I have designed a website to serve as an Online Book Store for the things I have written and published on Amazon. These are in the form of both Kindle eBooks, and paperback books. Some of you may recall a Series I presented on "The Lord's Prayer" several years ago. My original notes for this and other Bible Studies have been greatly revised and expanded for these publications. For further details on the books that are available, and for ordering information, click the following:
http://romansbooks.home.mindspring.com
If you purchase and read any of my books, Thank you! I would also greatly appreciate a review on Amazon!
“Questions and Answers” by Romans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uZJiHb2ENU
The Bible, unlike any other book that has been written, provides answers that have Eternal impact on our lives. All of the accumulated knowledge that man has amassed through the millennia in all of the sciences ~ in astronomy, in biology, in medicine, geology, in physics, in mathematics, in genetics, in agriculture ~ all of the discoveries cannot compare to the answers the Bible offers. And that is true for two reasons: 1.) Man cannot have, on his own, discovered the Truths the Bible furnishes; and 2.) In Eternity, all of the accumulated knowledge of man will have become obsolete. I say they will be obsolete because all of it applies applies to only to this temporary physical dimension. In the Spiritual Dimension of Eternity, our discoveries of the former material universe it will have no application.
We are about to begin a new Series, which, if you have noticed a Title Banner scrolling by may have tipped my hand, as to its title: “Questions and Answers.” In the above paragraph I reviewed the answers that the Bible supplies that have no human origin ~ the Nature of God, His being the Creator of all that we see and are, as well as all that is unseen, His Laws, His Covenants, His Prophecies, His Self-Sacrificing Intervention into the affairs of man, His Offer to mankind of Salvation, His Offer of Membership in the Family of God, and the Ruling Kingdom of God ~ we have only become aware of all of these things only because of its inclusion in the pages of God's Word, the Holy Bible.
But we are going to begin, tonight, with the first aspect of this Series: “Questions.” The Bible asks questions that we need to review and examine and consider and take to heart.
The first question we are going to look at, is the very first question that was asked in Scripture. Without peeking, can someone tell me what it was, and who asked that first question? When I wrote originally write this, I thought God had asked the first question in Scripture. When I asked, live, during the Discussion in the 4G Chat Room, I was corrected. It was actually Satan, in the guise of the serpent, who asked the first question in Genesis 3:1: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” I will delay reviewing and examining the serpent's question for next week.
God asked the second question, because of the first question that was asked! We read in Genesis 3:9: “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” Although I am not a King-James-Only proponent, one of the reasons why I use the King James Version of the Bible as my basic study tool is found in this verse . Again, it says in the KJV, “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou.” In modern-English translations, God asks, instead, “Where are you?” Even though the question is specifically addressed to Adam as being called, it would be ambiguous as to who God was asking about were it not for the word, “thou.” The KJV shows us that God was specifically asking Adam where he was. In modern-English versions, “you” is used for both the singular and the plural. In King James English, however, “thou” is singular, “you” is plural. God, here, had limited His inquiry to Adam. “Where art thou?”
Matthew Henry writes of this question, “The startling question with which God pursued Adam and arrested him: Where art thou? Not as if God did not know where he was; but thus he would enter the process against him. “Come, where is this foolish man?” Some make it a bemoaning question: “Poor Adam, what has become of thee?” “Alas for thee!” (so some read it) “How art thou fallen, Lucifer, son of the morning! Thou that wast my friend and favourite, whom I had done so much for, and would have done so much more for; hast thou now forsaken me, and ruined thyself? Has it come to this?” It is rather an upbraiding question, in order to his conviction and humiliation: Where art thou? Not, In what place? but, In what condition? “Is this all thou hast gotten by eating forbidden fruit? Thou that wouldest vie with me, dost thou now fly from me?”
Note, 1. Those who by sin have gone astray from God should seriously consider where they are; they are afar off from all good, in the midst of their enemies, in bondage to Satan, and in the high road to utter ruin. This enquiry after Adam may be looked upon as a gracious pursuit, in kindness to him, and in order to his recovery. If God had not called to him, to reclaim him, his condition would have been as desperate as that of fallen angels; this lost sheep would have wandered endlessly, if the good Shepherd had not sought after him, to bring him back, and, in order to that, reminded him where he was, where he should not be, and where he could not be either happy or easy. Note, 2. If sinners will but consider where they are, they will not rest till they return to God.”
John Gill writes, “and said unto him, where art thou? which is said, not as ignorant of the place where he was, nor of what he had done, nor of the circumstances he was in, or of the answers he would make; but rather it shows all the reverse, that he knew where he was, what he had done, and in what condition he was, and therefore it was in vain to seek to hide himself: or as pitying his case, saying, 'alas for thee.' as some render the words, into what a miserable plight hast thou brought thyself, by listening to the tempter, and disobeying thy God! thou that wast the favourite of heaven, the chief of the creatures, the inhabitant of Eden, possessed of all desirable bliss and happiness, but now in the most wretched and forlorn condition imaginable; or as upbraiding him with his sin and folly;
that he who had been so highly favoured by him, as to be made after his image and likeness, to have all creatures at his command, and the most delightful spot in all the globe to dwell in, and a grant to eat of what fruit he would, save one, and who was indulged with intercourse with his God, and with the holy angels, should act such an ungrateful part as to rebel against him, break his laws, and trample upon his legislative authority, and bid, as it were, defiance to him: or else as the Saviour, looking up his straying sheep, and lost creature, man: or rather as a summons to appear before him, the Judge of all, and answer for his conduct; it was in vain for him to secrete himself, he must and should appear; the force of which words he felt, and therefore was obliged to surrender himself, as appears from what follows.”
I am going to quote a third Commentary for this verse because of Who asks it, and why it was asked. The Preacher's Homiletical says, “Satan’s lie only gave occasion for the display of the full truth in reference to God. Creation never could have brought out what God was. There was infinitely more in Him than power and wisdom. There was love, mercy, holiness, righteousness, goodness, tenderness, long suffering. Where could all these be displayed but in a world of sinners? God at the first, came down to create; and, then, when the serpent presumed to meddle with creation, God came down to save.
This is brought out in the first words uttered by the Lord God after man’s fall, “And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, where art thou?” This question proved two things. It proved that man was lost, and that God had come to seek. It proved man’s sin, and God’s grace. “Where art thou?” Amazing faithfulness! Amazing grace! Faithfulness, to disclose, in the very question itself, the truth as to man’s condition in grace, to bring out, in the very fact of God’s asking such a question, the truth as to His character and attitude, in reference to fallen man.
Man was lost; but God had come down to look for him—to bring him out of his hiding-place, behind the trees of the garden, in order that, in the happy confidence of faith, he might find a hiding-place in Himself. This was grace. But who can utter all that is wrapped up in the idea of God’s being a seeker? God seeking a sinner? What could the Blessed One have seen in man, to lead him to seek for him. Just what the shepherd saw in the lost sheep; or what the woman saw in the lost piece of silver; or what the father saw in the lost son. The sinner is valuable to God; but why he should be so, eternity alone will unfold. (Notes on Genesis, C.H.M.)”
God's question was asked after the first sin was committed. The next three questions were also asked by God when Abel's offering from his flock was accepted, and Cain's offering from the field was not. Let's step back and see how it all unfolded. We read beginning in Genesis 4:3: “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, {Question 3 in verse 6} Why art thou wroth? and {Question 4} why is thy countenance fallen? (Question 5 in verse 7} If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?”
John Gill writes of this: “But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect,.... Not because of the matter of it, as some have thought; but because it was not offered in faith and sincerity, but in a formal and hypocritical manner, without any regard to the Messiah and his sacrifice, and without any view to the glory of God: no notice was taken, no approbation was given of it by the above token, or any other; so that it was manifest to Cain himself, that God did not approve of it, or was well pleased with it, as with his brother's:
and Cain was very wroth; with God, to whom he offered it, because he did not accept of it, and with his brother, because he and his sacrifice were preferred to him and his: and his countenance fell; the briskness and cheerfulness of his countenance went off, and he looked dejected; and instead of lifting up his face towards heaven; he looked with a down look to the earth; he looked churlish, morose, and sullen, ill natured, full of malice and revenge, and as if he was studying which way to vent it; he knit his brows and gnashed his teeth, put on a surly countenance; and there might be seen in his face all the signs, not only of grief and disappointment, but of rage and fury; though (i) some interpret it of shame and confusion.
And the Lord said unto Cain, why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?.... Which was said not as being ignorant of his wrath and resentment, but to bring him to a conviction of his sin or sins, which were the cause of God's rejecting his sacrifice, and to repentance and amendment; and to show him that he had no cause to be displeased, either with him or his brother, for the different treatment of him and his offering; since the fault lay in himself, and he had none to blame but his own conduct, which for the future he should take care to regulate according to the divine will, and things would take a different turn.
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?.... That is, either if thou doest thy works well in general, doest good works in a right way and manner, according to life will of God, and directed to his glory, from right principles, and with right views: or, "if thou doest thy works well; ''for it is not merely doing a good work, but doing the good work well, which is acceptable to God... but in a right way, in obedience to the divine will, from love to God, and with true devotion to him, in the faith of the promised seed, and with a view to his sacrifice for atonement and acceptance; then thine offering would be well pleasing and acceptable. If Cain had done well, his countenance would not have fallen, but have been lifted up, and cheerful as before; or of sin, which is the pardon of it, and is often expressed by taking and lifting it up, and bearing it away, and so of easing a man of it as of a burden; {ancient Jewish writings} paraphrase it,"or thy sin shall be forgiven thee:"
(k) שאת "elevare", Montanus; "erit sublevatio", Fagius, "elatio", Drusius, "elevatio erit", some in Vatablus, Mercerus; so Aben Exra; "remissio", Junius & Tremellius, Schmidt; "venia erit", Pagninus; so Ainsworth.
The next two questions we find in Scripture were asked by God, and then Cain in response to God, after Cain ignored God's invitation to do well and be accepted. Instead of doing well, Cain committed humanity's first murder. God asks him in Genesis 4:9, “Where is Abel thy brother.” Cain answers God with a lie, and then a question of his own which, at once, deceptive implied his own innocence, and, at the same time reflected Cain's callous distancing of himself from any obligation to be concerned about his brother's whereabouts or well-being. The question in Genesis 4:9 is “Am I my brother's keeper?”
In the New Testament, a related question is asked that widens the scope of our personal obligations to care about the well-being of of other individuals. Notice just how significant this obligation is: We read in a series of back-and-forth questions between Jesus and a lawyer. Beginning in Luke 10:25 we read, “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” At this point we come to the next question I am going to cite: But he {the lawyer}, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?”
It was the lawyer, and not Jesus, who quoted the Law commanding us to love God and neighbor. But then, in order to justify himself, asked, “Who is my neighbor?” When someone justifies himself, he is making excuses for not obeying the law. Someone is pulled over for running a red light at 3AM, and justifies himself by saying, “It's 3AM. I am the only car out here. Why should I wait at a light for non-existent traffic in the intersection?” He justified his running the light and, in so doing, breaking the law.
The lawyer knew God commanded His people to love their neighbors. But his question, “Who is my neighbor?” betrays his disobedience to that command by his apparently having established qualifying criteria for who was worthy to be even called a neighbor, for him to obligated to love. Jesus responds to the lawyer's question by giving him {and us} the Parable of The Good Samaritan. But tonight, we are focusing on the Questions aspect of our Series, so we will focus on the lawyers question: “Who is my neighbor?”
The Preacher's Homiletical writes, “This lawyer merely wished to test our Lord’s orthodoxy. He was quite sure that he knew what to do to inherit eternal life. Christ shifts the question from intellect to conscience and practice, and that pinches. The scribe’s wish to justify himself refers to his failure in conduct, which, though unaccused, he tacitly confesses. The obtuseness as well as sensitiveness of conscience is brought out by the fact that he evidently thinks that he has kept the first requirement of perfect and all-engrossing love to God, and is only sensible of defect in the second.
I. The question, meant to excuse, but really condemning.—“And who is my neighbour?” The lawyer pleads the vagueness of the precept, and wishes a clear definition of terms, that he may know whom he is bound to love as himself, and whom he is not. He fancies that love is only to run like a canal in a straight, artificial cutting. He will try to love all within the circle, but it must be clearly drawn; and, in the meantime, he does not feel any stirrings of love to anybody outside his own door. Is it not clear that to him love is simply a matter of obligation? and does not such a conception show that he has no notion of what it really is, nor has ever exercised it? “Tell me whom I must love” means, “Tell me whom I may escape the necessity of loving”; and he who says that has not a glimmer of what love is. In all matters of Christian living, the anxiety to have the bounds marked within which the action of the Christian spirit is to be confined, is a bad sign. It indicates latent reluctance and a total misconception of the free, spontaneous, all-embracing outgoings of the life which comes from Jesus.”
Alexander MacClaren writes, “The main purpose, then, is to show how far off men may be, and yet be neighbours. The lawyer’s question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ is turned round the other way in Christ’s form of it at the close. It is better to ask ‘Whose neighbour am I?’ than ‘Who is my neighbour?’ The lawyer meant by the word ‘a person whom I am bound to love.’ He wanted to know how far an obligation extended which he had no mind to recognise an inch farther than he was obliged. Probably he had in his thought the Rabbinical limitations which made it as much duty to ‘hate thine enemy’ as to ‘love thy neighbour.’
Probably, too, he accepted the national limitations, which refused to see any neighbours outside the Jewish people. Neighbourhood,’ in his judgment, implied ‘nearness,’ and he wished to know how far off the boundaries of the region included in the command lay. There are a great many of us like him, who think that the obligation is a matter of geography, and that love, like force, is inversely as the square of the distance. A good deal of the so-called virtue of ‘patriotism’ is of this spurious sort. But Christ’s way of putting the question sweeps all such limitations aside. ‘Who became neighbour to’ the wounded man? ‘He who showed mercy on him,’ said the lawyer, unwilling to name the Samaritan, and by his very reluctance giving the point to his answer which Christ wished to bring out. We are not to love because we are neighbours in any geographical sense, but we become neighbours to the man farthest from us when we love and help him. The relation has nothing to do with proximity. If we prove ourselves neighbours to any man by exercising love to him, then the relation intended by the word is as wide as humanity. We recognise that A. is our neighbour when a throb of pity shoots through our heart, and thereby we become neighbours to him.
The story is not, properly speaking, a parable, or imaginary narrative of something in the physical world intended to be translated into something in the spiritual region, but it is an illustration (by an imaginary narrative) of the actual virtue in question. Every detail is beautifully adapted to bring out the lesson that the obligation of neighbourly affection has nothing to do with nearness either of race or religion, but is as wide as humanity. The wounded man was probably a Jew, but it is significant that his nationality is not mentioned. He is ‘a certain man,’ that is all. The Samaritan did not ask where he was born before he helped him. So Christ teaches us that sorrow and need and sympathy and help are of no nationality. That lesson is still more strongly taught by making the helper a Samaritan.”
The story is not, properly speaking, a parable, or imaginary narrative of something in the physical world intended to be translated into something in the spiritual region, but it is an illustration (by an imaginary narrative) of the actual virtue in question. Every detail is beautifully adapted to bring out the lesson that the obligation of neighbourly affection has nothing to do with nearness either of race or religion, but is as wide as humanity. The wounded man was probably a Jew, but it is significant that his nationality is not mentioned. He is ‘a certain man,’ that is all. The Samaritan did not ask where he was born before he helped him. So Christ teaches us that sorrow and need and sympathy and help are of no nationality. That lesson is still more strongly taught by making the helper a Samaritan.”
This element of the Parable, namely, Jesus' making the helper – the hero – of the Parable, a Samaritan, is largely lost on many people who are aware of it. A stranger helps us out in public, and when we tell our friends and family of our experience, we routinely refer to that stranger who helped us a “a good Samaritan.” When Jesus originally spoke this Parable, to have named a Samaritan as the hero of the Parable to those listening, would have been akin to a Jewish Rabbi after World War II, illustrating a sermon with a parable of “The Good German.” In any case, Jesus summary of the Parable to the lawyer and us, was “Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:37).
We are going to return, now, to the Old Testament. Three visitors had come to Abraham. We read beginning in Genesis 18:9: “And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Matthew Henry writes, “I. Care is taken that Sarah should be within hearing. She must conceive by faith, and therefore the promise must be made to her. {This faith required on Sarah's part – to have a child – is confirmed in Hebrews 11:11: “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”} It was the modest usage of that time that the women did not sit at meat with men, at least not with strangers, but confined themselves to their own apartments; therefore Sarah is here out of sight: but she must not be out of hearing. The angels enquire, Where is Sarah thy wife? By naming her, they gave intimation enough to Abraham that, though they seemed strangers, yet they very well knew him and his family.
II. The promise is then renewed and ratified, that she should have a son (Gen_18:10): “I will certainly return unto thee, and visit thee next time with the performance, as now I do with the promise.” God will return to those that bid him welcome, that entertain his visits: “I will return thy kindness, Sarah thy wife shall have a son;” it is repeated again, (Gen_18:14). Thus the promises of the Messiah were often repeated in the Old Testament, for the strengthening of the faith of God's people. We are slow of heart to believe, and therefore have need of line upon line to the same purport. This is that word of promise which the apostle quotes (in Romans 9:9, “... Sara shall have a son”) as that by the virtue of which Isaac was born. Note, 1. The same blessings which others have from common providence believers have from the promise, which makes them very sweet and very sure. 2. The spiritual seed of Abraham owe their life, and joy, and hope, and all, to the promise. They are born by the word of God.
III. Sarah thinks this too good news to be true, and therefore cannot as yet find in her heart to believe it: Sarah laughed within herself, (in Genesis 18:12). It was not a pleasing laughter of faith, like Abraham's (in Genesis 17:17), but it was a laughter of doubting and mistrust. Note, The same thing may be done from very different principles, of which God only, who knows the heart, can judge. The great objection which Sarah could not get over was her age: “I am waxed old, and past childbearing in the course of nature, especially having been hitherto barren, and (which magnifies the difficulty)... Human improbability often sets up in contradiction to the divine promise. The objections of sense are very apt to stumble and puzzle the weak faith even of true believers. It is hard to cleave to the first Cause, when second causes frown. 3. Even where there is true faith, yet there are often sore conflicts with unbelief, Sarah could say, Lord, I believe, and yet must say, Lord, help my unbelief.
IV. God gave this reproof to Sarah by Abraham her husband. To him he said, Wherefore did Sarah laugh? perhaps because he had not told her of the promise which had been given him some time before... Or Abraham was told of it that he might tell her of it. Mutual reproof, when there is occasion for it, is one of the duties of the conjugal relation. 3. The reproof itself is plain, and backed with a good reason: Wherefore did Sarah laugh? Note, It is good to enquire into the reason of our laughter, that it may not be the laughter of the fool. Here is a question asked which is enough to answer all the equivocations of flesh and blood: Is any thing too hard for the Lord? (Heb. too wonderful), that is, (1.) Is any thing so secret as to escape his cognizance? No, not Sarah's laughing, though it was only within herself. Or, (2.) Is any thing so difficult as to exceed his power? No, not the giving of a child to Sarah in her old age.”
God is not limited to blessing a barren woman in her 90's the ability to bear a child. We don't know how old Elizabeth was when Gabriel told her husband Zechariah that his wife would have a child. The focus for us to remember is that Isaac, John the Baptist, and Jesus were all children of Promise. The physical conditions of the women He chose to be the mothers of each of these children of Promise were all irrelevant to God, and did nothing to impede to His ability to fulfill His Prophecy that these children would be born. So... Sarah and Elizabeth were “stricken” in years. No matter. Mary, Jesus' mother was a virgin, which is exactly how the Prophecy described her in Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Adam Clarke writes, “Is any thing too hard for the Lord? - Shall a word (or thing) be wonderful from the Lord? i.e., Can any thing be too great a miracle for him to effect? St. Luke makes it an affirmative position instead of a question, which we translate, “With God nothing shall be impossible,” Luke 1:37...
It was to correct Sarah’s unbelief, and to strengthen her faith, that God spoke these most important words; words which state that where human wisdom, prudence, and energy fall, and where nature herself ceases to be an agent, through lack of energy to act, or laws to direct and regulate energy, there also God has full sway, and by his own omnific power works all things after the counsel of his own will. Is there an effect to be produced? God can produce it as well without as with means. He produced nature, the whole system of causes and effects … He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. How great and wonderful is God!”
This concludes tonight's Discussion, our Introduction to our new Series, “Questions and Answers.” Next week, we will continue in the Book of Genesis to review and examine the questions that are asked there. I hope you found tonight's Discussion interesting and edifying, and that you will be able to join me next week for Part 2.”
This Discussion was originally presented "live" on September 5th, 2018