A Question: Eternal Life, Kingdom of God, Saved?

Hebrews 10:1-6, 11 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased."

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Galatians 3:11, 22-24 Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith.

But the Scripture has imprisoned everything under sin's power, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed. The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.

Salvation has always been by faith, though the content of that faith has been progressively revealed. The purpose of the law was to reveal to the Jews that they could not perform it, and like a guardian, lead them to faith in the Messiah. It was not the sacrificing of animals that saved the OT belieevrs, but their faith as well. When they brought animals to be sacrificed, they were demonstrating faith in God, it is assumed. But God was not pleased with Cain's sacrifice.

FA

 

Agreed, but why was God not pleased with Cain's sacrifice?

 

HoG,

Good question. Many have speculated that in some way he refused to give the kind of sacrifice God desired, out of pride. (Why can't I sacrifice my crops? Why does God want one of Abel's lambs?) The Bible does not specifically say, but we can be confident it was not in faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God. For whoever comes to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

CYL,

FA

 

I think you nailed it. How much faith does it take to sacrifice some fruit? Big deal. More will grow back. In contrast, it takes faith to sacrifice some of your flock, especially if they are the breeding stock.

 

Yes, and Israel no longer placed it faith in God but in their own righteousness. Thus the pharasee's and other sects concerning their own personal righteousness come on the scene, which in Gods eyes were nothing but used menstal cloths and considered unclean or un-worthy!

Just read the last book of the OT and take note their sacrifices where worthless before God since it was done out of religious observance (without faith) and done with contenpt and disdain. Just because they sacrificed did not mean it was done if faith and humility but it was done, says the scripture, for the pride and boasting of righteousness. But Jesus says they are white washed tombs.

 

Amen FA!
Faith is the Key not works of which man may boast.

 

John 8:38-45 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.



Of course you ignored the thread I started regarding this subject. So here it is once again in refutation to your false accusation that no one has provided scripture that not all Jews in Christ's time was saved. Of course two threads from now you will make the same claim again.

 

Both were easily replaced, but one was commanded. One was the firstfruit, the other was the excess. Even if the excess were worth more, it's out of abundance. To sacrifice the one required faith; the other one was left overs.

 

To say that the nation of Israel was saved does not mean that every individual was saved.

We are a democratic republic. Yet we have admitted socialists in office, socialists who hide behind the name "republican" and "democrat", etc. Yet, we are still a democracy. (But not in it's purest form. A pure democray is a pure tyranny.)

We are a US Constitutional land. Yet there are those who ignore it on a daily basis. But, it's still the law of the land.

Army vehicles are green. But, there are exceptions. If we were to go to an Army base and bet on what color of car would be predominant, I would take green, and not be considering it gambling.

To say that the Jews were a saved nation is a true statment. They exercised their belief by going to the temple, making sacrifices, etc. There are exceptions, such as the demoniacs. But, getting saved was old hat to them.

 

In their own eyes, yes, and maybe in the eyes of many of their fellow-Jews, but righteous in God's eyes? The whole of Matthew 23 is against that idea. I'll just quote verses 25-28:

25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self–indulgence.
26 "Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
28 "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.​

Mere outward conformity is never enough, for although as human beings we look on the outside, God looks at the heart. (See 1 Samuel 16.7)

 

Matthew 5:20 says that unless your righteousness is "superabounding" the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees. Overflow like a river from its banks and then some.

To say they were only self righteous or righteous in the eyes of the Jews is an assumption.

Why not assume that they were righteous, as the text says?

But, you have to exceed their righteousness superabundantly if you want to enter the Kingdom.

Would you want to exceed their self righteousness? Or the righteousness in the eyes of others? Or would you want to exceed true righteousness?

 

Hope of Glory says

"Or would you want to exceed true righteousness?"(emphasis is mine)

My question is

What is true righteousness----and how can it be exceeded??

 

I certainly did not make an assumption when I said that the Pharisees were righteous in their own eyes, and in the eyes of many of their fellow-Jews. I had in mind the various bible references to Pharisees.

John the Baptist called them a "brood of vipers." (Matthew 3.7)

They held a council together with the aim of destroying the Messiah. (Matthew 12.14)

They said the Jesus cast out devils by the prince of devils. (Matthew 12.24)

Jesus told them that they transgressed the law of God by their tradition. (Matthew 15.1-9)

Jesus told his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (Matthew 16.6)

They deliberately tried to entangle Jesus in His talk. (Matthew 22.15)

Jesus called them hypocrites on many occasions, and ten times in the New Testament, Jesus' words "Woe to you" are addressed to the Pharisees.

They accused Jesus of blasphemy. (Luke 5.21)

They "rejected the counsel of God against themselves". (Luke 7.30)

They were covetous. (Luke 16.14)

They were directly involved in the death of Jesus. (John 18.3)

Then we have the parable of Jesus about the two men who went up to the temple to pray, in Luke 18.10-14:

10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11 "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men––extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
12 ‘I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’
13 "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’
14 "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."​

That Pharisee was righteous in his own eyes, but not in God's, otherwise he too would have gone down to his house justified.

With such things being said (by Jesus Himself in most cases) about the Pharisees, surely the most reasonable explanation of the words of Matthew 5.20 is that mere outward righteousness was not enough - a far greater, inner or spiritual righteousness was needed. In view of all the other scriptures where Jesus speaks of the Pharisees as anything but righteous, it seems (at least to me) very strange to imagine that what Jesus really meant was, "The Pharisees are truly righteous, but to enter my kingdom you must do what they do, and then abundantly more."

 

HoG,

You're missing Jesus' point. And that is that the Jews thought that if they could keep the Law then they would enter the kingdom - that entrance into the kingdom depended upon living a good life. Jesus is using the Pharisees to make His point. Everyone knew how the Pharisees took everything from the Law and added all kinds of regulations to it so that they could ensure that they were really obeying the Law. Jesus is saying that this is not enough. How better to make it clear to His hearers that their righteousness needs to far exceed what they think? ...that they have to be given righteousnees as they will never achieve it?

That's why Jesus spoke of murder, and said if you are angry you've really committed murder in your hart, andof adultery but that if you look at a woman lustfully you've committed adultery in your heart.

In Galatians Paul points out that the purpose of the Law was not to achieve righteousness, but to make it clear that we could never do so. That causes us to recognize our need for someone to pay the penalty for our unrighteousness for us

FA

 

I agree with your analysis. I would only add that Jesus was remarking about how we cannot possibly make ourselves righteous enough by our own works. That's what the Pharisees tried to do (earn righteousness by works), and not only did they fail, but we must actually exceed the righteousness by works they were shooting for. There's only one way to exceed it, and that is by putting on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

 

Well, ignore my post above. You said it a lot better than I did.

 

AIWN in the NT

Yesterday I said that I'd post some stuff from a study a did a couple of years ago regarding the use of AIWN (αἰών) and AIWNIOS (αἰώνιος) in the NT. AIDIOS (ἀΐδιος) is only used twice in the NT, so it's not the issue, since everyone agrees that it refers to eternity.

Anyway, if we check things out with lexicons - and in particular the two used by professionals - we'll see that AIWN refers, in general, to an age, but is interpreted eternally in various phrases, and particularly when in plural or a complex form.

Now AIWNIOS in general refers to being beyond the horizon, and is not referring to an "age." That is not its root meaning. The idea of something being beyond the horizon indicates beyond the ability of people to fathom, and hence from our perspective eternal... that does not preclude the possibility of it being used to refer to a very long period - which is not eternal, according to Liddell & Scott, though Bauer, Gingrich and Danker (BGAD) say that it always refers to eternity. Probably a safe bet.

First, AIWN (αἰών):

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon:

AIWN: A period of existence:
1 - one's lifetime; life;
2 - an age; a generation;
3 - a long space of time; an age. APO AIWNOS of old, for ages; TON DIA AIWNOS XRONOS - for ever
4 - A space of time clearly defined and marked out; an era, epoch, age, period or dispensation. this present world; N.T—hence its usage in pl., EIS TOUS AIWNAS for ever,
[Liddell, H. G., and Scott, - 1992.]
​

Notice that what L & S says is that when in plural (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας - EIS TOUS AIWNAS - "into the ages") it normally means "forever." TON DIA AIWNOS XRONOS above, "for ever", is a bit unique - "the through the ages time." But the plural usage of AIWN does seem to be significant, FWIW.

BGAD has for AIWN (αἰών):

1 - very long time, eternity.
b. of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity (so commonly in Gk. lit. Pla.+); [εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα - EIS TON AIWNA] to eternity, eternally, in perpetuity [εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας - EIS TOUS AIWNAS] - to all eternity
2 - a segment of time, age—a. [hO AIWN OUTOS] the present age
3 - the world as a spatial concept
4 - the Aeon as a person
​

As you can see, the first (and hence, most likely) meaning has "a very long time, eternity." So it most definitely can refer to "eternity" - generally when plural.

Here's A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman, Jr. (which is usually pretty good) ->

AIWN - masculine age; world order; eternity (APO AIWN or PRO AIWN from the beginning EIS AIWN and the strengthened form EIS TOUS AIWNAS (pl.) TWN AIWNWN (pl.) always, forever); Aeon (personified as an evil force); existence, the present life (Mt 13:22; Mk 4:19)
​

Notice what they refer to as "the strengthened form," EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN - "into/of the ages of the ages." It is significant when it uses this form... "into the ages of the ages." That even sounds in English like something more than just an age. There are various forms of AIWN. Here are the only NT forms (I believe), though the scriptures listed are not exhaustive, just representative. (Though with EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN I believe it is exhaustive):

τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων -TOU AIWNOS (sing.) TWN AIWNWN (plural) - "the age of the ages"
Eph. 3:21

ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων - APO TWN AIWNWN (pl.) or APO AIWNOS (s.) - "from the ages" or "from the age" - this does not seem to refer to eternity.
Col. 1:26, Acts 3:21, 15:18, Eph. 3:9

τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων - TW BASILEI TWN AIWNWN (pl.) - "eternal King" or "the king of the ages"
1 Tim. 1:17, Rev. 15:3 (The 1st Timothy passage is used often by those who oppose UR - but it is a unique form.) Obviously it refers to eternity, since God is eternal.

τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων - TAS GENEAS TWN AIWNWN (pl.) or TAS GENEAS TOU AIWNOS (s.) TWN AIWNWN (pl.) - "to all generations"
Eph. 3:21

εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας - EIS PANTAS TOUS AIWN (pl.) - "into all ages" - sure sounds eternal to me, and is always translated as "eternal."
Jude 1:25 - used by those who oppose UR - it literally says something like "before this age and into all ages." Again, it's unique - so difficult to draw any conclusions.

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα - EIS TON AIWNA(s.) - "into the age" - could be just an age, perhaps eternal, if that final age is eternal in length. Translated as "forever."
2 John 1:2 - which refers to truth which "abides in us and will be with us forever." Clearly eternity is indicated. This shows something which should not be ignored: that "age" (AIWN) can be used to refer to eternity. But we cannot assume that it always does so.

But the significant one is:
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων - EIS TOUS AIWNAS (pl.) TWN AIWNWN (pl.) - "into the ages of the ages." - now that sounds eternal even in English. It is typically translated "for ever and ever." - works for me. It is a complex form of plurals:
Gal. 1:5
Phil. 4:20
1 Tim. 1:17
2 Tim. 4:18
Hebrews 1:8, 13:21
1 Peter 4:11, 5:11
Rev. 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5

I'm convinced the double plural form should always be translated referencing eternity - "forever and ever." But I am not adament about some of theother forms. It is very difficult at times to speak adamantly about the koine Greek which is 2000 years old. Just think of the many ways that we use words today which do not conform to a strict dictionary definition.

I think I'll stop here. This is just an overview. I also looked at how these terms were used in the OT. This could be significant, since they are often used to refer to God as an eternal God. Also, in some cases theseterms are used to refer to the duration of the judgment upon those who arethrown into the Lake of Fire, etenrally condemned, etc.. So if we say that they do not in general refer to eternity, then that affects our understanding of judgment and allows the possibility that sin is not dealt with in a conclusive manner. So there are consequences to how we interpret these terms which go beyond our initial concerns.
I'll do AIWNIOS (αἰώνιος) separately as well.

FWIW,

FA

 

Good post, FA, and the fact that the word has been translated "forever", "eternal", etc., should prove you correct.

But the ME folks have one trick up their sleeve. They will say that it is properly translated "eternity" but that "eternity", "forever", etc., can simply mean "a very long time". Then they'll pose as an example a sentence like, "it took forever to get my driver's license".

This is plainly intellectually dishonest. This is one specific usage of the term which employs exaggeration (hyperbole) in order to express a painfully long time. You can't plug that back into the Bible and expect the Bible to make sense. Would anyone actually believe that John 3:16 should be understood to mean the following?

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have life that is so painfully boring that it would feel like an eternity.

Of course not. Only an idiot would believe their argument has any merit.

 

I agree whole-heartedly. Thanks.