How does John Owen account for scriptures which state that justification by faith is not through the law? In my previous inquiry regarding the history of the doctrine which states that Jesus Christ, in the days of his flesh, kept the law on behalf of others as 'passive obedience' (which law-keeping is then regarded as 'transferrable' to others) I discovered that John Owen is the first to state this doctrine, as such, and it first appears in creed-form - as far as I have yet found - in the Savoy Declaration of 1658.
I am now interested in what John Owen makes of scriptures which state that justification by faith is not accomplished by means of the works of the law. These scriptures appear to be categorical and are stating that, whether 'actively' or whether 'passively', justification by faith is simply not a matter - at all - of the works and deeds of the law.

... a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith of Jesus Christ [Galatians 2:16 (a), KJV]

For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified [Galatians 2:16 (b), KJV]

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident [Galatians 3:11 (a) KJV]

... for, the just shall live by faith [Galatians 3:11 (b) KJV]

... by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight [Romans 3:20 (a) KJV]

... for by the law is the knowledge of sin [Romans 3:20 (b) KJV]

Now, the righteousness of God, without the law, is manfested ... [Romans 3:21 (a) KJV]

... even the righteousnss of God by faith of Jesus Christ [Romans 3:21 (b) KJV]

These texts appear to preclude the possibility of any means of justification which involves law.
How does John Owen (or those who were his contemporaries) treat of these texts in the propagation of the concept of Jesus Christ keeping law, during the days of his flesh, in order that others may be justified ?

[NOTE : The concept of Jesus Christ 'fulfilling' the law is another concept. The law is fulfilled by righteous means. But it is not 'fulfilled' by flesh submitting to it, in order to seek justification. There seems to be some confusion on this point. I think scripture is quite clear about this, as the above texts show.]

Great question in my opinion. I would start by looking at Romans 8:2, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6 and Proverbs 24:16.
Jesus is justified because He is God's Son. He is loved because of who He is. God also wants to "include" us in Christ as Paul talks about in Ephesians 1:13.
Romans 8:2 tells us that we are free from condemnation because we are set free in the inner man. This tells me that we are justified because we are born again. We are not born again because we are justified. We are justified, because, like Jesus we are sons and daughters, having been born again by the Holy Spirit.
We are able to be born again because the blood of Jesus made that possible for us while we were still sinners.
If we are in Christ, we are justified because we are in Christ's inner circle or His family, per se. How do we get into His family? If we trust God as Abraham did, then we are in the inner circle even if we are imperfect. This righteousness that is not perfect, but that trusts God can be seen in Proverbs 24:16. Galatians 3:6 and Romans 4:3 talk about Abraham trusting God and thus being justified.
Jesus trusted the Father. His trust in God is different than ours though because He didn't carry the same corrupted nature that we had before being in Christ and so His trust in the Father led to total sinlessness during His life on Earth.
A lot of the problems here are that the translators of the New Testament translate the verb and noun of the same root differently. The noun is translated as "faith" and the verb is translated as "believe". The exact same word conjure 2 quite different ideas in the English language here. Hebrews 11 shows us that they both basically mean "trust" - confidence of what we do not see.
We are saved by grace through trust, would be an appropriate translation of Paul's statement. It makes it far less mystical sounding and actually is what it is.
NEXT
"but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." - Romans 9:31-32a
Romans 9:31-32 is crucial. It shows us that the law is not the opposite of faith. You can practice the law by faith or practice the law by works. Practicing the law by faith is good and Biblical, but it shows that the practicing of the law must be the fruit of faith and that faith is how you are justified. And this makes sense logically too.
I don't refrain from murdering so that I will be justified before God. I refrain from murdering because I'm not psychologically damaged, and thus I love the people in my life. You can't be justified by following the law. You are justified by trusting Jesus, and then you learn from Jesus about how to act righteously as you trust Him.
Practicing the law by works: my interpretation is that some Jews didn't trust God at all and were practicing the law to try and tie God's hands as far as allowing them into the Kingdom. It just doesn't and will never work that way. Grace is uncoerced favor. God is the decider of who is let in, and the one condition for Him letting someone in is trusting Him.
Justification is through trust in God. Works of the law are the fruit of that trust. For us sinless perfection will only come after a lifetime + more of practicing and being retrained by the Father Himself in the next life. For Jesus He was able to live in sinless perfection in this life because He didn't have a corrupted nature.
Jesus was legitimately able to die on our behalf because He was the pure spotless lamb, but that language of being pure and spotless is about freedom from corruption. The law teaches how to avoid corruption, it doesn't gain us any kind of standing with God. It's like sin is a cliff. Not jumping off the cliff isn't an accomplishment, but it prevents you from being destroyed. Jesus didn't get destroyed. That's good, but it was His powerful uncorrupted nature that made Him able to die on our behalf, not anything He accomplished by following the law.
Basically, following the law isn't an accomplishment that caused Jesus to be able to coerce God into saving us. Coercion just isn't part of the equation. Following the law kept Jesus free from corruption so He would have organic power to set us free.
Basically Jesus kept the law because it was the righteous thing to do and righteousness is in His nature. Keeping the law didn't gain Him anything before God, but failing to keep the law would have lost Him the ability to intercede on our behalf. There is a middle place where WHO HE IS causes Him to be able to intercede just as WHO HE IS made Him able to live righteously. He is that He is. He is the pure and spotless lamb.


How is it significant that Jesus rose on the 3rd day? Christianity teaches that Jesus died on the cross and on the Third day rose from the dead. His resurection is significant for all sorts of reasons which I don't want to go into in this question. What I'm interested in is why did he rise THREE days later? Why not 4 days, or 2 days?

The only thing I could find is that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days, however this just moves the question to why was Jonah in the fish for 3 days (instead of 2 or 4 or any other number).

Is there any significance to Jesus being dead for three days?

The significance lies in that Jesus prophesied that He will rise from the dead on the third day.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2 : 19
But the temple he had spoken of was his body. John 2 : 21

The false witnesses misquoted Jesus at His trial, not for the days but on who will destroy the 'temple'.

But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" Matthew 26: 60 - 61

To understand why Jesus rose on the third day, and not the second or fourth, one must understand the meaning of Jesus' words in Luke 24: 46 and Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15: 4.  The third day, or a three day interval, is a prophetic pattern established in the Old Testament, and one example is the account of Jonah that Jesus talks about and that you mentioned in your question.  I am currently doing a blog series on this very topic and invite you to follow.  Go to http://gospelanalytix.wordpress.com and subscribe to the blog.  Check out the 4 posts I currently have on this, under the Category "The Third Day."  More posts examining more Old Testament accounts are coming.  I do not think a quick and easy answer can be given in a forum such as this, but a quick answer would be the matter is typological in nature, not numerological.  God established multiple Old Testament types, which found their fulfillment in Christ's third day resurrection.

Update to original post:  In addition to what I said above, Gabriel's response is also true.  Jesus had to rise on the third day because He said He would.  But I think the reason He chose that day relates to my comments above, regarding His words in Luke 24 and the Old Testmanet prophetic types He was fulfilling.  That is the context for understanding why Jesus said three days, as opposed to two or four.


Did early church fathers understand the doctrine of trinity? Many historians and religious scholars ... attest to the influence of
  Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the
  Trinity doctrine in the fourth century.  ... the famous Greek
  philosopher Plato ... believed in a divine triad of "God, the ideas,
  [and] the World-Spirit,". (Source)

The easiest way to verify the authenticity of this claim would be to check if any of the early church fathers believed in trinity. (Please note by early I mean the <= 300 AD)

The Apostles Creed, referenced as early as 390 A.D., quite clearly articulates an understanding of our faith revolving around the three persons we identify as the members of the Trinity as core to the faith. It makes up almost half of the total text.

  I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
        the Maker of heaven and earth,
        and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

  Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
        born of the virgin Mary,
        suffered under Pontius Pilate,
        was crucified, dead, and buried;

It is clearly understood both today and in its time that this creed was affirming a belief in One God and at the same time identifying how he is revealed to us. While it doesn't use the term Trinity nor define the mixed natures as clearly as later creeds and confessions, it is unlikely that such a creed would have seen the near universal acceptance as articulating the core of Christian belief if it went against the teachings of the church fathers of the previous three centuries. The lack of controversy on this topic is remarkable. We do know people who taught otherwise, such as the Gnostics and Arians, but part of the purpose of this Creed was to emphatically reject them, a standard that has continued throughout mainstream Christian history.

Before moving on, it would be remiss not to point out that the most emphatic and authoritative writings on this matter in the first couple centuries are in fact the Scriptures themselves. Looking in material written by "early fathers"  for clues about what they did or did not believe without first and foremost considering the teachings found in the pages of the Bible their actions as church fathers helped to canonize would be a disservice to them.

That being said we do have clear evidence that the early Fathers did believe in the Trinity. Few of them used that word, but the words they did use fit the formula. For example Polycarp lived from 70 A.D to somewhere in the mid second century. Here's how he prayed:

  "O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever."

While that statement was simply an affirmation of the three persons without directly trying to define their relation to each other, other early Fathers such as Theophilus from the late second century did remark on how they relate:

  It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

Likewise Justin (another Martyr and church leader from the second century) had this to say about baptism:

  "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

Clearly the three persons were at the center of the faith people were being inaugurated into. In another place, he comments specifically on the relation of these three persons to each other:

  We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.

By the first decade of the third century, we have quite a collection of declarations about the Trinity. Here is Tertullian:

  And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The list goes on. I can't quote them all here but Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons, Didache, Hippolytus, Novatian, Origen, and other Fathers through the second and third centuries can all be quoted with emphatic articulations of the Trinity.

The exact formulation and best way to articulate this mystery has been widely debated in every age and language since. The above Fathers certainly had varying ideas about just what it meant to have a single God with three persons. We still struggle to wrap our heads around this today. And that's ok as long as we do not err on the side of either denying either the unity or diversity of his nature. We must not make out the persons of the Trinity to be separate beings nor deny that the one being is revealed to us in thee persons.

The victors write the history, and the losers become labeled heretics. The "Trinity" was always a controversial subject and the idea that Jesus and God were one and the same was also always a controversial subject. The Trinity didn't become orthodoxy until the Pagan Emperor (NEVER a Christian) Constantine shoved it down Christianity's throat.

Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus and at that time it was a tenant of that pagan religion that ALL GODS were an expression of Sol Invictus. Constantine basically surrendered to the fact the Christianity swept over the empire and was the dominant religion. He needed to make peace with the Christians and bring them into the fold if he was to preserve the Empire. There was a titanic problem, however; Christianity back then was almost as diverse as it is today (there being - no lie- about 43,500 different Christian denominations worldwide today). He needed Christianity united and so HE called the first council at Nicea in 325 AD and demanded that the Christian bishops get their act together and form a single dogma/statement of faith and get their religion under one umbrella.

Well, they couldn't. The entire block of Bishops from the east (Greece, Armenia, modern day Turkey, etc.) held to a tradition where God was God and Jesus was NOT God, but his son, separate and distinct from him. Noetus of Smyrna (circa 190 AD) got booted out of the church for declaring God and Jesus as one and the same. Noetus came and settled in Rome where he picked up followers to follow his philosophy.

The Trinity also falls into this discussion where it was fiercely argued against. Prior to 325 AD it was one church arguing against another and then Constantine ended the argument at Nicea where he got tired of the arguing and stepped in to declare that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all expressions of one god as he believed and learned from his religion of Sol Invictus. Arius, the famous church historian Eusebius and other bishops who did not believe in the Trinity or that God and Jesus were one and the same were kicked out of the Council for disagreeing with the Emperor and the Bishops who did believe in the Trinity. With these expelled bishops left the entire eastern contingent of bishops.

Years later Eubebius was able to get Constantine to reverse his edict but the seeds were already set. By 390 AD the Roman Emperor Theodosius was thoroughly Christian (unlike Constantine) and his brand of Christianity embraced the Trinity "denomination", and his radical belief in it caused him to declare all other brands of Christianity to be heresies punishable by death if anyone was caught practicing, promulgating any of these other denominations or caught using any other scriptures other than the canon (which was imposed on Christianity by Constantine and Theodosius).

It started another round of persecutions of Christians who didn't adhere to Theodosius' orthodoxy. This is why the Nag Hammadi scrolls were buried by those who regarded them as inspired because if caught with them they would have been put to death. The Trinitarian Orthodoxy has nothing to do with the truth, but more to do with the victor writing the history. Luckily enough fragments survive of the oppositions' views. In this scholar's opinion, the first Apostasy was the idea God and Jesus were one and the same and the Trinity falls right in there too with God now being three expressions.


What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible? The title almost says it all:

What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible? Does one contain  the other or what?
What does each one include?
Where did each one come from (or who authored each, if possible)?

Please forgive my ignorance; if the question is encyclopedic then answering the first item is enough.

First, the Bible is the entire collection of Jewish scripture (known by Christians as the "Old Testament") and Christian scripture (which also includes the "New Testament") as recognized by modern Christian groups.  Most Protestant Christian groups recognize 66 "books" (or individual pieces of literature) as their Bible. Greek Orthodox and Catholics recognize 73.  See the Wikipedia entry for Bible for a more in-depth look of what is contained within the Bible, and how various groups have different definitions.

Now, moving on to the term "Gospel."  The term "Gospel" has two meanings within Christianity.

One of the books of the Bible which tells the story of Jesus' life.  The four gospels are Gospels of (or according to) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  In this sense, the term "Gospel" serves to designate these four books (and some groups include additional gospels) as distinct from the other types of books contained in the Bible.

In this sense, the Gospels (plural) are part of the Bible.
"The Gospel" also means simply "The Good News."  So when someone says "Jesus preached the Gospel," they don't mean "Jesus told the story of his life," but they mean "Jesus preached the Good News."  That "Good News" is essentially that God forgives sins.  It can also be considered the entire story of the Bible, including the details of man's rebellion against God, and God's desire and attempt to redeem man.

In this sense, the Gospel (singular) is either:

specifically, the message that Jesus came to redeem man.
generally, the entire message of the Bible.  In this sense, The Bible is to "The Gospel" as Moby-Dick is to "the story of Captain Ahab's quest for the White Whale."   That is, the former is the title of the book, and the latter is a description of the story the book tells.

The Gospel is the good news "We have a new identity in christ which is the sinless man/god".
The Bible is simply a package containing: { the gospel<- and ->the reason for the gospel }. (and not in that order)


Was Jesus perfect his entire life? - Isaiah 7 Was Jesus perfect his entire life? This passage seems to suggest otherwise. I've never had a good answer to this question when referring to this passage.

  Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it
  be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask,
  and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O
  house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary
  my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold,
  the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
  Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the
  evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the
  evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be
  deserted. The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon
  your father's house such days as have not come since the day that
  Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
  ~ Isaiah 7:10-17

In the passage you mention it never says Jesus sinned or did evil.  We can find the answer to that question in Hebrews 4:14-15

  Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through
  the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
  For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

More info here - http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/18/t/christs-human-nature.aspx

In addition to Isaiah 7 consider this…  The bible says that Jesus was made perfect, but being re-made in flesh, he had to go through the natural human steps to reaching His full potential…

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

The bible says that sin is a transgression of the law…

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The question is, are all acts of disobedience considered sin (transgression of the law)?


Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by so many Protestant denominations? Catholics and several Protestant denominations (and maybe even Orthodox churches) practice Infant Baptism, while many other Protestant denominations do not.

This question addressed the argument for Infant Baptism.  So, what is the argument against it?  That is, "Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by many denominations?

In order to be saved, one must follow the order of salvation that the scriptures set forward. Romans 10:14 tells us that the order is 1) preach, 2) hear, 3) believe, and 4) call upon the name of the Lord (baptism, Acts 22:16). Acts 2:38 tells us that repentance comes before baptism, and Romans 10:10 tells us that confession comes after belief.

But let's look at this logically. How could one believe something that they can not understand or even know about? That does not make any sense. That is the reason.

Many other denominations use infant baptism for the parent's benefit. It is a proof that they WILL help their child grow and believe. Then later, in some denominations, the child is re-baptized.

However, the argument against it is simply because the Bible says you must believe before baptism. Those who hold to this belief will follow this standard, and consider baptism invalid.

The Protestant denominations that reject infant baptism reject it because they believe that baptism is the mark of justification,  whereas biblically we know that election is the mark of justification.
Baptism is only an acknowledgement that the candidate is entitled to drink from the Rock :

1 Corinthians 10:1-6 NET For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness. These things happened as examples for us, so that we will not crave evil things as they did.

Children are automatically included in the table fellowship from birth,  moving from milk food to solid food. At the appropriate time,  Christians,  both born believers and converts will be "called",  but only a few are "chosen" :

Matthew 22:11-14 NET But when the king came in to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But he had nothing to say. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Hebrews 2:1-4 NET Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first communicated through the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, while God confirmed their witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Israel witnessed the signs that confirmed Moses's message.  Based on that they left serving Egypt.  While learning to serve God,  they felt it too uncertain and hard,  even though God promised to place them in a land filled with milk and honey.  Their unbelief led to hardening and rejection.  Caleb's belief led to strengthening and election.

Hebrews 3:7-14, 16-19 NET Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,
“Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks!
“Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness.
“There your fathers tested me and tried me,and they saw my works for forty years.
“Therefore, I became provoked at that generation and said, ‘Their hearts are always wanderingand they have not known my ways.’
“As I swore in my anger, ‘They will never enter my rest!’”
See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has an evil, unbelieving heart that forsakes the living God. But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called “Today,” that none of you may become hardened by sin’s deception. For we have become partners with Christ, if in fact we hold our initial confidence firm until the end. For which ones heard and rebelled? Was it not all who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership? And against whom was God provoked for forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear they would never enter into his rest, except those who were disobedient? So we see that they could not enter because of unbelief.

Summary
Baptism is the invitation that a person can fellowship in the Body of Christ, extended to both children and converts. Later, the call is to discipleship,  to overcome the enemy and enter God's rest.  Many are called,  but only a few are chosen. If you want to be chosen,  believe! Believe God's rest is a land of milk and honey. Then your eyes will be opened.

Galatians 3:2 NET The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?
John 3:3 NET Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:6-7 NET What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’


Why couldn't a person in the OT be both priest and king? In 1 Samuel 13, Saul is king and yet performs priestly duties even though he shouldn't have.  Samuel rebukes Saul and tells him that his kingdom is slowly coming to an end because of his disobedience.

My question is: where in the Bible is it established that a person could not hold both the positions of king and priest?

Some other information that may or may not be interesting:

1) Melchizedek appears to Abram in Genesis 14 as BOTH priest and king.
2) Of course, Jesus fulfills both roles as the true Priest and true King.
3) The role of king of Israel wasn't established until the time of Saul and David, so during the writing of the Mosaic Law, kingship should not have been a thing.  Were kings mentioned in the law? (if so, why?)

The strongest restriction is that the priests of the Israelite nation could only be from the tribe of Levi, and specifically on descendants of Aaron. Some verses showing this include Numbers 3:10, 3:38 and 16:40:

  ... This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the Lord ...

The kingship was not so strongly restricted, but Genesis 49:10 does clearly prophesy that it belongs to Judah:

  The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet ...

So looking at the various people you asked about:

Melchizedek: was not an Israelite, so neither of these restrictions apply to him. He was a faithful foreign king.

Jesus: was an Israelite and is King because he is descended from David. He isn't a descendant of Aaron and his priesthood isn't from them. Instead he is a priest because he became a man and died on the cross for humanity.

Saul: was not a Judahite or a Levite. He definitely had no right to act like a priest, but the Genesis 49 prophesy was not so strict, so God wasn't being contradictory when he appointed Saul as king.

Kings were mentioned in the Law, most explicitly in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. That passage describes how the kings were to act, and it explains even the best kings like David and Solomon got into trouble. It doesn't say however which tribes the kings could come from.

For me, I believe it was easier to be a king in the old testament than it was to be a priest! This was because priesthood was restricted to the tribe of Levi but kingship had no restriction thou a prophecy about Jesus "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah" was there, it wasn't meant for the time. There were chances for Levites to be king in Israel but they preferred and held unto their priesthood as a divine call and office like: 2Kings 11 where Jehoiada the priest could have taken over as king but handed it over to a seven year old Jehoash as the rightful heir.

Jesus being a Priest and King in the order of Melchizedek speaks more of the similarities in their positions as Melchizedek was superior to Aaron in time, quality and office according to Hebrews 7.  Melchizedek was a priest of the most migh God, a king of righteousness and peace, without genealogical history.


Does the Eastern Orthodox Church consider belief in the existence of Jesus' soul before the incarnation a heresy? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church consider belief in the existence of Jesus' soul before the incarnation a heresy?

The question is imprecise. It can be read as asking the existence of Christ before His incarnation (which is about the divine person) or about the existence of His human soul before incarnation (which is about His human nature). If it's the former the answer is definitively no. Even Arius of Alexandria while denying the Son is of the same essence with the Father he never questioned that the Logos is exist prior to His incarnation. If it's the later the answer is affirmatively yes. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553) the heresy of eternal humanity of Christ is condemned:

  If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall
  assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be
  anathema.

  First Anathema Against Origenism, Second Constantinople 553.

The confusion regarding the difference between what constitute a person and a nature. Jesus' human soul came into existence at the moment of His conception by Theotokos. Human soul is assumed by the Logos in His incarnation not prior. Why this is not the case? Because His humanity is not the proto-type of Adam, it's the other way around. His humanity was taken from Adam. He healed our humanity by assuming it. If He has His own humanity then our humanity is not healed because the fallen nature of Adam has not been assumed. This is why His human soul began to exist only after the conception not prior as argued by Origen.

A good friend of mine who is Eastern Orthodox answered this question for me - he said they DO believe Jesus was present BEFORE the incarnation (assuming I understand your question right). Hence the Hymn of the Only Begotten Son:
"O only begotten Son and Word of God,
Who, being immortal,
Deigned for our salvation
To become incarnate
Of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary,
And became man without change;
You were also crucified,
O Christ our God,
And by death have trampled Death,
Being one of the Holy Trinity,
Glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit—
Save us!"

To not accept Christ as being present before incarnation would be heretical, as He is the Word of God and was present before creation, and through Him all things were created. See the beginning of John, for example. And some part that escapes my mind in Hebrews.


What is the reason that intercourse is required for a valid marriage? Within the Catholic Church, it is required to have intercourse with each other after marriage. But what is the reason behind this?

Intercourse is not necessary for the validity of a marriage.
The essence of marriage is the matrimonial consent (exchange of vows), not sexual intercourse.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 42 a. 4 that carnal intercourse is not an integral part of marriage; in Summa Theologica III q. 29 a. 2 he explains how Sts. Joseph's and Mary's marriage was a true marriage, despite being a virginal marriage.
However, the ability to have intercourse is necessary for the validity of marriage. Permanently impotent people, for example, cannot validly contract marriage; impotency is an example of a diriment impediment, which is

A condition, circumstance, or situation that makes an action null and void in its intended effects. Thus an existing marital bond nullifies any attempt to enter a second marriage.

Canons 1083 ff. list all the diriment impediments that render marriage invalid.
Consummated vs. Unconsummated Marriages
These can both be valid marriages.
Consummated
A consummated marriage is

A marriage in which after the matrimonial contract is made husband and wife have marital intercourse. Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage. (Etym. Latin consummare, to bring into one sum, to perfect.)

In canon law, such a marriage is called ratum et consummatum ("ratified and consummated"). Only death dissolves the bond:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Unconsummated
An unconsummated marriage is called ratum sed non consummatum ("ratified but not consummated"). Unconsummated marriages can be dissolved by the Pope if either or both parties decide to enter religious life. This is the so-called Petrine Privilege, because it requires the Pope's permission:

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

What is the reason that intercourse is required for a valid marriage?

Marriages that are unconsummated do exist within the Catholic Church, but they are quite rare to say the least. In fact Our Lady’s marriage to St. Joseph was such a marriage.

  The marriage of baptized persons is a sacrament and, once consummated and thereby confirmed, cannot be dissolved as long as the parties to it are alive. - Annulment

The sexual act not only consummates a valid marriage; it is also a way for spouses to express their intimate love and fidelity towards one another.

  Can. 1084 §1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

  §2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

  §3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

The sexual act within a validly contracted marriage makes it indissoluble before the Church. Whereas an unconsummated marriage can be dissolved only by the pope himself. Even the pope can not dissolve a valid marriage once it is consummated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us this about the conjugal act of love between those married:

  V. THE GOODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONJUGAL LOVE

  1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152

  The unity and indissolubility of marriage

  1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses' community of persons, which embraces their entire life: "so they are no longer two, but one flesh."153 They "are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving."154 This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

  The fidelity of conjugal love

  1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."

  The openness to fertility

  1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

    Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

Within Catholic theology, it teaches that a validly-contracted sacramental marriage is accompanied by divine ratification, creating a virtually indissoluble union until the couple consummate, after which the sacramental marriage is dissoluble only by the death of a spouse. An unconsummated marriage can be dissolved by the Pope, as Vicar of Christ. Once a sacramental marriage is consummated, only a separation is possible: the marriage bond cannot be dissolved by any power.

Now let us take a look at what canon law says about marriages:

  Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

  Canon 1061.2 If the spouses have lived together after the celebration of their marriage, consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

  Canon 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

  Canon 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

As we see, unconsummated marriages can only be dissolved by the Holy See (pope).

Under normal circumstances however there are four main conditions that are required for a truly Catholic marriage to exist:

  The Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the canonical form, i.e., in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority. The Church provides classes several months before marriage to help the participants inform their consent. During or before this time, the would-be spouses are confirmed if they have not previously received confirmation and it can be done without grave inconvenience (Canon 1065). - Marriage in the Catholic Church

An example of a successful yet unconsummated marriage is the one that existed between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph.

Marriage of the Virgin Mary

More information can be gleaned from the following article(s):

Canon Law and Consummating a Marriage

Contraception and Marriage Validity

What is the Catholic Church's position of a marriage between a menopausal woman and an impotent man?


Why did God speak Hebrew? God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, on tablets of Stone, in Hebrew.

  When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God. -Exodus 31:18

He also frequently spoke to His people in Hebrew.  And of course, we now have Hebrew records of all of these divine words.

My question is: Why Hebrew?  (I am assuming this is not because God speaks Hebrew in Heaven...)

Is it because Hebrew was the ideal language for communicating the truths of the Old Testament?
Is it simply because His people happened to speak that language?
Are there any Old Testament passages which show God speaking (or writing) in a different language?

I would also love it if you could include a comment about whether this teaches us anything about the nature of God.  Thanks.

Oftentimes, the simplest answer is the correct one.  So here's the obvious answer:  He spoke and wrote in Hebrew because he was dealing with Hebrew-speaking people at the moment.  Had God spoken to them in English, Latin, or Chinese, they would not have understood him!

God, being omniscient, knows all human languages.  This means that he has no trouble communicating with the Hebrews in Hebrew, or with you and me in whatever our native tongues may be.  So why make it more difficult than it has to be, especially given people's tendency to get his commandments all wrong even when they're spelled out in perfect plainness?

There's a parallel to be found in the Day of Pentecost, where the Gift of Tongues was dramatically made manifest as the Apostles preached their sermon.  People from a wide variety of nations and regions were present, and all heard the sermon in their own language.  But remember that these were people who had traveled to Jerusalem.  It's not at all unreasonable to assume that most of them knew at least enough Hebrew (or whatever language was commonly in use at Jerusalem at the time) to get by.  And yet, the Lord gave them the message in the language that they were most familiar with, to facilitate effective communication.

The first identification of Hebrew as a language was around the time of Noah after the flood and before the tower of babel.

At the tower the bible states all men spoke the same language (Hebrew).  God punished the builders by confounding their ability to communicate not only with each other but also with God.  During the time that followed we see the chosen people communicating in Hebrew with God until Pentecost, when all language and peoples were blessed.

Until Pentecost the will and nature of God was only given through Jewish followers (Hebrews).  Simple Christian understanding with assumption that Adam and Eve were also given Hebrew as a way to communicate with their creator. So, yes, I would assume it is the language of Gods choosing.


What biblical passage(s) reveal(s) what God says was the fallen angels' sin? From this question: Does the Bible provide any passages that might help in understanding how Satan became sinful?, answers have attempted to find from a biblical-basis, how Satan became sinful.

This question is asking what God himself says was the sin of the fallen angels. The earlier question deals with how, this one: According to God, what was the sin of the fallen angels?

God's message to King Saul through prophet Samuel, after Saul disobeys God, is:

  1 Samuel 15:22-23
  (RSVCE)
  22 And Samuel said,   “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt
  offerings and sacrifices,
      as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
      and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
      and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
      he has also rejected you from being king.”[a]

Footnotes:
a. 15.22-23 Samuel does not condemn sacrifices but says obedience is better.

  The Jerusalem Bible | Popular Edition has for v. 23: "Rebellion is a sin of sorcery,  presumption a crime of the teraphim."[b]

Footnotes:
b. 15.23 'False gods': teraphim - people kept these things in their houses?! Scarey! - were household idols.

It is assumed that the readers of this answer know the connection between divination, idolatry, sorcery, idols, and demons/fallen angels.

Another revealing is the passage is John 8:39-47 (RSVCE): Jesus and Abraham in which Jesus contrasts children of the devil with children of Abraham. Thus Abraham did the opposite of what the devil did. Abraham listened to God, obeyed, trusted, and had faith in God.

Recalling Jesus saying, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." [John 14:15 (RSVCE)] and our first parents fell by failing to keep the one commandment God enjoined on them, and Abraham passing the obedience test, and the passage quoted in 1 Samuel above, loving God means keeping his commandments and obeying him especially when he directly commands.

Combining this with the passages from 1 Samuel 15 and John 8 above, the sin of the fallen angels was that of disobedience.

I have found nowhere in the Bible where it says that Satan became sinful, or why the other Angels that followed him  were cast out of Heaven. There are some clues  which we find that tell us about their ejection. And it appears possible that they were created as evil beings.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James version unless otherwise noted.

  Isaiah 45:7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

According to this Scripture God himself creates evil. If we extend this we may deduce that Satan and his minions were probably created evil by God himself, even though that may be a false assumption, and it may be that those Angels chose to assume evil as did man in the Garden of Eden.

  1st Samuel 18:10  And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.

This Scripture appears to show that God either has evil spirits, or has control over evil spirits.

  Rev 12:1 through 4  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her.

From this Scripture we learn that God in his omniscience created Satan for the express purpose of opposing God's plan for salvation of man, and that this took place in Heaven.

  Rev 12:7 through 9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

From this Scripture we learn that Satan was at one time in Heaven along with the other fallen Angels, which may have also been created evil and were aligned with Satan even before the war in Heaven. We are not told the cause for the war in Heaven to begin, but it seems reasonable to assume that it was a power struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil.


When did Judas Iscariot kill himself? Matthew 27 NIV

  Judas Hangs Himself

  1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.
  3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
  “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
  5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
  6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

  Jesus Before Pilate

  11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

One is naturally inclined to believe that Judas killed himself just prior to the Lord's crucifixion, going by this text.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul states the following:

  3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(Note: "the Twelve" is not capitalized in every translation)

Thus, we see that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to the twelve after His resurrection. But that cannot be, as Matthew, as shown above, indicates or insinuates that Judas killed himself prior to the crucifixion; therefore, being a witness to the risen Christ would be an impossibility.

So, was Judas still part of the group when Jesus began to appear publicly following His resurrection or not? Did he die before or after the crucifixion/death/resurrection or some other time?

Matthew 27:3 says that the impetus for Judas' suicide was seeing him be condemned, rather than seeing him being executed or anything else. Jesus' interactions with Pilate, including the possibility of his being freed, are narrated afterwards. Although the gospels do jump forwards and back in time, I take the explicit description of Judas' remorse being because Jesus was condemned as a clear indication that he killed himself before Jesus was executed.

1 Corinthians 15:5 uses the phrase "The Twelve" which was a title for the twelve apostles, and the title was used somewhat regardless of how many of them were still alive. We can see this most clearly by reading the very previous phrase!

While Judas may have been replaced by Matthias, Peter never was, and so although he is distinguished from the other twelve apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:5, that doesn't stop Paul from using the natural title The Twelve for the others.

It is true that whether Judas Iscariot killed himself (or died by misadventure: Acts 1:18) before or after the resurrection of Jesus, he would have been persona non grata among the remaining apostles, and it is inconceivable that Jesus would have appeared to the apostles with Judas present. The evidence of the gospels is that when Jesus appeared among them, there were only eleven apostles present. Whether or not Judas was already dead, he was not present when Jesus appeared.

In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus does not appear to the apostles in Jerusalem, but in Galilee, and it is clear that he met only the remaining eleven:

  Matthew 28:16: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

In Luke's Gospel, Jesus appears to the apostles at a meal in Jerusalem, where again there were only eleven apostles present, joined by Cleopas and another, unnamed disciple:

  Luke 24:33: And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them

On the other hand, Paul, who wrote some time before any of the gospels appeared, never mentions the name of Judas Iscariot or a betrayal by one of the disciples. John Shelby Spong says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, page 45, that Paul does not seem to have known that one of the twelve handed Jesus over. It has also been pointed out that the references in 1 Corinthians 5:5 to the appearance to "the twelve" and in 1 Corinthians 5:7 to "all the apostles" suggests that, for Paul, "the twelve" and "all the apostles" are two quite different groups.

The evidence of Paul's epistles does not tell us when Judas killed himself, but it does tell us that Paul knew nothing of help in answering that question.  Matthew's Gospel tells us that Judas threw the blood money in the temple and went away and killed himself before the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but we should also look at the evidence of Acts:

  Acts 1:18: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

It is inconceivable that Judas could receive his pieces of silver on the very day of the crucifixion, which fell before the Sabbath day, yet be able to buy and take possession of land in time for Jesus' resurrection on Sunday. In this account, by the author of Luke's Gospel, Judas was undoubtedly still alive when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room.


Did Hosea love Gomer the prostitute? Hosea (NLT)

  1:2-3 When the LORD first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he
  said to him, "Go and marry a prostitute, so that some of her children
  will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has
  acted like a prostitute by turning against the LORD and worshiping
  other gods." So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and
  bore him a son.

  3:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Go and love your wife again, even
  though she commits adultery with another lover. This will illustrate
  that the LORD still loves Israel, even though the people have turned
  to other gods and love to worship them."

Did Hosea fall in love with the prostitute or he was simply forced to marry her?

Was God forcing Hosea to love her? Is it even possible?

Did Hosea really fall in love with her ultimately?

First off, we can't interpret "love" in the mushy Valentine's-Day sitcom sense we imagine today. "Love" here is a lot more significant and difficult than that.

Love in the Old Testament sense is not divorced from actions. Loving actions don't spring from love; they are an inherent aspect of love. As wax eagle points out in the comments above, sexual intercourse was the central way that a man loved a woman. There were other ways, such as giving gifts, favouring her sons, etc.

It seems to me that in this case it does not mean sexual intercourse. Let's look at the whole of chapter 3:

  The Lord said to me again, ‘Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.’ So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine. And I said to her, ‘You must remain as mine for many days; you shall not play the whore, you shall not have intercourse with a man, nor I with you.’ For the Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterwards the Israelites shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; they shall come in awe to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days. (Hosea 3, NRSV)

It seems to me that what Hosea did was a kind of love that didn't involve sex, but was about his redeeming her (i.e. buying her back) and dwelling with her and keeping her from playing the whore.

Now, let's look at the book of Hosea and why this passage exists. The book was written as a denunciation of the cultic practices of the Northern Kingdom. It is an extended metaphor, where the prophet Hosea represents God and Gomer his wife represents the faithless people of Israel, who had been "playing the whore" by worshipping foreign gods. (Whether Hosea and Gomer were real people is entirely beside the point.)

Hosea's loving action in buying back Gomer represents God's loving action in buying back Israel despite her unfaithfulness. So Hosea's purer, less physical way of loving his wife is a promise of a time when Israel and God would once again live together in a pure form of love.

Absolutely he did.  If we inspect a couple of key words we will see that he had no choice in the matter.  In the Hebrew language we see that the following verbal phrase was used twice in Hosea 3:

יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו

Current interpretations most directly indicate the phrase means “tender embrace”, or even “tight squeeze”.  “Tender” or (יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ) was equally used to describe ripened fruit throughout the Middle East from the 4th century BC to about 500 AD.  Ripened and tender fruit, or “sweetly ripe” as would apply to the sensuality of humans is the most reasonable 21st century interpretation for what the author meant by “tender” and “sweetly ripe embrace”.

A colleague of mine from Gary, Indiana once emphasized that “embrace” (אֶת־אָבִ֖יו) during the 1st century more closely meant “linked” or even “fused”.  Of course this “linking” or “fusing” is self determined and can be terminated by either party.  And yet the attractive and unrelenting force of the אֶת־אָבִ֖יו constantly tries to pull the bodies back together and to keep them together.  It is not too unlike glue or any high viscosity sticky substance.

So then we have that the author was conveying the idea of, a “sweetly ripe glue like or sticky embrace”, or even “sticky sweet”.

It is more than easy to see how “sticky sweet” applies to the type of unbridled encounters unquestionably experienced between Hosea and the attractive and skillful Gomer.  It is important to visualize Gomer how she likely looked.  We are definitely not talking about Gomer as in “Gomer Plyle”; that would be a complete buzz kill.  Think “Christina Aguilera” as Gomer but with the seductive demeanor she could only exhibit after a drink with Bill Cosby.

Finally, since our own pop cultural linguistics are evolving and an alarming rate, “sticky sweet”, is more than appropriate in our white urban Def Leppard suburbs.  But our multicultural society should also offer something in the hip hop vernacular such as “get up all in that” which much more adequately represents the complete passion that Hosea must have felt watching Gomer strut her stuff towards him.


What is the earliest use of the phrase "God the Son"? Does the phrase "God the Son" appear in manuscripts or early translations (Textus Receptus, Vulgate, etc.) of the New Testament scriptures? If not, when did the phrase enter into the Christian vernacular?

This question is complicated, of course, by the fact that we must work with translations of the original texts in order to find this wording. However, at least three second-century authors use this phrasing when translated into English: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, and Clement of Alexandria.
Justin Martyr (100–165) writes, in Dialogue with Trypho:

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.1
Καὶ ὅτι κύριος ὢν ὁ Χριστός, καὶ θεὸς θεοῦ υἱὸς ὑπάρχων, καὶ δυνάμει φαινόμενος πρότερον ὡς ἀνὴρ καὶ ἄγγελος, καὶ ἐν πυρὸς δόξῃ, ὡς ἐν τῇ βάτῳ, πέφανται καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεγενημένης ἐπὶ Σόδομα, ἀποδέδεικται ἐν πολλοῖς τοῖς εἰρημένοις.

At least one translation of Athenagoras's Plea for the Christians (~177) includes the specified phrasing, but see the note for an alternative translation:

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?2
τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι τοὺς ἄγοντας θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους

Clement of Alexandria (150–215) writes in Salvation of the Rich Man:

They rave about the carcase, which they despise as weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a “treasure in an earthen vessel” we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit.3
καὶ μαίνονται περὶ τὸ σαρκίον, οὗ καταφρονοῦσιν ὡς ἀσθενοῦς, τῶν ἔνδον ὄντες τυφλοὶ κτημάτων, οὐκ ἐπιστάμενοι πηλίκον τινὰ "θη σαυρὸν ἐν ὀστρακίνῳ σκεύει" βαστάζομεν, δυνάμει θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ αἵματι θεοῦ παιδὸς καὶ δρόσῳ πνεύματος ἁγίου περιτετειχισμένον.

I'm unable to find this phrasing in the earliest fathers, like Polycarp or Ignatius, suggesting that the middle of the 2nd century is the earliest such record available to us.

References:

Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 128, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  "God the Son" also appears in a modern translation, published 2003, in Selections from the Fathers of the Church.
A Plea for the Christians, chapter 10, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  In a 1956 translation, the phrasing is "Who then would not be amazed hearing those called atheists who call God Father and Son and Holy Spirit...?"
Salvation of the Rich Man, chapter 34, in Ante-Nicene Fathers.  The same language is used in Butterworth's 1919 translation.

From the opening of Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrneans:

  I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both body and spirit and firmly established in love by the blood of Christ totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent, Son of God with respect to the divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, truly nailed in the flesh for us under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (from its fruit we derive our existence that is, from his divinely blessed suffering), in order that he might raise a banner for the ages through his resurrection for his saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in the one body of his church.

I added the emphasis to make the phrase easier to find.
The quotation is from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. This establishes the use of the phrase at the beginning of the second century.


What does the "second coming of Christ" mean? I am not up on my scripture but is the 'second coming of Christ', Jesus specifically?
'Christ' is a title, meaning the 'anointed one', so is the 'second coming' Jesus coming down from a cloud, or is it the coming of a yet another 'anointed one'?

Read Matthew 24:30(ESV) - "Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory..."
Jesus referred to himself as, and is referred to as, the "Son of Man" many times throughout the New Testament.  In fact the New Testament in general refers to the return of the "Son of Man", rather than the return of Christ.
Also ref. Matthew 24:36-39.
In Revelation 20:4-6, "Christ" is used not as a title but as a proper noun.  While the word Christ is a title, it has now become the name of our savior and is his alone, the name above every name (Philippians 2:9-11).
There is only one savior, one Messiah, which is our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, and the Son of Man.
Jesus warns us not to believe the false Messiahs who will appear (Matthew 24:23-27).
It is definitely Jesus Christ himself who will return to gather his elect.  I pray to the Lord that you and I will be among them.

Actually many Christians are confused about the 2nd Coming and what it means, particularly as to how it fits with lots of other end times events - such as the Antichrist, the Mark of the Beast, 2 Witnesses, 3rd Temple and other events.
One example of this is that it's very common in many denominations to hear people talk about or make a reference to Jesus' coming, but they really mean the rapture.
*At the rapture, Christ comes FOR his bride- [the Christians] but he doesn't come down to earth. We are caught.up quickly into the clouds- just as the bride in a Hebrew wedding is literally lifted up and carried away.
Let's break it down a bit in a way that will clarify.
It's helpful to explain it in terms of Christ's first Advent and Christ's Second Advent.

The First Advent is Christ's birth, life, ministry, miracles, death, burial and resurrection.  Many events, - all part of his first advent or first coming to earth as a baby/ suffering servant. Advent means "arrival" or "coming".

In the same way, we are looking for Christ's second Advent.  This also is many events, but all connected or linked to Christ's second coming to earth as a judge/ conquering king.
It includes the rapture [which is from the Latin word "rapturo" and literally means to be caught up, snatched up quickly by force], when Christians who have died will be resurrected, and those Christians who are alive [us] will be caught up/raptured into the clouds as the bride. It also includes the events of Revelation, the Anti-Christ, the Mark of the Beast, the bowl judgments poured out, the two witnesses who are killed and resurrected, the great white throne judgement, Christ returning to earth with his bride, and the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ.

This is the predominant view held by most Protestant denominations, but there is a lot of differing views on the timing of the rapture, in relation the 7 year tribulation. [Whether the rapture happens before the Tribulation starts, in the middle, at the end, or in the 2nd half, but before God's wrath is poured out.] This is where the terms Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation, Post-tribulation, and Pre-wrath come from. They are all referring to the timing of the rapture in relation to the Tribulation.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the Rapture and 2nd coming are two very separate and distinct events with totally different goals and purposes.
The Second coming is the "Day of the Lord" and it is used by Paul and OT writers. It is always linked with gloom, calamity, judgment and darkness. Sun turns black and the moon turns to blood. This is Christ coming back to earth with his bride. “The Day of the Lord" is a biblical term and theme used in both the Hebrew Bible (יֹום יְהוָה) and the New Testament (ἡμέρα κυρίου), as in "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come" (Joel 2:31, cited in Acts 2:20).
In stark contrast is the Rapture - which is the Day of Christ. The Greek word in the New Testament is Harpazo. This is a wedding celebration, and Christ comes FOR his bride, and we meet him in the clouds.
The two most well-known passages about the rapture are  1 Thessallonians 4:14-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51,52.
It's interesting and very significant that both these passages were written to two early church congregations of mixed Jewish and Gentile believers, and written by the same author - Paul.
Here is an excellent article, and it explains why the "Last Trumpet" used by Paul to tell us when the rapture happens is categorically not the 7th Trumpet in Revelations. Rapture at the Seventh Trumpet Judgment?


Why does Genesis record only 10 names from Adam to Noah? Genesis 5 (NIV)

  And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in
  his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot
  Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and
  daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
  thirty years; and he died.

  Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons
  and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve
  years; and he died.

  Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and
  daughters. So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five
  years; and he died.

  Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons
  and daughters. So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten
  years; and he died.

  ......

Genesis 5 lists the genealogy of Adam as Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. Ten in all. Though each of these men had other sons and daughters, their names are not recorded.

Why are only ten names recorded and the rest are ignored?

Does this imply that these ten men were more important than others?

Noah's Lineage

Noah was definitely a significant figure, as it was he and his family alone who survived the flood.  The purpose appears to be to show Noah's lineage from Adam.  Adding in brothers and sisters at each level would be a bit tangential to that purpose.

Enoch was certainly a man of note due to his close relationship with God.

The Line of Cain

Genesis 4 tells us about both Cain and Abel, who were indeed brothers of Seth.  This chapter also gives us the line of Cain as follows:

Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech.

Lamech's two wives were Adah and Zillah.

Adah bore Jabal and Jubal.

Zillah bore Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah.

So, we are actually given other names in the line of Cain in Genesis 4, even though both Cain and Lamech were murderers.  The line of Noah does seem to be a more righteous line, to be sure.

The Second Gospel

There is another interesting idea that has been put forward, specifically that the meanings of the ten names in Noah's lineage have significance--sort of a Second Gospel:

Adam        Man
Seth        Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared       Shall come down
Enoch       Teaching
Methuselah  His death shall bring
Lamech      The despairing
Noah        Rest, or comfort

Put together, this could be as follows:

  Man is Appointed Mortal Sorrow.  [The Blessed God] [shall come down], teaching.  [His death shall bring] to [the despairing], [rest (or comfort)].

I was just searching for some infos and found your question, which isn't answered as it seems.

There are only 10 Names, because these are the names of the Firstborn.

Adam being the first king of the Earth, as appointed by the Creator, handed down his right to the "Throne of Elohim" (literally that's what the throne of King David is later called) from the first born to the first born.

First Born 01 = Adam
First Born 10 = Noah
First Born 20 = Abraham
First Born 21 = Isaac >>>> rejected 1st = Ismael >> Arab Nations
First Born 22 = Jakob / Israel >>>> rejected 1st = Esau >> covenant with Ismael
First Born 23 = Judah (Ruben, Simeon, Levi out because of sin) = House of Judah
First Born 24 = Ephraim = House of Israel, lost sheep, Genesis 48 + Romans 11:25

From Adam to Ephraim = 24 elders before the throne of God in Heaven (Revelation)

Second Adam = Elohim's Monogenes (the only begotten son) = Jesus / Jeshua
1 Corinthians 15 / Zacharia 4

Romans 4:1 Abraham is your father by the flesh
Romans 4:13 Abraham is the heir of the earth
Galatians 3:29 : If you are in Christ.. you ARE Abrahams seed (hebrew sera = Sarah = I'sera'el / greek sperma ) and heir.

John 11:54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.


Why would a loving God prefer one nation over another? Deuteronomy 14:2

  "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has
  chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the
  peoples who are on the face of the earth. "

First, this sounds like God is a racist or nationalist, that he prefers one nation over another.  But I came to my own understanding of why God chose Jewish people to be "his" nation: He had to choose one nation where His son would be born, and Jewish people happened to meet all the requirements, or they responded in a right way.

I'd like to ask, though, what is the stand of the Roman Catholic church as to why God chose Jews and not Celts or other nations? And do other Christian groups share the same view as Catholics?

The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Church is synonymous with the "chosen nation," and that the Church in Christ is the continuation of the righteous nation that God has set apart for himself since the beginning. Through the Catechism, the Church states that while God chose Abraham and his descendants through the promise the be his nation, he does not exclude other nations, but indeeds welcomes the people of all nations into this holy nation through faith, which is the Church. From the Cathechism, (emphasis is this author's)

  60) The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church. They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.

  201) To Israel, his chosen, God revealed himself as the only One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Through the prophets, God calls Israel and all nations to turn to him, the one and only God: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.. . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 'Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength.'"

  759) "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life," to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ." This "family of God" is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father's plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time."

  762) The remote preparation for this gathering together of the People of God begins when he calls Abraham and promises that he will become the father of a great people. Its immediate preparation begins with Israel's election as the People of God. By this election, Israel is to be the sign of the future gathering of All [sic] nations. But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. "Christ instituted this New Covenant."

In summary of these paragraphs, God chose Abraham to be the progenitor of this holy nation as it existed under the old covenant, though all people are called into it. As Christ instituted the New Covenant, all  people are similarly called to enter into this holy nation, which is and has been his Church.

As for why Abraham was chosen from among the nations, the Catechism quotes Paul in romans 4:18 to say that, just as those who are included in the holy nation in Christ are such by faith, Abraham believed, and it was because of this belief that he was chosen.

  1819) Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of the sacrifice. "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."

A non-Catholic perspective (see @Andrew's answer for a strictly Catholic perspective):
God chose Abraham to be the father of many nations. Note that at this time there was not a Hebrew or Jewish tribe/nation.

Why did God choose Abraham (Abram at the time)?
Genesis 18:19 (Holman Christian Standard)

  For I have chosen him so that he will command his children and his house after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just. This is how the LORD will fulfill to Abraham what He promised him.

God wanted to display to the other nations how He expected to have a relationship with all people. So long as those descendants (later through Jacob who was renamed Israel) adhered to the rules of the Covenant and later the laws handed down by Moses, the nation(s) would be blessed.

One of the requirements of the covenant between God and Abraham was that of circumcision (Gen 17). Specifically:

Genesis 17:10-14

  10 This is My covenant, which you are to keep, between Me and you and your offspring after you: Every one of your males must be circumcised. 11 You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskin to serve as a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 Throughout your generations, every male among you at eight days old is to be circumcised. This includes a slave born in your house and one purchased with money from any foreigner. The one who is not your offspring, 13 a slave born in your house, as well as one purchased with money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be marked in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. 14 If any male is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that man will be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

So why is circumcision symbolic of the covenant? The answer lies within the New Testament and explains why God would require this of Abraham and his descendants:

Colossians 2:11

  You were also circumcised in Him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of the Messiah.

The point of circumcision is to separate yourself from the rest of the world. God's plan with Israel was to have a nation as an example to the rest of the world. In order to do that, the people must be separated from the rest.

Leviticus 20:26

  “You are to be holy to Me because I, Yahweh, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be Mine.”

Beyond circumcision as a sign of separation, it is an even greater tribute to Israel that they were blessed to be the line that would bring forth the Messiah. As all people were at the time, Abraham was of the seed of Eve and there had to be a seed (descendant) to carry out the first Messianic prophecy in the Bible ([see Genesis 3:14-19] for completeness2):

Genesis 3:15

  I will put hostility between you and the woman,
  and between your seed and her seed.
  He will strike your head,
  and you will strike his heel.

In light of this, we must be aware that because of God's promise, Satan worked diligently (and still does) to ruin God's plan with Israel. Satan tried but could not stop the birth of the Messiah. And now, through political and demonic machinations, Satan continues to try and destroy Israel to foil the unfulfilled prophecies.

As for a distinctively Catholic view I could not find anything specific to "why God prefer[s] one nation over another."