Friday, November 17, 2017

Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is an important passage relating to the Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.  The text reads as follows:

1 כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃
2 וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר׃
3 וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן אֲשֶׁר־לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה׃
4 לֹא־יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר־שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה כִּי־תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה׃ 

The four verses constitute one sentence in Hebrew, which could be translated as:

When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her: and he will write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; and she will go out of his house, and she will go and be another man’s wife; and the latter husband will hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her  former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and you shall not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God gives you for an inheritance.

The sentence consists of a large series of clauses connected with "and."  Verse four contains the only commands:  "her former husband . . . may not take her again to be his wife," and "you shall not cause the land to sin" by this action, for it is an "abomination to the LORD."  Everything except these two commands in verse four is merely permissive, not commanded. The text contains no command at all to divorce, much less to remarry.

How does Deuteronomy 24:1-4 relate to the plain New Testament teaching of Jesus Christ that remarriage is adultery?  Consider Christ's commentary in Mark 10:1-12 on Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.  9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

The Lord Jesus Christ teaches that God's plan from the very beginning of the Old Testament was one man for one woman for life, and that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was allowed for the hardness of men's hearts. (See the essay on "The Bible and Divorce" here.)  Furthermore, Christ teaches that remarriage while one's first spouse is alive constitutes the wicked sin of adultery.  This is actually clear within the text of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 itself.  Note that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 clearly indicates that the remarriage has caused the woman to be "defiled."  The Old Testament text itself denies that the remarriage is acceptable to Jehovah--it is evil and defiling.  However, civil law in Israel's theocracy was different from God's perfect standard about the nature of sin.  Some things that are sin were not illegal in Israel and should not be illegal now--they are legal even though they are sinful because of the hardness of men's hearts.  Covetousness is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, but there was no civil penalty for coveting.  (Nobody would be left.)  Drunkenness is forbidden by God in many verses, but it was not illegal in Israel.  Similarly, divorce is a sin--God hates it (Malachi 2:16)--and remarriage is defiling, but both were legal in Israel.  The civil government's permission to divorce is different from the fact that divorce and remarriage are outside of the perfect moral will of God.

Clearly, then, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not by any means constitute a permission for divorce or for remarriage in Biblical New Testament churches.  Christ's teaching against divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:1-12 brings out the true sense of the Old Testament text from Genesis to Malachi.  In Mark 10, however, Christ does not address the question of whether the political system should make divorce or remarriage illegal. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 demonstrates that the civil government should allow divorce or remarriage to be legal (along with covetousness, drunkenness, laziness, and many other sins) because of the hardness of men's hearts.

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 24 teaches that if one has committed the sin of divorce and the further sin of remarriage, he should not sin a third time by divorcing his second spouse and returning to the first one.  Some extreme advocates of the (Biblical) no-divorce, no-remarriage position argue that one should leave a second spouse and return to the first one because one is (allegedly) engaging in repeated and continual acts of adultery when one engages in marital relations with a second spouse.  Deuteronomy 24:1-4 makes it clear that this extremist position is false and dangerous.  Divorce is a terrible sin.  Remarriage is a terrible sin, and the initial consummation of the second marriage is an act of wicked adultery.  Believers who commit an act of adultery by remarrying should repent of that horrible sin. Church members who remarry should be subject to church discipline like other adulterers. However, once one has married a second spouse and committed lifelong fidelity to him or her, going back to the first spouse is an "abomination to the LORD" (Deuteronomy 24:4) that defiles the land.  Everything in the Old Testament that is an abomination to Jehovah (versus, say, an abomination only to the Egyptians, Genesis 43:32) is a permanent moral prohibition, not something that changes by dispensation.  Consider (from the study of Deuteronomy 22:5 here, dealing with the abomination of violating gender-distinction):

Abominations to Jehovah are always moral law, always evil. These are the sins [and Deut 22:5] that Scripture says are an abomination TO THE LORD (there are other verses where the sins below are called abominations, but these are the categories):
Idolatry and false worship:
Deut. 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. (cf. 1 Ki 14:23ffDeut 17:1)
Deut. 25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Deut. 25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
Deut. 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deut. 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Seven sins here listed:
Prov. 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Prov. 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Prov. 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Prov. 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
The worship of a wicked man:
Prov. 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Deut. 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The occult:
Deut. 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deut. 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Deut. 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deut. 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
Prov. 11:20 They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.
Human sacrifice:
Deut. 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Lev. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Thus, the Bible clearly teaches that divorce is a grave sin, and remarriage is adultery (Mark 10) which defiles (Deuteronomy 24:4).  Likewise, rejecting a second spouse, committing a second sin of divorce, and going back to a first spouse is not godly repentance, but an "abomination."  Sometimes when a certain sin has been committed there is no going back.  Israel sinned when the nation failed to inquire of Jehovah and made vows to Gibeon (Joshua 9), but once the vows had been made, there was no going back.  In the same way, once one has made life-long vows to a second spouse and married him or her, there is no going back--to do so is an abomination to the Lord.

In summary:

1.) Do not divorce.  God hates it.
2.) Do not remarry.  It is adultery.
3.) If you remarry, do not go back to your first spouse.  It is an abomination.

Bro Kent Brandenburg's study on the Biblical way to obtain a life's partner (assuming, of course, that one has the new birth and conversion, the first and greatest prerequisite) is a great preservative against committing the terrible sins of divorce and remarriage.  One who starts out right is, by the grace of God, much more likely to continue right than someone who starts out wrongly.

An addendum: I cut and pasted the Hebrew text in at the start of the blog post, and I do not endorse the only partially pointed Tetragrammaton found in the Hebrew critical text. See footnote #1 in my essay on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points here.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Bock and Wallace, Reliability of the New Testament

Dallas Theological Seminary with Darrell Bock has what they call a table podcast, which looks like a decorated room with a table and a couple of microphones to do a video podcast.  I like the format and would like to do something like it myself -- stay tuned because in the next year, I think we might do this.  There's carpet in the room and it looks like Wallace has socks on.  That's fun.  You can see him rubbing his feet in the carpet.

I didn't watch the whole podcast.  I watched starting at 16:28 until the end.  The format is that Bock is an interviewer and he looks like he is winging it in an intelligent way, as well as Wallace in his answers.  I think they are fairly standard and common questions that these two must address all the time as professors in the New Testament department of a seminary.  This is not technical.  It's obviously done for lay people to provide what might be considered some basics.  There are some pastors that don't know this basic material, so they should at least watch and at least understand the answers.  You could learn something.  I learned at least three things from watching, and I'll let you know.

I'm posting this and commenting on it because it really is a standard presentation in defense of the critical text.  A lot of "King James Only" (textus receptus supporters actually) comes into the program.  Bock and Wallace are defending the reliability of the New Testament, which for them is a testimony for the critical text against criticisms from the left or the right of them over the same concerns about reliability.  The left would say that there is some doubt about the reliability because of the huge number of variants between manuscripts.  The right would say that this level of certainty isn't what believers should expect.  I think they do a very good job of answering the left, but a bad job of answering the right.

What I'm writing here about their podcast is motivated by the negative, but I want to start with some positives, not because I think I need to do that to be fair.  I mean it when I'm positive.  I'm actually positive, not using the sandwich method of criticism. I want to thank them.  Bock and Wallace are arguing for the reliability of the New Testament.  They are arguing from a naturalistic point of view, but even arguing with naturalism, depending on so-called science, the New Testament stands up to criticism.  I'm happy about that.

Bock and Wallace don't want people ejecting from the New Testament for textual reasons.  That's good.  Hurray for them!  Bravo!  They want people believing the Bible.  I think they mean it.  I'm happy that Wallace is taking pictures of every Greek manuscript and putting it online.  It provides a service.  I'm glad someone is funding that.  It is a gigantic, monumental task, that someone should do.  It's the Bible!  It's God's Word!  We should know what we have in the way of manuscript evidence.  When people challenge us on these means, which they do all the time where I live in our evangelism, we can point to something that debunks their lies, and they are lies.

The condition of the New Testament from a purely naturalistic viewpoint is very good.  Wallace is physically proving that by putting up all the textual evidence.  It hasn't been corrupted like the Moslems and atheists and others, who just want to discredit the authority of scripture, would say.  They are lying.

Within the talk between Bock and Wallace on reliability of the New Testament, they testify to faith in Christ as well.  At one point late in the interview, while talking about a short ending of Mark, Wallace says:
I think his intention is to get the readers to put themselves in the sandals of the disciples, and now what am I gonna do with Jesus? If I want to accept him in his glory the way Peter did in his confession of Jesus as the Christ, I must also accept him in his suffering, and I must carry my cross daily and follow him. 
That’s what Mark I think is doing is, “You’re persecuted Christians. You’ve gotta own this and not just read this and casually be a Christian. If you’re gonna be a follower of Jesus, you really better follow him, and that includes suffering.”
I was happy to read that testimony.  They were not rejecting the truth about Jesus Christ.  Bock says,
We’ve got the declaration of the resurrection. We’ve got the empty tomb. We’ve got those elements. Now I call this the “you make the call” part of the New Testament, and that’s how Mark’s ending. What are you gonna do with this? You’ve got an empty tomb. You’ve got witnesses to an empty tomb. You’ve got a declaration that Jesus is raised from the dead. What are you gonna do with this?
I'm happy they are saying these things.  This is not liberalism.  This is exalting Jesus.

I said I learned three things.  One, Wallace quotes an updated edition of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, admitting the following.
“I don’t disagree with Dr. Metzger. There is no cardinal doctrine that is jeopardized by any of these variants.” And that’s on page 252 of the paperback version of Misquoting Jesus.
That was news to me, and helpful.  The other was this statistic from Wallace.
There’s about two-and-a-half million pages of Greek New Testament manuscripts, which means if we have only photographed 20 percent, it’s great job security for me.
Three, Wallace said this.
Now when you actually think about these variants, the other thing I would say is people who make this claim have not compared it to Greco-Roman literature. We have maybe half a dozen manuscripts for the average classical author, and let’s say we had as many as 15 manuscripts for the average classical Greek author that still exist. 
You stack those up, and they’d be about four feet high. If you stack up the New Testament manuscripts, the Greek ones as well as early translations which all count as manuscripts in Latin and Coptic and Syriac and Georgian and Gothic and Ethiopic and all that, it’ll be about a mile and a quarter high, four feet versus a mile and a quarter.
OK, so now I come to the negative.  When it comes to the reliability of the New Testament, Bock and Wallace, as is so often the case, argue in a naturalistic way.  They don't begin with theological presuppositions, which we should expect from conservative apologists of scripture, who are defending the reliability of the New Testament.  Our expectations for the New Testament find their trajectory in the promises of the New Testament.  What we should expect of the New Testament comes from the New Testament.  Bock and Wallace settle for something less that what believers should expect.  They don't even mention this.

Bock and Wallace argue against the teaching of the New Testament when it comes to what Christians should expect.  Why should anyone expect word for word perfection?  They don't deal with that.  They leave it alone.  Why?  Is it really that assumed?  The extent of their theological argument, biblical theology, is maybe four points.

To start, Bock and Wallace don't really say in this portion of their conversation what or who they're arguing against.  I guess it's supposed to be obvious.  They are burdened by something that motivates them to answer.  They should have a burden, because the basis of the criticism of their position is legitimate.

The four points are not necessarily in this order, but, one, the critical text doesn't diminish teaching on the deity of Christ.  Two, all the doctrines are preserved in the critical text, not in every individual passage of scripture, but all of them are in the critical text of the New Testament.  Three, the absence of "chunk portions" in the critical text, namely Mark 16 and John 8, is defensible theologically and textually.  Four, you've got more text than is in the Bible between all the manuscripts, so you aren't missing anything overall that you need, because it's all in there somewhere.  These four points are supposed to alleviate angst, provide calm, and really just be good enough for someone.  Question though:  is this what we are to expect when we read what we are to expect?  Absolutely not.

The textual problems are good enough for Wallace and Bock to deny a doctrine or preservation.  Is this a liberal position.  Usually this isn't associated with liberalism, but liberalism comes when doctrines of scripture are rejected for naturalistic reasons. The miracles of Jesus, He did them, but since someone hasn't seen them, they are rejected.  This is conforming the preservation of scripture, and also the degree of reliability, reliability of every word, to just reliability of "doctrines."  This changes the nature of scriptural teaching on reliability.  It is against historic doctrine of the church. Their defense is inadequate.

Scripture has a doctrine of preservation.  Our views of canonicity are guided by a trajectory that proceeds from expectation from biblical teaching, not naturalism.  What we consider scripture comes from scripture.  What we believe on preservation should also come from scripture, and Bock and Wallace just ignore that in this interview.

Men expect a perfect text, which is why they defend the textus receptus.  At one point, you can hear at least a little concern from Bock, when he says,
[I]t’s a question that does hang over this conversation, and that is the view of the fact that this has been a part of the passing on of Scripture for as long as it has. That actually applies to lots of texts, but this one is probably one of the more prominent ones to which that question gets pursued.
Notice he says, "a part of the passing on of Scripture."  This motivates a continuation of this kind of presentation from them.  Believers, true churches, continued to pass this along as scripture.  Moderns now reject this.  Their grounds are naturalistic, not theological.  Scripture doesn't teach a loss and then restoration of scripture, based on naturalistic grounds.  They need to go there, but as is so often the case, they don't.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

How Are Men Supposed to Act?

Men don't know how to act today.  I admit that.  I believe it 100%.  I also believe that women don't know how they want men to act.  So what do men do?

More and more news arises of men treating women different than, it seems, how they want to be treated.  Is it different than how men want to treat women?  I'm not sure.  Men don't know how to treat women.  They don't know what's right.  There isn't a standard for how to act as a man and there is no standard for how to treat women.

Don't get me wrong.  There is a standard for how men should act and how they should treat women.  It's in the Bible.  But the Bible is ignored as a standard.  That leaves us men with what?  If we have no absolute truth or no standard for how to act as men or how we are to treat women, how can anything be expected of us as men?  Unless we're going to bring the Bible back.  Do women want that?

Let's say that Roy Moore, the Senate candidate in Alabama, is a hypocrite.  With hypocrisy, you've got to have a standard, one that you advocate, but that you don't keep yourself.  Is that standard, the one you're advocating, the correct standard? We might say that Roy Moore is a hypocrite, but what standard was he supposed to keep and why?

Roy Moore was a 32 year old assistant district attorney.  The most egregious example I read of his misbehavior was that he molested a 14 year old girl under the guise of "dating" her.  It is alleged behavior, which is enough to convict him the court of public opinion.  However, he is also said to have attempted to "date" a number of other teen-aged girls.

What's bad about the whole story of Roy Moore?  He stands as perhaps the most prominent enthusiast of the ten commandments in the United States.  So, while he was busy carving a wooden plaque of the ten commandments as a 32 year old assistant district attorney, he was lusting after teen-aged girls.  If it's true, it's creepy, but it doesn't disobey in corporeal way any of the ten commandments.  The ten commandments are not the end all of moral behavior.  Jesus said, if you lusted after a woman in your heart, you've committed adultery already.  Women today would scoff at that standard of behavior for men.  They wouldn't say that's how men are supposed to act.  Lust away, just don't touch when we don't want it, is more like it.

Women don't like how they are being treated by men.  They are talking about it.  They are marching against it.  Where do we go from here?  We know some things women don't want.  Many of them sat listening to Louis C. K. tell masturbation jokes, laughing away, returning for another comedy show, watching the next one, joining him in his productions.  Now he's a pariah, worse than one.  Untouchable.  He did things awhile ago and in a continuous way, but now, while it's expedient, he's being called on them, ruined, and getting battered further for his bungled apology.  Why wasn't he being punished when he was telling those jokes?  Women were a large part of his audience.  He was considered a great dad.  If the goal is to help men with their behavior, this isn't helpful.

The Bible has a standard for how men are supposed to act and with a lot of examples, both positive and negative.  It is clear.  It also has the standard for female behavior.

I'm contending that among the chief reasons men misbehave is that they don't know how to act.  If you give up your standard, you can't expect men to know how.  Lines have to be drawn far in advance of assault and molestation.  You have to know what respect is, who women are and how to treat them.  You have to know that as a man.  It's taught by men.

What I get is the following so far in the latest protest by women.  "Don't assault us."  Don't molest us.  Don't harass us.  Don't use positions of power to subjugate us."  Men shouldn't do any of those.  We know what men shouldn't do.  So they won't do that, right?  I don't know.  I doubt it.  I think men need to know what to do, how to act, not just what they shouldn't.  I think, if men don't know what to do and are not taught what to do, because it's the right thing to do, they won't stop doing what they're not supposed to do.

Roy Moore is a little more than one month of a Senatorial election and the Washington Post of all papers exposes him as a child molesting hypocrite.  Not a moment sooner.  Let Roy Moore shrink off into oblivion.  How men are supposed to act?  It will still be an issue.  Will the Washington Post show the same interest in male Democrat candidates?  I'm predicting even greater confusion and chaos for the future.  Women can tell men how they want them to act, but men will decide how they will act.  The bigger issue will still exist.

March 30 of this year, the Washington Post wrote a piece, Mike Pence and the Temptresses.   There the Post laid out unacceptable behavior for men, for the Vice President of the United States.  He was being careful.  That was a no-no.  He was treating his wife with respect.  That wasn't right.  Again, we find out what men are not supposed to do.  Have a low standard, just not too low.

We need male role models.  First, we need a male role.  We've got to start with a standard.  Men don't know how to act, because there's no standard for how men are supposed to act.  We know what women don't want.  Perhaps we can find out too what they do.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Sunday, 11/12/2017, Last Day of Word of Truth Conference, Panel Discussion, Provide Questions

We are having our panel discussion at 2:30pm, Pacific Time, for at least an hour.  If you want to ask questions about the gospel, repentance, the sinner's prayer, the deity of Christ, eternal security, you can ask the questions here, and they will show up in the Panel Discussion, answered by a panel of David Sutton, James Bronsveld, and myself (Kent Brandenburg).

So.  Ask questions in the comment section.  We will answer them there at 2:30pm.  It will show up on our youtube channel later.  You'll hear the answer.  Of course, it must be  a legitimate question.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Abiding in Christ: What Does it Mean? part 3 of 9, Word Study Concluded

Php 1:25 And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith;
In this passage, Paul’s “abiding” with the Philippians was his continuing with them, “coming to” them, and “seeing” them again; it was his bodily presence with them, rather than his death.  Paul abode with them so that he could disciple the Philippians, but those actions were not inherent in his abiding itself. This should be considered in analyzing John 15 and the nature of abiding in Christ.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The children abiding in or following the right path is the sense of meno here.
2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
The Lord continues or remains faithful to His threatenings against unbelievers, for He cannot deny His holy nature. He is certain to condemn those who do not believe.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
Timothy was to remain or stay faithful to what he had learned.
2Ti 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
Erastus remained or stayed in the city of Corinth, while Trophimus stayed at Miletum.
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abidetha priest continually.
The Lord remains or continues to have the office of a priest continually.
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
The Lord Jesus Christ remains forever; He will always exist.
Heb 10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
The heavenly substance will continue or remain forever.
Heb 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
The unshaken things may continue to be around.
Heb 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.
Let love abide or remain.
Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
Our city here does not remain.
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
The Word of God continues, remains, or endures forever. These are synonymns for “abide.”
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
The Word remains, continues, or abides forever.
1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
In the previous verse (v. 5), those en auto are those who are truly converted, those in whom the love of God is perfected (perfect tense). This would suggest that abiding in Him, v. 6, is synonymous with being en Christo, that is, with genuine conversion. Consider that this is a present tense abiding. Compare in John 15 the contrasting aorist and present tense usage of meno.
1Jo 2:10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
Here again the contrast with v. 9, where he who hates his brother is now and always has been unconverted, indicates that abiding in the light (present tense again) is the mark of the converted individual.
1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
This verse also looks like the abiding of the Word of God in people is a characteristic of true conversion. They were clean (perfect tense) through the Word of God which Christ had spoken (John 15:3) and His Words abode (aorist) in them (John 15:7).
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
The one who does the will of God, the genuine convert, will continue to eternity in the presence of God, unlike the world and its lusts.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
The pluperfect of meno here in this verse makes it clear that the elect do abide, remain, continue, or stay. They begin to do so at one point (conversion) with continuing results. The ones who do not abide are lost. This verse provides evidence that in John 15 abide is a synonym for persevere or continue. The evidence would only be undermined if one could prove from Scripture that people can genuinely abide and then cease to do so, be restored to doing so again, and cease to abide again, and continue to flip-flop back and forth, making abiding is an all-or-nothing matter rather than a matter of degree or a overall mark of believers. It is not possible to prove from the Bible that such flip-flopping takes place.
1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
If the teachings given before this text remain or continue in the audience of 1 John, then they will continue or remain in the Son and in the Father, that is, they will be eternally saved, for they are en Christo. V. 24, “Let . . . abide,” is a warning to avoid apostasy from the faith. Those who apostatize were never genuinely in Christ, but they had a certain sort of position in the Father and Son, it appears from the last clause here, as in John 15:2Remaining or abiding in true faith and practice characterizes the audience; because they are those who abide, they will receive eternal life (v. 25).
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The Spirit, who indwells the elect, remains or continues in them, and He makes it certain that the elect will remain, continue, or persevere in true doctrine and practice.
1Jo 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
This is a command to persevere in the faith; those who are ashamed before Him at His coming are lost people, not disobedient Christians, as v. 29 and the previous verses demonstrate.
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Abiding in him is being regenerate; since in Him there is no sin, v. 5, the one who is in Him does not continue in sin (v. 6; and abide is present tense). The contrast is not with a disobedient Christian, but a lost man (v. 6bff.).
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Because the Holy Spirit, given at the moment of regeneration, remains (present tense) in the elect, they are not able to continue to commit sin. Those who are born of God “cannot sin,” that is, cannot continue to sin.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
The one who is not loving his brother is remaining, continuing, or persevering in a state of spiritual death, while the one who loves his brother abides in a state of spiritual life.
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Eternal life is not staying or remaining in the murderer.
1Jo 3:17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
The one who does not help his brother does not have love for God within him, and God does not love him with that love He has for the elect. Not having the love of God dwelling, remaining, or staying in one is being lost.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The one that keeps His commandments is a converted person. Scripture here equates “he who keeps His commandments” with “he who abides in Christ, and Christ abides in Him.” Abiding is what all saved people do, then, and it is a synonym with the perseverance of the saints, with continuing, remaining, or enduring in true doctrine and practice. The evidence that He continues or remains with us is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not only the possession of Christians who are not backslidden. This fact indicates that the entire verse deals with a saved/lost contrast, not an obedient/disobedient Christian contrast.
1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Here again, the previous and subsequent context indicates that this love, which is the certain mark of regeneration (v. 7), and so is characteristic of all believers, is the subject under consideration. All believers love, therefore, God abides or dwells in all of them, and His love has been completed or perfected in them.
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
Here the believer’s abiding in God, and God’s abiding in him, is also a mark of conversion. All believers were given and continue to have (perfect tense) the Spirit, and He is the seal and testimony of that mutual indwelling or abiding. Abiding is not something that a special class of believers learn how to do, but a certain state of all of God’s people.
1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Here again, the indwelling or abiding of God in the saint and of the saint in God is a mark of regeneration, not of subsequent progressive sanctification. The mutual association between the believer’s dwelling in God and Christ and Christ’s indwelling the believer is also most noteworthy; all en Christohave Christ abiding in them; if Christ dwells in us, then we abide or dwell in Christ.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Here again, it is extremely clear that genuine conversion means that one abides in God and in love, and God abides in him. Nor can the advocate of abiding in Christ as (solely) an instrumentality for progressive sanctification which some believers may never possess argue that abiding in God and in Christ are two different things, for one can easily demonstrate that if one is in the Son he is also in the Father; this is also a necessary consequence of a proper and sound Trinitarian theology. Note the perfect tense forms for “we have loved and believed.”
2Jo 2 For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
dia» th\n aÓlh/qeian th\n me÷nousan e˙n hJmi√n, kai« meq∆ hJmw◊n e¶stai ei˙ß to\n ai˙w◊na:
The truth abiding, remaining, or dwelling in the saints was not a temporary state or condition, or dependent upon the struggles in practical sanctification, but a continuing character received permanently at regeneration.
2Jo 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Here it is obvious that the one who does not abide in correct doctrine is lost.
Re 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
The seventh king will stay or remain in power for a short time.
The significance of abide as a synonym of remaincontinueendure, or persevere appears clear from an examination of the texts. While continuing with a person may often be connected with fellowship, the word itself does not signify any necessary personal communion.
See the complete study on meno or "abiding," which includes the passages not only in the KJV but also in the Greek NT (not present in this series of blog posts), by clicking here.