Apollos’ early status (Acts 18-19)

There is a textual variant with reference to Apollo's knowledge of Jesus.  This could be the difference, if he knew more than the 12 disciples of John, and he only needed informed about the death and resurrection having been fulfilled.

Those who are seriously committed and zealous in the word will respond positively in short order when given clarification in the word of God.

The reception of the Spirit could be no more than receiving spiritual gifts that for Jews had to be clearly in connection with faith in Christ, and therefore, unlike Cornelius, this manifestation came after baptism. 

Jews and Samaritans had to "received" the Spirit after baptism in Christ's name and after apostolic recognition to make it certain it was in connection with faith in Christ and not merely because of their association with the Jewish or Samaritan religion.

This view requires a distinction between regeneration and receiving the Spirit.

There has to be something different about these situations when compared to Gentile salvation as in the case of Cornelius who received the Spirit the moment he believed and before Baptism in Acts 10.43-48--which is held to be the normal Christian experience.

It seems in all these accounts that receiving the Spirit is associated with Christ being believed in, or through baptism in connection with Christ, or through contact with an Apostle of Christ.

The disciples of John were surely informed of the coming of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and they had believed in Him according to the message of John.  It's possible they did not know specifically about Jesus being the Christ. They did not know the Spirit was given in the capacity prophesied.  The baptism of repentance was a call to get right with God in anticipation.

 They may have left before Jesus appeared on the scene.  It would seem odd that they didn't know all that occurred since that time with Jesus, but where they had been may have kept them isolated.

Apollos was eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, taking the message of John to the synagogues.  He surely was an OT believer in the coming Savior. The Greek text of the KJV says he spoke of the Lord, but the Greek of the Alexandrian says he spoke of Jesus--was this actual knowledge or prophetic knowledge?  His message was accurate, but Aquila and Priscilla had a fuller revelation based on what had transpired in the person of Jesus.  They had more accurate info to dispatch to Apollos. He may have learned from Disciples of John in Alexandria.

There's no reference to Apollos being baptized or receiving the Spirit here.

He obviously received it most readily, which shows his handle on the word of God and the faith he already possessed.  He took the further revelation and ran with it--to Corinth in Achaia.

That repentance can precondition or facilitate faith in Christ is seen in the response of both Apollos and the 12 disciples of John.  Both responded positively to the further revelation.

Apollos ministry in Corinth was a grace message:  he comforted through grace, though this particular grace could refer to Apollo's gift.  But consider:  "Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."  Acts 13:43. 

Edom, Moab, Ammon

Something I recently noticed that I thought was interesting was concerning the 3 peoples who escape from the individual (the "he") mentioned in Daniel 11 at the end of the chapter, usually identified as the antiChrist/ beast. 

"He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon." Daniel 11.41

These 3 that escape are the same 3 peoples/ countries that God specifically instructed Moses that Israel should not harass them--to leave them alone.  I found that interesting.  Even if they were enemies of Israel, they would be spared as Israel entered Canaan and even in the far future.

You can read about this in Deuteronomy 2:

" You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore watch yourselves carefully. Do not meddle with them, for I will not give you any of their land,...

Then the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’ ”...

And when you come near the people of Ammon, do not harass them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’ ”

The promise of eternal life

God has promised us eternal life, and that life is through Jesus Christ:  1 John 2.25

The words “eternal” and “everlasting” are interchangeable but also have some distinction.  Reading John 3:15-16 in the New King James, we see both words, but they translate the same Greek word.

“Eternal” can include no beginning, which only applies to God.  We can only be everlasting.  The word “everlasting” when used with “life” (“zoe” in Greek) can speak of the life that never ends, but when either word is used with “life,” the focus is on the kind of life we have with God—a quality of existence.

“Everlasting”  speaks of a linear duration of time that goes on without end, and can apply to the judgment of the unsaved as in Matthew 18.9.  

” No, not ever”   

“Ever” translates what appears to be an idiom “into the age (aiona)”    And when this idiom appears with the strong negative of what appears as double negative, it is translated “never.”   Jesus said in John 4.14: “not, not into the age thirst, being translated “never thirst”; also see John 8.51-52; 11.26; cp. With Peter 13.8: “not, not ever wash my feet.”  There are 5 Greek words translated as “never” being “not, not into the age.”

Eternal Life is Christ’s to give:  John 4.10; 10.27-28; 17.2

Christ gives eternal life to those who believe in him for it (John 6:47). God saves from the penalty of sin those who believe in Jesus, the son of God, who suffered for their sins on the cross, so God could save them.  To be saved from sin is to be given eternal life.

The need of the Pharisee

... is everyone’s need. John 3.1-11

Nicodemus was a Pharisee who came to Jesus because of the signs (John 2.23) which were evidence that God was with him.  If Jesus was a fake, surely God would not work such signs through him (though the false prophet may be an exception, Rev 13).

Nic said “we know,” …but he may have only come on his own initiative.  Typically, the Pharisees did not accept Jesus.  They mostly rejected the ministry of John, as in Luke 7.28-30.  I believe this is because they thought they were righteous and despised others as in the parable of Luke 18.9-14.  The name “Pharisee” means “separatist,” and they were or made such a show.  Their sect developed from the Scribes during the period after the return from Babylon, and were devoted to the careful observance of the Law.


Nic had a degree of integrity, and so the signs of Jesus had to be reckoned with. He came at night possibly to avoid attention or for a private conversation.  Nic would appear later as one who speaks up in the council with respect to Jesus and assists in Jesus' burial, John 7.50; 19.39.  There is also the Pharisee Simon who invites Jesus into his house, Luke 7.36, 39-40 and calls him teacher.

One might think that the Pharisees were offended by this man of God who was hanging with the common folks which they considered sinners and took no interest in them. 

Nic acknowledges Jesus as “Rabbi” and a teacher, being respectful, but not as the Christ.  Yet Jesus says nothing pertaining to this but brings up the issue of the need for the new birth to see and enter the Kingdom of God.

Why does he do this?  His identity will be later connected with how this birth is acquired.  The need of the Pharisee--which is everyone's need is what needs attention first.

No matter how righteous the Pharisees were or appeared, they were not righteous enough.  Matt 5.20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."   If anybody was righteous, it was the Pharisee, but contrary to popular perception, it was not enough.  If the Pharisee was not good enough, no one was.

This new birth is necessary because of that short-coming.  I don't think Jesus is simply addressing the problem of hypocrisy among the Pharisees.  I believe it goes deeper to the problem of the inability to be righteous by the Law.

Justification changes our status, but the new birth does that and more, as the new birth by what it imparts creates a new identity.  Justification is a legal conferral of acquittal, while the new birth imparts a spirit of righteousness that creates a new  self.

Nicodemus can only think in physical terms, but it could be this is what is said about a gentile who converts (as “newborn Children”), yet Nic is a Jew who seeks the righteousness of the law, so what is this birth again about?

Jesus goes on to say this is a spiritual birth.  There are metaphors in his answers which makes it difficult.  The answer requires inquiry. 

This birth is by the Spirit as it creates a spirit.  The Birth is  out of water and spirit.  I believe the water is a metaphor for the cleansing of new birth, and spirit  actual for the giving of life, and so 2 aspects with water as metaphor and the second as that which is actually imparted.  The first is negative and the second  positive, as in Titus 3.5; Ez 36.4-27. The water signifies the washing of regeneration, and the spirit is the renewing.  The dual metaphor view says both are positive acts, as water for the thirsty Isa 44.3 and wind breathing life to the dead Ez 37.9.  

Nic still struggles with it.  Jesus seems to chide him.  Maybe simply because he is a teacher.  This suggests that such is taught in the Old Testament.  What Jesus further states suggests that this new birth is the receiving of eternal life. 

There was a failure to make the connections or what the true need was.  Jesus is being cryptic and making connections such as his coming crucifixion with belief in him and receiving eternal life.  The crucifixion is analogous to the serpent on the pole.

Its possible that in James when it talks about observing oneself in a mirror 1.23-24, its speaks of seeing your new self in the word, but going away and forgetting how you ought to behave. This is compared to faith without works.  I know from Scripture I'm a new person, but I can fail to behave as such in my reactions, words spoken.  I can have faith to move mountains and yet fail to have love, 1 Cor 13.

"predestined," "foreknew," and "called"

My take on these words 

Romans 8.28-30 speaks of the Divine purpose and destiny of God's people to be conformed to the image of the son of God which involves and by means of our sharing in the sufferings with creation (that would include persecutions).

I believe these 3 words speak of God's predetermined purpose for his people, though "called" (Greek Kaleo) could speak of invitation as through the gospel, it could mean “named”:  those whom he foreknew as children of God, he predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son, and these he named children of God, and these he justified and glorified.

God "foreknew" a people for his purpose ( cp."God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." Romans 11:2).

That purpose is being conformed to the image of the son. 

Believers were, according to his plan, to be holy and without blame.  This is their calling (Greek Klesis or Kletos) , vocation.  "Us who believe" (Eph 1 :19) are called to holiness and we are called "saints."

"1 Peter 1:15

but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”

"Ephesians 1:4

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love."

Eph 1:18-19

"that you may know what is the hope of His calling (Klesis), what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,   and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward *us who believe."

Pretrib Rapture best solution?

Some Pretribulational rapturists believe Jesus spoke of the rapture of the church when he said "One is taken and one is left."  

Dave Hunt (Pretrib) in a debate with Marv Rosenthal (Prewrath) made reference to the seemingly contradictory statements of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse that his disciples must watch lest caught off guard concerning his coming, and yet one will know he is near by the signs: how can Christ's coming be both a surprise and yet can be known as near by the signs?

If those caught not watching are even carnal believers, wouldn't they still know the time is near with regard to world events?

Hunt's plea is to the pattern of Old Testament prophecies in which both comings of Christ, the first and second comings, were revealed together yet separated by time. So, likewise, the rapture and second coming are revealed together and separated by time in the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse.  

If in the same context, reference is made to signs and events that reveal the coming is near, then the second coming is in view, but if reference is made to not knowing the time, and the warning is given to be not caught unprepared, then the rapture is in view, even though it is 7 years prior to the second coming.

This seems like a good argument to give for the view that a pretribulational rapture is in the Olivet Discourse.  It is like the Old Testament prophecies of the first and second comings of Christ that are not separated in revelation but in time.  In this way, Jesus is not contradictory but speaks of 2 different future comings.

However, the context of the Olivet discourse is about the sign of the coming of Christ.  Jesus speaks of the great tribulation, and he says that after the tribulation, there will be signs.  Following those signs will be His coming.  He informs his disciples that when they see all these things his coming is near.  

Jesus says how it will be when he comes.  It will be like the days of Noah in which life will still have some normalcy involving marriage and people working.  In that same context, he speaks of two working in which one will be taken and one left.   The context is about the coming of Christ after the tribulation.  There is no justification to think he is speaking of an event that precedes the 70th Week of Daniel.  

His coming after the tribulation will still take people by surprise, particularly those who follow the beast.  Prophecies do often contain a near and far event, but Jesus was speaking of the sign of his coming which comes after the tribulation. A near prophecy of a pretrib rapture in the context of the time that is after the tribulation would be confusing.  The "one taken and one left" is in the context of the second coming after the tribulation.

Born Blind (John 9.1-3) Who sinned?

Jesus' answer reveals that the cause of bad things is not necessarily a result of personal sin.

It's always tempting to try and find a reason--did I cause this?

Jesus' answer is simple and dispels the thinking that bad things always happen because someone must have sinned.

Jesus does give a more specific reason, but he turns a negative into a positive.  He doesn't go into a discussion on the issue--which surely he could have.

"That the works of God should be revealed in him."

Well yes, he gets healed by Jesus.  Fortunate for him.

Yet this answer could look to the future Glory to be revealed in us: the miracles by Jesus and in the early church were a kind of foretaste.

It's also possible Jesus had in view the works of God in the life of such a person who believes and is transformed without physical healing.  So maybe the works of God could have either transformation or physical healing in view.

For now, we, along with this creation, suffer, physically, in varying degrees--some more than others, some sooner than others.  Life is not fair.

We suffer along with this world, affected by original sin, but someday, the works of God will be manifested in us who are children of God:  Romans 8:18-21

Suffering - 3 reasons

Three reasons for suffering that are over-arching: 

1)  God will be glorified:  in some way… though God could have been glorified in a world without suffering—this is why I believe there are a few other over-arching reasons that relate to this.  Jesus said about the blind man being blind was not because of his sin or his parents but that the “works of God would be revealed” (John 9.3)—this will be the case in the resurrection, but prematurely in this case. 

2) suffering is due to and a reminder of the consequences of sin, not necessarily personal sin—though possibly it is —but because of sin in the world and its impact on creation (see Romans 8.18-28).

And, (3) God created man with a measure of free will which includes the capacity to sin (free will in the new creation will not include that capacity because it will not have any of the suffering).  God could have created such a world because such a one is coming, yet he created this world instead that includes a measure of free will with sin and its consequences.

Written on the heart

I believe this terminology signifies that which holds a special place for an individual.

People being written on the heart would signify holding them special or dear,  or to be devoted.

The law written on heart in the new covenant may speak of a devotion to it not simply a knowledge of it.

Paul writes about those who “show the work of the law written on their hearts.  I believe this is different than what the new covenant speaks about.  This speaks about those who did not or do not have the law.   

The purpose of law is order and justice.  It's a code of conduct.  Written on heart is a special regard for order, justice, or whatever the “work” of the law is.  This text speaks of the “work” of the law being written, which is probably different than the law being written on the heart—a new covenant provision for Israel, not  a natural condition, true for all nations.  

It is often claimed that by nature the law is written on the heart, but I question that idea.  The "work" of the law is written, not the law itself.  I think of the aim of law is order and justice.

There is a universal recognition that some things are right and some wrong, and instinctively they try to determine who is in the right and who is wrong in a quarrel.  I person will often seek to justify their actions, that they were in the right.

  
The big 3 wrongs are murder, theft, and lying.  The conscience is probably distinct from the “work” of the law; the conscience is that faculty that weighs/ judges actions.

God’s love for all?

 I believe one can act in love towards the same person with whom they are alienated.

The world is alienated from God, yet God acted in love by giving his son as a propitiation for sin, so that whoever believes will not perish.

Everyone is alienated from God from birth until they believe in Christ for justification and eternally life.  The wrath/ judgment of God is this alienation, which if it continues to physical death, continues on in the lake of fire.

The love of God for the world is that he acted in the person of Christ in making propitiation for the sins of the world, John 3.16; 1John2.2.   Because of this, whoever believes will not perish--no longer alienated in time or eternity. 

2 Stage return of Israel

Ezekiel 38 seems to see Israel restored in their land after “the great tribulation” because they are dwelling safely. I know most would disagree with this and see it describing more of their present state since their statehood in 1948. I believe the context better fits a restoration after the great tribulation. The problem is is that the condition of Israel at the time Ezekiel 38 describes is in contrast to the land being formerly “long desolate,” and if this is after the great tribulation, and Israel is already a state in the land during the late 20^th century, it would require the present state to be ignored in the contrast between that restored state and the previous condition of the land.

Yet there are Scriptures that speak of a “second time” that Israel is regathered and restored, and that time has to be after the great tribulation. That would have to skip over the present state of Israel since the late 20^th century. The land being long desolate in Ezekiel 38 would seems to skip over the present state and condition of Israel, but many would say the present state of Israel fulfills Ezekiel 38—and that's probably why they believe the “Gog” attempted invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 is in the near future, but I believe it is after the great tribulation.

Maybe the "second-time” of Israel’s regathering should be understood to have 2 stages, the first stage in the late 1800's to present as being preliminary for the second stage which is after the second coming?

After the Second Coming, we read that, "It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord shall set His hand again the *second time* to recover the remnant of His people who are left, From Assyria and Egypt, From Pathros and Cush, From Elam and Shinar, From Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth. Also the envy of Ephraim shall depart, And the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, And Judah shall not harass Ephraim." Isaiah 11.11-13

Also after Second Coming we read that, "It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. I will set a sign among them [the nation]; and those [Jews] among them nations] who escape I will he [Jews] send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they [Jews] shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. Then they [nations/ gentiles] shall bring all your brethren [Jews] for an offering to the Lord out of all nations..." Isa 66.18-20

The first stage of the second time, beginning in the late 1800s but being realized in the 20^th century with the statehood of Israel, though I believe the ultimate fulfillment of the “second time” is after the great tribulation: "Prepare yourself and be ready, you and all your companies that are gathered about you; and be a guard for them. After many days you will be visited. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate; they were brought out of the nations, and now all of them dwell safely. ...You will say, ‘I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates’— to take plunder and to take booty, to stretch out your hand against the waste places that are again inhabited, and against a people gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who dwell in the midst of the land.... Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog, “Thus says the Lord God: “On that day when My people Israel dwell safely, will you not know it? ... You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me, when I am hallowed in you, O Gog, before their eyes.” Ezekiel 38 

The “long been desolate” period seems to look before the period of Israel's return from the late 1800's through the 20^th century statehood—it seems to skip over this, if this text refers to the restoration after the great tribulation. But maybe there is a two-stage aspect to the “second time” return, and the long desolate state of the land looks to before the 1800's even though the return looks to the time after the great tribulation. Yet I know that many want to see Ezekiel 38-39 as applying to the present state of Israel and that the Gog attempted attack could happen in the near future with that present state of Israel in the land. I just think that that God event is after Israel is restored in the land after the great tribulation, and I think that fits with other text concerning her restoration the “second time.”

Jews, who are they?

The total number of people who hold or are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the "Law of Return"— defined as anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent, and who does not profess any other religion — is estimated at around 23 million, of which 6.6 million were living in Israel as of 2015. Figures for these expanded categories are less precise than for the core Jewish population.

While dozens of countries host at least a small Jewish population, the community is concentrated in a handful: Israel and the United States account for 83% of the Jewish population, while a total of 98 countries host the other 17%.

The term "Ashkenazi" refers to Jewish settlers who established communities along the Rhine River in Western Germany and in Northern France dating back to the Middle Ages.  Once there, they adapted traditions from Babylon, The Land of Israel, and the Western Mediterranean to their new environment.

The Holocaust had a devastating impact on the Ashkenazim, affecting almost every Jewish family. It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's total Jewish population, while an estimate made in 1930 (near the population's peak) had them as 92 percent of the world's Jews. Immediately prior to the Holocaust, the number of Jews in the world stood at approximately 16.7 million.  Statistical figures vary for the contemporary demography of Ashkenazi Jews, ranging from 10 million to 11.2 million. Sergio Della Pergola in a rough calculation of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, implies that Ashkenazi Jews make up less than 74% of Jews worldwide. Other estimates place Ashkenazi Jews as making up about 75% of Jews worldwide.

Those who call themselves Jews today do so because of ancestry and probably a cultural or religious connection or belief.  They must want to maintain that identity to some extent. 

Romans 11.26 speaks of all Israel being saved.  Though the Apostle Paul says in Romans 9 that they are not all Israel who are of Israel, the reference to Israel concerns their national identity. 

This salvation in Romans 11.26 is as a people, a nation.  It does not mean every individual Jew will be saved—spiritually, as in being right with God, and physically, as an identifiable legitimate nation among nations in a geographically fixed place.

It seems a little complicated in what Paul is saying in Romans 11.  Paul speaks about the breaking off of some of the natural branches (Jews/ Israelites), in the analogy of an olive tree and its branches, being meant as the setting aside of the Jewish nation, but not the elimination of them as individuals Jews from being saved—since believing Jews in Christ become part of the Church.  Paul speaks of them being grafting in "again" in vs 23 which must speak of something other than individuals, for individuals can be saved through the present age of the Church.  This must look to them as a people, nation.  The word "again" is not suggesting that certain individuals were broken off, and then grafted in again when they believed again.  The unnatural branches, being non-Jews, gentiles, that were grafted in could be "cut off" if they don’t continue in belief, 11.22—even here the view must be to a people as in the gentiles (the unnatural branches in the analogy).  The issue here must be a place of privilege and blessing, represented in the Olive tree.  The people, nation of Israel will be grafted in again to this place of privilege and blessing.

Charles Hodge on Romans 11:26:  "Israel here must mean the Jewish people, and 'all Israel' the whole nation.  The Jews, as a people, are now rejected; as a people they are to be restored.  As their rejection, although national, did not include the rejection of every individual, so their restoration though national, need not include the salvation of every Jew.  All Israel does not mean all the true people of God, as Augustine, Calvin, and others explain it; nor all the elect Jews -- i.e., all that part of the nation which constitute "the remnant according to the election of grace" --but the whole nation, as a nation. (Romans Commentary

Who is Israel?  They are both ethnic and spiritual.  The ethnic determination is that one grandparent being Jewish-- and a religious one--of Jewish belief.  The "law of Return is a matter of debate, since most peoples are not ethnically pure.  There must be some genetic link.  Israel has a genetic requirement."

The Abrahamic Covenant was a promise of blessing through Abraham to all nations, and a promise of blessing to his natural descendants in a land of promise. Gen 13.14-15 "And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever."

Those descendants were placed under covenant that required obedience to be blessed in the land of promise, being the Mosaic.  But they failed.  And so were driven out.

But because of the Abrahamic Covenant, God made a new covenant, so a natural seed who count as spiritual seed may inherit the promises.

The Jews are saved in same manner as Gentiles.  Acts 15.11

The new covenant guarantees the continuance of the nation.  Jeremiah 31.31-37

Genesis 15.7-21: Abraham is given a  promise of the land. 

Deut 4.26-32:  Moses foretold Israel's failure and judgment, but because of the covenant with the father's, Israel will be restored.

Romans 11: 23-29  says they will be grafted in again if they don’t continue in unbelief.

Only those who count as spiritual seed inherit the promises:  Romans 9-11.  It will be natural seed that count as spiritual seed.  This is with reference to certain temporal promises.

God will both save and bless his people.  Those people are of differing identities in time, but that salvation and blessing is through the one who came riding on a donkey, and is coming again, whose authority is from "sea to sea." Zechariah 9.9-10

In Zech 5, we see an angel pushing "wickedness" back down into the basket, and putting a lid on it.  Could this compare to 2 These 2 concerning the restraining of the revealing of the son of lawlessness?  Daniel 10:12 reveals an angelic conflict involving restraining.

A house prepared for it--could this be the temple for the “Abomination Of Desolation?”

Yet the restraining of 2 Thess 2 seems an issue of timing and circumstances.  It involves the right time and circumstances for that particular roll of the “lawless one” as described.

The plan of God concerning Israel was not restoration following Pentecost.  God could have done it with the few thousands that did respond to the Gospel, but he didn't.  Romans 11 explains kind of why. "But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

If a larger number would have believed, how would prophecy had been fulfilled?  Would the temple had been destroyed still, as Jesus foretold?  Wouldn’t it need to be destroyed, since that was judgment on the nation: "they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” Luke 19:44

How would the abomination of desolation fit in and the great tribulation period? 

I'm sure there is a creative way to explain this.  But their rejection and God's plan is all figured in.  Things had to take their course; there has to be an offer of the kingdom so it can be rejected--even though the rejection was to be inevitable.

Again, God could have restored Israel with the remnant who believed, but that was not God's plan, for Romans 11 reveals that plan.

The Church practices baptism and communion.  One could argue the Jews were to practice these until Christ came, during that period between Pentecost and second coming. 

Mat 24.18 "All these are but the beginning of the birth pains."  Birth pains are the sorrows and difficulty that precede a birth.  This was true for Israel coming out of Egypt.  It will be true for Israel coming out of Great Tribulation.  It is true for creation in Romans 8.22 "For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

Stars falling

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."  Matthew 24.29

Could there be a connection with angels and the stars (angels are called stars or hosts of heaven), for certain angels will be cast out of heaven and to the Earth at a certain time?

We read of a connection between stars and idols:  "Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch, And the star of your god Remphan, Images which you made to worship; And I will carry you away beyond.'" Acts 7.42-44

In Revelation, there is a reference to Satan, certain angels, and the stars "His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth." Rev 12.4

 "If there are any...transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded." Deut 17

""Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left."  1 Kings 22

"All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree." Isa 34

"He] grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them." Daniel 8

"Where were you...When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38

However, Joel speaks of the stars being diminished, which could be the idea behind the stars falling from heaven        ;  

 "The sun and moon grow dark,

And the stars diminish their brightness." Joel 2:10 

"For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

¹⁵ The sun and moon will grow dark,
And the stars will diminish their brightness." Joel 3:14-15

So maybe the stars falling from heaven preceding the Day of the Lord and the coming of Christ has is with reference to the casting out of certain angels in conflict to the earth and not just some sort of meteor shower.

Joshua foreshadowing Jesus in Zechariah

Many years ago, I was asked  why the Old Testament didn't just give us the name "Jesus" in prophecy.

Most people probably don't know that the Hebrew name translated "Joshua" is the name "Jesus." If you take the Hebrew name for Joshua and transliterate it into Greek (Greek letters in place of the Hebrew), and then transliterate it into English (English for the Greek), you have the name Jesus.

The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses the Greek name for Joshua from which we get Jesus.

The book of Zechariah gives an account about the High Priest of Jerusalem (after Babylonian captivity) whose name was Joshua which looks prophetically to Jesus.  The account looks to the day when priest and king will be a united role in one person--not two people but one.

 Jesus will fulfill that role, being both high priest and king.

"Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua [Jesus--LXX] the son of Jehozadak, the high priest.

Then speak to him, saying,

'Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying:

"Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!

From His place He shall branch out,

And He shall build the temple of the Lord;

Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord.

He shall bear the glory,

And shall sit and rule on His throne;

So He shall be a priest on His throne,

And the counsel of peace shall be between them both."'  Zechariah 6.11-13

It's surely not a coincidence that the high priest spoken to in this prophecy had the name Joshua, which is Jesus after the transliterations.  Amazing stuff!

Government ordained

I believe government is ordained by God, Romans 13.1, and as for individuals who are in authority or representatives of the people, they are responsible in that role to govern society justly.  If justice begins to fail, in time Divine judgment will come.  If those in government position do evil, the blame is on them, not God.
I think of Zechariah 1:15 "I am exceedingly angry with the nations at ease; For I was a little angry, And they helped—but with evil intent." When Judah was judged for their evil, idolatry and injustice, through captivity, judgment eventually came on the nations because of their evil treatment of the Jewish people. 

The people that Israel were to go in and drive out were those to be more wicked than they:  “3  "Therefore understand today that the Lord your God [is] He who goes over before you [as] a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the Lord has said to you.  4  "Do not think in your heart, after the Lord your God has cast them out before you, saying, `Because of my  righteousness  the Lord has brought me in to possess this land'; but [it] [is] because of the wickedness of these nations [that] the Lord is driving them out from before you.  5  "[It] [is] not because of your righteousness  or the uprightness of your heart [that] you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations [that] the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deut9

There comes a point where God judges a people or nation when they practice a certain degree of evil or injustice.  Zechariah says this about Israel as to why they were scattered: “8  Then the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, saying,  9  "Thus says the Lord of hosts:  `Execute true justice,  Show mercy and compassion  Everyone to his brother.  10  Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,  The alien or the poor.  Let none of you plan evil in his heart  Against his brother.'  11  "But they  refused  to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.  12  "Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts.  13  "Therefore it happened, [that] just as He proclaimed and they would not hear, so they called out and I would not listen," says the Lord of hosts.  14  "But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they had not known.” Zech7

I believe the issue of justice not being exercised by governments is why God eventually brings judgment.  That injustice may be represented or evident  in a number of other immoral activities: when the common practice of the people is such that there is blatant immorality taking place, there probably will be injustices not being addressed by the governing authorities.  Sodom and Gomorrah practiced homosexuality, but the judgment was probably due to the injustice not being dealt with by the authority—an injustice that was by means of homosexuality being forced upon people:  “20  And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,  21  "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."  22  Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.  23  And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the  righteous  with the wicked?”  Gen18

Some might believe that countries like the USA are blessed by the number of Christians in it.   That may be true, but I tend to think any country that governs justly will be benefitted in a cause and effect manner.  If the populace is influenced by Christianity, then it will probably have a more just government as to its laws and how they apply.   A nation that has and executes justice is one that can naturally prosper.  That’s not to say that unjust rulers can not prosper for a time while their country is very poor, because those rulers keep the wealth for themselves and do not care about the injustice done among the common people—which the rulers themselves inflict.  One can be a faithful Christian and yet suffer in the country, because of injustice.

There are 2 ways of thinking about society and its burdens.

 One way of thinking is that we need more government intervention in society to help in relieving society’s burdens or providing needs and making life more fair (thus requiring more taxation to pay for government workers and programs to accomplish this).

The other way of thinking is that we need less government intervention in society to help in relieving its burdens and providing needs, but let society through individuals and private organizations work towards relieving those burdens and needs.

The natural man and the things of God...

Because 1Cornthians 2.14 says the natural man can not receive or know the things of God, it might be said that he must be born again or receive divine enablement of some kind to know and understand and believe the things of God. I think we must distinguish between what a person must know and believe to be saved and what one can know and believe after salvation.  I don’t think we should make demands on the unsaved that they can’t do—even loving God. 

--No one knows the things of God but the Spirit of God, vs 11.  So obviously, unless the Spirit has revealed something, no one would know.  Man, naturally, can not know instinctively or intuitively, the mind of God.  Special revelation is necessary to now what nature can not reveal.

This would include things like the 10 commandments.  Yet the natural man can understand the 10 commandments.  He can understand things like “you shall not steal” or “you shall not murder.”  These things are necessary to maintain a just society.

--The natural man does not receive or knows the things of the Spirit, vs 14.  Vs 6 speaks of wisdom spoken among those who are mature.  1Cor3.1-3 speaks of how the carnal Christian can't receive solid food.  So how does regeneration help one accurately know or even know at all the things of God?  

Often before one can know or understand a particular truth, they must understand something prior that will help them to understand.  They must respond to what they have.  

Those things that are for the mature may be foolish to those who are not or are not saved at all.  There are things that the unsaved can believe and be convinced of, such as the law and sin, and judgment.  The things that only the mature understand are things the immature (“babes” or “carnal” Christians)  and unbelieving are not ready to receive.  The wisdom of God is spoken among them that are mature, vs6.   

The principle of "to him who has more is given, but to him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away" applies to both saved and unsaved.  This principle explains a lot as to why people are at different levels of understanding concerning spiritual things.

Grace Definition

I think we struggle some with a definition for the word “grace," but I believe an all-encompassing definition would be "favor."  The word "favor" means "a kind act; something done or granted out of good will: ask a favor...a gift bestowed as a token of good will, kind regard, love, etc." ( The Random House College Dictionary).  Of course,  context and usage should determine meaning.  But I believe the word could be most broadly applied as speaking of favor. Favor is Lewis Sperry Chafer’s definition in his book “Grace – An Exposition of God’s Marvelous Gift.” Favor is the second most common translation of the Hebrew word “chen” other than the word grace.  Some say “unmerited favor.”    There are references in Scripture where it is very similar to the word “gift,” or to “free gift.” 

One might also ask what does the word mean when it is applied to a person and not to God, such as in Proverbs 22.11  “He who loves purity of heart  [And] [has]  grace [Heb. “chen”] on his lips,  The king [will] [be] his friend.”  What does it mean when a person shows grace to another, as the Persian king did to Esther: “2.17  The king loved Esther more than all the [other] women, and she obtained  grace [chen] and favor [Checed—“mercy”] in his sight more than all the virgins”?  In Psalm 45.2, we read that “grace is poured upon” the lips of who appears to be Christ—is this what John 1.17 references: “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”—referring to His message?

Scripture tells us that it was the “grace of Christ" in his humbling himself to the point of death for us, 2Cor8.9.  This use of grace is repeated in Romans 5.15-21 in contrasting what Adam did with what Jesus did and the outcomes.  Grace seems to mean the same thing as “free gift.”  We do see “grace” used in John1.17 with reference to the contrast between Moses and Jesus as to what came through them, being the Law (Moses) and Grace and truth (Christ)--the definition of Grace would have to make sense with the contrast. (“ For the law was given through Moses, [but]  grace  and truth came through Jesus Christ.”)

In Romans 5.15-21, we have reference to the “grace” (charis) of Christ (and God), “free gift (chrisma), and the “gift” (dorea).  I believe the Charis and charisma of Christ refer to his death while the dorea is justification.  The charis/ charisma was the work of the cross, while the dorea is the gift of righteousness/ justification that is possible because of the charis/ charisma, if one believes in Jesus for it.   And so being saved by grace is to be saved by the death of Christ, which (his death) was an act of grace.  This same usage of grace of Christ could be referenced in Acts 15.11:    "But we believe that through the  grace  of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."  We are to be established in and grow in this grace of Christ, 2 Pet 3.18a: “but grow in the  grace  and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Justification is said to be by grace and is used in the contrast with works or the Law.  It speaks of what God does freely: He justifies us freely, apart from keeping the Law or works of righteousness--though connected to this grace is faith in Christ, because unless one believes, they don’t receive the justification that comes from God by grace: “24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  25  whom God set forth [as] a propitiation by His blood, through faith, … 26 that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”  Romans 3   Grace is set forth in contrast with debt in the context of justification: “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as  grace but as debt.” NKJ Rom4.4 (“wages” must figuratively speak of justification).   “Grace” signifies justifying the one “apart from works”  but through faith: “David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works,” and  “Therefore [it] [is] of faith that [it] [might] [be] according to  grace.”  Rom4.6,16  This grace of God is that truth which can build one up:  Acts 20: 32  "So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His  grace , which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” 

The grace given in some contexts could be the the divine help, enablement, or ability given for something, like enduring a trial (Hebrews 4.16 speaks of this “grace” given in a time of need) or fulfilling a ministry in the church (such as the gifts given to the believer see Eph 3.2,7,8,4.7). In Romans 1.5, grace could speak of the enablement for their ministry to bring about obedience to the faith among (by) the nations: “Through Him we have received  grace  and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name.”  This ability in gifts as grace could be in view in Acts 4.33:  “And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great  grace  was upon them all.”  1Pet 4.10: “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold  grace  of God.”  This kind of grace to enable the believer would still come under the definition of favor.

Grace in reference to the work of Christ or how we are justified or saved I don’t see that as Divine enablement, unless you are using it with reference to pre-saving-faith-regeneration (or some say a "quickening") which some say happens when we first believe, which gives us the ability to believe (because of "total depravity"). But justification comes before regeneration (which seems clearly the case in Romans 5.15-21), and if we are justified by God’s grace, then the grace could not refer to regeneration.

In coming up with a definition for grace in the context of justification by grace, I believe we need to know the contrast is between grace and Law or grace and works.  It's not our works of the law or righteousness by which we are saved, but by God's grace, that is, what he freely gives, being his favor.

If the grace is the ability to believe, then what is that ability?  Could it be through the use of gifts or the message communicated? Maybe here speaks of this use of grace:  Acts 18.27b: “he [Apollo] greatly helped those who had believed through  grace.”  This  could speak of the ability that comes through spiritual gifts: Apollo helped those who believed through that working of God in him. Though it could be that he helped them in communicating the message of grace.  I question that the “through grace” has no reference to Apollo’s activity but just refers to how they were able to believe.  I think it is saying how Apollo helped those who had believed.

Why couldn’t the being justified by his grace just speak of it being freely given as opposed to it being through keeping the Law or works of righteousness?  But then even that grace is not given until one believes—but why is that a problem, since the grace given in a time of need, in Hebrews 4.16, is given to those who “come boldly to the throne of Grace?” But the grace by which we are justified is in contrast to justification by the Law, and that would seem to indicate that grace is that unmerited favor or free gift definition: justification by grace is justification apart from human merit (as by Law-keeping) but by unmerited favor or free gift.

The several uses of “Grace” or “favor” in the Old Testament, both being the translation of “chen” need consideration.  When Genesis says that Moses found “grace” in the eyes of God, would “favor” make sense here:  “But Noah found  grace  in the eyes of the Lord” 6.8?   It seems so.   Also consider what Moses says:  “  Ex33.13  "Now therefore, I pray, if I have found  grace  in Your sight, show me now Your way, that I may know You and that I may find  grace  in Your sight.”  Again, “favor” seems to fit here.

The definition is by usage and context.  However, in light of the Old Testament usages and the often contrasts with the law in the New Testament, I would say the most encompassing view is “favor” which can include the idea of that which is freely given.  

The “Sin Nature” -- another look

The words “sin” and “nature” are never used together in Scripture, but their use together has been fairly common in my experience, in talking to other believers and in some books I have read.  That common experience has been that the “sin nature” signifies a disposition within us which is contrary to the moral will of God.   Its also been my experience that it is believed that this sin nature not only exists in the non-believer, but the believer.   However, I have had conversation with those who do not believe the sin nature should be understood in a way that the believer has it.  I’ve also have had conversation with those who believe there is no such thing as a sin nature.

Its possible that I have developed a view about the sin nature that isn’t exactly what others would say about it, but we would still agree that it signifies something with in us that isn’t eradicated when we are “born again” (which I equate to “regeneration”).  Where I might differ with those with whom I am in more agreement with is what the sin nature signifies.   I had a book, that I can’t find, by E. W. Bullinger titled, “Two Natures in the Child of God,” and I’m pretty sure that he equated the sin nature with what Scripture called “the old man.”  I believe that the “old man” has a broader significance than the sin nature, the former referring to our pre-regeneration identity with all its components, while the sin nature is a particular component of that identity.  The other nature in the child of God would be what is commonly called the “new nature” (I would also call it the “spirit”—small “s” because it is not the person of the Holy Spirit, but that which is born of the Holy Spirit through regeneration, see John 3.6b), and that new nature is a component of our new identity, the “new man.”  I should point out that the words “new” and “nature” are never used together in Scripture, but the words ”divine” and “nature” are in Second Peter 1:4, and I would equate the “new nature” and the “divine nature” as long as the divine nature is understood as the communicable attributes of God—those attributes that we can share with God.  

I believe the Doctrinal Statement of the IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) represents what is common among those who believe that the believer still has the sin nature.   This is under point 8 of their statement:  THE TWO NATURES OF THE BELIEVER:  “We believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit; and that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural.”   A lot of Churches and Individuals belong to the IFCA as members, and to be a member, one has to agree with the statement.  So I assume this is a common held belief among “fundamentalists.”   I have said before that if one doesn’t like the terminology of “sin nature,” you can always use different terminology, like “the flesh” or “sin,” instead of “sin nature,” but what if its not just a terminology issue?

It’s been my understanding that the sin nature signifies that component of our being that has an inclination, propensity, or disposition towards the inordinate desires (as I like to refer to them)--those desires that  go outside the moral will of God.   I don’t know if everyone who believes in a sin nature would understand it exactly that way. If they use the sin nature to represent what the Scriptures often calls “the flesh,” then my understanding of that nature can’t be too far off, because the flesh is often used in a way that speaks of those desires which are contrary to the will of God. 

I want to point out that any view of the sin nature can not see it as necessary for sin to happen since Adam and Eve both sinned before they had a sin nature.   The ability to sin did not require a sin nature.  Even if one has a different view of what exactly the sin nature is, that nature is not essential for sinning. 

In my view, the sin nature only makes it easier to sin, because of its inclination.   My understanding has been that before Adam and Eve sinned, they did not have that inclination, but they still had the capacity to sin, because sin is not just the result of an inclination, but a choice to act.  The inclination makes it easier to sin or more of a struggle to resist. 

I think there is a way to talk about inclination and drop the idea of a sin nature.  One could talk about inclination as one thing, and the sin nature as something else.   If we just talk about inclination, we could talk about degrees of inclination, and we can talk about outcomes of inclination when acted upon. 

Adam and Eve may have had some lesser degree of inclination when they chose to disobey God.    If we use the term “the flesh” to refer to even that form of inclination that they had in the beginning, I don’t think their inclination can be understood to the extent the Apostle Paul speaks about concerning the believer in Romans 7.7-25 (Paul speaks of “evil” being “present” with him, and “sin” dwelling in him, in his flesh) or Galatians 5.13-26 (the “flesh” lusts against the “spirit”—in the believer).  Again, it could be Adam and Eve had some lesser degree of inclination which in itself wasn’t evil.    God told them not to eat, and the choice was wrong. It could be like God telling the Hebrews not to eat certain foods (shrimp, pork), and it was just a matter of choosing to obey God or not.  The flesh at this point just can’t seem to have the same significance that Paul gave it.  The flesh just had the inclination to desire something—which in itself isn’t necessarily bad—and the ability was there to make a choice.

We know that the choice they made resulted in consequences.  Something happened to them.  What happened to them after they acted was not just the curses God would place on them and creation later, but a kind of light turned on in their conscience—they saw and understood things differently.   They saw and understood physical nakedness.  They felt a shame with it.     Maybe something more was going on there as well, such as some obsession with their nakedness.  But to be honest, I’m not sure how to best understand all this.  I just know something changed, and it was due to this one act of “sin.”

I don’t know how others understand the beginning of the sin nature—and I’m using “sin nature” here according to that perspective I believe more commonly held (as in the IFCA), but I would say it materialized when Adam and Eve sinned and their “eyes were opened.”   I suppose it was some kind of mutation that became a part of this body we have.  Could it be said that the flesh just took on a newer or increased capacity? 

We could reserve “sin nature” to refer to the new state that resulted, being “death” or being alienated from the life of God (not having eternal life). But I tend to think if the flesh represents that which is contrary to the moral will of God, the terminology of sin nature seems to better speak of the flesh—if sin is it’s nature.  But what if we dropped the terminology of sin nature altogether and just call the consequence of sin spiritual death or alienation from God?  Actually, that’s what I say anyway. I don’t know if it would be helpful to refer to the unsaved condition as the sin nature.  I would prefer to just call it spiritual death or alienation from (the life of) God.

But we could just drop the “sin nature” terminology for that evil inclination within us and just call it “the flesh” or ”sin” within us.  We can call it “sin” because Paul calls the evil present within his flesh the “sin” in Romans 7.20.   He just doesn’t add the word “nature.”

I know that those who reject the idea of a sin nature say that there can’t be one because Christ was made like us, and He did not have one. I don’t think anyone believes Jesus had a sin nature.  And obviously he was not spiritual dead or alienated from God.   This discussion can get real complicated.  How much was Jesus made like us?  

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8.3) and was in all points tempted like us, yet without sin (Hebrews 4.15).   He came into this world with a body and conscience that the consequences of Adam’s sin affected yet not with the consequences of spiritual death and without the degree of inclination associated with the flesh.  If he had that same degree of inclination, he never acted on it (Hebrews 4.15).  But I don’t think he was like Adam was before he sinned in which there was that kind of blindness about the knowledge of good and evil.  And I question his ‘flesh” condition was such that he had that same degree of inclination we have even as believers, of which Paul spoke—which I wrote about earlier.  

If the attempt is to deny the sin nature as the same thing as the “flesh” because Jesus had the flesh like us, I think we still have a problem with how the flesh is spoken about even in the life of the believer.  It’s not just bad memories of what we did in the flesh before we were saved, but the inclination within us that still lusts against the spirit, which we still fulfill.  This condition did not plague Adam before he sinned.  It still plagues us after we are saved.  Was Jesus plagued by this?  I don’t think reassigning the sin nature terminology away from its common use will solve all the issues about the incarnation.  Though Jesus was made like sinful flesh, I’m not sure to what extent his inclinations were like ours.

The believer is said to be a “new creation” (2 Cor 5.17) and to have a “new man”(Eph 4.24; Col 3.10).   My understanding of the sin nature has not been that it represents the entire person—as in “the old man,” or his condition of spiritual death, but only a component (or aspect) of his being.  I could see why some might want to assign the terminology of “sin nature” to one’s unsaved condition but not to one’s saved condition because of the new status of the believer as a “new creation.”  But I don’t think the terminology of “sin nature” is intended to signify all that a person is.  If assigning sin nature (only) to one’s unsaved status is because you think his state or potential state has changed, to something like Adam’s state before he sinned, then you have the problem of those inclinations we wrestle with—not just a problem of bad memories, but actual inclinations.   We can have the ability to not fulfill those inclinations, but they are still there.

Christ was obviously not born into this world alienated from the life of God, but he still had this flesh thing within him, but maybe it was not of the same degree of inclination—which could be like an inherited degree of inclination towards evil (I know this is the first time I suggest this, but since Christ was not the result of a normal human union, so maybe a normal human union produces offspring with an inherited degree of inclination of the flesh).  

Also, what was inherited from Adam and Eve (Romans 5.12) was that alienation from the life of God (death): “by one man, sin came into the world, and death by sin...”  The “sin” here has the definite article in the Greek, and I have understood this “the sin” as the sin nature, and it is because of it that (spiritual) “death” came because of divine judgment.   But could the idea of ‘sin nature” be dropped, and see ‘the sin” as the degree of inclination of the flesh?  And  because of degree of inclination, there is spiritual death—the judgment upon everyone because of this inherited degree of inclination?

How I have understood Romans 5:12 was in light of a sin nature, but maybe there is another way.   I didn’t mention this before, but I haven’t taken the common view of original sin.  I don’t think God placed the guilt of Adam on all of us, resulting in all of us being condemned, but we did inherited a sin nature, which is condemned, and then because of that, we are all spiritual dead (not having eternal life).  But if I don’t call “the sin” in Romans 5:12 the sin nature, then I would have to think of it as the flesh in a certain degree of inclination we inherited, at degree which is condemned (not as the flesh was before Adam sinned, and as Christ’s flesh would have been).

I think one could avoid using “sin nature” as a terminology, but coming to a consensus about how to understand the use of “flesh” may be difficult, since it would have to take into account Adam’s state before and after he sinned and the human state of Christ and the state of the believer (I might add this is not simply a Calvinist verses non-Calvinist issue, since many Calvinists believe there are 2 natures in the child of God, and I know of those who don’t believe this).  And if we don’t use the sin nature to signify the state of the unsaved as spiritual death, consensus on the extent of spiritual death may be difficult, since some take it to the degree of total inability to respond to God and others do not.  But we could just call it spiritual death or alienation from God instead of the sin nature.