1 Kings:8 is interesting

As you know I am reading all the references to Heaven in the Bible. 

So far all the references in the Old Testament are of Heaven being God's home but nothing about us joining Him there. 

Now in 1 Kings:8 I'm finding talk about sinning, repentance, and redemption; themes of the New Testament and believing in Jesus.  But here in 1 Kings:8 all redemption seems to mean God accepting them back into fellowship and the Israelites returning to the land that God gave them as an inheritance.

But still no invitation to Heaven. 

I'll keep looking!

Heaven

I asked the question yesterday, when do we go to Heaven.

So today I decided to see how many time Scripture speaks of Heaven.  501 times.  So now I am going through and reading all of those Scriptural references, a few a day.

So far I have gotten through Genesis.  All of the mentions in Genesis are of Heaven being God's home.  Nowhere in Genesis does it speak of the dead going to Heaven.  It will be interesting to see if that pattern holds true for all of the Old Testament. 

When do we actually go to Heaven?

If you have ever been to a funeral then you I'm sure you have heard a preacher say that so and so died and now they are in Heaven with Jesus. 

But are they?  Let me be clear that I am not questioning whether they will eventually be with Jesus.  I have no doubt that they will be.  I am just questioning the timing.  Here is an example of what triggered the question.

 Acts 24:14-15(NKJV)

But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. 

I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. 

Isn't it at the resurrection of the dead that we will all be judged?  Isn't that when we stand before God and Jesus and they look to see if our names appear in the Book of Life?  If that is the case, doesn't that mean that nobody is in Heaven yet? 

I'm going to have to look in to this so I have a better understanding of it. 

This puzzles me a bit.

Acts 22:17-23(NKJV)

“Now it happened, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance 

and saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’ 

So I said, ‘Lord, they know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believe on You. 

And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’ 

Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’”

And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!” 

Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air, 

Why was it such a big deal that Paul went to the Gentiles?  There are many examples throughout Scripture where people from other countries accepted Judaism and were welcomed.  So why would they care if Paul was spreading the Gospel of Jesus, which the Jews who were complaining didn't believe in anyway?

Innocent or just forgiven?

This is Paul speaking.

Acts 20:25-26(NKJV)

“And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 

Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 

Really?  Is Paul innocent of the blood of all men or is he simply forgiven for causing the shedding of blood by many Christians.  To me there is a difference.  It is a fact that Paul persecuted many Christians.  He had many of them stoned to death.  It is hard to see how he is "innocent" in the shedding of their blood. 

On the other hand once he accepted, Paul was forgiven for what he had done.  I don't think innocent and forgiven are one and the same. 

Do you have to believe in Jesus to exercise authority in His name?

As believers in Jesus we inherit the power to rebuke Satan.  However there are many out there who seem to think that they can enjoy the benefits and power of believing in Jesus without actually believing in Jesus.  Let's see what Scripture has to say about that.

Acts 19:11-16(NKJV)

Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 

so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 

Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 

Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so.

And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”

Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 

Any questions?  :)

One of the advantage we have over the people in Jesus' day.

 

Acts 18:24-28(NKJV)

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 

This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 

So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 

And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; 

for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

One of the advantages we have today over the folks in the time of Jesus is that most of us can read and have our own Bibles.  Back in the day that wasn't the case.

Only the wealthy had books back then because the printing press hadn't been invented yet.  All written materials like books had to be written by hand, making them expensive.  In addition, since so few people had books, not everyone knew how to read and write as is the case today.   

What a blessing it is to be able to read Scripture for ourselves.  To be able to actually read God's word instead of having to take some's word about what was written in the Bible.  Too cool!

I don't get this.

In Chapter 15 they have this big todo about whether new Christians need to be circumcised or not.  The Apostles decide that it isn't necessary.  

So in the very next chapter I run across this. 

Acts 16:1-5(NKJV)

Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 

He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 

Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 

And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. 

So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Why did Paul circumcise Timothy when the Apostles had already decided it wasn't necessary?  So what if his father was Greek.  Not sure what that had to do with it.

What is a Sabbath day's journey?

How about a little trivia?

Acts 1:12-13(NKJV)

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. 

And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 

What the heck is a Sabbath's day journey?

SABBATH DAY'S JOURNEY

jur'-ni (sabbatou hodos):

Used only in Acts 1:12, where it designates the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, to which Jesus led His disciples on the day of His ascension. The expression comes from rabbinical usage to indicate the distance a Jew might travel on the Sabbath without transgressing the Law, the command against working on that day being interpreted as including travel (see Exodus 16:27-30). The limit set by the rabbis to the Sabbath day's journey was 2,000 cubits from one's house or domicile, which was derived from the statement found in Joshua 3:4 that this was the distance between the ark and the people on their march, this being assumed to be the distance between the tents of the people and the tabernacle during the sojourn in the wilderness. Hence, it must have been allowable to travel thus far to attend the worship of the tabernacle.

From <https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/sabbath-days-journey.html>

And now you know!  :)

God shows no partiality…Or does He?

Acts 10:34-36(NKJV)

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 

But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 

The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—

Scripture says that God doesn’t show partiality.  But then it goes on to qualify that statement.  God doesn't show partiality to those who believe in Him, and by extension believe in Jesus. 

So the way I interpret that is that God does show partiality to those who believe in Him over those who don't believe in Him.   

This must really be important.

The fact that this passage was repeated pretty much word for word two chapters in a row makes me think that it was important.  It was being emphasized. 

Acts 11:4-18(NKJV)

But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 

“I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. 

When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 

And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 

But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ 

But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 

Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 

At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 

Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 

And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 

who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 

Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 

If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

As I read the selection more carefully I realized that I had misread it before.  For some reason I had it in my head that God said "what God has MADE you must not call common.". 

Not so!

It says "what God has cleansed you must not call common.". 

You might be saying so what?  Here is why it makes a difference in my mind.

There are some who argue that we shouldn't criticize anybody because "God made us all".  I used to think that the Scripture above backed up their view.  Now that I have read and understood it correctly, I can see it doesn't back up their view at all. 

Is Eating meat immoral?

Some vegetarians don't eat meat because they think it is healthier not to do so.  No problem.  Other vegetarians don't eat meat because it is immoral.  That I believe, based on Scripture, is incorrect.  Read this passage and I'll explain why. 

Acts 10:9-13(NKJV)

The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 

Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 

and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 

In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 

And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

So here we have God giving Peter a vision.  In that vision God shows Peter animals of every kind.  God tells Peter to kill and eat them.

If eating meat is immoral then God just told the Israelites to do something immoral.  Since we know that God doesn't command anyone to do things that are immoral, we know that eating meat isn't immoral.

You know I like to find more than one Scripture to back up my beliefs.  I like it even better when I can find Scripture in both the Old Testament and the New Testament to back up my beliefs. 

Well here you go.  I've provided a NT reference above.  Here is an OT reference.

Exodus 16:11-12(NKJV)

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 

“I have heard the complaints of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. And you shall know that I am the Lord your God.’”

Once again you have God telling His people to eat meat!  Therefore I don't believe eating meat is immoral.