FAQ Topics

Hence, the appearance of John the Baptist signaled the transition to the Messianic era, the time when God’s Kingdom would advance much faster and further than it had ever done before, the time when the Gentiles would come into the Kingdom in great numbers.

I do not think that it refers to the violence suffered by the OT prophets, because the wording of v.12 indicates that the violence begins from the days of John the Baptist. Rather it seems to indicate violence that begins after the time of the OT prophets, i.e. in the times of John and Baptist and Jesus Christ.

Who then are the ‘violent’ who take it by force? One possible interpretation is that spiritual warfare really intensified during the time of John the Baptist and of Christ (before He resurrected). That may explain the many instances of demonic possession recorded in the gospels when Christ had to cast out demons. Satan was hard at work, trying his best to prevent Christ from carrying out His work and ministry, and attempting to snatch the kingdom of heaven by force. But his efforts failed when Christ died and rose again, and all power (authority) was given to Christ in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). Satan still works today, but as a defeated enemy, who has received the deathblow at the cross.

Another possible interpretation is to take the ‘violent’ as men, e.g. the Pharisees, Saducees, etc. who opposed Jesus (who represents the kingdom of heaven). Hence their efforts to oppose, arrest and crucify Christ would constitute the violence suffered by the kingdom of Heaven. John the Baptist himself (who also represents the kingdom of heaven) was arrested and executed by a violent man, king Herod.

Yet another possible interpretation is that the violent are the common people who when they saw John the Baptist and Jesus, and the miracles performed, got excited and thought that the political messianic kingdom was about to begin, and so they wanted to launch a violent rebellion, overthrow the present government and crown Christ as king of Israel. John 6:14,15 - "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, He departed again into a mountain himself alone." (cf. Acts 1:6).

The truth is that the kingdom of heaven is spiritual, not a political one yet. It is a kingdom of Christ dwelling and ruling in the hearts of men. Violence is not the means that God will use to establish His kingdom (as Liberation theology advocates). Christ explained the true nature of the Kingdom of heaven in the parables of the kingdom (Matthew 13) in order to correct this prevalent misconception.

It is hard to say which of these views is the right one. We will know the answer one day, when we see Christ!

2. Others take this to refer to the Resurrection of Jesus or to Pentecost. This view also faces the difficulty that even these events are still not far off enough to warrant the phrasing "some standing here which shall not taste death."

3. Others interpret this verse as referring to the Second Coming and explain that "some who are standing here" refers not to those then standing there, but to the final generation, prophetically foreseen, who will be raptured rather than resurrected. This means that the words were calculated to be misunderstood by the disciples.

4. Some take the phrase "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" symbolically, referring to the rapid multiplication of disciples and the mission to the Gentiles. Some of those standing there would live to see Jesus’ Gospel proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire and a rich "harvest" (cf. 9:37-38) of converts reaped for Jesus Messiah.

I think that the best view is the transfiguration – because it fits into the context.

Since it is unlikely that Abraham was in a resurrected state in this appearance, it is also unlikely that Moses was in a resurrected state. So in the transfiguration what the disciples saw was the disembodied spirit of Moses. The body of Moses is still in the ground, awaiting the resurrection of the saints (Deuteronomy 34:5,6 records that the Lord buried Moses in a valley in the land of Moab – if it was God’s will for Moses to be resurrected earlier than others, why bury him?) After all angels are also spirits without bodies (Hebrews 1:14), and yet men can see them appear.

The question we would ask is whether the resurrection of these believers was to the same kind of bodies they had before (just like the resurrection of Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, and Jairus’ daughter) who all eventually died again; or the resurrection to the same body that Jesus had - in which case they would not die any more but go to heaven after appearing to many.

1 Corinthians 15:22-26 may shed some light on the order of resurrections: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

This passage tells us that there are at least three resurrections to new bodies:

1. Christ the firstfruits
2. They that are Christ’s at His coming
3. All the rest of the dead

Based on this, I would be more inclined to believe that these saints who were resurrected when Jesus died, died later on. They were like Lazarus. Because if they had the same body that Jesus had, they would have preceded him and been the firstfruits rather than Christ. But Christ’s resurrection body was clearly the first of its kind, unlike all who were raised from the dead before Him.

A comparison of the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 with the same records found in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles shows that some generations have been left out (e.g. Matthew 1:11 - "Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren" - leaves out Jehoiakim, who was the father of Jechonias cf. 1 Chron 3:15-17). (e.g. 2 - In Matthew 1:8 - three names have been omitted between Joram and Uzziah: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah).

The purpose of these genealogies is simply to trace the lineage of a person particularly through certain key persons in his lineage.

Other examples of ‘gaps’: Exodus 2:1,2 gives the impression that Moses was the firstborn son of the Levite man and woman. But we realise later on that he was the third child, after Aaron and Miriam.

a. V.28 is limited in scope to all messengers from God, e.g. the prophets in the Old Testament. All the prophets of the Old Testament only foretold the coming of God’s kingdom (see Matthew 3:2). John the Baptist was more than a prophet, since he was the forerunner of Christ (vv.26,27). In fact he was the greatest among the prophets of the Old Testament (v.28), because he had the distinct privilege of announcing Christ’s arrival. But he still belonged to the Old Testament.

b. God’s Kingdom was manifested on earth when Christ dwelt on earth and died to make an atonement for sin. The messengers that came after the inauguration of God’s kingdom had the greater privilege than those who came before it. Their gospel message of salvation through faith in Christ is more important than the message of the Old Testament prophets.

c. "He that is least in the Kingdom of God" refers to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:23,24). They are more blessed that the prophets because they had the privilege of seeing Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and of being personally sent by Jesus Christ to proclaim this message. The apostles were the authority behind the whole New Testament.

Hence this verse does not mean that we Christians are greater than John the Baptist, but that the apostles of Christ were greater than him. Why was this point so important? So that people would listen to the word of the apostles rather than to John the Baptist (cf. Acts 19:1-5).

The context of the passage begins in v.20 when the Pharisees asked Christ when the Kingdom of God will come. In His answer, Jesus stressed that the coming of His kingdom will be known by the whole world (v.24, not a secret coming), and unexpected by the world (vv.26-29) and sudden (vv.31-36).

Verses 34-36 describes a sudden removal of people while they are in the midst of routine activity. This refers to the rapture of believers living at the time of Christ’s return. They are taken to meet the Lord at his coming (cf. Matthew 24:31, 40-42). Notice that reference is made in the preceding verses to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. In both of these historical events those who were taken away were saved, and those who were left behind were destroyed. It is reasonable to conclude that the ones who are taken away in vv.34-36 are believers.

Verse 37 is the reply that Jesus gave when asked "Where, Lord?" This may be its meaning: "Just as you do not find a fallen body by wandering over the desert, but by looking first to the sky, so do not go from place to place searching for the Son of Man. Rather, look to the heavens." (Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Book II, pp. 387-388).

Hebrews 1:1,2 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

In fact, the ending point of the hour’s coming may even be in AD 70 when the Temple was destroyed, and then it would not longer be feasible to worship God at the Temple. Luke 21:6 - "...the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Another place where the same phrase is found is John 5:25 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." Once again, it is not a pin-point moment, but a gradual revelation. The hour began to come when Christ was on earth and raised the dead (e.g. Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, etc.) but it will culminate in the time when Christ will raise all believers who have died at His return.

Another clue that the spiritually dead are not referred to in v.25 is that in v.24 the hearing is in the present, and the life that those who believe receive are regarded as already being theirs from the moment they believe. They have already passed from death to life. But in v.25 the hearing is in the future tense and the life is still a future thing - "when the dead shall hear... shall live." The question is why would Jesus at all have to say "the hour is coming..." if in v.24 the hour has already come?

But why then did Jesus add the words "and now is" in v.25 when talking about something in the future? Perhaps He was referring to the miracles of raising the dead that He performed (e.g. Lazarus, in John 11) where the dead were raised at His Word. These miracles were a kind of preview to the great and final miracle of the resurrection where Christ will raise the dead en masse (vv.28,29).

That John’s mother’s name was Salome is an inference from Mk. 16:1 and Mt. 27:56; for the third woman who is said to have accompanied the two Marys to the tomb is designated Salome by Mark, and ‘the mother of Zebedee’s children’ by Matthew. Salome is usually regarded as the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, because in Jn. 19:25 four women are said to have stood near the cross, the two Marys mentioned in Mark and Matthew, the mother of Jesus, and his mother’s sister. Thus John was a cousin of Jesus on his mother’s side.

This will not be merely a spiritual kingdom, but a real political kingdom on earth, since Daniel 2:44 tells us – "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (cf. Daniel 11:27; Isaiah 2:2-4; Rev 11:15) The kingdoms mentioned in this vision refer to great political empires in world history – Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Daniel understood God’s kingdom to be the one that will replace all these kingdoms on earth.

And this kingdom will last a thousand years – i.e. in the millennium. In Rev 19, Christ descends from heaven to earth to do battle with the nations on earth (Rev 19:15,19). Then Christ reigns a thousand years. At the end of that thousand years, Satan is permitted to go forth into the world to gather the nations to battle once again (Rev 20:8,9). Hence the thousand-year reign of Christ is on earth, not in heaven.

But some people claim that God’s kingdom is spiritual, or is in heaven, not on earth. E.g. Luke 17:29,21 – "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

The Jews could not understand what Jesus meant here. They were all expecting the inauguration of a visible political kingdom, with the overthrow of their Roman overlords and the restoration of the throne of David. But the present reign of Jesus is His reign in the hearts of men, not on a visible throne in some grand capital city. He did not come in His first coming to set up a political kingdom yet. And Christ taught a series of parables in order to correct their of God’s kingdom. We call them the "kingdom parables" and include the parable of the sower, the wheat and the tares, the dragnet, the mustard seed, the leaven, the hid treasure and the pearl of great price.

But while Christ made it clear that the kingdom of God at present is to have this spiritual, non-political character, this does not mean that there will not be a time later on when God’s kingdom will assume a political character. Let us look now at what Jesus said in John 18:36 Christ had said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." Jesus said this against the allegations by the Jews that He was planning to overthrow the Romans and restore the political kingdom of Israel. I want you to observe the important word "now" It adds a time element to His statement and makes an important difference. Why did Christ add it in? I believe that it means that there will be a time when Christ’s kingdom will be of this world.

Church history proves that he was not truly converted. Irenaeus, an early church father, tells us that after this event, Simon the sorcerer became the first great heretic and cult group leader of his time. He eventually twisted the Gospel and led many Christians astray by his teachings, even claiming that he, like Christ, was God incarnate. He deceived many, because of his counterfeit conversion experience, and his counterfeit teachings. Therefore the prayer he requested in v.24 was not answered: "Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."

When I read this account I am reminded of a story I heard from a veteran missionary, concerning a primitive tribe in the Philippines whose chief had a dream that God would send a man to them shortly who would bring them a book, and that they must listen to all that was written in this book. So the chief related his dream to the whole tribe and they waited for the man to come. And true enough, an American missionary soon arrived and taught them the Scriptures and the missionary was so amazed that all the villagers listened to him so attentively and were converted so easily. Later on the village chief told him about the dream, and He praised the Lord for preparing the ground for him! The Lord sometimes uses doors like this to open up a whole new field for harvest!

The important thing to note is that it was not only Cornelius who was saved in this whole episode but all his kinsmen and close friends who were there as well. Cornelius was merely the instrument that God used to bring them to hear the Gospel from Peter and be saved. At that time, the barrier between Jew and Gentiles was great. The Jews despised the Gentiles and considered them to be unclean. But of all the Gentiles in Israel, Cornelius was probably the one that Jews respected most, because he loved their nation. Most Roman centurions would look down in contempt upon the Jews, but not Cornelius. Here was a man who was willing not only to welcome a Jew into his house, but would even bow down to him, ready to absorb whatever he said.

I therefore believe that Cornelius was saved at the same time when the rest who were in his house were saved – when they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them by the Apostle Peter. The exact point seemed to be when Peter reached the part of his message that reveals how a person may be redeemed – in v.43 "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." At that moment, they believed in Christ and were saved. The Holy Spirit not only indwelt them, but also filled them at that moment. The speaking in tongues was a sign, not so much to Cornelius, but to Peter and the Jews who were him him, that these Gentiles were saved and should therefore be baptized immediately.

God had planned all this in order to demonstrate that the Gospel was now going forth to the Gentiles. This second outpouring of the Spirit was needful in order for Peter to convince the church at Jerusalem that God wanted them to include Gentiles in their outreach from then onward (Acts 11:15,17 – "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning….Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?")

The words ‘memorial’ and ‘rememberance’ both have the idea of something that has received God’s attention. In other words Cornelius was being assured that his pious efforts were not futile. His desire to seek after the true and living God was fruitful, as God was now going to reveal Himself to him and his family. The words do not mean that the prayers and alms of Cornelius had saved him. They only assured Cornelius and he was on the right track, and must now obey God further, if he was to know God and obtain salvation.

What Peter said of Cornelius in 10:34,35 is also worth our study – "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." When seen in the larger context of the whole New Testament, this verse cannot be made to teach that a person is saved by his own good works. Remember that Ecclesiastes 7:20 tells us – "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." The point that Peter was emphasizing in v.34,35 is that "God is no respecter of persons" – He saves people of every nation, and there will be people in every nation in whom God will work, and bring to salvation.

a. The word "save" here means "preserve" or "keep safe" and hence the verse is speaking of the blessing of having a smooth and safe delivery if women are godly (Moffatt).

b. Childbearing and motherhood fulfils the divinely appointed design for women. By accepting these things women would save themselves "from becoming a prey to the social evils of the time and would take her part in the testimony of the local church." (Vine)

c. The childbirth referred to is that of Christ, because of the definite article (lit. "in the childbearing"). Thus Christian women are saved because a woman gave birth to the Saviour who died for their sins. This is perhaps connected to Genesis 3:15 – the seed of the woman. (This interpretation is preferred).

In Hebrews 6:4-6 those who sin are identified with God’s people and even participate in a preliminary way in the experiences of believers. The sin which they stand in danger of is apostasy. This is a hard hearted deliberate rejection of the sacrificial work of Christ as applied by the Holy Spirit. The result is final rejection by God. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish true believers from these who are only in a pre-converted state and in danger of apostasy. The true believer, however, will PERSEVERE. (Therefore, Once saved, forever saved). And this is what we are called upon to do.

Question: How do we know if we are in danger of being like those who sin in Hebrews 6:4-6? 2 Corinthians 13:5 says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" Ask yourself:

1. Do you have the inward witness of the Holy Spirit? (Romans 8:16)

2. Has your life changed since you became a Christian? (2 Corinthians 3:18; 5:17)

All born again Christians still face temptations and fall into sin. The old sinful nature sometimes manifests itself. No Christian can ever reach a stage in development when he will become totally sinless. (Romans 7:19-24). If any person claims to have no sin he violates 1 John 1:8. Christians must keep on walking in the Spirit to subdue the old sinful nature ("the flesh" - Galatians 5:16). If he is truly born again, he should gradually sin less and less (as he becomes more and more like Christ) but will never become absolutely sinless.

The words ‘neither beginning of days nor end of life’ in v.3 is also to be interpreted the same way -- There is no record in Genesis 14 or elsewhere about Melchisedek’s origins, i.e. when he was born and when he died. This is unusual but it does not mean that Melchisedek was eternally existing. (Some who take this literally arrive at the conclusion that Melchisedek must therefore be Christ himself in a pre-incarnate appearance). It is unusual that the Book of Genesis which records the beginning and end of so many important people, did not do this for Melchisedek, who was of greater stature than Abraham.

Because of these missing information concerning Melchisedek, the author of Hebrews uses him as a type of Christ - "made LIKE unto the Son of God." (which clearly implies that he could not have been Christ Himself). Christ’s priesthood is eternal and not dependent at all on genealogy. These are typified in Melchisedek’s no record of beginning and ending and no record of father or mother.