Another challenge.

Hadassah

Philippians 3:14
Oooh, I think I got it! :hyper:

The Gadarene demoniac whom Jesus delivered, then told to go to back to the Decapolis (Gentile) and tell what Jesus did for him? Luke 8:39

Yea, that's the one I couldn't think of. It was someone after a healing. I'll second this answer.
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Oooh, I think I got it! :hyper:

The Gadarene demoniac whom Jesus delivered, then told to go to back to the Decapolis (Gentile) and tell what Jesus did for him? Luke 8:39
You were wise to second this, Hadassah: iSong has the correct answer.

Both Gerasa and Gadara in the Decapolis were Gentile cities, populated mainly by Greeks. This is why swine were being raised there; no true Jew would raise pigs. The Bible tells us what happened at the conclusion of the deliverance of the demoniac from the legion of demons in him:

"38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought Him that he might be with Him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him." (Luke 8:38-39)​

The city was Gentile Gadara ... thus the former demoniac was the first man commissioned by Jesus to specifically go to the Gentiles and proclaim Jesus Christ and His delivering power from the bondages of Satan.

Good job, iSong!
 

iSong6:3

Well-Known Member
You were wise to second this, Hadassah: iSong has the correct answer.

Both Gerasa and Gadara in the Decapolis were Gentile cities, populated mainly by Greeks. This is why swine were being raised there; no true Jew would raise pigs. The Bible tells us what happened at the conclusion of the deliverance of the demoniac from the legion of demons in him:

"38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought Him that he might be with Him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him." (Luke 8:38-39)​

The city was Gentile Gadara ... thus the former demoniac was the first man commissioned by Jesus to specifically go to the Gentiles and proclaim Jesus Christ and His delivering power from the bondages of Satan.

Good job, iSong!

I'll share my prize with everyone who participated in this thread! :meet: It wasn't an easy question!
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
No it wasn't. But everybody who participated dug into their Bibles and their knowledge of Scripture, trying to find the answer. That's why I like little challenges like this. Not only do we learn something but we spend time in God's Word and who knows what treasures we might find.
 

iSong6:3

Well-Known Member
No it wasn't. But everybody who participated dug into their Bibles and their knowledge of Scripture, trying to find the answer. That's why I like little challenges like this. Not only do we learn something but we spend time in God's Word and who knows what treasures we might find.

Amen! Looking forward to the next one!
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
You were wise to second this, Hadassah: iSong has the correct answer.

Both Gerasa and Gadara in the Decapolis were Gentile cities, populated mainly by Greeks. This is why swine were being raised there; no true Jew would raise pigs. The Bible tells us what happened at the conclusion of the deliverance of the demoniac from the legion of demons in him:

"38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought Him that he might be with Him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him." (Luke 8:38-39)​

The city was Gentile Gadara ... thus the former demoniac was the first man commissioned by Jesus to specifically go to the Gentiles and proclaim Jesus Christ and His delivering power from the bondages of Satan.

Good job, iSong!


Well fancy that... That's interesting right there; and it sure does add some much needed context behind the passage.

Thanks!

I wonder though... If the question in the OP was well worded (that is, I think you tricked us!:twitch ~I'm kidding~ :hehheh )? Is it correct to say that the man was sent to evangelize? Or, would it be better worded to say that the man was sent to give witness (of the works of Jesus)? When I read evangelism I think specifically of the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection.

Cornelius it seems had knowledge of the works of Jesus (Acts 10:36-38) and responded to this revelation in the best way that he could (Acts 10:2); but Peter was sent to deliver the good news to the gentiles (Acts 15:7; Acts 10:39-43) by which the Holy Spirit began the ministry of baptizing gentiles into the Body... That's why I was thinking "keys".

Either way, neat question! And I'll look forward to reading the next one.

Hope all is well,
Dave
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Oooh, I think I got it! :hyper:

The Gadarene demoniac whom Jesus delivered, then told to go to back to the Decapolis (Gentile) and tell what Jesus did for him? Luke 8:39

Tipping my cap to you too sister! :hat:

Excellent display of scriptural memory, knowledge, and application. I had not recognized or considered the demon possessed man as gentile, but find it very interesting that this is included in Luke's gospel.

I wonder what God will reveal through this new nugget in the future?

Kind regards,
Dave
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Dave, you are quite correct that the word evangelism means giving the good news ... and to us the good news is that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that by faith in Him and all He did for us we are saved. But the sharing of the good news involves testifying to the work of Jesus Christ in our lives. There is no way to separate our testimony from our witness for it is our testimony as to the reality of Christ and the truth of His word manifested in our life that gives veracity to our witness. Jesus told the man to go to his family and tell "all that has happened to you"; and he not only did that but went "to the entire city". I suggest this is evangelism, even though the message of the death, burial and resurrection was not yet possible, his witness pointed people to Christ and who He is.

The Samaritan woman, for those wondering, was not a true Gentile. The Samaritans were the descendants of the ten northern kingdoms that had intermarried with pagan tribes around them and thus had largely apostatized from the true faith. They had set up a parallel temple and sacrificial system on Mount Gerazim as opposed to that which God had given and that was based on Mount Moriah. Thus they were heretical Jews, not Gentiles.
 

Any Minute

Tetelestai !!
Who was the first person in the New Testament sent by the Lord to evangelize among Gentiles?

Adrian, now that iSong6:3 won :)hyper:), can you define “New Testament”?:lol: :thinking:

Some say after the ministry of John the Baptist.
Some say not until after the cross/resurrection.
Some say Acts is the transition, etc.

Clearly the Op question took place after John the Baptist but before the cross, but defining 'New Testament' is in order (unless you simply meant the Gospel of Matthew as being the beginning of the N.T. in our bibles).

I do note that Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 is the first introduction by Jesus of the New covenant/Testament.

Thanks for making a brother spend hours digging through scripture. Went from the OP question, to different chronologies of the Gospels, trying to determine when the N.T. took effect, and ended in Hebrews chapters 8-11. Did pick up many overlooked nuggets along the way though.:thumbup

In all seriousness, I have often wondered when the New Testament actually took effect.
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Adrian, now that iSong6:3 won :)hyper:), can you define “New Testament”?:lol: :thinking:

Some say after the ministry of John the Baptist.
Some say not until after the cross/resurrection.
Some say Acts is the transition, etc.

Clearly the Op question took place after John the Baptist but before the cross, but defining 'New Testament' is in order (unless you simply meant the Gospel of Matthew as being the beginning of the N.T. in our bibles).

I do note that Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 is the first introduction by Jesus of the New covenant/Testament.

Thanks for making a brother spend hours digging through scripture. Went from the OP question, to different chronologies of the Gospels, trying to determine when the N.T. took effect, and ended in Hebrews chapters 8-11. Did pick up many overlooked nuggets along the way though.:thumbup

In all seriousness, I have often wondered when the New Testament actually took effect.

Are you referring to the New Testament? or the New Covenant?
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Dave, you are quite correct that the word evangelism means giving the good news ... and to us the good news is that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that by faith in Him and all He did for us we are saved. But the sharing of the good news involves testifying to the work of Jesus Christ in our lives. There is no way to separate our testimony from our witness for it is our testimony as to the reality of Christ and the truth of His word manifested in our life that gives veracity to our witness. Jesus told the man to go to his family and tell "all that has happened to you"; and he not only did that but went "to the entire city". I suggest this is evangelism, even though the message of the death, burial and resurrection was not yet possible, his witness pointed people to Christ and who He is.

The Samaritan woman, for those wondering, was not a true Gentile. The Samaritans were the descendants of the ten northern kingdoms that had intermarried with pagan tribes around them and thus had largely apostatized from the true faith. They had set up a parallel temple and sacrificial system on Mount Gerazim as opposed to that which God had given and that was based on Mount Moriah. Thus they were heretical Jews, not Gentiles.

Thanks for hashing that out for me... Good to see there was a purposeful reason behind the specific term. Seems I was linear in my thinking... it's nice to get a good lesson of application through such an inventive question.

Dave
 

Any Minute

Tetelestai !!
I’m simply a layman myself. Thanks for the recommendation; I have that site bookmarked already though it’s been awhile since my last visit.

You’re correct that context surrounding how the term is used will generally determine what is meant by New Testament. I knew what Matt meant with the op, I was just poking fun.

In all seriousness, I am still trying to determine at what specific point in scripture the New Covenant takes effect. I hold the position that at least not until His death, shed blood, and resurrection that the ‘New Covenant’ was ratified, so anything before that was ‘Old Covenant(s)’ whether or not it is written in what we call the New Testament.

It seems that when using the term Old Testament many mean the Mosiac Covenant or Law, or what was in effect at the time of Christ, unless by context they refer to one of the other covenants.
 

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Hi again,

I’m simply a layman myself. Thanks for the recommendation; I have that site bookmarked already though it’s been awhile since my last visit.

You’re correct that context surrounding how the term is used will generally determine what is meant by New Testament. I knew what Matt meant with the op, I was just poking fun.

In all seriousness, I am still trying to determine at what specific point in scripture the New Covenant takes effect. I hold the position that at least not until His death, shed blood, and resurrection that the ‘New Covenant’ was ratified, so anything before that was ‘Old Covenant(s)’ whether or not it is written in what we call the New Testament.

It seems that when using the term Old Testament many mean the Mosiac Covenant or Law, or what was in effect at the time of Christ, unless by context they refer to one of the other covenants.

I had typed a bunch of info... and then decided to go with an easier reply and save you the trouble of my ramblings.

I may hazard a reply and say everything up to the death of Jesus and I suppose the rending of the curtain would have been of the Mosaic/Law Dispensation... Everything after, although transitional... would have been under the promises of the New Covenant.

Think I was empathetic enough to your inquiry?

Hope all is well my friend,
Dave
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Well now. This is an interesting discussion. While many use the terms covenant and testament interchangeably, they are not the same thing ... even though they are very close to being the same thing.

A covenant is an agreement between two parties who are both alive. A testament is a document by one party that benefits another party or parties but does not come into effect until the first party (the testator) has died.

Therefore, applying this to the Bible, the New Covenant is the agreement made by God with man that supersedes the First (Old) Covenant. The First Covenant required us to live by God's law; the New Covenant requires us to live by faith in Christ's fulfilling of the law on our behalf. The New Covenant began when God sent Jesus to this earth. The New Testament came into effect when Jesus died.

That said, for all intents and purposes we can use the terms synonymously. Indeed, if you look at your Bible, you will see it is divided into two main sections. The first section, encompassing the books from Genesis to Malachi inclusive, is entitle Old Testament; the second section, encompassing the books from Matthew to Revelation inclusive, is entitled New Testament. Therefore, based on common usage of the past two thousand years, Matthew 1:1 commences the New Testament.

Incidentally, God revealed that he would make a new covenant even while the old covenant was still in effect:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)​

Isaiah spoke at length of this new covenant and why it was needed in the 59th chapter of his book. His discussion of it ends with the glorious words:


"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." (Isaiah 59:20-21)

I pray some of the above is useful.
 

Hadassah

Philippians 3:14
Pastor Adrian, I find myself liking so many of your posts, I'm starting to look like a groupie. :lol:

So then, for the Jews who still practice their religion, in their unbelief of Jesus, to them the O.T. is still in effect as a covenant.
 

iSong6:3

Well-Known Member
Thanks for hashing that out for me... Good to see there was a purposeful reason behind the specific term. Seems I was linear in my thinking... it's nice to get a good lesson of application through such an inventive question.

Dave

:hehheh That's what made it so interesting.
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
So then, for the Jews who still practice their religion, in their unbelief of Jesus, to them the O.T. is still in effect as a covenant.
No. The First Covenant. the covenant of law, was fulfilled by Christ (Romans 10:4) -- only God being able to do that since experience proved that man could never live up to its demands as scripture confirms (Psalm 14:3; Proverbs 20:9; Romans 3:10,23). And since Christ fulfilled the law's demands under the Old Covenant (Hebrews 9:15) He ushered in the New Covenant and all who are "in Christ" receive its benefits (Ephesians 1:7-14) -- chiefly freedom from the penalty of sin (Hebrews 9:26b) and, thus, consequent right standing with God (Hebrew 5:21; 8:30,33). But those who reject Christ cannot enter the New Covenant and thus must live by the law of the Old Covenant. However this leaves them doomed for three reasons. First this first Covenant has been set aside (Hebrews 7:18; 8:13); second the Holy Spirit fully demonstrated in the New Testament that the law could never be fulfilled by man for the law only gave consciousness of sin (Romans 7:5-11); and third, the Holy Spirit permitted the destruction of the Temple and the end of all animal sacrifices. Now, animal sacrifices could never take away a man's sin (Hebrews 10:4)-- only temporarily cover it. But because of the ending of the sacrificial system, a Jew cannot even have his sin temporarily covered. Therefore a Jew who rejects Christ's sacrifice on his behalf is counted by God the same as a Gentile who does the same thing (Romans 3:9), regardless of how hard the Jew tries to keep the commandments. And even if the sacrificial system were to be reinstituted, it would avail the Jew nothing since "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

Does this help?
 
Back
Top