Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let me start off by saying that I believe the King James Bible.  So for those of us that hold the position that the King James is the perfectly preserved word of God how do we handle apparent discrepancies?  I believe that if there is an apparent discrepancy we should seek to find the correct interpretation.

I will share a few and hopefully some of you will have answers to share.

 

II Chronicles 36:9 and II Kings 24:8.  II Chronicles says Jehoiachin began to reign as king when he was 8 years old but II Kings says it was when he was 18.

Acts 7:2-4 and Genesis 11:26-12:4

Stephen in Acts says that Abraham left Haran after Terah died.  But Genesis says Abraham left when he was 75 years old. It also says Terah had his sons or atleast started to when he was 70 and lived to be 205.  If Abram was born first that would only make Terah 145 at death, for it to add up Abram could not have been first born and would have had to have been born when Terah was 130. So the listing of Abram, Nahor, and Haran could not be in the order of birth but in some other order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.

On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.

The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.

 

 

Edited by TheSword
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, TheSword said:

I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.

On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.

The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.

 

 

I appreciate your response to this.  I have heard the idea of co-regency before.  I do not see how this could be possible in this instance.  II Kings says he began his reign at 18 and 3 months later Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem.  II Chronicles says he began his reign at 8 and 3 months and 10 days later Nebuchadnezzar had him brought to Babylon and set up Zedekiah as king.

I can't see the coregency as plausible because both verses say after approximately 3 months of reigning in Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar captured them and took them to Babylon.

I can see your point with Abraham. Haran would have to have been born first and Abraham most likely last.  Why do you think Abram would be listed first and Haran last?  Importance or significance of their lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, AdamL said:

I appreciate your response to this.  I have heard the idea of co-regency before.  I do not see how this could be possible in this instance.  II Kings says he began his reign at 18 and 3 months later Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem.  II Chronicles says he began his reign at 8 and 3 months and 10 days later Nebuchadnezzar had him brought to Babylon and set up Zedekiah as king.

I can't see the coregency as plausible because both verses say after approximately 3 months of reigning in Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar captured them and took them to Babylon.

You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:

2 Chron 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

2 Kings 24:8 - Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Here are the facts as presented:

1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign

2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days

Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).

Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.

1 hour ago, AdamL said:

I can see your point with Abraham. Haran would have to have been born first and Abraham most likely last.  Why do you think Abram would be listed first and Haran last?  Importance or significance of their lives?

Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it.

So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.

Edited by TheSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, TheSword said:

You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:

2 Chron 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

2 Kings 24:8 - Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Here are the facts as presented:

1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign

2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days

Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).

Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.

I believe there is indication from the following verses in each passage that Nebuchadnezzar's arrival from Babylon was an immediate event.

9Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

When the year was expired should follow from the same context as the previous time given of 3 months and 10 days.

8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.

In this passage At that time in verse should follow the context of the 3 month reign.  In verse 12 the eighth year of his reign could refer to Jehoiachin making him 26 when the siege ended and he was taken to Babylon.  Or it could be the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar.  I am not for sure on that.

Siege warfare is typically not a quick process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As TheSword has said...all that is said is that he was 8 when he began to reign, and he was 18 when he began to reign.

It then gives the length(s) of time that he reigned in Jerusalem.

Two sets of information.

1. His age(s)

2. How long he reigned in Jerusalem.

If he was 8 when he became co-regent...or...if some other process chose him at that age as the future king, he was seen as reigning.

I personally view it as somewhat similar to David. He was annointed king long before he actually held the position. I'm not saying that I'm right in that, but it is plausible...to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, AdamL said:

I believe there is indication from the following verses in each passage that Nebuchadnezzar's arrival from Babylon was an immediate event.

9Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

When the year was expired should follow from the same context as the previous time given of 3 months and 10 days.

8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.

In this passage At that time in verse should follow the context of the 3 month reign.  In verse 12 the eighth year of his reign could refer to Jehoiachin making him 26 when the siege ended and he was taken to Babylon.  Or it could be the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar.  I am not for sure on that.

Siege warfare is typically not a quick process.

You're kind of double stating my point. The immediate nature of Nebuchadnezzar came at the end of the 3 month reign in Jerusalem. Both verses agree on that point. What is in dispute was whether that 3 months began when he was 8 or 18. My assertion is that he began to reign as co-regent when he was 8 and began to reign on his own from Jerusalem when he was 18. Truly, both passages even allow that he reigned by himself for a period of time in a place other than Jerusalem and then settled into the royal palace there at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, AdamL said:

...how do we handle apparent discrepancies?

There are no apparent discrepancies, just my failure to understand.  That's how I have to see it to have complete and total faith in God's Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, TheSword said:

You're kind of double stating my point. The immediate nature of Nebuchadnezzar came at the end of the 3 month reign in Jerusalem. Both verses agree on that point. What is in dispute was whether that 3 months began when he was 8 or 18. My assertion is that he began to reign as co-regent when he was 8 and began to reign on his own from Jerusalem when he was 18. Truly, both passages even allow that he reigned by himself for a period of time in a place other than Jerusalem and then settled into the royal palace there at the end.

I don't see anything in the text to support a co-regency.  It is speculation at best on our part to think that may have happened based on our understanding of a ancient foriegn culture.

The facts are the both passages say he began his reign at a different age, 8 and 18.  From there both passages agree with what happened next, a 3 month reign in Jerusalem followed by the coming if Nebuchadnezzar.

7 hours ago, swathdiver said:

There are no apparent discrepancies, just my failure to understand.  That's how I have to see it to have complete and total faith in God's Word.

If things are not the same they are apparent discrepancies.  That does not mean it is an actual discrepancy.  We may not have a full understanding leading us to see a discrepancy that does not exist.

I believe we should diligently search to find the truth and show that there is no discrepancy.  In this scenario with Jehoiachin I have been unable to do so yet.  I am confident that because the KJB is the word of God that the answer will reveal itself and I came here to my brothers and sisters to seek there guidance and help in understanding the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, AdamL said:

I believe there is indication from the following verses in each passage that Nebuchadnezzar's arrival from Babylon was an immediate event.

9Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

When the year was expired should follow from the same context as the previous time given of 3 months and 10 days.

8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.

In this passage At that time in verse should follow the context of the 3 month reign.  In verse 12 the eighth year of his reign could refer to Jehoiachin making him 26 when the siege ended and he was taken to Babylon.  Or it could be the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar.  I am not for sure on that.

Siege warfare is typically not a quick process.

Without doing any serious study, a few things come up for consideration:

Why must the two accounts be of the same event? For instance, the first event you reference here records that from the time he began to reight at 8 years old, that his reign lasted 3 months 10 days and then at the end of that current year he was taken to Babylon and his brother was installed as king.

Then we come to the second account where he begins to reign from 18 years old and after three months the king of Babylon began to besiege the city. I guess after 8 years of seige he was again taken to Babylon.

Two separate events with his brother reigning in between.

Just thoughts based only on the presented passages, without referencing any further along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The following is taken from "Things Hard to be Understood" by David Cloud (he quotes Robert Sargent) - Presented as information only....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 KINGS 24:8 – “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.”

2  CHRONICLES 36:9 – “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.”

There is no contradiction between these accounts, as they refer to different aspects of Jehoiachin’s reign. “It is important to remember that with the biblical method of reckoning the beginning of the reign of a king may be given from his anointing or his accession—or both. Following the deportation of his father, Jehoiachin legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9), but his mother ruled for him as queen (Jeremiah 13:18) until he was 18 (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later both king and queen mother were deported (2 Kings 24:12)” (Robert Sargent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, AdamL said:

I don't see anything in the text to support a co-regency.  It is speculation at best on our part to think that may have happened based on our understanding of a ancient foriegn culture.

The facts are the both passages say he began his reign at a different age, 8 and 18.  From there both passages agree with what happened next, a 3 month reign in Jerusalem followed by the coming if Nebuchadnezzar.

If things are not the same they are apparent discrepancies.  That does not mean it is an actual discrepancy.  We may not have a full understanding leading us to see a discrepancy that does not exist.

I believe we should diligently search to find the truth and show that there is no discrepancy.  In this scenario with Jehoiachin I have been unable to do so yet.  I am confident that because the KJB is the word of God that the answer will reveal itself and I came here to my brothers and sisters to seek there guidance and help in understanding the text.

It's not stated in those particular passages, no. However, taking in the context of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, the pattern of co-regency in Judah is easily established as is the chaotic power transitions of Israel. The precedent was established in David's line for the southern kingdom of Judah when he placed Solomon in power a substantial amount of time before his death (1 Kings 1-2). See also 2 Kings 8:16 where Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram reigned together as well as 2 Kings 15:5 stating that Azariah and Jotham shared the throne.

The text certainly does not demand co-regency, but it does allow for it as a valid explanation. It also allows for the explanation given above by 1611mac, which doesn't actually contradict the co-regency explanation; it only changes the co-regent. Further, the contexts of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and the rest of the OT support that explanation. While it is not a concrete and unquestionable solution because neither singular verse makes it specific and clear, it is far from speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Maybe tried cancels out the temptation, but its still weird we could receive a blessing from something we are praying against.

Also "the crown of life" isn't that salvation? And it looks like works kick in again with Revelation 2:10, but we know only grace can save.

~~~~~~~

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Neither shall ye touch it, the woman added to God's word, yet it wasn't a sin. When she ate the fruit, then the sin entered in. Right? Why wasn't adding to God's word the sin?

On a personal note, I wish my hearing was better, so when I read the word, the Holy Ghost could explain all the mysteries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...