note the phrase "until all is accomplished". All was accomplished upon Christ's death. He said these things before His death. Therefore, the conditions for His statement were still in effect.

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not?

Correct.

And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

Who says we have free will?

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood?

To pour out His judgement and wrath on mankind and to illustrate the judgement and wrath sin brings.

We are all under the OT law until we die.

How can that be when we're not Old Covenant Israel?

If you accept Christ you are destined to receive all the blessings that come from his work on the cross. God "desires that all men be saved".

So, we're saved because we "accept Christ"? What does that mean, exactly? Is that all that's required? Is anything required on God's part?

 

[food4thought]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

Hello Question.Everything. As a wonderful teacher of the Scripture once taught me, "in order to fully understand any given text, one must take it in context, context, context!" The meaning of this is that one must interpret an individual verse in the context of the immediately surrounding text, of the book in which it is taken from, and of the Bible as a whole. I would also add that one should attempt to understand the context of the times in which the message was given, and who it was directed to. Many of the supposed errors and contradictions of the Bible disappear when this mode of interpretation is held to, and much misunderstanding and sorrow within the church could be avoided if our teachers universally adhered to this rule. Even with this method, your study will not bear fruit without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but many of your questions could be answered if you adhere to those rules.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

I prefer the NKJV or the NASB, and my quotes will be taken from these versions.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Matthew 5:17-20 is indeed a difficult passage of Scripture that has caused much debate even within the Christian community, so it is no surprise that you have difficulty understanding this verse. Here is a look at how I believe it should be understood when all the contexts are taken into account.


Time and recipients: The message was given during the early ministry of Jesus Christ, and He is preaching to a primarilly Jewish audience. It is important to note that Jesus, although He did not plainly proclaim Himself as Messiah, was preaching that the time for the Messianic Kingdom promised by the prophets had come. This is seen by these verses:


Mat 4:17 NKJV From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."


Mat 4:23 NKJV And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.


Mat 5:3 NKJV"Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Mat 5:10 NKJVBlessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Mat 5:19-20 NKJVWhoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(20)For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.


This promised kingdom would be ruled by the Messiah (literally "Annointed One"), the Son of David, from the throne of David; it would see the establishment of a worldwide Kingdom of God's rule over all the earth. Therefore, "the gospel of the Kingdom" is the message that Jesus was preaching. The complete details of this coming Kingdom are beyond the scope of your question, so I'll leave that for you to study in the OT prophets. Just understand that the gospel of the Kingdom was primarily a Jewish message delivered to a Jewish audience.


Passage context: As we see from above, this passage is a discourse on the kingdom of heaven, regarding the nature of this kingdom. Verses 17-20 are a complete thought regarding the rule of the Law of Moses in this kingdom. Your verse is the opening line to this thought, and in it's context Jesus is pointing out that He has come to fullfill (also could be translated "complete") the law, not destroy it. This is an indication that Jesus was not going to abolish the law or prophets, He was going to accomplish something in His life that would be their fullfillment/completion.


Book context: The Gospel of Matthew records the life of Jesus with an overarching theme viewing Him as the promised Messianic King, and is targeted towards the Jewish people. The book presents Jesus to Israel as their promised Messiah and king by recording His geneology from King David, by marking how He fulfilled messianic prophecies, and in it's emphasis on the teachings of Jesus regarding the kingdom of heaven. It is similar to the other Gospels in that it records Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man, righteous and without sin, full of wisdom and understanding that none could deny, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.


*Spoiler alert* lol The Jewish leadership ended up rejecting Jesus as their king, having Him crucified, and therefore rejecting the coming of their kingdom.


But through this rejection Jesus accomplished part of what He claimed He would do in the verse you quoted: His death was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Through His sinless life He fulfilled/completed the Law's requirement for man to be perfectly righteous before God; and because of His perfect righteousness, His sacrificial death fulfilled/completed the Law's righteous requirement of punishment for sin. And all of that completed/fulfilled a large chunk of prophecy. So there is now no more penalty of death for our sins, as Christ paid the penalty for all sin. But what of the Kingdom?


Bible context: After His resurrection, Jesus was asked when He would "restore the kingdom to Israel?" He answered that the timing wasn't for them to know... notice that He did not rebuke the disciples for thinking that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, but He said that it was not for them to know the timing (Act 1:6-7). All through the OT prophets there are predictions and descriptions of what this kingdom will be like. In Romans 11 Paul spends an entire chapter hammering home the point that God is not through with Israel. All through the 4 Gospels there are teachings of Jesus that indicate that God will establish His kingdom on earth just as He promised. And we are given a brief reference to that kingdom in Revelation 20:1-10. So we see from the context of Scripture as a whole that the fulfillment of the promised kingdom is yet future. Jesus Christ will reign over the entire earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years, and during that time the Law will be in effect.

"So what does that have to do with my question?", you might ask. What we also see from Scripture is that there is now a new group of people, both Jew and Gentile, that are under a new covenant with God that replaces the old covenent of law. This group, called the body of Christ, is composed of all the people who have placed their faith in what Jesus accomplished, and this group has been given an entirely new way of relating to God through Christ. The body is not under the Law of Moses, as Paul states so eloquently and clearly in the books of Romans and Galatians. We are under God's grace (unmerited favor), and are accounted righteous before God not by the keeping of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:4). The teachings of the New testament do instruct us to keep many of the commandments, but these are admonitions to walk worthy of our calling, to act in love towards God and our neighbors, and are always followed out of a thankful heart for what God has already done for us, not as an attempt to make ourselves righteous before God. The church is ALREADY righteous before God because of their faith in Jesus Christ. A true believer is a new creation, the old person has died with Christ and the new man is empowered by the Holy Spirit to walk in the Spirit, exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-23).

Summary: Your verse spoke of Jesus not destroying the Law and Prophets, but of completing/fulfilling it.

By looking at the entire context of this verse, we see that the rest of the immediate passage taught about how the law related to the "kingdom of heaven", or the promised Messianic Kingdom that will be established in the future. We see how Jesus' perfect life, sacrificial death, and resurrection fulfilled the Law's requirement for a death sentence for sins (and much more), and also fulfilled some of the Messianic prophecies. But we still have a time yet future when the rest of these prophecies will be fulfilled and the Law will again be in effect for 1000 years. Also, we see that sandwiched in between Jesus' resurrection and His return there is the body of Christ, which is under a new covenant with God through faith in Jesus Christ (grace), which replaces the old covenant (Law). So christians are not under the law and do not follow the Law, but we are part of a new covenant with God, as laid out in the New Testament, that retains some aspects of the Law (morality, serve only God, love neighbor, etc), but not the others (diet, festivals, sabbaths, sacrifices, punishments, etc).

So no, we shouldn't go around stoning promiscuous women.

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.


Thanks!

This post has already taken me way to long lol, so I'll let the other two verses go for now. If you want, I'll use the same method to look at the other passages later.

 

[salida]

Why is God so different in the OT than He is in the NT?
Old Testament vs. New Testament - What are the differences?

 

[Brenda Morgan]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.


Thanks!

Excellent questions......by now you know how Christians massage and mold these scriptures to fit their theology.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Christians don't observe Torah because the Torah was given exclusively to the Jews. Christianity teaches that in Christ a new covenant has been established, it is this covenantal relationship to God through His Son that we observe. The early leaders of the Christian movement unanimously came to the position that Gentiles were under no obligation to observe Torah or become Jews. The Greek as Greek, the Scythian as Scythian, the Jew as Jew, all one and one whole united people in Christ; uncircumcised and circumcised.

Ephesians 1:4-5

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

Depends who you ask. As a Lutheran I believe that the elect in Christ have been predestined, this election of grace is apart from ourselves. However the Calvinist idea of double predestination (that God has predestined some to salvation and predestined some to damnation) is rejected utterly and regarded as rather abominable. This gets into the complex aspect of Lutheran theology which Lutherans call the Crux Theologorum, "the theologian's cross", a theological contradiction and paradox that cannot be resolved or reconciled.

The paradox is this: God has elected some to eternal salvation in Jesus Christ, which He does by His grace through the gift of faith, procured through God's Means of Grace, His Word and Sacraments (true). God loves everyone, sent His Son for everyone's sake, and desires that everyone be saved (true). How then are some saved and others not? Arminians and Calvinists tend to downplay one half of the paradox while emphasizing the other half. Lutherans, on the other hand, argue that both statements must be fully emphasized as true even though they seem contradictory. Thus, a paradox. The crux theologorum, the theologian's cross; the burden a theologian must carry because he cannot resolve the conflict. Rather we insist that God loves everyone and it is God's will to save the whole world by the grace He has for everyone, and it is therefore possible for the whole to be saved.

As far as the free will situation goes: The will is not free. That is, not truly free, it is enslaved to sin. That doesn't mean we have no power of choice, we do. We still have a will. We can choose to what clothes to wear, whether to ignore the man on the street or help him. We can choose whether or not to shoplift or buy that loaf of bread. We still have a will, but it is not truly and really free.

In Lutheran thought the bondage of the will is a spiritual matter, not really a question of philosophy.

I can say no to God, I can reject the grace He offers me in Christ. The grace of God that draws me to repentance and gives me faith is something I can resist. What I can't do is say yes to God, at least not by my own power, strength or will.

There's that paradox again.

If none of this makes sense to you, that's okay. It's irritated Lutherans for the last five hundred years.

1 Peter 1:20

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.


Thanks!

Since I don't treat the flood narrative as literal history, that aspect of your question may or may not still be applicable. I read it as a morality tale asking and addressing important questions.

That said, Christian theologians have at times asserted that the Incarnation has always been the plan. Irenaeus argued that even if Adam and Eve didn't fall from grace, the Logos would have still become flesh to bring perfection--maturity, wholeness, completeness--to mankind and the world.

This is because it has always been God's purpose to unite Himself with us, and with creation.

We were created immature so that we could mature. That maturity is found in Christ.

Why not sooner or later than it did happen? Don't know, but St. Paul suggests that it was the appointed time of God. That is, for whatever reason, it was God's purpose and will that it happen then, of all times in history that were, will, or could have been.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Read the rest of the chapter Christ tells us exactly what is meant by the full fillment of the law. Christ basic extends the law to make matters of the heart apart of breaking the law. Meaning it is now impossible for Anyone to find righteousness through observing the law. Therefore we must strive to find another source of righteousness, and that is through atonement.

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

This is saying God knew who would want to spend eternity with him even before the world began, and it is to those He has chosen to share eternity with.

Freewill is not impeded because it is not an unencumbered ability to choose whatever you wish. Free Will is the ability to be outside of expressed will of God. It is having a will that is free from God. In otherwords Free Will is the ability to sin. You can live your life not being chosen to spend eternity with God and still sin. (Sin meaning anything outside of the expressed will of God)

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.

The flood was to rid the world of everything except Man made in the image of God, and the animals found on the ark.

 

[GrayAngel]

Often times when I quote Bible verses, I'm told that my quotes are out of context and that they don't really mean what it looks like they mean. I'm just going to post a few Bible verses that confuse me, and if anybody can share how they interpret these verses (and why) it'd be appreciated.

I'm going to stick to New Testament quotes and the KJV.

I really don't like the KJV. The point of it was to make a non-Latin translation available that people could understand. Its old English style is out-dated. That, and they have unicorns thrown in there for some reason. (Unicorns were not originally in the Bible.)

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Non-virgin women were not always stoned to death. That was done if she had been unfaithful during their engagement period, or possibly if she had been dishonest about her virginity. I know of a few important prostitutes in the Bible who married. One was the woman of Jericho, who was described as a "woman of the night." She wasn't stoned to death, but instead became an honorable mention in Jesus' genealogy. Another was the wife of Hosea the prophet, who was a prostitute before and after married. She was never stoned either, but her husband loved her faithfully as God loves His people.

I'm sure you're also familiar of the story of the woman Jesus saved from being stoned to death when He made His famous statement: "Whoever of you who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Jesus' teachings often emphasized the heart of the law over the letter of the law. Jesus did not abolish the law, but He changed our understanding of it, and the New Covenant made much of the OT customs obsolete. Jewish Christians, however, continued to follow many of their old customs, but the Gentiles, which are the majority of Christians today, were not expected to. As Paul put it, the law never had the power to save anyway.

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

That is exactly what it means, and there are countless verses which support that belief: http://www.christianforums.com/t7623233/

Free will is one of the many misconceptions of Christians today. Even Paul had to argue against them:

Romans 9:19-24 - One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

The idea that we don't have free will is often shocking to people, so I won't be surprised if you have further objections to this. But I assure you that this is the Biblically supported position. If you ask a free will proponent to provide evidence to their position, they're likely to say that it is "implied throughout all of scripture" and/or take some verses out of context which have nothing to do with the subject. "Implied" evidence is imaginary evidence, and it's an excuse to continue believing as one already does without good reason.

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.


Thanks!

God made Himself known to the world long before the flood. Jesus' sacrifice would have changed nothing for them.

God timed the coming of His Son perfectly. Because of the Roman empire, the foundation of roads, and other factors, it was relatively easy for the gospel to spread rapidly. Because the Jews were spread throughout many nations, when they would gather to Jerusalem for Pentecost, Peter and the others were able to speak in tongues and amaze them when they heard their own languages being spoken, and those Jews would then return to their own lands with the gospel.

Even the intolerance of the Roman government and Jewish officials helped the spread of the gospel. A funny thing about killing people you don't like, it tends to make them grow rather than decline in numbers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I really don't like the KJV. The point of it was to make a non-Latin translation available that people could understand. Its old English style is out-dated. That, and they have unicorns thrown in there for some reason. (Unicorns were not originally in the Bible.)

I only say this because I think it needs to be corrected and clarified for the sake of information:

The KJV wasn's undertaken to make a non-Latin translation, but was two-fold:

1) Improve upon earlier English translations (Tyndale, Geneva, Matthew's, Coverdale, the Bishop's Bible, etc).

2) Provide a standardized translation for use in the Church of England, authorized by the English Crown (King James I of England), hence why it was known as the "Authorized Version", authorized by the Crown for use in the English Church. The text continued to go under several revisions, the most important being in 1769 which is the standardized text of the modern KJV. Later revisions include the Revised Standard and New Revised Standard.

Also, and this is probably just a point to nitpick at, however it should probably be reminded that the KJV was written in Early Modern English. Old English, technically, is pre-Norman English, also known as Anglo-Saxon and is rather incomprehensible to our post-Norman, Modern Anglophonic ears.

"Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum; Si þin nama gehalgod to becume þin rice gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice" - The Lord's Prayer

-CryptoLutheran

 

[elman]

We are all under the OT law until we die. We die when we are baptized into Christ and come out under the new law of grace through Jesus Christ.

Ezekiel 18 says we die spiritually when we sin. I believe baptism is a symbol of spiritual life, not death. It refers to our being recreated in the newness of life by God.

 

[Sketcher]

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Commentary: most Christians will tell me that OT law was law written for OT times and is outdated. Yet thousands of years later when Jesus appears, he seems to fully support the OT laws. Should we still be stoning non-virgin women that get married?

Jesus was right - however, most of us are Gentiles, and the law never applied to us in the first place. This isn't some cop-out - Jews have this teaching. Judaism teaches that there are Laws of Noah, which apply to everybody, and the OT Law is what they call Torah, which is only to Jews and which includes the Laws of Noah but adds other laws which are only for Jews.

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

What you're asking has been the source of debate since Augustine if not earlier. I doubt we're going to resolve this in a forum thread, but I believe there is an element of predestination and an element of free will.

1 Peter 1:20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Commentary: if before creating the earth God knew that he would need to send his son to save it, what is the purpose of the genocide that is the flood? Rather than go through with the flood, why did he not just send Jesus earlier on? This would spare much life.

I don't have a complete answer for that. The Old Testament stories such as the flood both have value in isolation and in addition to that, they point in some way to Christ and the new covenant he would usher in. Peter later mentioned the flood in this letter as being symbolic of baptism (which is not a denial of the flood being a historical event or the other lessons Jews had garnered from it over the years). As far as the whys, I did not orchestrate either the flood or the plan for redemption through the death and resurrection. It seems strange when one thinks about it, but God had more to lose in these events than I ever will. Remember Jonah 4:10-11:

But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?”​

I never knew anyone who died in the flood or who lived in Ninevah. How could I, they were people I've never met from the distant past. But God created them, had concern for them, and Jesus laid down his life to save their souls. And the pain of the Father and Son at that moment when it happened would have been more than any human would have the capacity to imagine. The point is, God had a lot to lose by doing things the way he did them - I don't know why, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. There's so much more that he knows, there's bound to be something very significant missing from our human perspective which makes it all make sense.

 

[oi_antz]

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Commentary: does this mean that we are predestined to be Christian or not? And if so, how can we have free will when things are predestined?

I do believe free will is compatible with predestination, and that free will itself is not always sin. To describe it most simply, I observe the mind as a calculator. We use the mind to calculate a decision based upon information that comes from memory, spirit and the world.

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they made a conscious decision to sin against God by doing what He had told them not to do. They chose to honour the information presented to them by the 'serpent', which I believe to be spiritual. The same cunning serpent who tempts you and me to disbelieve God. It doesn't matter though whether the serpent was physical or spiritual, the fact is that A&E chose to disbelieve God and take their fate into their own hands.

There are times when we have the opportunity to choose from a multitude of lawful and good decisions that would not be transgressing God, so I don't believe free will is always an act of sin.

I believe God can see the entirety of time, and most Christians will agree, though it is not often understood how He can except that He "exists outside of time". That's not really a good enough answer for me. I prefer to think that Gods mind is the ultimate calculator, incapable of making a mistake. So when He designed life and existence, He knew exactly where every atom would move from beginning to end, and He knew every thought that would be thought, and every word that would be spoken because it is His creation and He designed it that way. Hence the expression by Paul "does the pot have the right to say to the potter 'why did you make me this way?'". No, instead if the pot does not like the way it is made, it need only make a decision to change. God being eternal and the author of it all already knows that we will make that decision, which is why He did it that way. That is how God has always maintained a portion of faithful stewards while affording us the right to make our own decisions. Don't forget the story of Jonah and Nineveh. That city was clearly given the right to choose repentance, and God relented when it did.

Notice also that the spiritual influence on our mind is not always demonic, there are spirits of God who influence our thoughts too, and He takes an interest in teaching all of us even if we aren't born again. Being born again awakens our awareness to the spirits, so we are able to know when our thoughts are of God or not. This is why it is written "Lean not on your own understanding but on every word that comes from the mouth of God".