Is Jesus the prophet that Moses is talking about in Deuteronomy 18:15?

Question 219: Is Jesus the prophet that Moses is talking about in Deuteronomy 18:15?

Answer: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers-it is to him you shall listen” (Deuteronomy18:15). As with many prophecies, this one likely has a double fulfillment. The ultimate Prophet would be Jesus as Hebrews 1:1,2 teaches “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” There is no doubt that Moses is talking about both, the primary fulfillment and the secondary fulfillment. Jesus is the primary or ultimate fulfillment and all the true prophets who followed Moses are the secondary fulfillment. Before developing the primary or ultimate fulfillment, lets look at how it can be fulfilled secondarily through other prophets.

A prophet is one who has received a call from God to be His spokesman to God’s people. God called Moses to be His spokesman to the Israelites, but in Deuteronomy Moses is nearing the end of his life and God is speaking through him to the Israelites promising them that God would provide others like him to lead them. As a secondary fulfillment, God did provide many like Moses to follow him such as Samuel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. As Israel waited for the ultimate fulfillment, a greater Prophet, the Messiah, God warned them that there would be many false prophets. They could recognize these false prophets by whether or not their prophecies came to pass. If they were proven to be false prophets because their prophecies did not occur, they were worthy of death.

Even though Moses’ teaching could be fulfilled secondarily by any of the prophets who followed him, the expectation of the Israelites was clearly that God would send one particular prophet, the Messiah. Of course, Jesus did not fit the description of the type of leader that the people had erroneously expected, but all of Israel did expect that God would send a special leader to rescue them.  When John the Baptist appeared on the scene, the people thought that he might be that prophet. John 1:19--23 records a conversation between the priests and Levites from Jerusalem and John about his identity. They asked him if he was the Prophet and he answered that he was not.  In Luke 4:24, Jesus referred to himself as a prophet, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.” There is no doubt that the Israelites were looking for a special Prophet, the Messiah. However, Jesus was much more than what the people expected. He would not only speak God’s Word but He was the Son of God, claiming to be one with God. The Israelites were disappointed that Jesus did not meet their narrow-minded expectations of the Prophet, but Jesus came for a much greater purpose, to provide salvation to all who would place their trust in Him. He came to be a substitute for sinful man by paying for the sins of all who would believe in Him. Additionally, Jesus the Messiah, as our redeemer, would transfer the benefits of His righteousness into our account and God would declare that person to be righteous and sinless as a result of what Christ accomplished in His life and death. That is the Good News of Jesus Christ. Everything we need to have for life abundantly right now and eternal life in heaven forever has been done for us. Jesus has met all of God’s requirements through the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. Our salvation is secured if we simply place our trust in what Jesus has done for us. What a Savior!

Infant vs. Adult Baptism

Question:

What does God’s Word teach about infant baptism versus adult believer’s baptism?

Answer:

The debate over infant verses adult baptism has gone on for centuries and I will not solve the issue in my brief answer. However, I can state that neither practice has explicit biblical support. Both sides use scriptural inferences. That is, neither side can point to a clearly stated verse which says adult believers only should be baptized, nor is there a verse which states infants of believers should always be baptized. Since neither side has explicit Bible passages to support their practice, both sides, however, do use strong implicit Bible passage to support their position. That is why there isn’t an easy solution.

In dealing with this issue, the denomination in which I was ordained has a very powerful motto that should be applied to those who are debating this, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” Since an individual’s position on baptism is very important, but it is not a salvation issue, (the thief on the cross was saved but not baptized) when we disagree we must treat each other with grace and not question the person’s salvation, nor should we allow it to divide our fellowship. The same rule should be applied on choosing which mode of baptism used (i.e., immersion, sprinkling or pouring).For evangelical Christians, neither side believes that baptism saves the person. Both sides agree that born-again Christians are saved by placing their faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ. For those who believe in adult baptism, the baptism of the adult follows their testimony of their trust in Christ alone. Baptism is an outward sign of what has taken place on their inside, a cleansing of their heart, a washing away of their sins. It is a public statement of their identification with Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. (Some of the verses they use to support their position are: Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:37-38; 8:12; and 18:8.)

For those who choose to believe in infant baptism they see baptism a little differently. My own experience with this is that I’ve been on both sides. I was raised as a Baptist, became a born-again believer as a Baptist and was baptized in a river on the same day. I have 7 children and my first 5 were not baptized as infants, the last 2 were. They were baptized as adults after they made a profession of faith. But between number 5 and number 6 I began a Bible study on my own to discover what Scripture says about it, not what others say about it.   

In Genesis 15 God made a covenant with Abraham. (A covenant is somewhat like a contract.) This covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. God promised to bless Abraham with offspring and land and that He would be God to him and his children. Of course, Abraham’s responsibility in the covenant was to trust and obey God. However, the sign of the covenant was that all males were to be circumcised. Male babies born to covenant parents were to be circumcised on the 8th day after their birth. Although the male babies received the sign of the covenant, in order for it to be effective they must become a covenant keeper, like Jacob, not a covenant breaker, like Esau, when they become adults.  Under the new covenant, the covenant of grace, and in the early NT church, baptism replaced circumcision. The change from circumcision to water baptism is reflected in Acts 8:12 and Colossians 2:11-12. The new covenant is more inclusive in that females are now included and it is more gracious in that the shedding of blood is no longer required. Therefore, in my own study of God’s Word, I was led to ask myself the question, “If I were a Jew living in the OT times, what would I have done with my sons on the 8th day of their life as a sign of the covenant?” My answer was of course was, “I would have had them circumcised.”

The important point is not that there is only one proper mode of baptism, but rather that a baptism is a sign which involves a ceremonial cleansing and the amount of water used for that sign can vary.

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager

Question #214: I’m reaching out to you to share your insight on Luke 16:1-15, the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. It sure does seem like “bad behavior” is being encouraged in these verses. It seems like shrewdness is being encouraged, yet verses 10-15 get back to being trustworthy and not loving money. I do get it that we can’t serve two masters, but where is scripture defining a line between good and bad behavior?

Answer: It does seem confusing on the surface about what Jesus is advocating, but since we know that He isn’t teaching anything contrary to His nature, like cheating, lying and dishonest behavior, we can eliminate that possibility and look deeper. His audience is His disciples with some Pharisee’s listening in as indicated in verse 14. In most of Jesus’ parables, He is the main character but not so with this one. The steward in this parable is wicked, so Jesus certainly is not exhorting us to emulate his behavior. Therefore, there must be larger principle that He is proclaiming.

The key to this parable is, “The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are shrewder in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8). Jesus is contrasting the unbelievers, (sons of this world) and the believers, (sons of the light). He is saying that the unbeliever is wiser in the way that he prepared for his future, by using the owner’s wealth dishonestly and making friends which would help him in his future. The principle that Jesus is promoting is one of a just steward rather than an unjust one. The unjust steward used his master’s wealth as a means for his own personal advancement. However, the just steward is to be honest and righteous and to use the Master’s wealth to further the Master’s goal as well as to benefit himself.

How are we to benefit our Master as well as ourselves in an honest and righteous manner? We must start by understanding the principle that everything that we call our own actually belongs to God. God owns it all! He is the owner of everything and He allows us the great privilege of being stewards of His things. As His faithful stewards, we are to use His resources for His goals. He wants His resources to be used to help others and in helping others, we benefit personally as well. In using God’s resources for His purposes, we lay up treasures in heaven and we are blessed here and will be rewarded in heaven as well. It may sound like he is promoting giving for selfish motive but that doesn’t seem to be a concern to Jesus in this situation. In fact, in numerous passages He promises to reward us for giving and doing good works. “And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is my disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward” (Matthew 10:42). It is a simple fact that we benefit when we put His Kingdom purposes and His people first. That seems to indicate that a reasonable and just profit is an acceptable motivator.

The line between the good behavior and bad behavior is drawn between the just and the unjust steward. The unjust manager wanted to benefit himself unjustly by using his master’s resources to gain an opportunity with the debtors whereby they would owe him favors when he is gets fired from his position. However, the just steward is to be shrewd in a similar manner by using God’s resources to benefit others while at the same time benefitting himself justly as well.

God's Love

Question: Does God love every human being?

Answer: Yes and no. I’ll try to explain the “yes” first of all then the “no.” “You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  But I say unto you, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust”’ (Matthew 5: 43-45). Theologians call this “common grace.” “The Lord is good to all, and His mercy is over all that He has made” (Psalm 145:9). “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations He allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet He did not leave Himself without witness, for He did good by giving you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14: -17). Common grace describes God’s indiscriminate kindness to all people, believers and non-believers through daily blessings of earthly life. It seems that common grace is rooted primarily in the result of the fact that we were made in the image of God. 

The other correct answer to the question is “no.” God does not love every human being, at least, not in the same way. He has a special love for His elect. Theologians call the special love, “special grace.” Unlike common grace which is given universally to all people, special grace is only given to those whom God elects to eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. “Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him” (Romans 12:1). “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). The above verses indicate that God loves His elect in a special way. But the most amazing show of Jesus’ special grace is His prayer in John 17 for His disciples. “For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you, and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them, I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:8-9). Jesus gives common grace to all but special grace to His chosen children. That is, his death paid for the sins of the elect but for those who die apart from believing in Christ, they will spend eternity paying for their own sins. And that is precisely why sharing the gospel to our family and friend’s ought to be a priority.

Compromise

Question: Help me address the seemingly Biblical conundrum around COMPROMISE. Often, unyielding positions can create a chasm in terms of spreading the gospel – in other words, make it difficult to reach many. Is every verse and/or understanding black or white? Of course not…so how should we deal with potential trip wires.

Example 1: On one hand, Jeremiah 1:5 could lay the grounds for abortion being murder at any point, given Gods foreknowledge. (Or, could this verse be specific to just the prophet?)

Now we know that God cannot be confounded in reaching his chosen however, as humans where can/should compromises be worked out to most effectively present the gospel.

Related to this example, some well meaning, Biblically educated Christians vary on their position of when life begins, with such having a huge effect on “murder” and it’s application in abortion discussions.

Abortion is just an example of the idea of Biblical compromise, particularly relating to “making disciples”…what do you see God intending in the use of compromise?

Btw, other than Jeremiah 1:5, what DOES the Bible teach regarding in beginning of life…conception? Probable viability outside the womb?…

Understanding that God may intend to send the next Einstein via a rape or incest, in the case of abortion, could He not simply adjust the delivery to another?

Example 2: Euthanasia, which I can imagine being an even bigger argument than abortion. What does the Bible teach regarding one’s right to end suffering? Do you see a coming collision between euthanasia and economic cost rationalizations?

What, if any, place does compromise have in Biblical matters of faith?

Answer: As I see it, there are four parts to this difficult question. 1) Do we need to soften the gospel by compromising it to make it more attractive? 2) Is everything in the Bible black or white? 3) When does life begin according to the Bible? 4) Could euthanasia ever be justified for economic reasons or any other reason?

1)      The gospel is the “good news” concerning who Jesus is and what he did. He is the Son of God, the God/man who came to earth to live a perfect life in our place and He died a death that we deserve to die. He became our substitute in living the perfect life and dying a horrible death that we deserve. By placing our trust in Jesus and what He did for us, not in our own good works, we are born again, regenerated, adopted into God’s family and will spend eternity in heaven with God. Those are the facts of the gospel and we cannot compromise the facts. But we can present the facts of the gospel in a loving manner or in a harsh manner. the Apostle Paul says, “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:5).

It takes both truth and love to share the gospel and to make disciples. Tim Keller stated, “Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it.” Therefore, we should never compromise the truth or the love for the other person.

2)      The Bible deals with black and white issues. That is, the Bible presents the truth and nothing but the truth. God either created the world or He did not. There was a man and woman named Adam and Eve or there was not. The world was created in 6 days or it was not. There was a world-wide flood or there was not. Jesus came to earth as a baby to save mankind or He did not. He died for our sins or He did not. He was resurrected from the dead or He was not. Etc., etc, etc. Either God’s Word is absolute truth intended for us to follow and obey or He has played a terrible cosmic joke on us. Adam and Eve tried to compromise God’s Word with Satan and we are still experiencing the results of their awful attempt to compromise. Trying to compromise God’s Word qualifies us to be guilty of what Jesus accused the Laodicea church of doing, “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot or cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16).

3)      The Bible does not explicitly tell us when life begins but it does implicitly tell us clearly that is occurs at conception. “For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well” (Psalm 119:13-14). “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). Therefore, aborting a baby, from God’s perspective would be murder. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Genesis 9:6).

4)      We’ve all watched people suffer and die a long and agonizing death and often the suffering person would rather die than to go on suffering. Even though euthanasia can be understood, God does not give us that option. Only God controls when we come into his world and when we will leave it. We don’t understand it and sometimes we don’t like it, but He is God and we are not. We can know that His timing is perfect and that He has a purpose in everything that He does. He never tells us why He allows a person to live when he or she wants to die but we can claim a wonderful promise from His Word. “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).

The Word

Question: In the first few verses of John, it seems “the Word” may be talking about Jesus or is the author talking about the Holy Spirit?

Answer: To the readers of John’s gospel, the meaning of his opening statement could hardly be missed, “In the beginning was the Word,” is essentially the same as how Moses opened the book of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created,” and the meaning of both was that “all things came into existence through Him.”

“The Word” is used four times within the first chapter and each time it communicates a vital truth about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

1)      “In the beginning was the Word,” clearly denotes the eternality of Jesus. That He has always existed.

2)      “And the Word was with God,” describes the distinction between the persons within the unity of the Trinity.

3)      “And the Word was God,” affirms the deity of Jesus. That He was, in fact, God, the second person of the Trinity.

4)      “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” describes the incarnation. That the Word, “Jesus” took on a human body. He was the God/man.

John continues to tell the readers about the Word being our Creator. He states, “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3). The Apostle Paul reminds us of this great truth in Colossians 1:15-16, “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him.” The Holy Spirit communicated a similar truth through the writer of Hebrews, “But in these last days He, (God) has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world” (Hebrews 1:2).

The purpose of John’s gospel should be obvious to the reader before they finish reading chapter 1, but John makes it abundantly clear what he is trying to communicate before he concludes the book. In chapter 20:31, he states, “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.”

John has declared the mystery of the Trinity in what seems to be the fewest words possible. We are invited to meditate upon these statements and respond to them by worshiping our awesome God. The Word clearly refers to God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, the God/man who was fully God and fully man.

Thorn in the Flesh

Question: In my pastor’s sermon yesterday on 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 he suggested that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” may have been poor eyesight, I have never heard that, what are your thoughts on it?

Answer: Scripture does not tell us what the “thorn” was but throughout church history hundreds of commentators have speculated on what it could have been, but no agreement has been reached. However, there are a few statements that Paul made that point to the possibility that it was his eyesight. In Galatians Paul states, “You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God… (Paul goes on to say) if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me” (Galatians 4:13-15). Since Paul was showing appreciation for them, to mention that they would have given their eyes to him could point to him having bad eye sight.

Another piece of evidence that bad eyesight could be his thorn is recorded at the end of Galatians when he states, “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand” (Galatians 6:11). A person with bad eye sight would likely have to write in large letters.

An additional bit of evidence is presented in 2 Corinthians 10. Paul defends himself against those who are attacking his ministry. The attackers state “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak…” (2 Corinthians 10:10). I understand there is a disease of the eyes called chronic conjunctivitis that would impact a person’s physical appearance. Perhaps his critics were referring to his eye disease which could make his physical appearance “weak.”

Even though Paul had a gift of healing, he apparently could not or would not heal himself because he knew the thorn was from God to keep him humble and he also knew that God’s grace was sufficient for him to accomplish what God had called him to do. Paul was content no matter how out of control the circumstances seemed to be at times. He knew well the one who was in control and that made him a content person regardless of what his thorn was.

One final thought which does nothing to support that bad eye sight might have been Paul’s thorn in the flesh, but there could be a bit of irony in his conversion experience if bad eyes were his thorn. On the road to Damascus Paul was knocked off of his horse and Jesus talked to him and made him totally blind for three days during this encounter. The encounter is no evidence for bad eyes but the connection seems interesting.

Daniel Prays for the Exiles

Question: From Daniel 9 (where Daniel prays for the exiles), twice he prays that God would grant his prayer for God’s sake. I am not sure why he prays like that. Can you shed some light on this?

Answer: In order to understand why Daniel made such unique requests of God, we need to look briefly at the entire prayer. Daniel had been studying the book of Jeremiah from God’s word and discovered that the 70-year exile was about to end. His response wasn’t to have a party celebrating what God had promised would happen but to go to God in prayer. His prayer was a response to reading God’s promises from God’s word. God’s promises are not intended to enable us to relax our prayers but to encourage them. The Puritans called it “pleading the promises.” Even though God had promised a specific end to the captivity, Daniel felt lead to pray that God would do as He promised He would do. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility meet at this point. Daniel’s prayer and our prayers becomes a vehicle by which God acts in accord with His will. God’s sovereignty is set, what He has willed is going to happen, but our prayers do matter and God wants us, He commands us, to make our request known according to His will and He hears and answer them. Using God’s word and God’s promises to pray was a major component in Daniel’s prayer.

In addition to basing his prayer on God’s word, Daniel also made humble confession of his and his people’s sins. He confesses that Israel deserved God’s judgment. That they were sinful and rebelled against Him. He goes on to say essentially that God was right in sending them into exile.  In fact, a large portion of his prayer consist of his confession for himself and for his people.

Daniel now gets to his unusual prayer request of asking God to answer his prayer “for His own sake.” Daniel ‘s motives are not selfish motives. Daniel doesn’t pray that God will answer his prayer because they are such wonderful people but because of His name, His reputation, His City, and for His honor and glory. He knows they don’t deserve God’s favor but he seeks God’s forgiveness and compassion not the justice that they so very much deserve. He wants God to defend Himself and to be acknowledged and recognized for who He is, a holy, loving, compassionate and merciful God. He reminds God that it is His sanctuary that is desolate, His city that is desolate, His people who have become a reproach. Restore them for the sake of Your reputation.

His prayer was interrupted by the angel, Gabriel. Gabriel communicates to Daniel that God had heard his prayer, just as He also hears all of our prayers when we pray. God sent Gabriel to Daniel because he was highly esteemed. Gabriel assures Daniel that not only will his prayer be answered in the expected way, but his prayer will be used in a secondary way of ushering in the coming of the long-awaited Messiah. God never promises us that He will respond to our prayers like he did to Daniel’s but we are told that the prayers of a righteous man is effective (James 5:16b). God’s word also tells us to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and to give thanks in everything, good or sad (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Finally, we can ask God to “incline your ear and hear,” when we give Him all of our anxiety because He cares for us (1 Peter 5:7) and promises us a peace which is beyond our understanding (Philippians 4:7).