God has given us a written revelation with the understanding that it can be correctly comprehended. This means that for every teaching, there is a meaning that God originally intended to convey. It is our task to ascertain the correct interpretation. Jesus said, “[Y]ou shall know the truth” (John 8:32). Paul said to “speak the same thing…be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Peter said, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). And Paul insisted that we are to be involved in “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, ESV). When Peter wrote, “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), he verified the fact that even God’s inspired spokesmen did not express their own views, opinions, or interpretations. Rather, they were merely conveying God’s views.

So there’s no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your interpretation.” There’s only God’s meaning, and with proper study and correct reasoning, we can arrive at the truth on any subject that is vital to our spiritual well-being.¹ Rather than shrug off the conflicting views and positions on various subjects and dismiss religious differences as hopeless, unresolvable, or irreconcilable, we can and must be about the business of studying and searching God’s Book (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We must cautiously refrain from misinterpreting and misusing Scripture (2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Peter 3:16). We must carefully consider all sides of every issue (1 John 4:1; Proverbs 14:15). We must “take heed how [we] hear” (Luke 8:18), i.e., make certain our hearts are genuinely receptive to the truth (Luke 8:15). We must realize that there are those who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). Having given sufficient attention to these important keys to ascertaining God’s will, we can be certain of our ability to come to the knowledge of the truth that God wants us to know (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

Endnote

¹ There are many things that we cannot know since God has not chosen to reveal them to us. However, we can know those things that God intends for us to know.

The post “That’s Just Your Interpretation!” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, Scripture, indeed, repeatedly calls for Christians to love everyone—whether family, friends, fellow Christians, or enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; 22:36-40; Romans 12:9-21). We are to “[r]epay no one evil for evil” (Romans 12:17), but strive to “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave” us (Ephesians 4:32). But Christian kindness and love are not antithetical to such things as, for example, punishing rule breakers. A father who loves his son, and would even die for him, will promptly discipline him for unruly conduct (Proverbs 13:24; Ephesians 6:4). A school principal may genuinely love and care for every student under his oversight, but he may occasionally have to expel a disorderly child from the school for at least two reasons: (1) so that the hundreds of other students who want to get an education can safely and successfully do so, and (2) in hopes that such drastic measures will cause the unruly child to awaken to his senses before it is too late (and he does something far worse as a teenager or as an adult). An uninformed outsider, who sees a father disciplining his son or a school principal punishing a student, may initially think less of these adults and wonder how they could call themselves Christians. The logical, more informed bystander, however, will quickly size up the situation and easily see the consistency in loving, disciplinary actions.

In the epistle of 2 John, the apostle expressed his concern for the eternal destiny of Christians, saying, “Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward” (vs. 8, NASB). John was alarmed because deceptive false teachers who denied the incarnation of Jesus were a serious threat to the salvation of Christians. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2 John 7). These false teachers (known as Gnostics) alleged that Christ could not have been incarnated because the flesh is inherently sinful. And, since the flesh is supposedly intrinsically evil, Gnostics taught that Christians did not need to resist fleshly temptations. Just “do whatever feels good” and know that such wicked actions are only physical and not spiritual. Allegedly, the soul could still be pure, even if the individuals themselves participated in wicked activity.²

The apostle John (who had “seen” and “handled” the actual body of Christ—1 John 1:1-4; i.e., Jesus did come in the flesh) repeatedly condemned the central teachings of certain Gnostics who were confusing and misleading first-century Christians.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world (1 John 4:1-3).

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil…. Whoever has been born of God does not sin (1 John 3:4-9).

False doctrine was a real and present danger in the first-century church, just as it is today. Christians were (and are) to be on “guard” because “some have strayed concerning the faith”—profane and idle babblers and teachers of contradictory doctrines of “what is falsely called knowledge” (Greek gnosis; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; cf. 2 Timothy 2:15-26). Denying the physical life, death, burial, and resurrection of the body of Christ was heresy, and thus John and others warned the early church of such deception. What’s more, claiming that “all unrighteousness is not sin,” was to directly contradict the Law of Christ. In truth, “the works of the flesh are evident,” and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19,21). John wrote: “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God,” because “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 3:10; 5:17).

Christians are commanded to withdraw fellowship (lovingly, faithfully, and sorrowfully) from brethren who rebel against the teachings of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Such actions by Christians and churches are taken for at least two reasons: (1) to keep the church and the Christian families that comprise her from being harmed spiritually by the defiantly unfaithful (whose very tolerated presence would have even more damaging effects than an incessantly disruptive student in a school room; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6-7); and (2) in hopes of causing the wayward child of God to come to his senses (being “ashamed” of his sinful conduct; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 5:5)—repenting of sin and being restored to the family of God.

Similarly, in 2 John 10-11, the apostle of the Lord instructed hospitable Christians to recognize the seriousness of greeting and housing deceptive false teachers. [NOTE: “The greeting was ‘Chairo!’ literally, goodspeed or God speed. This greeting was more than mere formality; it was an approval of the course being pursued by the one thus greeting, and included a desire for success in the effort attempted.”³] First-century roaming teachers and preachers “depended on the generosity of the members of the church” for their housing and hospitality.⁴ John the apostle, however, wanted the church to understand the serious threat that these dangerous false teachers posed to the precious bride of Christ. Doctrinal error is not something to “play with,” especially when such error involves the foundation of the Church (the life of Christ—2 John 7) and the denial of sin (the very thing that results in eternal death for the impenitent—Romans 6:23; Luke 13:3,5). By refusing to house and bid God-speed to deceptive teachers, the ungodly efforts of these misleading “messengers” would be greatly diminished. In time, they might choose to (or have to) stop their sowing of error altogether because of lack of opportunities, assistance, and encouragement. Such a result combined with genuine repentance would be the very thing for which Christians hope and pray.

Anyone who can see the reasonable and loving consistency of parents telling their children to “be nice to everyone,” but “don’t listen to these dangerous people” (showing them pictures of known child molesters), should be able to see the consistency of God’s message concerning Christian love and hospitality, and the way Christians react to false teachers who espouse damnable error. Children who shun dangerous sexual predators are protecting their own innocence, as well as keeping themselves and their families from a moment (or a lifetime) of grief. What’s more, the avoided, dangerous strangers are not given the opportunity to continue in their sins. Thus, the children’s obedient avoidance of them could be of great help to the sinful strangers in the highest way possible—if they awaken to their spiritual senses.

Christians are actually fulfilling the Law of Christ to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:2,10) even as we identify and refuse to embrace and fellowship false teachers. We are “doing good” to the “household of faith” by helping keep her pure and unaffected by cancer-spreading deceptive teachers (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Allowing error to spread would be tantamount to “rejoic[ing] in iniquity,” which is unloving (1 Corinthians 13:6). What’s more, the false teachers themselves are in no way encouraged to continue down the road of deceit. Rather, it is the hope and prayer of Christians that false teachers would become convicted of the error of their ways and repent before the Master Teacher (Luke 2:47; John 7:46) returns and judges them eternally for their doctrinal deceit (2 Peter 2).

[NOTE: Near the conclusion of his excellent commentary on 2 John, Guy N. Woods made an appropriate observation that both Christians and critics of 2 John 10-11 should consider: “John does not here forbid hospitality to strangers, or, for that matter, to false teachers when, in so doing, false teaching is neither encouraged nor done. Were we to find a teacher known to be an advocate of false doctrine suffering, it would be our duty to minister to his need, provided that in so doing we did not abet or encourage him in the propagation of false doctrine…. What is forbidden is the reception of such teachers in such fashion as to supply them with an opportunity to teach their tenets, to maintain an association with them when such would involve us in the danger of accepting their doctrines…. The test is, Does one become a partaker by the action contemplated? If yes, our duty is clear; we must neither receive them nor give them greeting; if No, the principle here taught is not applicable.”⁵]

Endnotes

¹ Cf. Steve Wells (2015), “Should Believers Discuss Their Faith with Nonbelievers?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/discuss.html.

² For more information, see “Gnosticism” (1982), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:484-490.

³ Guy N. Woods (1979), New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 349, italics in orig.

⁴ I. Howard Marshall (1978), The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 74, emp. added.

⁵ Woods, pp. 349-350, emp. added.

The post Biblical Consistency and the Believer’s Treatment of False Teachers appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:25-26).

Some have alleged: “The phrase ‘as often as’ means that the Corinthians were permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper as often as they chose to do so—anytime they decided to without any limitations on the day or the frequency.”

This viewpoint is characterized by two flaws: (1) it fails to grasp the grammar and context of the passage and (2) it fails to consider everything God says about the matter elsewhere in the New Testament.

The Grammar/Context:

Several phrases/words in the context indicate the notion of time: “do this” (vss. 24,25), “as often as” (vss. 25,26), “until” (vs. 26), and “when” (vs. 33). However, none of these words provide any assistance in ascertaining when or how often the Lord’s Supper is to be observed. Frequency, repetition, and consistency are certainly inherent in the construction of such expressions, but they do not specify the precise parameters of frequency. Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 11 simply do not provide any assistance in ascertaining exact observance, although he indirectly clarifies the matter in chapter 16 where he links another act of worship with Sunday. J.W. McGarvey reflects this awareness in his comment on 11:26—“The constant observance of this feast through the centuries is one of the strongest of the external evidences of the truth of gospel history. By a chain of weekly links it will connect the first and second comings of our Lord; after which there will be no further need of symbols.”¹

The contextual focus is on the perpetual nature of the Lord’s Supper until the end of time. Hence, when it is observed (without any indication of when that observance occurs, whether Sunday or some other day of the week), every time it is observed, it must be done for the purpose of remembering what Jesus did. God intended for the Lord’s Supper to be an ongoing, repetitious proclamation to Christians and outside observers of the reality of what Jesus did on the cross and the fact that He will come again. Findley paraphrases: “Paul assumes that celebration will be frequent, for he directs that, however frequent, it must be guided by the Lord’s instructions, so as to keep the remembrance of Him unimpaired.”²

The Greek word that the Holy Spirit selected in both verse 25 and verse 26, rendered “as often as” in the NKJV, is hosakis. This relative adverb is used three times³ in the New Testament with two of the three occurrences found in these two verses. According to respected Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson, the word is “only used with the notion of indefinite repetition.”⁴ In his discussion of general temporal clauses, he categorizes the term with other “Conjunctions Meaning ‘When.’”⁵ Hence, the term provides no insight by which one can ascertain any specificity to the repetition. It most certainly provides no indication that the reader is free to select his own frequency; nor does it exclude a stipulation of frequency that might be indicated elsewhere in the New Testament. Lexicographers provide the following synonymous meanings: “whenever,” “as often as,” “so many times as,” “how many times as,” “how often,” “how often soever,” “as many times as.”⁶ Observe that all these expressions are simply referring to the event occurring without specifying frequency.

English translations demonstrate that hosakis does not convey the idea that the Lord’s Supper may be taken anytime one chooses or that Sunday is not the singular day God intended. Consider the following chart that summarizes English translation⁷ usage:

Observe that “every time,” “when,” “whenever,” and “each time” are equivalent expressions. They convey repetition without specifying the day or time of observance. The text does not intend to imply that therefore Christians are free to pick and choose their own days. Rather, the language selected by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 provides no assistance in determining whether God intends for the Lord’s Supper to be observed on a particular day or at a particular time. If He so specified, the New Testament would have to so indicate elsewhere.

Summary

Neither the Greek nor the English convey the idea that Christians are free to select their own times for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The reader must read that idea into the text. If the New Testament gave no further directives regarding the frequency or the day of the Lord’s Supper, the reader would be free to select his own observance occasions, deciding which days of the week and how often it would be observed. But the Lord gave us additional instructions on the matter.

Further Instructions from God

To be fair and honest with Scripture, one must gather everything the Bible has to say on a subject and reason about that material correctly to arrive at the totality of God’s will on that subject. Specifically, one must examine the New Testament to ascertain God’s will regarding observance of the Lord’s Supper. As it pertains to frequency of observance, the following verses clarify the matter by providing a complete picture: Acts 2:42,46; Acts 20:7; Acts 20:11; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.⁸

Implications

Consider these implications of the foregoing. If God did not specify His intentions regarding frequency of observance of the Lord’s Supper, a person could partake one time after conversion and fulfill God’s expectations. If the Christian lives to be 90 years old, he would please God by the single observance.

Further, could the Jews have celebrated the Sabbath on days other than the Sabbath/Saturday? According to Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the Sabbath commemorated the Exodus—the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. Could they not have reasoned—like those today who dislodge the Lord’s Supper from Sunday—that the perpetual commemoration of the Exodus could also be achieved on days other than Saturday? The Jews could not have known when to commemorate the Exodus unless God had so stipulated. If God had not given any indication of the day, the Jews would have been free to observe it on any day and their observance would not necessarily have to have even been weekly. But by associating commemoration of the Exodus with Saturday, the Jews were under obligation to conform to God’s directive and to do otherwise would have been sinful.

The fact is that the bulk of Christendom—though generally associating observance of the Lord’s Supper with Sunday—has felt free to alter and adjust God’s instructions on a variety of matters over the centuries, including tampering with the scriptural directive regarding Sunday. Yet His potent declarations remain in effect and offer somber warning to those who would presume to alter His directives:

• “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 4:2).
• “Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (Deuteronomy 5:32).
• “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).
• “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6).
• “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
• “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

ENDNOTES

¹ J.W. McGarvey (1916), Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Co.), p. 118, emp. added.

² G.G. Findlay, “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. (1900), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:881, italics in orig.

³ W.F. Moulton, A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition, p. 712.

⁴ A.T. Robertson (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), p. 973; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman), p. 165, emp. added.

⁵ Robertson, Grammar, p. 971.

⁶ Daniel Wallace (2000), The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 209; H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey (1927), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan), p. 281; Charles Robson (1839), A Greek Lexicon to the New Testament (London: Whittaker & Co.), p. 322; John Pickering (1839), A Greek and English Lexicon  (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, & Wilkins), p. 653; Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press), p. 1082.

⁷ The translation abbreviations signify the following: CEB (Common English Bible), CEV (Contemporary English Version), ERV (Easy-to-Read Version), EXB (Expanded Bible), GW (God’s Word Translation), GNT (Good News Translation), ICB (International Children’s Bible), PHILLIPS (J.B. Phillips New Testament), JUB (Jubilee Bible 2000), NOG (Names of God Bible), NCB (New Catholic Bible), NCV (New Century Version), NET (New English Translation), NIRV (New International Reader’s Version), NIV (New International Version), NTE (New Testament for Everyone), VOICE (The Voice Bible), WE (Worldwide English New Testament).

⁸ For an extensive analysis of these verses and New Testament teaching on Sunday observance of the Lord’s Supper, see Dave Miller (2007), “Sunday & the Lord’s Supper,” https://apologeticspress.org/sunday-and-the-lords-supper-1254/.

The post “As Often As” and the Lord’s Supper appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The English word “apologetics” is often confused with the word “apologize,” yet the two words are nearly exact opposites. There certainly is a time and a place for Christians to express regret and apologize for our many mistakes and sins, but Christian apologetics has nothing to do with such remorse. A pitcher in baseball might apologize for hitting a batter with a 90-mile-per-hour fastball (since that’s not an authorized part of the game), but a dodgeball player has no need to say he’s sorry for striking another player with a ball. On the contrary, he may logically defend himself, offering a 180-degree-different kind of “apology.”

The English word “apologetics” is derived from the Greek noun apologia meaning a “reply” or “defense,” and the Greek verb apologeomai meaning to “defend oneself” and, more specifically, “to speak in one’s own defense against charges presumed to be false.”¹ More than anyone else in the New Testament, “apologetics” is associated with the apostle Paul. To those in Corinth who questioned Paul’s claim of apostleship, he gave a “defense” (1 Corinthians 9:3). In his joyful letter to the church in Philippi, Paul reminded them that he was “appointed for the defense of the Gospel” (Philippians 1:16-17; 1:7).

A few years before Paul became a follower of Christ, Jesus prophesied that His disciples would “answer” or “defend” the truth of Jesus Christ “before kings and rulers” (Luke 21:14,12). This prophecy came into clear fulfillment during Paul’s missionary journeys and imprisonments (cf. Acts 9:15), as the Lord used him to reason with and “reply” before all manner of rulers.² Before Governor Felix, Paul gave an “answer” (NKJV) or “defense” (NASB). About two years later, Paul “made his defense” (NIV) before Governor Festus (Acts 25:8), and then again before Festus and King Agrippa II (26:1-2), even denying Festus’ charge of insanity by pointing out that his apologia was grounded in “truth and reason” (26:25).

Though the word apologia is used only once in the New Testament in association with the apostle Peter, it is this apostle (Peter, and not Paul) whom the Holy Spirit used to give us perhaps the most complete (yet concise) picture of God-approved defenders of Christianity. Peter used the term apologia one time in 1 Peter, yet the apostle clearly details how Christians are to be Christ-like defenders. Indeed, Peter gives the Lord’s Church a perfect recipe for defending divine doctrine.

To Christians who were scattered throughout various parts of the northern half of Asia Minor in roughly the early-to-mid 60s A.D. (1:1),³ Peter wrote: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (3:15).

Written to Christians, Not “Clergy”

While Jesus and the apostle Paul are the two premier apologists in Scripture, we must not make the tragic mistake of thinking that apologetics is only for “the preacher.” Too many Christians for far too long have incorrectly assumed that “ordained clergy” are those engaged in Christian apologetics—not the “regular Christian” husband and wife, mom and dad, or the baker, banker, and bus driver. Peter makes clear in his first epistle that he was writing, not to “apostles, prophets, and preachers,” but to Christians (1 Peter 4:16)—to “pilgrims” (1:1), the “elect” (1:2), the “begotten” (1:3), “children” of God (1:14). He was writing to any and all of God’s people in various provinces in Asia Minor—followers of Christ whom he describes as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people” (2:9). In this letter, Peter specifically addressed various members of the body of Christ, including servants (2:18-25), wives (3:1-6), husbands (3:7), elders (5:1), and “younger people” (5:5). But overall, he was addressing “you” (1 Peter 5:1)⁴—Christians in local churches.

After expressly challenging “husbands” (1 Peter 3:7) to honor their wives and be the kind of godly men in the home that the Lord calls them to be,⁵ Peter went back to addressing “all of you” (3:8). When he wrote “always be ready to give a defense” (3:15), Peter was not addressing evangelists. He was not challenging some “special class of clergy.” He was talking to “all” Christians, to “followers of what is good” (3:13), to those who have been baptized in water for the remission of sins (3:20-21; cf. Acts 2:38).

Certainly, there are essential leadership roles for elders, deacons, and evangelists to fulfill in the Lord’s Church.⁶ Peter, in fact, has some very important commands for elders in chapter 5. However, the “defense” instruction of 1 Peter 3:15 is for all disciples of Christ.

When “a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem” several years earlier, “all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1).⁷ What did these dispersed disciples of Christ do? They “went everywhere preaching (euangelizo) the word” (Acts 8:4). They evangelized! “There is no evidence, nor is there any probability, that all these persons were ‘ordained’ to preach.”⁸ They were “just members” of the Church of Christ: “ordinary,”⁹ “common Christians.”¹⁰ Likewise, the dispersed Christians in Asia Minor to whom Peter wrote to “always be ready to give a defense” were just that—“Christians.” Indeed, Christian apologetics is for all of God’s people!

For Sincere Saints, Not Counterfeit Christians

Furthermore, according to Peter, Christian apologetics is for those with a “good conscience” who exemplify genuine, “good conduct in Christ” (1 Peter 3:16). Like Peter,¹¹ Christians are imperfect people who stumble and fall along the way. Yet, we are to be real people of God, who “walk in the light” and “confess our sins” to one another (1 John 1:7,9; James 5:16). Having been “redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19) and “called…out of darkness,” conscientious, God-approved Christian defenders walk in “His marvelous light” (2:9), “laying aside all…hypocrisy” (2:1). “[A]s obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts…but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct” (1:14-15).

Much of the time, long before any non-Christian listens to an apologia from a disciple of Christ, he will have inspected (to some degree) the life of this “so-called Christian.” Thus, Peter says to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (2:12).¹² In fact, it could be that for some (and perhaps many) unbelievers much less “defense” would be necessary in their conversion if they first saw continual, sincere righteous living on the part of the Christian. Only a few verses prior to 1 Peter 3:15, the apostle noted how some unbelieving husbands “without a word may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct” (3:1-2).¹³

Consider that before the apostle Paul ever wrote to Timothy, instructing him to “preach the word” and “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:2,5), he first highlighted the vital “genuine [unhypocritical]¹⁴ faith that is in you” (2 Timothy 1:5). Furthermore, years prior to Paul penning 2 Timothy, he desired this young servant of Christ to accompany him on his second missionary journey. Note carefully, however, that Paul only wanted this after coming to learn that Timothy “was well spoken of by the brethren” (Acts 16:2-3). Indeed, God’s recipe for Christian apologetics includes, first and foremost, this primary ingredient: a sincere saint.

It should come as no surprise that just before Peter commanded Christians to “be ready to give a defense,” he first said to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts” (3:15). To “sanctify” (hagiazo) is “to treat as holy;” to regard in “reverence.”¹⁵ The word “sanctify” is derived from the Greek hagios, which pertains to “being dedicated or consecrated to the service of God.”¹⁶ Similar to Jesus’ prayer to the Father, “hallowed (hagiazo) be Your name” (Matthew 6:9), Peter said, “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (NASB). Peter was actually quoting from Isaiah 8:13: “The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow” (Hebrew qadash). How do we “hallow,” “sanctify,” or “set apart as holy” the Lord? Since God is by His very nature 100% “holy” (1:16) and needs absolutely no help from humanity in being holy, in what sense do we set Him apart as holy?

Peter said to sanctify the Lord “in your hearts.” Of the millions of thoughts that flood our minds, of all the memories, people, and things we hold dear in our hearts, One is specially set apart far and above all others—in the center of our being, on the throne of our hearts—the King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ. God wants Christians to give a defense only after they have hallowed Christ in their lives. Not an outward, hollow “holiness,” which manifests itself in “going through the motions” with Pharisee-like actions, but an inward, genuine, heart-felt reverence for Jesus Christ, which naturally impacts everything the Christian does—how we think, act, and talk—including how we “give a defense.” Sooner or later, hypocrisy only harms the Christian’s influence and defense, while an authentic surrendering to Jesus as Lord of our lives is the greatest aid in the apologist’s arsenal. “Sanctify” first; “Defend” second: always, always in that order.

Courageous, God-Fearing Followers

Peter also detailed that genuine faithfulness from the inside-out is fundamental to Christian apologetics because followers of Christ often are called upon to give a defense in trying times. Peter knew a thing or two about suffering. Very soon after the establishment of the Church in Acts 2, Peter and John were repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, interrogated, threatened, and beaten (Acts 4-5). Peter was in Jerusalem during a time when “a great persecution arose against the church…at Jerusalem,” as Saul “made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison” (Acts 8:1,3). Later, when “Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church,” including killing the apostle James, the king then arrested and imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1-4), very likely with the intention of killing him, too (were it not for Peter’s divine deliverance from prison—Acts 12:5-19).

The Lord used this often-persecuted apostle to pen a letter to distressed Christians (likely sometime between A.D. 64-68)¹⁷ during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. Though there may not have been widespread, official imperial persecutions of Christians until a few decades later, Nero was no friend to Christians. The historian Tacitus (who was also no fan of Christianity) noted how Nero, in A.D. 64, blamed Christians for the Great Fire in Rome. According to Tacitus: “Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called).”¹⁸ Whether Peter had this or other Roman persecutions in mind when writing 1 Peter, we do not know. Regardless, as the book of Acts reveals, persecution was present in one place or another since the birth of the Lord’s Church, and the Christian “pilgrims of the Dispersion” in Asia Minor were not exempt. It seems they had already endured some difficulties (1:6-7), and Peter forewarned that more lay on the horizon.

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you…. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter…. Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator (4:12-19).

Peter’s apologetics exhortation is firmly and deeply embedded in an epistle and immediate context of suffering. In the verses directly before and after 1 Peter 3:15, the apostle speaks of imminent Christian persecution: “when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed” (3:16). “And even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed” (3:14; cf. Matthew 5:10-12). We are blessed if we endure suffering innocently¹⁹ like Christ²⁰ (2:19-24). We are blessed if such suffering brings spiritual maturity and heavenly clarity in an otherwise potentially “cares-of-this-world” kind of earthly, sinful focus on life. Furthermore, we are blessed to grow spiritually from such suffering, including increasing in courage for Christ. In fact, Peter directly connected “suffering” (3:14a) and apologetics (3:15) with being courageous, as he quoted from Isaiah 8:12, saying, “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled” (3:14b).

Rather than cower fearfully in the face of manmade persecution and allow such fear to warp how we think, live, and “give a defense,” Isaiah challenged his hearers to fear God. “The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread” (Isaiah 8:13). Peter includes these thoughts both at the beginning and end of 1 Peter 3:15: (a) “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts” (which we’ve already examined), and (b) giving a defense “with…fear.” This “fear” is not in sinful fear of what man (or Satan) might do. Jesus explained: “[D]o not fear them…. Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:26-28). Indeed, as Peter rhetorically asked, “And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?… Do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled” (3:13-14). After all, as Peter reminded these young churches of the words of Psalm 34, our omniscient, omnipotent God is bigger than any problem that may come our way: “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (3:12). Thus, “fear” God (1 Peter 1:17; 2:17; 3:15). As we “speak in the light” (Matthew 10:27) about the joy of our salvation, our total respect, reverence, and genuine, soul-stirring awe for our Savior and King serves as the rock-solid foundation of our apologia.

Is it not encouraging that God used the imperfect (but penitent) Peter to write these words? Recall that Peter cowered on the Sea of Galilee, fearfully denied Jesus three times, and even had a hypocritical moment later in life when he, for fear of some Jewish Christians, played favoritism and shunned his Gentile brethren (Galatians 2:11-14). It is this apostle (likely toward the end of his life) whom the Holy Spirit used to exhort struggling, flawed followers of Christ to courageously stand their ground, to “not be afraid,” and to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” Indeed, regardless of “whenever, wherever, and by whomever it is challenged,”²¹ we must speak up and explain the “reason for the hope” that is in us.

Full of Hope, With Eyes on the Prize

In one very real sense, biblical, Christian apologetics is not an intimidating graduate course or an overwhelming 800-page step-by-step book on how to answer nearly every challenge under the Sun. It’s not some dreaded Bible study or debate. The apologia of 1 Peter 3:15 is the natural response to the Lord being #1 in our lives (which at some point will likely include great books, classes, studies, and possible debates). Christian apologetics, on the most basic level, is the natural response of being in love with the Lord and living as sojourners in a foreign land with our eyes on the prize. Does a young woman who is righteously head-over-heels in love with her fiancé not have a natural glow and excitement about her? Is she not ready to defend and tell the world about her one love who is soon to sweep her off her feet and take her across the threshold of their new home? Likewise, the child of God loves to talk about her Father. The once-dead sinner loves to talk about his Savior. The bride of Christ loves to talk about her Husband and the reasons for her confident expectation of seeing Him face to face in heaven one day.

Peter called the Christians in Asia Minor “pilgrims” (1:1; 2:11) and “sojourners” (2:11). He reminded them how to conduct themselves “throughout the time of your stay here” (1:17). The simple yet profound fact about life on Earth is, we are all “just passing through” (like a brief stay in a hotel). Christians, however, live here with hope (the full expectation) of receiving (by the grace of God) “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you” (1:4). As the sojourner Abraham left his homeland to dwell “in a foreign country” and “waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:9-10), “our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). Many a dying, non-Christian has longed for some kind of “hope” of happiness after this life is over; the faithful child of God is overjoyed to “give a defense…for the hope” that is in us.

 A Hope Anchored firmly in Facts

Though the genuine hope of the Christian stirs up the strongest of emotions,²² do not make the grave mistake of thinking that the Christian’s hope is founded on emotion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our feelings are founded on facts. Our hope is firmly anchored in the truths of the Gospel—of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Peter was clear, saying, “[W]e did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitness of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). When Peter and the apostles were accused of being drunk on the first Pentecost following the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:13), Peter responded with a reasoned defense, not a mere emotional appeal. He reminded his hearers that God “attested” (apodedeigmenon) to the miracles that Jesus worked while He was alive and in their midst (Acts 2:22). That is, God “demonstrated”²³ proof of the divine origin, message, and mission of Christ in such a way that people could actually see the evidence and make an informed, rational decision about Him (cf. John 10:37-38).

What’s more, the assembly on Pentecost knew that Jesus had been “put to death” only days earlier (Acts 2:23), but unlike the tomb of King David, Jesus’ tomb was empty only three days later. Unlike the body of David, which saw corruption, the dead body of Christ had been raised and would never see corruption. Yes, Peter directed the assembly to evaluate the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, including the implied empty tomb (Acts 2:24,29-32), the fulfillment of Psalm 16:8-11 (Acts 2:25-31), and the witnesses who stood before them testifying that they had actually seen the risen Savior (Acts 2:32).

The nearly 3,000 individuals who obeyed the Gospel on Pentecost were not swayed by flowery words, phony miracles, or mere emotional appeals. They were “cut to the heart” by evidence-based preaching. They reacted to a sermon filled with sensible argumentation and properly applied Scriptures.²⁴ They responded to the apologia of Christ—to Christian apologetics.

About 30 years following the events in Acts 2, Peter reminded the persecuted Christian pilgrims in 1 Peter that the hope for which they were to give a defense is a “living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1:3). Indeed, the evidence proves that “God…raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1:21).

Prepare to Answer

Since our hope is evidence-based, it is paramount to learn the reasons for our hope—for our own eternal benefit and for the benefit of others (as we teach and answer questions). Unlike the miraculously inspired apostles to whom Jesus said, “Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer (apologeomai); for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist” (Luke 21:14-15), Christians today must prepare themselves to give a defense. We must “get ready.”

Peter said, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (4:11). If so, then we must first learn the Word of God. We first learn enough to reasonably conclude why we should become Christians—“having been born again…through the word of God” (1:23). Then, “like newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby” (2:2). After all, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). When Jesus was challenged by Satan, the Lord quoted Scripture and used it accurately (Matthew 4:1-11). When Jesus was challenged by the Pharisees and others, He logically pointed out flaws in their irrational arguments, while also making perfect reference to and application of the Old Testament (cf. Matthew 5; 12:1-14,22-30). Indeed, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). As we patiently prepare ourselves to answer those who ask us a reason for the hope that is in us, let’s “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

Defend with the right attitude

In our reasoning with others of the hope that is in us, we must keep in mind what Peter noted at the end of 1 Peter 3:15—that our defense is to be made “with meekness and fear.” Christians are to try to be Christ-like at all times, including when we defend the truth. Our teaching is to be characterized “with gentleness and reverence” (3:15, NASB). We are to “honor all people” as we “fear God” (2:17). As we “proclaim the praises of Him” who called us “out of darkness into His marvelous light,” we must be “clothed with humility” (2:9; 5:5).

About 15 years ago, a man who identified himself as a Catholic priest wrote an unsolicited letter to Apologetics Press. We had never heard of this gentleman before reading his note. Although, sadly, he is very misled in his adherence to Catholic doctrine,²⁵ consider some of his analysis of a handful of preachers in the Church of Christ. [NOTE: He refers to preachers as “elders.”]

As a Roman Catholic priest who follows non-Catholic religions with some interest…I have observed a lot of meanness, rudeness, and lack of basic civility among CoC [Church of Christ—EL] elders, especially recently. How does one explain this? In general (no doubt there are exceptions perhaps many), Christian love seems deficient in the way they seek to promote truth.

In general, they strike me as tending to be suspicious, rash and uncharitable in their judgments about other people’s motives, prone to arrogance, and even too eager to call someone a liar, more so than the average pagan in the streets. These comments are based on only my limited experience, to be sure, and sometimes, no doubt, I am guilty of some of the very same sins and character flaws.

I was considering doing some kind of oral interaction with an elder or two about Catholic matters. Now it looks to me like this would be a royal invitation to verbal abuse, misrepresentation, and even character assassination….

Some members of the Lord’s Church might tend to dismiss this criticism with a wave of the hand, but we believe this gentleman was right in his assessment and denouncement of some who attempt to “defend the truth” yet do so in an unchristlike manner.²⁶ What’s more, we all need to be reminded of the necessity and seriousness of “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). We must examine ourselves and ensure that our teachings and defense of the truth are done lovingly and patiently, confidently yet kindly, neither rudely nor arrogantly (1 Corinthians 13).

Keep in mind what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy shortly before commanding him to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2). He described “a servant of the Lord” as one who “must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition” (2 Timothy 2:24-25).

Peter repeatedly reminds Christians to be humble in all areas of life. We are to be submissive to governing authorities (2:13), to masters (2:18), (wives) to husbands (3:1), to elders (5:5), and in general “to one another” (5:5).²⁷ With this same submissive spirit, Christians are called upon to give a defense “with gentleness and reverence” (3:15, NASB). Yes, let’s teach and preach while being “clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’ Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (3:5-6).

Conclusion

First Peter 3:15 is embedded within a marvelous epistle that provides clear context and commentary on a perfect apologetics passage. Every sincere-hearted Christian should draw encouragement from this verse to follow God courageously in the face of suffering and persecution. With a Christ-like attitude, with our eyes firmly fixed on the ultimate prize, and with our hope anchored in the facts of the Gospel, we, indeed, can give a reasonable defense. And, we can rejoice in the fact that honest and good-hearted unbelievers will eventually “glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12).

Endnotes

The post Preparing to Give an Answer: God’s Defense Recipe in 1 Peter 3:15 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, longtime Bible skeptic Dennis McKinsey described “the biblical road to salvation” as “vague and conflicting.”¹ He wrote:

[I]f one were to accept the Bible as God’s word and believe that heaven awaited those who gained entrance, one could never know for sure what must be done in order to reach heaven. The Bible is just too vague, too nebulous, too contradictory for even those who seek to follow its advice. This is because Scripture clearly outlines…different methods by which one can be saved and…the different methods are often either mutually exclusive, divergent, or contradictory. ²

In his monthly journal on alleged Bible contradictions, McKinsey commented on Ephesians 2:8-9, calling it

a passage contradictory within itself. It says you are saved through faith, while simultaneously calling salvation a gift of God. How can it be a gift when it must be earned? If you don’t make an effort, if you don’t have faith in Jesus, then you aren’t saved. How, then, can it be called a gift completely divorced from any works on your part? You must do something—believe in Jesus—in order to receive it.³

Bob Seidensticker of patheos.com lists “Faith saves (or do works save?)” as #6 in his “Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions.” He quotes Ephesians 2:8-9⁴ saying, “That seems clear enough until we find the opposite claim elsewhere in the Bible…. For something so important as getting into heaven and avoiding hell, the New Testament is surprisingly unclear.” Seidensticker then asks, “[M]aybe it’s repentance that saves…or maybe baptism?” and lists Acts 3:19, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, and Romans 6:4 as alleged proof of a biblical inconsistency pertaining to salvation.⁵

Is the Bible really “unclear” about salvation? Is the one sentence recorded in Ephesians 2:8-9 self-contradictory? Are McKinsey, Seidensticker, and other skeptics correct in their assessment of this passage of Scripture? How can these verses be consistent with other verses that teach the need for sinners to repent and be baptized? What rational response, if any, can be given from Scripture for all the differences skeptics cite?

Getting Context for Ephesians 2:8-9

Proper interpretation is impossible without consideration of the context in which statements are made. Even some of the simplest of sentences, such as “She’s cold,” cannot be understood without context. Does “She’s cold” refer to a woman who is physically chilly because of low temperatures? Does she have a “cold” demeanor about her and seem unfriendly? Is she “cold” during a basketball game, because she has missed a lot of shots? Or, is “she” even a woman? Perhaps “she” is someone’s pet Chihuahua that gets cold easily? Who can actually know what such a simple statement means without more information?

Ephesians 1:1

One of the best, most logical places to start when trying to understand any statement is “at the beginning.” Before abruptly jumping into Ephesians 2:8-9, it would be wise to go back to Ephesians 1:1 and learn some relevant information about the man who penned the letter and the people to whom he wrote.

Paul

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ” was not always a Christian. One might say that previously he was “Saul the sinner.”⁶ In fact, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom” Paul humbly stated “I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). How so? He “persecuted this Way [followers of Jesus] to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women” (Acts 22:4). He said of his prior life as a non-Christian:

I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth…. [M]any of the saints I shut up in prison…; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities (Acts 26:9-11).

Paul meekly remarked: “I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:9-10).

How could one of the world’s most notorious persecutors of God’s saved people come to be saved? How could a man guilty of so many atrocities be forgiven? Because, as Paul reminded the Ephesians, “God…is rich in mercy,” has “great love with which He loved us,” and “when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (2:4-5). Yes, “according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7), God will save even the “chief” of sinners.

But how and when exactly was Paul, the penman of Ephesians, saved? For that information, we have to refer back to the book of Acts. In chapter 22, we learn that when Saul the sinner asked Jesus, “What shall I do, Lord?” Jesus (Who had miraculously appeared to him on the road to Damascus) said, “Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do” (Acts 22:9-10). Saul then journeyed to Damascus and was told by God’s servant Ananias, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord”⁷ (Acts 22:16). Did he do just that? Indeed, he did. “[H]e arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). Was Paul saved by grace, through faith, and not of works? Absolutely. Did he have his sins washed away when he was baptized? For sure. Did he see any inconsistency in these matters? Not at all. In fact, after becoming a Christian himself, Paul preached the necessity of baptism,⁸ including in the city of Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5).

The Early Ephesian Church

As Paul was winding down his second missionary journey, he briefly stopped off in the grand city of Ephesus with Aquila and Priscilla and reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue (Acts 18:18-19). Paul then quickly departed for Antioch of Syria (from which he had begun his journey about three years earlier), but he left behind his two faithful Christian companions (Acts 18:18-21). Thus, the Lord’s church existed in Ephesus at least since the time that Aquila and Priscilla were there.

A devout Alexandrian preacher named Apollos then came to Ephesus and “taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.” Thankfully, Aquila and Priscilla “took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:24-26).

Upon Paul’s return to Ephesus (early on during his third major missionary journey), he found 12 disciples there (Acts 19:1) and discovered that they, too, only knew of the baptism of John, and knew nothing of the Holy Spirit (19:2-3). Similar to Aquila and Priscilla teaching Apollos “the way of God more accurately,” Paul enlightened these men on the doctrine and baptism of Christ, after which “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:4-5).

This was the early church in Ephesus. These individuals (and likely others who were becoming disciples of Christ—Acts 19:17-20,26) were some of those who spent upwards of three years with Paul (20:31), including two years listening to him “reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus” (19:9-10). This was the early church who received the epistle we call Ephesians. These were the Christians (along with others) who were reminded that “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Like “Saul the sinner” who was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins, these disciples also understood the perfect harmony of being saved by grace through faith apart from works as they submitted to the Lord in baptism.

Ephesians Chapters 1-3

The book of Ephesians is naturally divided into two parts. The first three chapters remind the young church of the amazing blessings of being in Christ—in the redeemed, forgiven, blessed Church of Christ (1:22-23). Chapters 4-6 remind the church in very plain and practical language to act like faithful followers of Christ—“to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called” (4:1).

Ephesians 2:8-9 is embedded in the heart of the first section of Ephesians in which Paul reminds the church of—something every Christian continually needs to celebrate—the gracious salvation from sin found in Christ.

• 1:3—God has “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.”
• 1:7—“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.”
• 1:11—The heavenly “inheritance” is found in Christ.
• 2:5—Sinners are made “alive together with Christ” and saved “by grace.”
• 2:13—Sinners “who once were far off” have been brought near to God “by the blood of Christ” and placed “in Christ Jesus.”
• 3:7—Paul became a servant of Christ “according to the gift of the grace of God…by the effective working of His power.”
• 3:11-12—The grand plan to save sinful man “was according to the eternal purpose” of God, “which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.”

Repentance and Baptism in Ephesians

Although skeptics allege that repentance and baptism contradict Ephesians 2:8-9,⁹ Paul certainly didn’t believe so. In addition to what we have already learned about Paul’s conversion to Christ, as well as the early Ephesian Christians’ baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” the book of Ephesians itself bears witness to the fact that Paul saw no contradiction between (a) being saved “by grace…through faith…not of works,” and (b) repenting and being baptized.

Repentance

In the same paragraph of Scripture in which Ephesians 2:8-9 resides, Paul reminded these early Christians in the Roman province of Asia that “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh” and were “children of wrath” (2:3). Without knowing anything else, the clear implication of this statement is that they were once non-Christians who “walked” as “sons of disobedience” (2:2), but now are “in Christ” and act (or are supposed to act) completely different. They changed. They repented. While they once “walked” in darkness disobediently (2:1-3), they now are God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (2:10).

Christians are to “no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk in the futility of their mind” (4:17). Children of God, who are recipients of the grace of God, are supposed to have repented, having “put off…the old man,” and “put on the new man” (4:22,24). While “no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (5:5), Christians are “imitators of God…and walk in love…. But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you”—that is, among repentant Christians (5:1-3).

Anyone who takes the time to read and digest Ephesians in its entirety, should quickly come to realize that repentance is implied and described throughout the letter. Surely this should have some bearing on a fair reading and interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9.

Baptism

But what about baptism? Are we to believe that such verses as Acts 2:38 and Romans 6:3-4 (which skeptic Bob Seidensticker specifically cited in his “Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions” article) are inconsistent with Ephesians 2:8-9? Is being “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) really incompatible with being saved “by grace…through faith…not of works”?

In addition to the fact that (1) Paul himself was baptized (Acts 22:16; 9:18), and (2) the Ephesians were baptized (Acts 19:1-5), (3) within the book of Ephesians Paul listed baptism among one of the most fundamental, unifying teachings of Scripture. Paul begged the Christians in Ephesus to endeavor “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (4:3). He then listed seven essential “ones” upon which Christian unity is based: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (4:4-6). These seven ones are solid facts that undergird the Christian religion. And included in this exalted list, only a few verses away from Ephesians 2:8-9, is Paul’s mention of “baptism.”

Furthermore, in Ephesians 5:25-26, Paul noted how Jesus “loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.” Pray tell, what is this “washing of water”? Is it not logical to conclude it’s the same water baptism to which the Ephesians had already submitted after hearing Paul teach “the word” of God (Acts 19:1-5)? Did Paul, the penman of this statement in Ephesians 5, not comply with the command to “be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16)? Shouldn’t it be clear that this reference to “the washing of water” in Ephesians 5:26 is the same “one baptism” that Paul had just highlighted one chapter earlier?

Do skeptics really expect us to believe that the apostle Paul was so incompetent and so prone to mistakes that he would pen such a beautiful statement as Ephesians 2:8-9 and then repeatedly contradict it throughout the same brief letter with implied and explicit references to repentance and baptism? Could it be that Paul’s teachings on faith, grace, repentance, baptism, and works are actually in perfect harmony with one another and that any perceived contradictions are mere misunderstandings on the part of the reader?

So What Does Ephesians 2:8-9 Mean?

“By Grace”

Just as it is humanly impossible to will oneself to return from physical death (once the soul has departed the body—Genesis 35:18), it is spiritually impossible to come back on one’s own accord from spiritual death. At one time the Ephesians were “dead in trespasses and sins” (2:1). They had “no hope” (2:12). Like all lost sinners, they were separated from God (Isaiah 59:2), on the path to eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9), and utterly incapable of devising and enacting a plan to save themselves—to bring themselves back into fellowship with God and have eternal life with him. “But God, Who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)…. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:4-5,8-9).

Jesus did what no human being ever could do for himself: Jesus became the perfectly holy sacrifice Who voluntarily chose to take the just punishment for our sins (“death”—Romans 6:23) upon Himself in order to appease the infinite holiness and justice of God. Indeed, we are saved “by grace”! We are saved by God! There was no and is no “manmade” or “woman-willed” way to save ourselves. Salvation is not of human ingenuity. It is not the result of some great accomplishment on the part of mankind. The plan of salvation from spiritual death is God’s plan, accomplished in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ! Plain and simple: salvation is undeserved and unearned. It is “not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

A saved sinner no more “earned salvation” than a drowning man “earns a rescue.” I know a man who was once swept out to sea without a life jacket, a life preserver, or even a piece of floating wood to hold on to—and without any way to communicate to anyone. He repeatedly tried to swim the long way back to shore, but the strong wind and outgoing tide kept taking him farther and farther away. At last, he gave up trying to swim back to shore. At this point, he was exhausted and knew that his life was in someone else’s hands. If he was going to be saved from drowning in the open ocean, it would be the result of someone else’s work and not his own.

Thankfully, only a few hours later, this helpless man’s life was saved by the U.S. Coast Guard. His physical salvation was “not of himself” and “not of his works.” Even if asked to “hold on to the life preserver,” “put on the life jacket,” or “step up into the boat,” he would simply be following the instruction to be saved. He did not celebrate his rescue by boasting in “how he saved himself.” He acknowledged his rescuers, who used their time, money, energy, and talents to graciously save him from certain death. Similarly, spiritual salvation is “by grace,” “the gift of God.”

“Through Faith…Not of Works”

Although critics of Scripture often make the “contradiction” claim about Ephesians 2:8-9, most people seem unaware of what actually constitutes a real contradiction. The Law of Contradiction is one of the most fundamental principles of logic. It states, as Aristotle noted, “that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.”¹⁰ In other words, if the same thing is said both to be and not be (1) for the same person, place, or thing, (2) at the same time, and (3) in the same sense (or respect), then a genuine contradiction exists. However, if one of the three aforementioned variables is untrue or is unknown, a person cannot logically contend that a contradiction necessarily exists.

So what does this have to do with Ephesians 2:8-9? Simply this: most people seem to assume that the word “works” (Greek ergon) is used in one (and only one) sense in the Bible; however, the word is used in at least four different ways in the New Testament.

1. There are “sinful works,” which Paul calls “works of darkness” in Ephesians 5:11 and “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19. The Ephesians obviously were not saved by “works of darkness.”
2. Paul often refers to “works” in the sense of “works of the law” of Moses (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16)—the old, annulled Law of Moses (Hebrews 8:7-13), which Paul mentions in Ephesians 2:15 as having been abolished.¹¹
3. Paul occasionally addresses meritorious works by which we are not saved (Titus 3:4-7), since, as noted earlier, sinful man could never “earn” salvation and spiritual blessings from our perfectly holy and just God.
4. Then there are works resulting from obedience of faith (James 2:14-24; Acts 26:20; Luke 17:10). These “works” are the active responses of those who trust in the gracious, saving plan and power of God.

Which “Works”?

In addition to Christians not being saved by the works of the Jewish law (Ephesians 2:15), Paul said in Ephesians 2:8 that salvation “was not of yourselves.” The apostle stressed this to Titus when he wrote that we are saved, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy” (3:5). Then he highlighted to Timothy the fact that we are saved by the “power of God,” and “not according to our works” (2 Timothy 1:8-9). Man neither orchestrated nor carried out God’s one, acceptable scheme of redemption from sin. We don’t earn salvation; it’s impossible. The overall and immediate context of Ephesians seems clear that these meritorious works (and possibly the works of the law of Moses) are the kinds of works to which Paul was referring in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Self-Contradictory?

Many skeptics assume that the “not-of-works” salvation of Ephesians 2:8-9 is an indictment on all Christian “works” or “actions,” including faith, repentance, and baptism. Skeptic Dennis McKinsey called Ephesians 2:8-9 “contradictory within itself” because (a) salvation is not of works, yet (b) salvation is through faith. He asked: “How…can it be called a gift completely divorced from any works on your part?… How can it be a gift when it must be earned?… [Y]ou must do something…in order to receive” salvation. ¹² McKinsey is exactly right that “you must do something” to receive salvation, but that “something” is not the kind of negative works Paul alluded to in Ephesians 2:8-9. McKinsey (like many others) simply confuses two different “senses” of the word “works,” and in the process wrongly assumes that there is a contradiction where none exists.

The first three aforementioned works certainly do not lead to salvation, but the last category (works resulting from obedience of faith; cf. Romans 1:5; 16:26) can be rightly called the “works of God.” This phrase does not mean works performed by God; rather, the intent is “works required and approved by God.”¹³ Consider what Jesus taught in John 6:27-29: “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life…. Then they said to Him, ‘What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Within this context in John 6, Christ made it clear that there are “works” that humans must do to receive eternal life. Moreover, the passage affirms that believing itself is a work (“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent”). Thus, McKinsey is correct that “faith” is a type of “work,” just not the type Paul mentions in Ephesians 2:9.

What Must We “Do” to Be Saved?

Is “Doing” “Earning”?

The gift of salvation is not, as McKinsey asserts, “completely divorced from any works on your part.” We must “do” something—but the “doings” (or “works”) are a part of the approved, trusting-in-God, obedient acts that Paul and the other New Testament writers consistently addressed—in perfect harmony with one another. Think about it: when Paul (the non-Christian) looked up to Jesus and asked, “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:9), Jesus did not respond by saying, “Do? There is nothing to do.” On the contrary, Jesus said there were things “to do” (Acts 22:10), including being “baptized” (22:16). Later, when Paul was imprisoned in Philippi and was asked by the jailor, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul told him to “do” something: to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31).

But how can a person “do” anything to receive the gift of salvation and it not be “earned”? Even if the works resulting from obedience of faith are not the kind of works Paul alludes to in Ephesians 2:9, doesn’t any kind of “work” (including “faith”) nullify the idea of salvation being a gift? Not at all. Think about it: If a friend wanted to give you $1,000,000,000, but said that in order to receive the billion dollars you had to pick up a check at his house, take it to the bank, sign it, and cash it, would any rational person conclude that this gift was earned? Of course not. Even though some effort was exerted to receive the gift, the effort was not a work of merit, but an action of compliance—a joyful work of obedience.

Many scriptures indicate that man’s efforts are often not categorized as works of merit. For example, God graciously gave the Israelites freedom from Egyptian bondage, but they still had to put forth some effort by walking from Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into the Wilderness of Shur (Exodus 15:22). Israel did not deserve manna from heaven; it was a free gift from God. Nevertheless, if they wanted to eat it, they were required to put forth effort in gathering it (Exodus 16; Numbers 11). Israel did not “earn” the land of Canaan (it was a gift—Deuteronomy 6:10-12,23), but they still exerted much effort (i.e., they worked) in possessing it. God gave the Israelites the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:2). But He gave it to them only after they followed His instructions and encircled the city for seven days (Hebrews 11:30). These Old Testament examples clearly teach that something can be a gift from God, even though conditions must be met in order for the gift to be received.¹⁴ That is, people must “do” something to receive the gift—namely, obey (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).

Why Different Things to Do?

Why was the Philippian jailor told to “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (16:30-31), while thousands in Acts 2 were told to “Repent…and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (2:37-38), and Paul was told to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (22:16)? Why are three different answers given to the same general question about being saved? Is the New Testament “surprisingly unclear” about “getting into heaven and avoiding hell,” as Seidensticker claims?¹⁵ Is “the biblical road to salvation…vague and conflicting,” as McKinsey alleges?¹⁶

The reason that three different answers were given to the question of salvation is because on each occasion the questioners were at different “locations” on the road to salvation. The Philippian jailor was commanded to believe in Christ, because he had not yet heard and believed the saving message of Jesus (Acts 16:31-32). It would have been pointless for Paul and Silas to command the jailor to repent or be baptized when he had not yet even heard the Gospel. If today, a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, asked a Christian the same question the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, the same answer would need to be given. The Jews on Pentecost had already heard Peter’s sermon when they asked their question about salvation (Acts 2:37). Peter knew that they already believed, and that such belief came from hearing the message he preached (cf. Romans 10:17). The Jews had passed the point of belief (being “pricked in their heart”), and were told to “repent…and be baptized” in order to receive salvation (cf. Mark 16:16).

Still, someone might wonder why Ananias neglected to tell Saul to believe or repent when he informed him about how to have his sins washed away. The reason: Saul already was a penitent believer in Christ by the time he came in contact with Ananias. Saul did not need to be told to believe or repent, since he had already done so. He knew the Lord existed, having spoken directly with Him on the road to Damascus, and he expressed a penitent attitude by praying to God and fasting for three days (Acts 9:9,11). At this point, Saul lacked only one thing: he needed to be baptized (Acts 22:16).

The reason these sinners were told three different things regarding salvation was because they were at different starting points when they asked the question, “What must I do to be saved?” The unbeliever was told to believe. The believers were told to repent. And the penitent believer was told to be baptized. The three statements may be different, but they are not contradictory. For a person to become a child of God, he or she must do all three.¹⁷

Conclusion

Just as a recipe is not meant to be read and followed in part, nor are the ingredients meant to be understood in contradiction to each other, the Bible will never be properly understood until the complementary nature of it is considered. Paul reminded the elders of the church at Ephesus that he had taught them the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), but he didn’t teach it all in one passage. Rather than cherry-picking one verse here and one verse there and forcing one’s own preferred meaning onto the text, an honest and conscientious Bible student will interpret statements in their context and in light of all that Scripture says on the matter (Psalm 119:160).

When the beautiful statement in Ephesians 2:8-9 is given a fair hearing, one discovers that it is neither self-contradictory nor inconsistent with any other statement of Scripture. Man is saved, not by works of merit, but by God’s grace through a trusting, obedient faith.¹⁸

Endnotes

¹ Dennis McKinsey (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 332.

The post Ephesians 2:8-9: Contradictory, or Perfectly Consistent? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One of the attributes of God is His rational nature. God is inherently logical, rational, and reasonable. He is a God of truth. He created humans in His own image, which includes this same rational nature. The human mind was created by God to function rationally. God’s communication to humanity presupposes this feature. The Bible was written in human language, and it was written in such a way that it assumes that its intended meanings may be understood correctly. In fact, within the Bible itself, beginning in the Old Testament, are found the hermeneutical principles by which the reader may understand the intended meanings. These principles are not “new” principles, developed by modern scholars, and unable to be known and utilized by ancient man. Rather, they were embedded in the Old Testament thousands of years ago for all who are willing to dig deeply enough into God’s Word to discover them.

This section summarizes six key principles apparent in the Old Testament that are indispensable to properly understanding the Bible. Many Bible passages demand that the reader of the Bible apply simple-but-necessary principles of interpretation in order to arrive at the meaning God intended.

Principle 1: Absolute Truth Is Attainable

Absolute, objective truth exists and can be known. The human mind can come to a knowledge of that truth. The Old Testament everywhere assumes that humans can and must come to the knowledge of absolute truth. Solomon said to “buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23). Both Isaiah and Jeremiah affirmed that people can, and must, be taught in order to come to knowledge of those things that must be known (Isaiah 54:13; Jeremiah 31:34; cf. John 6:45; 7:17). Moses stressed to the Israelites that it would be absolutely imperative for them to teach their children those things that would be necessary to please God (Deuteronomy 6:1-9). Moses also explained that the purpose of the desert hardships was to make the Israelites “know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 8:3). If all of life is to be governed by the words that proceed from God, humans are capable of comprehending those words and coming to a correct understanding of what is required of them.

Moses further pointed out that “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). Certainly, there are many things that humans cannot know—things far beyond our limited capability to understand (Romans 11:33). However, God has revealed certain truths that we are well capable of grasping, and that God expects us to comprehend. These truths “belong” to us. That is, they are directed to us, and we will be held accountable for our reaction to them. Sadly, many people dwell on matters that cannot be fully known, while they neglect those things for which they will be held responsible in eternity. No wonder God frequently issued warnings against being ignorant, uninformed, or resistant to knowing (Isaiah 1:3; 5:13; Jeremiah 9:6; Hosea 4:6).

Solomon observed that the words of God’s wisdom “are all plain to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge” (Proverbs 8:9). His wisdom claims that “those who seek me diligently will find me” (Proverbs 8:17). Could Adam and Eve know whether it was permissible for them to eat the fruit (Genesis 3:1-3)? Could Cain know what sacrifice God expected (Genesis 4:5)? Could Moses know whether he should speak to or strike the rock (Numbers 20:8-11)? These instances demonstrate that the perennial problem with humanity is not the ability to come to knowledge of God’s Word; rather, the consistent problem is the will and the desire to conform. Many other passages leave no doubt that God has a body of truth that He has made available to mankind, and He expects every person to use mental faculties and cognitive powers to understand that truth.

Principle 2: Logical Reasoning Is Required

The Old Testament also conveys the idea that in order to arrive at God’s truth, correct reasoning must be employed. Isaiah quoted God’s statement to the nation: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18). God later said: “Put Me in remembrance; let us contend together; state your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). In his farewell address to the nation, Samuel declared: “Now therefore, stand still, that I may reason with you before the Lord” (1 Samuel 12:7). Solomon insisted that “the first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). He also said, “the simple believes every word, but the prudent man considers well his steps” (Proverbs 14:15). We must use our God-given rationality to think clearly, accurately, and logically in our treatment of Scripture, as well as in sorting out the daily affairs of life. These passages teach that we both can, and must, ascertain the correct meaning of Scripture through the proper exercise of our reasoning powers.

Principle 3: Diligent Effort Must Be Expended

The task of learning what God wants us to know requires considerable effort. We must be willing to expend the time and trouble to carefully, prayerfully, and diligently analyze and examine God’s words. Moses underscored this principle in his remarks to the Israelites on the plains of Moab just prior to their entrance into the Land of Canaan. He described the task as requiring constant, consistent attention:

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

Solomon referred to the attentiveness required to remain true to God: “My son, keep your father’s command, and do not forsake the law of your mother. Bind them continually upon your heart; tie them around your neck. When you roam, they will lead you; when you sleep, they will keep you; and when you awake, they will speak with you” (Proverbs 6:20-22). This attentiveness must include an intense desire to pursue, know, and acquire truth—like the psalmist who wanted God’s laws so badly that he could almost taste them (Psalm 19:10). It was to be sought after more than fine gold (Psalm 19:10; 119:127). Most people are simply too busy, or unwilling, to expend effort to such an intensity. Life has too many distractions, and offers too many other interests. But the Bible makes clear that if we wish to understand God’s will for our lives, then arduous, persistent, aggressive effort is essential to know and do that will.

Principle 4: Beware of False Interpretation

A fourth principle found in the Bible is that we must recognize that there are incorrect interpretations and that we are capable of distinguishing the correct from the incorrect. False teachers actually do exist who misrepresent God’s Word and deceive people with incorrect interpretations. God, through Jeremiah, warned the nation: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:16). Think of the many con men and shysters throughout Bible history who sought to lead God’s people astray—from Pharaoh’s magicians (Exodus 7:11; 2 Timothy 3:8) and Ahab and Jezebel’s prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:19), to Zedekiah (1 Kings 22:11,24) and Hananiah (Jeremiah 28). God expected people to see through their charades and their erroneous ideologies, and to recognize the pure Word of God.

So it is clear that the Old Testament warns of false interpretations and misrepresentations of God’s Word. In God’s sight, there is only the truth on the one hand, and various departures from that truth on the other hand. All people are required to distinguish between truth and error, and to cling to the truth. “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

Principle 5: Remain Within Scriptural Parameters

The Bible also teaches that the interpreter must remain within the framework of Scripture, neither adding to nor subtracting from the written revelation. Moses declared in the long ago: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Solomon said: “Every word of God is pure…add not to His words, least He reprove you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). Jeremiah urged: “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it” (Jeremiah 6:16). In other words, the individual is responsible for identifying the limits of God’s directives, and then confining himself to those directives. These passages make clear that God has defined the parameters of moral, spiritual, and religious truth for humanity. He expects us to confine ourselves to His instructions in our thinking and practice.

The Old Testament is riddled with instances of people failing to conform themselves precisely to the instructions given to them by God. Cain was neither an atheist nor a reprobate. He, in fact, was a religious individual who was willing to engage in religious worship. He was also to be commended for directing his worship behavior toward the right God. Nevertheless, his slight adjustment in the specifics of worship action evoked God’s displeasure (Genesis 4:5; 1 John 3:12). Nadab and Abihu were the right men, at the right time, at the right place, with the right censers, and the right incense. Yet by using the wrong fire, they were destroyed by God (Leviticus 10:1-2). King Saul was censured twice for his unauthorized actions (1 Samuel 13:11-13; 15:19-24). Uzzah was struck dead simply for touching the Ark of the Covenant, though his apparent motive was to protect the Ark (2 Samuel 6:7). David later identified the problem by saying it happened “because we did not consult Him (God) about the proper order” (1 Chronicles 15:13). God’s previous instructions on the matter were not followed as they should have been.

Remaining within the framework of Scripture requires a proper recognition of the role of the “silence” of the Scriptures. A misunderstanding occurs in two ways: (1) some reason that if the Bible is silent concerning a particular practice (and therefore does not explicitly condemn it), they are free to engage in that practice; (2) others reason that if the Bible does not mention a practice, then they are not free to engage in that practice. But neither of these viewpoints accounts adequately for the biblical picture.

The Bible may not expressly mention a given item, and yet authorize its use. For example, Noah was told to construct a boat, without being given all of the details about how to do so (Genesis 6:14). He was authorized to achieve the task using a variety of carpentry tools. God’s silence on this particular point therefore was permissive. On the other hand, God did not explicitly forbid using poplar, cedar, or ash. Rather, He specified “gopherwood.” God’s silence was therefore restrictive in this case.

Two further examples illustrate this principle. God did not explicitly forbid Nadab and Abihu from using fire from some other source than the one divinely specified. He simply told them what fire they were to use. Use of fire from any other source was an unauthorized act, meaning it had not received God’s prior approval. The text says that they “offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Leviticus 10:1). It was not that God had told them not to do so; it was that He had not told them to do it.

In like manner, when Joshua received instructions from God regarding the proper tactics to be used in conquering the city of Jericho, God spoke in a positive fashion, specifying what they were to do. He did not tell them what they were not to do. The instructions included the act of shouting when the trumpet was sounded (Joshua 6:3-5). However, Joshua—who obviously understood the principle of remaining within the confines of God’s instructions, and grasped the concept of restrictive silence—relayed God’s instructions to the nation by offering further clarification: “Now Joshua had commanded the people, saying, “You shall not shout or make any noise with your voice, nor shall a word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I say to you, ‘Shout!’ Then you shall shout” (Joshua 6:10-11). Joshua understood that things could be forbidden by God—not because He explicitly forbade them—but because He simply gave no authority to do them. With diligent and honest study, we, too, can settle questions of interpretation and authority.

Principle 6: Maintain a Receptive Attitude

That brings us to a sixth principle for understanding the Bible. We must have the right mindset, the right attitude, a genuine desire to know the will of God, and an honest heart to accept the truth, no matter how difficult the demands of that truth might be. Solomon noted that “a wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel” (Proverbs 1:5). “Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning” (Proverbs 9:9). These passages make clear that we cannot go to Scripture with the ulterior motive of getting our way or proving our position. We must be eager to learn from Scripture what the Lord intended for us to learn. We must not be like Jeremiah’s contemporaries who defiantly asserted: “We will not walk therein” and “We will not listen” (6:16-17).

Conclusion

This extremely brief discussion of interpretation principles that are evident in the Old Testament is certainly not intended to be complete. But it shows how the Old Testament contains within itself principles by which its truth may be extracted. All accountable humans have it within their power to rise above their prejudices and presuppositions sufficiently to arrive at God’s truth—if they genuinely wish to do so. There is simply no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your interpretation.” There is only God’s interpretation and God’s meaning—and with diligent, rational study, we can arrive at the truth on any subject that is vital to our spiritual well-being.

Rather than shrug off the conflicting views and positions on various subjects, and rather than dismiss religious differences as hopeless, irresolvable, and irrelevant, we must be about the business of studying and searching God’s Book, cautiously refraining from misinterpreting and misusing Scripture. If we will give diligent and careful attention to the task with an honest heart that is receptive to the truth, we can be certain of our ability to come to the knowledge of God’s will. The Old Testament is an appropriate place to commence this quest.

The post Principles in the Old Testament For Understanding God's Will appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Most Christians who have ever tried to talk to someone about God have been asked why the Bible is so hard to understand. The idea behind this question is that if God is perfect and knows everything, and if He wants all people to know His will, then wouldn’t He have written a very simple book that everyone could easily understand? Is the Bible really hard to understand? And if it is, why would a loving God write such a book?

Before Answering, Look Closely at the Question

Christians generally take the question at face value. We feel like we need to answer it the way it is presented, because we all know that we have run across passages that are difficult to get our minds around. The fact is, however, the question is worded in a way that assumes an idea to be true that is not. It is one of those questions that, if you answer it the way it is stated, you have painted yourself into a corner. We are all familiar with such questions. Someone might ask a man, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” A “yes” or “no” answer assumes, or at least comes across as if, he was beating his wife at some point. If this man has never beaten his wife, then he needs to clarify the question. He might insist that he cannot answer the question as it is presented, since he has never beaten his wife. We can see how tricky such questions are designed to be. “Why is the Bible so hard to understand?” is one of those tricky questions. If you begin to answer it as it is presented, then you let the inquirer assume that the Bible as a whole is hard to understand. That is simply not the case. The Bible contains countless passages composed of thousands of words that are extremely easy to understand. The narrative of the wise men coming from the east to visit baby Jesus in Bethlehem is easy enough for small children to grasp (Matthew 1:18-2:12). The account of the Jewish rulers subjecting Jesus to a farce of a trial and deviously manipulating Pilate to have Him crucified is not hard to comprehend (Mark 14-15). The commandment to stop stealing and commit to respectable work is extremely easy to figure out (Ephesians 4:28). The vast majority of the Bible is rather easy to understand.

The question would be more accurately restated, “Why are some parts of the Bible hard to understand?” It certainly is true that some of the Bible is difficult to understand. The Bible itself admits as much. Peter wrote about the apostle Paul’s writings, saying, “as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).¹ The implication of this statement is that most things Paul says are quite understandable, but some things are more difficult than others. Peter goes on to explain that those who twist these difficult passages are “untaught” and “unstable.” He explains that they even do the same with aspects of the Bible (the rest of the Scriptures) that are not difficult to understand.

The situation can be illustrated by a comparison to the study of physics. Suppose a person asks, “Why is physics so hard to understand?” Anyone who has spent time in a classroom studying the equations of acceleration and other complicated mathematical formulas initially accepts the question as it is stated and tries to explain the more complicated aspects of the science. Not all aspects of physics, however, are difficult to understand. In fact, if you succeed in staying alive for an entire day, then you have a solid working idea of physics. Even young children, at an early age, learn you cannot jump off tall buildings, step in front of moving cars, dive face first onto concrete, throw baseballs at glass windows, stand under a falling tree, or jump off a bike speeding down a hill. The concept of gravity, though it can be broken down into complicated equations, can still be understood on a basic level by young children. Sure, the study of subatomic particles, relativity, or quantum physics can get cerebral rather quickly. It is still the case, however, that most people understand a huge amount of physics. Even so with the Bible, while it might be difficult to pinpoint who the number 666 is supposed to represent (Revelation 13:18), or who the man of sin represents (2 Thessalonians 2:3), much of the Bible is very easy to understand. Love your neighbor, forgive others, feed the poor, help the sick, take care of widows and orphans, and pray for your enemies are instructions even the youngest among us comprehend.

You Are Only Expected to Know What You Should Know

Someone might ask, however, that if there are difficult parts of the Bible, then isn’t it the case that all people must know even the most difficult parts in order to understand what God wants from them? The Bible answers that question by explaining that each person is only responsible for the aspects of God’s Word that they should know. It is common sense that a person who has been a Christian for 30 years and has been given access to the Bible that entire time would understand God’s Word better than a person who is a new Christian and has just been exposed to the Word of God. The Bible illustrates this idea by comparing those who have had little opportunity to digest God’s Word to babies who need milk and not solid food (1 Peter 2:2). As the “child” in the Word grows, he or she should progress to understanding more about God and His Word and begin to comprehend the more difficult aspects of the Bible. Sometimes, however, people who should be understanding more are not growing as they should. As the Hebrews writer scolded his readers, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14). Notice that the author recognized that at one time, his readers were “newborns” and were only responsible for grasping the milk of the Word. That time was past, however, and they had not trained themselves to understand more difficult aspects of the spiritual world. God will never hold people responsible for understanding more of His will than their life situations and capabilities afford. A 13-year-old who has just become a Christian will not comprehend as much about God and the spiritual world as a faithful Christian who has been studying the Bible for 50 years.

7 Common Reasons People Misunderstand the Bible

1: They Do Not Read It

The primary reason many people do not understand the Bible is simply because they do not read it. Many people want to. They make resolutions to. They buy and read other books about it. They talk about reading it. They even start the beginning of each year determined to make it through the Bible. Sadly, however, all the resolve and talk seem to accomplish very little when it comes to actually reading the Bible. Ironically, people often complain that they do not read the Bible because it is difficult to understand. Of course it will be somewhat difficult to understand if we do not read it.

Any book that contains helpful information of any sort must be read in order to be understood. The Bible writers made this point perfectly clear. Paul said that God had revealed a message to him that he then put in written form to the Ephesians. He then stated, “by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:4). There were no hidden codes in the original language of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. No special formulas were needed to uncover the “mystery” of Christ. They simply needed to read Paul’s inspired message recorded in the book of Ephesians (and the New Testament).

This idea of reading the Word carried with it an understanding that some who would be exposed to the Word could not read. In Revelation 1:3, the text states, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.” Many early church worship assemblies included a time when a reader would stand and read Scripture aloud, as is evident from Revelation 1:3. Both the listeners and the readers were then challenged to “keep the things” (obey) written in the Bible. It may be true that a person is a poor reader, or even has poor eyesight or another physical disability that keeps him from reading. The point, however, is clear: take the Word of God into your mind through reading or listening and apply it to your life. In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul told Timothy, “Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” The NIV and ESV both translate this verse using “public reading,” meaning that Timothy was to publicly read the Scriptures to the Church regularly.

How is it that the successful stockbroker knows which stock to buy, when to buy it, and when to sell it? He studies the market, looks at data, listens to podcasts, and immerses himself in the information. How is it that the extreme couponer knows how to buy certain foods at certain stores and clip and cut coupons to save thousands of dollars each year? She pours over the papers, the store ads, and the on-line sale material, spending hours just getting ready to go to the store. How does a successful doctor learn to treat patients with diseases or difficulties that the doctor herself has never seen? She studies the literature, reviews the latest test results, and looks to research and journals that provide the most up-to-date material on the issue. In a similar way, if you want to understand the Bible, you must “be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). In order to understand the Bible, we simply must read it.

2: The “Flip-and-Point” Method

Many of us have done it. We will be lying in bed about ready to go to sleep, but we feel the need to have our “daily dose” of Bible. So, we roll over, grab our Bible off the bedside table and think that the Lord will somehow “show us” what He wants us to know by directing the Bible to flip open to the proper page for us at this particular time in our lives. We then flip the Bible open, drop our finger on the page, and begin to read. What happens when we flip to Job 22:3 and read Eliphaz’s comments, “Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it gain to Him that you make your ways blameless?” Eliphaz goes on to accuse Job, “Is not your wickedness great, and your iniquity without end? For you have taken pledges from your brother for no reason, and stripped the naked of their clothing” (22:5).² Or what do we do when we turn to Psalm 137:9 and read, “Happy shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against the stone!”?³ Or “Therefore I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind. Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me” (Ecclesiastes 2:17-18).

Such an unsystematic approach to the Bible will not fail to confuse even the most sincere. Imagine trying this flip-and-point method with the owner’s manual to your new phone. You might be trying to turn the phone on, but you flip to the section that tells about how to download pictures. This method would be a ridiculous way to figure out how to change a tire from your car manual while you are stranded on the side of the road with a flat. Imagine a poor algebra student practicing the flip method early in the semester and flipping to the back of the book and “diving in,” trying to grasp the concepts. In order to understand the Bible, we should make a dedicated effort to reading all of it in context in a systematic way. Of course, many passages in the Bible would be perfectly fine to read independently of others and require very little context or understanding of surrounding material. But a habitual flip-and-point approach will inevitably lead to misunderstanding and frustration.

3: Unfamiliar Ancient Customs and Practices

Moses penned the first five books of the Old Testament in the mid-1400s B.C. The last books of the New Testament were finished by A.D. 100. That means that in modern times, we are separated from even the latest parts of the Bible by almost 2,000 years. At times, the customs and practices of the ancient world are unfamiliar to us, which leads us to misunderstand what the text is trying to say. For instance, Proverbs 20:10 says, “Diverse weights and diverse measures, they are both alike, an abomination to the Lord.” The ESV says, “Unequal weights and unequal measures.” What is so bad about “diverse” or “unequal” measures? Why does God hate them? In ancient times, merchants often bought and sold materials such as grain, gold, and silver that needed to be weighed. Dishonest merchants would have two sets of weights. They would use one set for buying and one set for selling. Suppose a farmer brought his grain to the merchant and the broker agreed to buy one pound of grain. The crooked buyer would reach into his “buying” weight bag and pull out the weight marked “One Pound.” The weight was actually slightly heavier than one pound, so the merchant would get more than a pound of grain for the price of a pound. When the merchant went to sell the grain, he would pull out his “selling” weight marked “One Pound.” This weight would be less than a pound. So when he sold the “pound” it was actually less than a pound. The transaction of buying “one” pound and selling “one” pound would gain the corrupt businessman more grain when it should have been an exactly equal trade. The two differing weights were marked the same, but their weights were different. Knowing this ancient custom helps us understand that the Proverbs writer is condemning corrupt, dishonest business practices.

4: Confusing and Inaccurate Translations

We have all heard the term “lost in translation.” The process of translating a message from one language to another language is a tricky business. Those who have taken on the responsibility of translating the Bible from its original languages have often taken the job very seriously and taken great pains to get the translations as accurate as possible. The end product has been a number of very useful and accurate versions and translations of the Bible. For all that effort, however, it is important to understand that there is no perfect translation. The original message that God inspired directly to the original writers that is contained in the original manuscripts of the Bible is God-breathed, but translations of that message are not. Therefore, we sometimes see poor translations of certain passages causing confusion and misunderstanding.

One such passage is found in Acts 2:29. In this context, Peter preached the first recorded Gospel sermon to those in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. He used Old Testament prophecy to verify that Christ died, but that He also rose from the grave. He quoted from Psalm 16 and stated that the writer of that psalm, King David, “seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption” (Acts 2:29, KJV). The picture that this translation of Acts 2:29 paints is that Jesus went to hell, where the sinful lost will be consigned for eternity. In fact, this verse has been used to teach that those in hell at that time were given a second chance to repent at the teachings of Jesus. This unfortunate translation has further lent itself to the concept of purgatory and the idea that once a person is dead, there will be a second chance to obey God in the afterlife.⁴

The inaccuracy lies in the use of the word “hell.” The Greek text actually uses the word hades. Hades is the word for the realm of all the dead. It is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol, and it makes no differentiation between those who die in a saved state or those who die in a lost state. It is simply the realm of all the dead, whether righteous or wicked. The concept of hell, however, is associated with the wicked dead. We read in Mark 9:43, “If your right hand makes you sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed, than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” This verse discusses hell, but it does not use the word hades (the realm of all the dead). It uses the word gehenna, which is where the “fires of hell” will burn forever. Jesus never went to gehenna. In fact, just the opposite is the case. While on the cross, the penitent thief asked Jesus to remember him when the Lord came into His Kingdom. Jesus responded to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). When Jesus died on the cross, He did not go to hell, He went to Paradise.

To further understand the situation, we turn our attention to Luke 16:19-31. This text contains the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man apparently was greedy and apathetic to Lazarus’ poor, pitiful condition. The text explains that they both died. They both entered into the realm of hades, the realm of all dead. They are, however, in different places in hades. Lazarus is in the realm of the dead in a place referred to as “Abraham’s bosom” (16:22). This would be the Paradise that Jesus mentioned to the thief on the cross. The text details the fate of the rich man, “And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom” (16:23). Notice the place of “torments” was located in hades along with Abraham’s bosom. The text further notes that there was no way to cross from torment to Abraham’s bosom and that both fates of the dead Lazarus and rich man were sealed for all eternity (16:27). Going back to Acts 2, when Jesus died, He did not go to torments or gehenna, He went to hades, the realm of all the dead. Hades is currently divided into two sections: Paradise (Abraham’s bosom) and torments. Jesus went to Paradise, not torments. The mistranslation that Jesus went “to hell” confuses this situation and lends itself to any number of misunderstandings.

This type of misunderstanding and mistranslation can happen with the simplest matters. For instance, I once sat in a Bible class discussion on the life of Samson. The teacher had been telling about Samson’s poor choices of marrying a Philistine wife. Samson was forced to leave her for a time, but he wanted to see her again. The text explains, “But it came to pass within a while after, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber” (Judges 15:1, KJV). The teacher proceeded to explain that the two had a child together and that the “kid” was the result of their previous union. In fact, the kid was a large part of the teacher’s discussion. I was reading from the NKJV at the time, which states, “it happened that Samson visited his wife with a young goat.” The “kid” in this context was not a human child, it was a gift for his wife. Young goat is the proper translation here.

Did you know that unicorns are in the Bible? Numbers 23:22 says, “God brought them out of Egypt, he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn” (KJV). The prophet Isaiah wrote, “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls” (34:7, KJV). When you think of the word “unicorn,” what comes to your mind? If you are like most of us, you picture a perfectly white horse with a spiraling single horn projecting from the center of its majestic head. You probably also associate such a “creature” with magical fairy tales. Is the Bible referring to such a mythical creature? Again, this is just a case of a poor translation. The actual word in these verses is the Hebrew word re’em. It could be referring to a one-horned animal such as a rhinoceros, but most translators who have studied the word believe it is simply a wild ox.⁵ There is no hint of mythical, magical one-horned horses in these verses. Imagine the poor third-grade girl whose favorite creature is a unicorn coming across this unfortunate translation in the Bible! As was stated earlier, there are no perfect translations. The above examples are from the King James Version, but each translation has it’s own issues. It is the job of the sincere Bible student to “be diligent” and put the work into finding out the real meaning of the text. Most of the time, other English translations render the meaning rather easily. Sometimes, however, it takes a little more work to ferret out what is being said.

5: Misleading Teachers

It is sad but true that one of the primary reasons people misunderstand the Bible is because they have been misled by their teachers. The Bible is filled with warnings about false teachers who will lead many away from the truth. Paul warned Timothy, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:1-2). Paul told the Ephesian elders, “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). Luke, the writer of Acts, explains that during the missionary work of Paul, Jewish teachers who opposed him “stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren” (Acts 14:2). Cult leaders such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate), provide testimony to the fact that persuasive teachers, tragically, can mislead their followers. Founders of religious movements such as Joseph Smith of the Mormons and Muhammed of Islam show the power of false teaching and its ability to influence the masses.⁶

How can a person guard against being led away by false teaching? I once was at a Summer Camp where the late Jerry Jenkins was addressing this very issue. He had been preaching the Gospel for decades at the time and was an excellent communicator. The illustration went something like this. He stood before the gathering of young people and held up a Bible. “How many of you believe this Bible is 18 inches long?” The Bible was much smaller than that, as most of the audience could see, and no hands went up. He then talked about the importance of a standard and how we can’t just make up lengths; instead, we need something to measure them by. He pulled out a tape measure and put it next to the Bible and measured it. “Eight inches. Now how many of you in the audience believe the Bible is eight inches long?” Virtually the entire audience raised their hands. After all, he had measured the Bible using a legitimate standard. To the audience’s surprise, however, he exclaimed, “You are all wrong.” Then he took the tape measure and the Bible to a young person on the front row and asked the person to read the length—seven inches. Dr. Jenkins then explained that we should never accept what a person tells us the standard says. Instead, we should measure and see for ourselves. His point was clear: Just because someone tells you that the Bible says or means this or that, does not make it so. You should not take their word for it. You should check it out for yourself. This mode of operation is just what the Jews in Berea followed when Paul and Silas came to their city to preach. The text states, “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). The only way to avoid being led astray by false teaching is to compare the teaching to what the Scriptures say.

6: Heart Issues

We all like to think that we come to the biblical text with sincere hearts, wanting nothing more than to hear what God says to us. If we are honest, however, we know that certain teachings are harder to “understand” than others. It is not that the wording is confusing. It is that the teaching would force us to change the way we think or act in ways we would find very difficult. It may be that Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:1-9 means that a person would need to get out of an adulterous relationship. It may mean that what a person’s parents taught and lived is unscriptural, and to accept the Bible’s teaching on a subject would be to admit that one’s parents were mistaken. An accurate understanding of a text might mean what a person has taught thousands of people has been wrong, and the responsibility for such false teaching would be extremely difficult for that person to shoulder. Of all the reasons that people “misunderstand” the Bible, this one is probably the most common. We often come to the Bible, not to hear what God is actually saying, but to be justified in what we have already decided God should be saying.

This situation is not new. The book of Jeremiah provides an excellent example of what often happens. The Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and took thousands of Israelites captive. They left a scattered remnant in the land. Those who were left gathered together to talk to Jeremiah about their options. They were trying to decide if they should flee to Egypt or stay in the land of Israel. They brought the question to Jeremiah to take before the Lord. They said, “Please, let our petition be acceptable to you, and pray for us to the Lord your God…that the Lord your God may show us the way in which we should walk and the thing we should do” (Jeremiah 42:2-3). The prophet agreed to take it before God and to come back to them with a divine answer. “Then they said to Jeremiah, ‘Let the Lord be a true and faithful witness between us, if we do not do according to everything which the Lord your God sends us by you. Whether it be pleasing or displeasing, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God to whom we send you” (42:5-6). What a commendable attitude these people had. They professed sincerity and complete obedience to whatever God would tell them to do.

After 10 days, God spoke to Jeremiah and gave him directions for the people. God, through Jeremiah, told the people to stay in the land of Israel. He specifically and adamantly warned them not to go to Egypt. After Jeremiah delivered the message, the people responded, “You speak falsely! The Lord our God has not sent you to say, ‘Do not go to Egypt to sojourn there’” (43:2). They then disobeyed the message and fled to Egypt. Jeremiah boldly declared, “For you were hypocrites in your hearts when you sent me to the Lord your God, saying, ‘Pray for us to the Lord our God, according to all that the Lord your God says, so declare to us and we will do it’” (42:20). How tragic it is that many people, like the Israelites, profess sincerity and an honest desire to know what God says. Their real approach, however, is not to find out what God is saying, but to find passages and ideas that justify what they already believe. They often “misunderstand” passages that teach something they do not want to hear.

One of the most powerful examples of this attitude happened in a Bible study focused on the plan of salvation. The subject of water baptism arose. The Christian conducting the study went to verses that discuss the importance and necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins and salvation.⁷ The man he was studying with vehemently denied that baptism was essential for salvation. He said that people are saved by faith alone and that no works, such as baptism, could be necessary for salvation. In fact, he said that the Bible does not teach that baptism saves a person. The Christian directed him to 1 Peter 3:21 and asked him to read the verse. The man turned to the passage and read, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also not save us (not the putting away…).” The Christian politely interrupted and asked the man to start at the beginning and read it again. He read, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also not save us (not the…).” Again, the man was asked to read the passage, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also not….” Because of his preconceived notion on baptism, he mentally supplied the word not to the text. The text actually reads, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.”⁸ He supplied what he thought the text should say, and not what the text does say. This is a rather dramatic example. Most people don’t physically change the text as they read it. Many do, however, alter the meaning of the text in their mind to fit something they already believe. Let us all strive to avoid such an attitude and heed the words of James, when he said: “Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21).

7: Some Parts of the Bible are Difficult

Even the most sincere Bible students readily admit that there are portions of the Bible that are difficult to understand. As stated earlier, the Bible itself admits as much—“in which are some things hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). It is tempting to respond to this fact with anxiety and wonder why a loving God would make anything in His Word difficult to understand. With a moment’s pause and consideration, however, we can see the wisdom of this. First, as noted earlier, we know that God will not hold people responsible for understanding ideas that they are incapable of grasping. God is a fair and righteous judge Who, as Abraham reminded us, always does that which is right (Genesis 18:25). Second, remember that we grow in our understanding and knowledge as we learn the Word and apply it in our lives. If you are maturing as a Christian, you will know and understand more about God and spiritual truth a year from now than you know now. That process will continue as you age. Third, if it is true that a maturing Christian will grow in knowledge and understanding his or her entire life, that must mean that there are aspects of the spiritual world and God that are so deep they could occupy even the most brilliant, sincere, and dedicated Christians for an entire lifetime. In God’s wisdom, He provided His Word which can be understood by elementary children, but can be read and studied by the most advanced scholar for decades. Isn’t that exactly what we would expect from an all-knowing, all-loving God? That fact should lead us to pray to the Lord, as David did so long ago, “Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law” (Psalm 119:18).

Conclusion

“Why is the Bible hard to understand?” It is a question that many have asked. Before answering it, we must make sure we get the question right. The Bible is not hard to understand. Some parts of it are, but the bulk of it is rather straightforward. Unfortunately, the Bible is often misunderstood, due to the fact that many don’t read it. They may have a poor translation, they may not come to the text with an honest heart, or any number of other causes. It should be the goal of every truth seeker to diligently study God’s Word and to spend intentional effort and time in a systematic approach to the Bible. Ultimately, on the last day, our understanding of God’s Word will be of utmost importance. As Jesus foretold while on Earth: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). There will be no pop quiz or novel information that God will demand us to know. He has not hidden any secret codes or mystical star readings. On the contrary, through the Bible, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).

Endnotes

The post "Why is the Bible So Hard to Understand?" appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Several years ago I asked a gentleman if he would be interested in a personal Bible study. He responded to my question by asserting that he knew John 3:16 very well and that John 3:16 was all the Bible he needed. He seemed confident that he was saved by Jesus because he “believed” in Jesus. I have received this same basic response from various individuals through the years. They have read or heard the beautiful, awe-inspiring, truthful words of John 3:16, perhaps many times. And they seem convinced that, since they acknowledge (or mentally accept the factuality of) the existence of Jesus as the Son of God, then they are saved from their sins and will receive eternal life at the end of time. Enough said. Case closed. That’s it: “God is a loving God. And since I ‘believe’ in Jesus, I’m not going to perish, but will receive eternal life.”

An Awe-inspiring Verse…But God Gave Us More Than One

John 3:16 has undoubtedly been a favorite verse of millions of Christians through the centuries—and rightly so! It is a tremendous statement from our omnibenevolent God. John 3:16 beautifully encapsulates the theme of the entire Bible: God loved humanity (His willfully wayward offspring) so much that He gave the greatest gift He could possibly give, and the only gift that has the power to save man from sin—the perfect sacrifice, the Son of God—and anyone who believes in Him will be saved from punishment and will receive eternal life.

I love John 3:16. It is from the mind of God. It is true. And it is a great summary of the Gospel of Christ. But it is not the only verse God gave to man. It is not the only verse the Holy Spirit inspired man to write. It is not the only soul-saving truth that Jesus ever uttered or that John ever wrote.¹ The psalmist proclaimed: “The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of your righteous judgments endures forever” (119:160). Paul wrote that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus said that the Spirit of truth would guide the apostles “into all truth” (John 16:13), which they subsequently preached and penned (Ephesians 3:1-5). Paul declared “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Both Moses and John warned about adding to or taking away from God’s Word (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32;² Revelation 22:18-19). When a person emphasizes only one sentence of Scripture to the exclusion of all others, he is, in essence, disrespecting and rejecting everything else that God revealed for man’s eternal benefit, including many truths that help to interpret other divine statements correctly.

What father is pleased with his son who listens only to 1% of what he says? What teacher will pass a student who completes only 1% of the assigned readings? What employer will tolerate workers content with knowing only 1% of what they need to know—even if that 1% included the most fundamental knowledge of the business?

If John 3:16 were “enough,” why did Jesus teach so much more? Why did John write so much more (in the Gospel of John, as well as 1, 2, and 3 John, and Revelation)? And if the Holy Spirit was content with man only knowing John 3:16, why did He inspire men to pen thousands of other eternally beneficial statements (2 Peter 1:20-21)? Both logic and the Bible demand more than a “one-verse Christian.”

The Folly of One-Word and One-Verse Interpretations

One Word…Without Context?

Whether you consult an English dictionary or a Greek lexicon, most words have more than one meaning, and some words have a plethora of meanings.³ In fact, according to Guinness World Records, “The word with the most meanings in English is the verb ‘set’, with 430 senses listed in the Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary… The word commands the longest entry in the dictionary at 60,000 words.”⁴ Some words can function as both a noun and a verb, depending on how they are used within a given context.⁵ Other words can be used as almost total opposites. For example, the word “overlook” can mean “to inspect,” or it can mean “to ignore.”⁶ The only way to understand words correctly is to understand them in their context.

This fundamental truth of interpretation certainly applies to Scripture. Even very basic words, which the Bible writers used hundreds or thousands of times, must be carefully considered. The English verb “know”⁷ (from the Hebrew yada and the Greek ginosko) is found well over 1,000 times in the New King James Version. Many times it is used in the sense of merely being aware of something or someone. At other times, it is used in the more intensified sense of being very informed about, and even experienced.⁸ Sometimes it is even used to refer to sexual relations (Genesis 4:17; Matthew 1:25). One simply cannot know what “know” means without context. “One-word interpretations”⁹ (with all due respect) are ignorant and dangerous.

One Verse…Without Context?

“Judge not, that you be not judged.” “I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me.” “Ask, and it will be given to you.” What do these verses¹⁰ actually mean? Are we never to make judgments?¹¹ Can Christians expect to be so strong that we can lift 10 tons of weight if we so desired (for whatever reason)? Should we actually expect to receive anything that we desire from our “genie” in heaven?¹² The simple fact is, truly understanding one verse of Scripture to the exclusion of all others is as futile and perilous as thinking we can understand a single word without any context. This is certainly true of John 3:16.

Indeed, John wrote “that whoever believes in Him [Jesus] should not perish but have eternal life.” But what does it mean to “believe” in Jesus? That’s easy, right? Everyone knows what it means to “believe in” something or someone. And if not, a person can quickly consult a dictionary and discover that believing can mean merely “to consider to be true or honest,” or “to hold as an opinion,” or to “suppose” or “think.”¹³ These are some of the leading modern definitions and common usages of the English word “believe.” Thus, many conclude, without further knowledge of the Scriptures, or without giving further thought even to other definitions of the modern English term “believe,”¹⁴ that all a person must do to receive eternal life is simply to “consider,” “suppose,” or “think” that Jesus is the Son of God.

“Believing” and the Purpose of the Gospel of John

We certainly do not want to diminish the necessity and eternal importance of a sinner learning about Jesus and moving from (a) not knowing anything about Him, to (b) coming to understand and accept the evidence for His divinity. A sinner simply cannot be saved by the perfectly just and holy God without “considering” the sinless, loving, sacrificial Savior¹⁵—“The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Over the last 2,000 years, billions of people have tragically dismissed the fact-based, soul-saving Gospel of Christ. Yet John affirms that Jesus is “God,” “the word,” “the lamb,” “the bread of life,” “the light of the world,” “the door,” “the good shepherd,” “the resurrection and the life,” “the way, the truth, and the life,” “the true vine,” and “the Christ, the Son of God.”¹⁶

John doesn’t merely suggest that Jesus is divine, he writes for the stated purpose of proving such. “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:30-31). John arranged his account of the Good News around seven of Jesus’ miracles,¹⁷ including His walking on water, healing of a man born blind, and raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus performed miracles (and John recorded them) in order to prove that Jesus was (and is) the Son of God. In response to a group of Jews who inquired about whether or not He was the Christ, Jesus replied,

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me…. If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him (John 10:25,37-38).

On another occasion Jesus defended His deity, saying, “[T]he works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36). While on Earth, Jesus was “attested… by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him” (Acts 2:22, NASB). As would be expected from the One Who claimed to be God incarnate (John 1:1-3,14; 10:30), Scripture records (and John especially so) that Jesus performed miracles throughout His ministry in an effort to provide sufficient proof of His divine message and nature.

For any of the billions of atheists, agnostics, skeptics, Jews, and Muslims around the world to be saved from their sins, they must first listen to and learn of (John 6:45) the powerful defense (apologia) John penned—that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20:31). “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Matthew 13:9). But not just “hear,” let him “believe.” But what does it mean to “believe”?

Let the Bible Explain “Believing”

What do you think it means “to believe”? In one very real sense, it doesn’t matter what you or I think; it only matters what God says and what God means. The actual, true explanation of the text is ultimately all that matters. If there is a right interpretation, then that particular, correct explanation should be the only interpretation we seek. And such a correct understanding is far from hopeless. Similar to most everyday conversations we have with family members, coworkers, classmates, and clerks, where we generally easily understand what the words in conversations mean, we can properly understand the words of Scripture (especially as we diligently and carefully interpret them). But again, we must allow Scripture to interpret itself (as much as possible) and not be deceived by our own preferences and preconceived ideas.

Like most words, the noun “faith”/“belief” (from the Greek pistis) and the verb “to believe” (from the Greek pisteuo) are used in Scripture in different senses. The words “believe” and “not believe” can certainly refer merely to acknowledging something as being true (evident) or untrue. In Romans 14:2, in a discussion about liberty and matters of opinion, Paul referred to one who “believes he may eat all things.” This particular “faith” or “belief” was an understanding of the fact that Christians are not bound by the dietary laws of the Old Testament. The apostle John detailed the Pharisees’ interrogation of the blind man whom Jesus healed and noted that “the Jews did not believe concerning him…until they called the parents” (John 9:18). These interrogators did not think or consider that he was telling the truth or that the thing was possible. Recall that when Saul went to Jerusalem after becoming a Christian and “tried to join the disciples” that “they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26). These individuals did not think that such a prominent persecutor of Christians had actually become a Christian.

James 2:19 provides perhaps the clearest example of the need to carefully consider the terms “belief” (pistis) and “believe” (pisteuo), and not to assume that a real, saving “belief” in Jesus is merely an “understanding” or “acknowledgment” of Him. James wrote: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” Notice that James parallels the “belief” of demons with the “faith” of some “believers.” Individuals who acknowledge the fact that “there is one God…do well,” since such recognition is the most foundational pillar of Christianity.¹⁸ However, the mere intellectual recognition of the existence of the one true God is an insufficient faith. (A “faith alone” type of “faith” will not save.) Mark records one unclean spirit that even confessed that Jesus was “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). Indeed, he acknowledged the truth about Jesus. He had a type of “faith,” but certainly not a saving faith. Therefore, as James effectively argued, any person who assents to the existence of God and Jesus “believes” in one respect—but only in the sense that “demons believe.” Yet demons are not saved. Thus, it logically follows, neither are those who “merely believe” (i.e., “consider” or “think”) that Jesus is the Son of God.

Recall also that many of the rulers of the Jews “believed” in Jesus, “but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:42-43). Did these men “believe”? In one sense, yes: they considered Jesus to be the Messiah. But did they have a real, God-approved, saving faith? Surely not, since Jesus had earlier asked, “How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44). “Believers” who prefer the approval and praise of men are showboating charlatans, not faithful believers in Christ (Matthew 23:5; 6:1-4). A “belief” in Jesus that is not confessed is a shallow, shameful “faith,” not the commendable faith of the saved.¹⁹

Allow John Chapter 3 to Explain “Believing” in John 3:16

If a man says “Shoot!” is he using the word as an imperative statement (a command) or as a frustrated exclamation? If we discover that it is a command, what does he mean? Does he mean to shoot a gun, or shoot heroin, or shoot a ball? And even if we discover that the command is more specific: “Shoot the ball!” does that mean to shoot a basketball, a soccer ball, or a billiard ball? If the statement is still more specific, “Shoot the ball toward the correct goal,” we still do not know if the instruction has to do with a basketball or a soccer ball. Without more information, without context, we simply cannot know.

Twentieth-century American author and children’s book illustrator John McCloskey once stated, “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”²⁰ Many make the assumption that God always means what they think He means rather than what He said (and explained) He meant. In particular, it seems many people within Christendom consider the “believing” of John 3:16 that saves man from his sins is a mere acceptance of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and “my personal Savior.” Yet, without more information than is provided in this one sentence, and especially without context, a person simply cannot know for sure.

The best place to begin to ensure we have a more thorough and proper understanding of the term “believe” in John 3:16 is John 3. The 36 verses in this chapter can be read in three minutes, and yet the deep, life-changing, soul-stirring truths found therein can be meditated upon for a lifetime.

John 3:14-15

In the immediate, previous statement to John 3:16, Jesus referred back to a moment in Israelite history when God punished the ungrateful, complaining Israelites with venomous snakes (Numbers 21). After many died from being bitten by the serpents, the people of Israel confessed their sins and asked Moses to pray to God and intercede on their behalf. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived” (Numbers 21:8-9).

Jesus compared Moses lifting up the bronze serpent in Number 21 with the Son of Man being “lifted up,” adding that “whoever believes in Him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15, ESV). Carefully consider that the afflicted Israelites in Number 21 could learn of the critically important, life-saving truth of the bronze serpent and yet still not be healed. They could even “believe” (in the sense of mentally assenting to the truth) that if they looked upon the bronze serpent they could be healed, and yet stillnot be healed. Unless they believed in a deeper sense, and (a) actually left the comfort of their tent dwelling, (b) walked (or were carried) through (at least a portion of) the vast camp (which was comprised of hundreds of thousands of Israelites—cf. Numbers 1:46), (c) opened their eyes, and (d) looked in the direction of and literally upon the bronze serpent, they would not be physically healed by the Great Healer of their deadly condition.

Similarly, anyone who is spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and who is “without Christ” (2:12), must look upon the Son of Man and “believe” in Him. This “belief” is no more a mere mental acknowledgment of Jesus being the only answer to the sin problem, than it was for the Israelites to acknowledge and genuinely believe that the bronze serpent was the answer to their deadly physical disorder. God is the Healer, but He only heals those who faithfully follow His approved prescription.

John 3:5

Interestingly, in this same conversation with Nicodemus, only 10 brief verses earlier, Jesus stated, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Notice that Jesus required something of those who desire entrance into the soul-saving, spiritual kingdom of God (cf. Matthew 25:34): they had to be born again—of water and the Spirit. Jesus doesn’t say that one merely mentally “believes” an important truth for entrance into God’s kingdom. He certainly doesn’t say to repeat “the sinner’s prayer” for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Jesus stresses a serious requirement: “unless” one follow His directions, “he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

So what does it mean to be “born of water and the Spirit”? Perhaps the better question to ask is, “Did God give us any indicators in Scripture to further explain Jesus’ instructions to Nicodemus?” Could it be that the inspired apostle John was referring to water baptism? He previously noted three times that John the baptizer immersed sinners in water (John 1:26,31,33) as he preached about the coming Kingdom (Matthew 3:2). John highlighted the fact that, after Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:1-21, Jesus and His disciples went to Judea and “baptized” (3:22). John then immediately referenced John the baptizer again, this time noting that he was “baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there” (3:23). Finally, John the apostle remarked at the very beginning of the next chapter that “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (4:1-2). Given the fact that so many Jews in Jerusalem and in “all the land of Judea” were being baptized by John the baptizer (Mark 1:5), as well as Jesus’ disciples, and considering the apostle John’s frequent mention of immersion in water, not to mention the dozens of times that water baptism is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, doesn’t it make sense that Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5? What other action in the New Testament involving water is associated with entering the Kingdom of God?

Paul indicated that Christians have been sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). He also taught that “by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Peter noted that we have been “born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). James wrote that God “begat” (KJV) or “brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures” (1:18). And Jesus said we must be “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). It seems biblically consistent to conclude that the Holy Spirit’s divine “seed” (i.e., His Word/Gospel—Luke 8:11) is planted into the minds of men and works powerfully in their hearts to produce a life-changing understanding of Christ, as well as his own life, which leads to immersion in water in order to enter God’s kingdom.

Still, even if a person concludes that he simply does not understand Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, he surely must admit that Jesus’ instructions in John 3:5 do not harmonize well with the shallow, life-unaltering, mere acknowledgement-like view of “belief” in John 3:16.

John 3:36

In the final verse of the chapter, John makes a very revealing contrast that helps to elucidate further the saving-faith of John 3:16. Unfortunately, the specific contrast is unclear in some versions. For example, the NKJV reads: “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). The KJV likewise contrasts “believing” with “not believing.” The underlying Greek terms, however, are actually different. John did not contrast pisteuo and ouk pisteuo—“believing” and “not believing” (cf. John 9:18). Instead, John actually contrasted pisteuo and apeitheo—one who “believes” in Jesus with the person who “does not obey” Him (ESV, ASV, NASB, RSV). Thus, to really “believe” in Jesus is to fully submit to Him—to obey Him. The Greek lexicographer Joseph Thayer appropriately commented on the verb pisteuo (“to believe”) and explained that when it is used “especially of the faith by which a man embraces Jesus,” it means “a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah—the divinely appointed author of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, conjoined with obedience to Christ.”²¹

The apostle Peter similarly contrasted the “believing” with the “disobedient,” saying, “This precious value, then, is for you who believe (pisteuo). But for those who disbelieve (apisteo), ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone,’ and, ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense’; for they stumble because they are disobedient (apeitheo) to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed” (1 Peter 2:7-8, NASB). The Hebrews writer also used these terms (or derivatives thereof) in an enlightening manner when explaining that the Israelites were not allowed into the Promised Land because they “did not obey” (3:18; apeitheo). Yet the next verse states: “So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief” (3:19; apistia). And then six verses later, in Hebrews 4:6, the writer declared that they “did not enter because of disobedience” (apeitheia). When the Bible is allowed to explain itself (both in John 3 and elsewhere),²² we learn that a real, trusting, saving faith in God is an obedient faith.²³

John 3:18-21

A fourth indicator in John 3 that “believing” and “obeying” are closely linked (and that a mere internal conviction is not intended) is found in verses 18-21:

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

He who does “not believe” in Jesus loves the darkness and practices evil and does not follow the light. He who really “believes,” on the other hand, “does the truth” and so “comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” Elsewhere the apostle John wrote: “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him [God],’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4).

The irrationality of the position that a person is saved from his sins by “faith alone” (apart from any act of obedience) is apparent in the fact that God commands man to believe in Him. And thus to believe in God is to be obedient to a command of God. As John wrote in 1 John 3:23: “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.” So, to not believe is to disobey God, and to believe is to obey. In fact, Jesus stated in John 6:29, to “believe in Him whom He sent” is “the work of God.”²⁴

A Critical Figure of Speech to Consider

If Bible students fail to recognize the inspired writers’ use of various figures of speech, it will be impossible to correctly understand many sections of Scripture. Just as English-speaking Americans are expected to properly interpret metaphors (“Life is a rollercoaster”), sarcasm (“You don’t say”), and hyperbolic expressions (“I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”), Bible students must also be aware that Scripture contains many figures of speech—“They’re everywhere!”²⁵

One common figure of speech (which has a not-so-common name) is known as synecdoche: where a part is put for the whole, or the whole for the part. A person showing off his car might say, “Check out my wheels.” “Wheels” are relatively small parts of the car yet the term is used to refer to the entire car. A military leader might refer to how many “boots they have on the ground,” when he is actually emphasizing the soldiers in the boots.

Bible writers also used synecdoche. For example, to “break bread” was a common, ancient synecdoche where “bread” (“a part”) was put for all of the food and drink that would be consumed at a common meal (“the whole”).²⁶ After the establishment of the Church, “the breaking of bread” also came to stand for the entirety of the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine is actually meant—Acts 2:42; 20:7).

So what does all of this have to do with “believing”? Simply that the verb “believe” and the nouns “belief” and “believer” are often used as synecdoches. A real, saving faith certainly begins with the critically important step of coming “to consider” or “to think” (i.e., “to believe”)²⁷ Jesus is truly the Son of God, but a biblical, God-approved complete “belief” in Jesus means so much more than merely coming to the mental conclusion that Jesus is the Divine Savior. A biblical believer confesses His belief in Jesus (Romans 10:9-10; 1 John 4:15). He repents of His sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 22:16). He is baptized into Christ (John 3:5; Acts 2:38). A real believer “obeys”—both on his way to becoming a complete “believer” (i.e., a Christian) and after he becomes a child of God (John 3:36; Hebrews 5:9; 11:6; 1 John 2:3-5; 5:1-5; Revelation 2:10). Though all these elements are involved in faithfully following Jesus, true followers of Christ are often referred to as just “believers.”

When thousands of non-Christians in Acts 2 heard the Gospel preached by the apostles and were “cut to the heart,” they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins’” (vs. 38). “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized…. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (2:41-42). What word did the Bible writer use to describe these who (a) repented, (b) were baptized, and (c) continued in the apostles doctrine, etc.? What were these obedient followers of Christ called? They are referred to as those “who believed” (2:44). Were they mere “consenters” to Christ? No. They became “believers,” and were “continuing” to remain “believers” (2:42-47). That is, they were actively following Christ. They were obedient to Him.

When a pagan Philippian jailor once asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), God’s spokesmen replied: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31). Is coming to “believe”  (i.e., “know about”) Jesus necessary? Absolutely. Nothing else matters if a person doesn’t first come to recognize Who Jesus is and what He has done for him. Thus, the apostles then “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” (vs. 32). Then, “he and all his family were baptized” (v. 33). Interestingly, as in Acts 2, the Bible does not refer to them as actually “having believed in God” until after they were baptized (vs. 34).

A synecdoche is a very real figure of speech that has been used throughout history, including in Bible times. The fact is, regarding the salvation of sinners, the sum total of the God-given conditions to be saved are oftentimes indicated by the use of one or two.²⁸ And, as D.R. Dungan noted, “Generally the first is mentioned—that of faith—because without it nothing else could follow.”²⁹ The Bible writers could have referred to God’s children as “repenters,” “confessors,” or “immersed ones,” but much of the time they reasonably referred to them simply as those who “believed.”³⁰

Conclusion

In one respect—in the preliminary sense of the word—to “believe” in Jesus means to mentally acknowledge that He is the Son of God and man’s one and only Savior. A John 3:16-type of saving-faith certainly includes this sense of believing, but it also comprises much more. It includes trusting in the lifted-up Savior (3:14-15), rejecting darkness, coming to the light, and doing deeds of truth (3:19-21), being “born again…of water and the Spirit” (3:3,5), and obeying the Son (3:36). Becoming a “believer” in the full sense of the word is to completely put one’s trust in the Savior: not merely to “acknowledge” Him, but to follow Him wherever He leads—including to confess Him publicly, to repent of sin, to be immersed in water, and then to live daily as an obedient servant of the King, “even to the point of death” (Revelation 2:10, NIV). As Jesus said in John 12:25-26: “He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.”

Endnotes

The post "Believing" in John 3:16 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The scene is quite familiar to many people: a nervous, well-intentioned, but sometimes ill-prepared Bible teacher stands or sits before the class, reads a passage of Scripture, and then begins a discussion with this simple question, “What does this mean to you?” The question seems innocent enough. Many people find it quite appropriate. After all, Bible teachers don’t know everything, and class discussions can be very beneficial.¹ So why not give everyone an opportunity to tell the class what a Bible verse means to them?

In short, because it simply does not matter what a particular Bible passage means to you or me. The actual, true explanation of the text is ultimately all that matters (i.e., what did God mean?). If there is a right interpretation of a section of Scripture, then that particular, correct explanation should be the only interpretation we seek. Application of the sacred text to our own individual lives certainly is vital to genuine Christian living, but first, we must come to a right understanding of the text (Ephesians 5:17).² How do we do this? By allowing God to explain Himself. Similar to how we frequently ask those with whom we are engaged in conversations to explain themselves when they use words or expressions that we do not understand, if God gave us the Bible, then we need to seek His explanation of His Word. Whenever possible, we must allow the Bible to explain itself. This principle of Bible interpretation is both logical and God-honoring.

As great and faithful as was Joseph the patriarch, he informed the King of Egypt that “it is not in me” to interpret Pharaoh’s divinely revealed dreams (Genesis 41:16).³ God was the only One Who knew for sure what the dreams meant (since He was the One Who caused them in the first place), and He chose to give Joseph the meaning so that he, in turn, could inform Pharaoh. More than 1,000 years later, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, also had a special dream from God. As he sought a revelation and an interpretation of the inspired dream, the prophet Daniel informed the king that “there is a God in heaven Who reveals secrets” (Daniel 2:28). Only when God revealed the meaning of the dream to Daniel (2:19-23) could he in turn be of real help to Nebuchadnezzar. In essence, the faithful prophet Daniel logically and honorably allowed God to explain Himself.

Bible students and teachers in the 21^st century need to learn from the faithful prophets of old the important lesson of humbly seeking God’s explanation of His revealed will. Since some things in Scripture are “hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), we must approach the study of the Scriptures with the utmost care and attention. Like the apostles, we prayerfully need to seek the Master’s truthful explanations (“Explain to us the parable of the tares,” Matthew 13:36) and not rely on the imaginative, diverse, biased, and ever-changing opinions of man. If the Bible is God’s all-sufficient revelation to mankind,⁴ and the entirety of His Word is truth and forever settled in heaven (Psalm 119:160,89), then whenever and wherever possible, we must allow the Bible to explain itself. Although helpful man-made commentaries have their place,⁵ no uninspired commentary can compare to the divinely authoritative commentary within the Bible itself. We must allow the immediate and remote contexts of inspiration to assist us in our studies. We must use the simple, straight-forward language of Scripture to help us understand the more challenging texts, and use the literal language to help us better understand the figurative. It is paramount that we use God’s Old Testament to better understand His New Testament and vice versa. If an authoritative elucidation to a particular biblical statement exists,⁶ we must (as much as possible) get out of God’s way and allow Him to explain Himself! Indeed, as has often been said, “The Bible is its own best interpreter.”

A Word of Caution

When “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) by using the Bible to explain the Bible, we must handle the potential associated passages with the utmost integrity and care. Do the verses actually relate to the primary passage in question, or am I rather carelessly using them to “prove” a preconceived idea? Do I actually understand the secondary passages in their own contexts, or am I rushing ahead to use them to “explain” the principal passage, when I have not yet even understood the supposed “inspired commentary” (the secondary passages)?

Example: A Misuse of 2 Peter 3:8

Second Peter 3:8 is one of the most frequently cited proof texts for the six days of Creation actually being thousands of years (or more) long. Allegedly, “Peter said, ‘One day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day,’ thus the days of Creation were (or at least could have been) a thousand years (or more) long.” Sadly, for many Christians, 2 Peter 3:8 has become their leading commentary on Genesis 1.

Notice first of all that Peter does not actually say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle actually wrote: “[B]eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as (Greek hos) a thousand years, and a thousand years as (hos) one day.” Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

In 2 Peter 3, the apostle reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth…are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the Church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise one or two days ago. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day” (vs. 8, NIV).

Bible students should also consider the fact that Peter used the term “day” (Greek hemera) and the phrase “thousand years” (chilia ete). This, in itself, is proof that God is able to communicate to man the difference between one day and 1,000 years.⁷ (For similes to make sense, one first must understand the literal difference between what is being compared. If there were no difference, then it would be meaningless to use such a figure of speech.) What’s more, within Genesis 1 God used the terms “days” (Hebrew yamim) and “years” (shanim). Many rightly have questioned, “If a day in Genesis is really a thousand years (or some other long period of time), then what are the years mentioned in Genesis 1?” Such a definition of “days” makes a reasonable interpretation of Creation impossible. The facts are: (1) God knows the difference between a day and a thousand years; (2) Peter and Moses understood this difference; (3) their original audience comprehended the difference; and (4) any serious student today can do the same.⁸

“Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth”

Although there is always the possibility of misusing Scripture when seeking to understand it (just as any communication can be misunderstood when treated carelessly), we must not allow the potential mistreatment of God’s Word to keep us from carefully and sincerely interpreting it. The saving faith of Jesus Christ “comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). Hearing and understanding the revelation of God both precedes faith and continues working alongside it as faithful men and women continue to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Just as the Corinthian Christians were expected to “understand, even to the end” (2 Corinthians 1:13), a continual proper understanding of God’s Word is vital to our spiritual success throughout life.

Like the Bereans, we must seriously “search” or “examine” (Greek anakrino) the Scriptures in a noble, fair-minded fashion (Acts 17:11). The Greek word anakrino means to “engage in careful study of a question;” to “question, examine.”⁹ It is to “sift up and down;” “to make careful and exact research as in a legal process.”¹⁰ Similar to how Pilate “examined” (anakrino) Jesus and found no fault with Him concerning the things of which He was being accused (Luke 23:14), the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to see whether the things that Paul preached were true. There is a commendable, reasonable manner in which to interpret Scripture, including and especially, allowing God to explain Himself—using the Bible to illuminate the Bible.

Exodus 20:11—To “Make” or to “Remake”?

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”

Several years ago, I listened to an evolutionary-sympathizing, radio evangelist emphatically and repeatedly stress that Exodus 20:11 does not mean that God created the Universe and everything in it in six days. Instead, God supposedly “fashioned” or “remade” the Universe in six days after an original creation billions of years earlier. Allegedly, between the time God (1) “created” the world (Genesis 1:1), and (2) “made” (or “recreated”) the world (Genesis 1:3-31), billions of years of time transpired in which evolution supposedly took place. This gentleman based his entire argument about Exodus 20:11 on the belief that “to create” (Hebrew bara) and “to make” (Hebrew asah) always mean two different things in relation to God’s creative acts.

The problem with this theory (commonly known as the Gap Theory) is that the inspired “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it.

Since Exodus 20:11 refers to the events that took place in Genesis, it is quite appropriate to revisit the book of beginnings to see how these two words are used in reference to what took place during the Creation. In Genesis 1-2, bara and asah are used several times in reference to God’s work. Interestingly, they never stand at odds with one another; they teach one central truth: God created/made the Universe and everything in it in six days. For example, on day five “God created (bara) great sea creatures and every living thing that moves” (1:21), while on day six “God made (asah) the beast of the earth according to its kind” (1:25). On day six of Creation, God said: “Let us make (asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Then we are told in the very next verse that He “created (bara) man in His own image.” When Moses commented on this day of Creation in Genesis 5:1-2, he again used these words interchangeably: “In the day that God created (bara) man, He made (asah) him in the likeness of God. He created (asah) them male and female” (5:1-2).

In Genesis 2:4 Moses summarized the events of Creation, stating: “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (asah) the earth and the heavens.” The phrases “the heavens and the earth…were created” and “God made the earth and the heavens” parallel each other. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

Notice the prophet Isaiah’s use of four different Hebrew terms (including bara and asah) to refer to God’s work at Creation: “For thus says the Lord, Who created (bara) the heavens, Who is God, Who formed (yatsar) the earth and made (asah) it, Who has established (kun) it, Who did not create (bara) it in vain, Who formed (yatsar) it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:18). Did God intend to communicate a different message every time He used different words to describe something? Not according to His inspired commentary. Just as you may tell one person, “I mowed the yard,” you might mention to someone else that “I cut the grass.” You have spoken one truth, even though you used two different phrases.

Though the term asah has a broader semantic range than bara and they may not always be synonymous terms, the fact is, as Hebrew scholar Dr. Justin Rogers concluded: “As any careful reader of the Bible will observe, the Hebrew language does not make a sharp distinction between bara and asah in accounts depicting the Creation. On the contrary, the terms are used interchangeably for Creation throughout the Old Testament, and can often be found in parallel expressions.”¹¹

Gap theorists who contend that the Hebrew words bara and asah must have two different meanings when referring to God’s creative acts “in the beginning,” and who allege that Exodus 20:11 (and other verses) refer to a re-creation of Earth and everything on it, are not logically and fairly interpreting the Bible. Rather than respectfully allowing God’s Word to explain itself, it seems they have chosen to use the latest theories in old-Earth, evolutionary science to manipulate the Scriptures to their liking.

John 2:4—Was Jesus Disrespectful to His Mother?

“Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.’”

Prudent world travelers take into consideration the differences in the countries they visit. They carefully consider their words and actions, knowing that sometimes the same word or action can mean two totally different things in different places at the same time. Wearing “pants” (trousers) in the U.S. is not equivalent to wearing “pants” (underwear) in England, nor is holding up two fingers (which may be interpreted as an obscene gesture by Englishmen).

Similar to conscientious world travelers who fairly interpret the words and actions of those in other countries according to the language and customs of those countries, Bible students must interpret the Bible with the Bible. Allowing the Bible to explain itself is fundamental to a proper understanding of it since the events of Scripture took place in very different times in different places with different people who spoke different languages and who had different customs.

The first time a person reads Jesus’ statement to His mother at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (“Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?—John 2:4), he may be a little confused. Why did the sinless Son of God address His mother with the term “woman”? According to Richard Dawkins, “Jesus’ family values, it has to be admitted, were not such as one might wish to focus on. He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with his own mother.”¹² According to Dennis McKinsey, “Jesus needs to practice some parental respect.”¹³ “Imagine someone talking to his own mother in such a disrespectful manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as ‘woman.’ Talk about an insolent offspring!”¹⁴

As with most Bible critics, Dawkins and McKinsey are guilty of judging Jesus’ words by what is common in 21^st-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in their proper biblical context in a first-century setting. When we allow the Bible to explain itself, we learn that it was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman” (Greek gunai). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician woman’s great faith in Matthew 15:28 (“O woman, great is your faith”). Later, as He was dying on the cross, Jesus spoke to His disconsolate mother one last time, saying, “Woman, behold your son” (John 19:26). Then, after He rose from the dead, Jesus affectionately addressed Mary Magdalene (as the angels had just done—John 20:13) with these words: “Woman, why are you weeping?” (John 20:15). As disrespectful as it may sound to us today, the use of the term “woman” in the first century “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address,”¹⁵ “with no idea of censure.”¹⁶ As Adam Clarke remarked: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers.”¹⁷ The New International Version captures the true sense of this word in John 2:4: “Dear woman, why do you involve me?”

As to why Jesus used the term “woman” (gunai) instead of “mother” (meetros) when speaking to his own mother, we simply do not know.¹⁸ We must be careful to say “why” someone did or said something a certain way if the Bible does not give some indication, especially if we are assuming the worst about an individual.¹⁹ Contemplating and discussing why Jesus made this statement (and many others which may be left unexplained) is not wrong.²⁰ We simply must differentiate between Bible-inspired explanations and the uninspired suggestions of men (however interesting they may be).

Mark 8:31—On What Day Exactly Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

“And He [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection in the New Testament reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew and Luke both record Jesus as prophesying that He would rise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). And while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40). According to Mark 8:31, however, Jesus predicted that He would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). How could Jesus arise both “on” and “after” the third day? Does the Bible help explain this difference in time in the most important event in the history of the world? Indeed, it does.

Scripture is peppered with references which demonstrate that in Bible times a part of a day was oftentimes equivalent to a whole day. Consider two examples:

• When the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and asked him to lighten their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (10:5). Verse 12 of that chapter indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day.’” Interesting, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood him to mean “on the third day” (cf. 1 Kings 12:5,12).
• In Acts 10, we glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (10:3, approximately 3:00 p.m.). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit, Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour” (10:30, NASB). Although the event really had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the ancient Jewish method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day were counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

By studying these and other passages,²¹ one can see clearly that the Bible uses expressions such as “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory center around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and own use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day?

The expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of God’s divine commentary (as well as helpful, uninspired historical writings which shed light on the culture of the day),²² and not according to the present-day (mis)-understandings and biases, we find perfect harmony in the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used to describe Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Conclusion

How often have we “heard” God, but not actually understood Him? Twentieth-century American author and children’s book illustrator Robert McCloskey once stated, “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”²³ Sadly, billions of people on Earth either don’t care what God’s Word says or they don’t care enough to put forth the effort to understand it properly.

Some things are definitely harder to understand than others, and some things we may never fully understand, but one thing is for sure: if we humbly and honestly allow the Bible to explain itself whenever possible, we will successfully arrive at the proper conclusions that God intended for us to reach.

The post Letting the Bible Explain Itself appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Is it possible that Jephthah literally sacrificed his daughter as a “burnt offering” (Judges 11:29-40)? Yes, it’s possible. (Sadly, many children in ancient history were sacrificed at the hands of powerful leaders, including some evil kings of Judah; 2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:6-9). But if Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter, he committed a grave sin, since literal human burnt offerings were condemned by God (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Furthermore, if Jephthah actually burned his daughter in sacrifice to the Lord, he did so without God ever approving his actions (and such silence on God’s part cannot reasonably be interpreted as approval).¹

A much better explanation to the Jephthah question centers around the fact that sometimes a “sacrifice” is offered in a figurative sense. In addition to modern man often speaking metaphorically of “sacrificing” money, sleep, time, energy, etc. for good causes, consider that such figurative sacrificing also took place in ancient Israel. In fact, hundreds of years before Jephthah’s day, ever since the Israelites escaped Egyptian bondage following the tenth plague (the death of the firstborn of Egypt), the people of Israel “offered” both man and beast to God. Jehovah “consecrated…all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine,” says the Lord (Exodus 13:2).

There is a sense in which “all males that open the womb” were “sacrificed to the Lord” (Exodus 13:15). But exactly how were all the firstborn males offered in a special way to God? Were they all literally sacrificed as a burnt offering? All the firstborn males among clean animals/livestock were literally burned, but not among the unclean. Unclean animals, such as the donkey, were “redeemed” with a lamb (Exodus 13:13; Numbers 18:15). That is, the donkey was to be delivered or rescued from a sacrificial death with a replacement.² Similarly, “all the firstborn of man” among the Israelites were redeemed.

Rather than literally sacrifice the firstborn male children of the Israelites (as they did their livestock—Exodus 13:2,12-16; 22:29-30), God set apart the Levites for Himself for religious service (“that they may perform the work of the Lord,” Numbers 8:11).

God said: “I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be mine, because all the firstborn are Mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be Mine: I am the Lord” (Numbers 3:12-13).

How were the clean animals given to the Lord? In literal sacrifices. How were the firstborn male humans given to the Lord? Not in literal burnt offerings, but in sacrificial service to God (cf. Romans 12:1).

Interestingly, Numbers 8 indicates that the consecration of the Levites was a type of offering—a symbolic wave offering. After God instructed the Israelites to “lay their hands on the Levites” (as they were “offering” them as a sacrifice to the Lord; cf. Leviticus 4:13-15), He said:

Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the Lord. Then the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and you shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the Lord to make atonement for the Levites. And you shall set the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and shall offer them as a wave offering to the Lord.

Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the people of Israel, and the Levites shall be mine. And after that the Levites shall go in to serve at the tent meeting, when you have cleansed them and offered them as a wave offering. For they are wholly given to me from among the people of Israel. Instead of all who open the womb, the firstborn of all the people of Israel, I have taken them for myself. For all the firstborn among the people of Israel are mine, both of man and of beast. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I consecrated them for myself, and I have taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the people of Israel (Number 8:10-18).³

Like the Levites, who were symbolically offered before the Lord, it is very likely that Jephthah similarly “sacrificed” his daughter. She could have been “sacrificed” as a “burnt offering” at the tabernacle in the sense that she became one of the “serving women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle” (Exodus 38:8; cf. 1 Samuel 2:22). Perhaps like Anna centuries later, Jephthah’s daughter was “offered” to serve God “with fastings and prayers night and day,” never again to leave the area of the tabernacle (cf. Luke 2:36-38). Such a figurative offering makes perfect sense in light of the fact that Jephthah’s daughter and her friends never lamented her death. They mourned—just not her death. What was their sorrow? They “bewailed her virginity” (Judges 11:38). In fact, three times her virginity is mentioned (11:37-39), the last of which is noted immediately following the revelation that Jephthah “carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man” (11:39).

If Jephthah sinfully killed his daughter as a literal burnt offering, the repeated bewailing of her virginity makes no sense.⁴ As Dave Miller concluded, such statements are “completely superfluous and callous…if she had been put to death.”⁵ On the other hand, if Jephthah’s daughter was about to be “offered” to God to serve perpetually at His tabernacle, and to live the rest of her life as a single, childless servant of the Lord, it makes perfect sense that she and her friends would lament her lasting virginity. When we allow the Bible to explain the Bible, the symbolic offering of Jephthah’s daughter makes perfect sense.

Endnotes

¹ Admittedly, Judges 11:29 indicates that “the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah” prior to his journey through Gilead, Manasseh, and Mizpah. Having “the Spirit of the Lord,” however, does not mean a person could never sin and do foolish things (e.g., Samson). This phrase is found seven times in Judges. It can indicate God’s consecration of a judge, such as in Othniel’s case, when “the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel” (Judges 3:10). At other times, it refers more to the courage and superhuman strength that the Lord provided them, such as in Samson’s case (Judges 14:6; 14:19; 15:14). Jephthah was a courageous leader, but he was not without sin (Judges 11:3; Romans 3:23).

² If the owner of the donkey did not want to redeem the donkey, he then had to “break its neck” (Exodus 13:15). However, he could not sacrifice it. In short, the donkey had to be redeemed or killed.

³ ESV, emp. added.

⁴ If someone was about to kill your unmarried daughter, would you feel the need to mourn her virginity or her imminent death?

⁵ Dave Miller (2013), “Jephthah’s Daughter,” Reason & Revelation, 33[8]:95, August, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1131&article=2179.

Suggested Resources

The post Jephthah's Daughter, the Levites, and Symbolic Sacrifices appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The master wisely gave the servants what he knew each one could handle. The servant with five talents traded and gained five more; the servant with two talents traded and earned two more. But the man with one talent buried his money in the ground and left it there until the master came back! After a long while, the master returned and asked his servants to explain what they had accomplished with the money he had given them. He was very pleased with the first two, and praised both of them for their good stewardship. On the other hand, the third servant explained that he had decided to bury his money until the master’s return.

The master called that servant wicked and lazy for not using the money properly. The master then gave the one talent to the first servant, and explained that those who have much will receive even more, while those who have little will lose what they do have. With that, the master charged: “Cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30).

Jesus used this parable to teach that we cannot be lazy while waiting for the Judgment. If we do not work for the Lord, we will lose what we have and end up with nothing, just like the lazy servant. But if we work hard and remain faithful, we will gain even more, so that when Jesus returns, He will say to us: “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your Lord” (Matthew 25:21,23).

The post Working for a Fortune appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as an Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from FHU as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

Earlier this year, basketball star Kyrie Irving drew headlines for advocating a flat Earth.¹ The sports media lampooned Irving for several days until he finally admitted he was wrong.² While Irving initially defended the “science” behind his claim, many others defend the flat Earth position because of what they read in the Bible. But what does the Bible really say about the shape of the Earth? For those with a high view of Scripture, the Bible stands as an unquestioned authority. If the Bible teaches the Earth is flat, then we must believe it, regardless of what pseudoscience says. Indeed, a number of theorists insist a spherical Earth is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Are they correct?

Respect the Genre

Flat-Earth theorists marshal a number of biblical passages to defend their assertion (e.g., Joshua 10:12-13; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 104:5). One notices instantly that almost every passage cited in favor of the flat-Earth position occurs in a poetic context.³ To be responsible readers of the Bible, we must respect the genre of literature we are reading. Poetry is to be read differently than prose; it is more expressive, emotional, and metaphorical. In fact, taking biblical poetry literally would, in some cases, pervert clear scriptural teaching elsewhere, leading to the belief that there are many gods instead of one God (Exodus 15:11; Psalm 86:8), that humans are really gods (Psalm 82:6), that thunder is the voice of God (2 Samuel 22:14), that God slays sea monsters (Psalm 74:12-14), and that God has wings (Psalm 61:4). Obviously, these passages cannot be understood for what they literally say. So, a common-sense understanding of how poetry functions prevents us from making erroneous interpretive deductions. To insist that metaphorical language must be interpreted literally is to contradict the original authorial intent.

Respect the Audience

In addition to respecting the author’s intent, we must also respect the audience’s understanding. We often hear cosmic complexities expressed in phenomenological language. In other words, the world is explained as it appears on Earth, or in terms we can understand. Even today, we speak of the Sun “rising and setting,” even though virtually every fourth-grade science student knows that, scientifically, this is not the case. Thus, it should not surprise to find the Bible speaking in similar terms (Genesis 28:11; Joshua 10:13; the Hebrew idiom is the Sun “going”). We also describe rain as falling from the sky even though the truth of the water cycle is basic to any elementary ecology. So also Scripture describes rain as though it is contained in a storage compartment above the sky (Genesis 1:7; Psalm 148:4). For God to teach modern scientific astronomy and meteorology to an ancient Hebrew audience would do little good. We know God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and He always speaks truth (Titus 1:2), but He condescends to express truths in terms humans can understand (e.g., Job 38-41). To hold the Bible’s language to modern scientific standards is a failure to appreciate the original audience of Scripture. The authors were divinely inspired, but the audience was not.

Is the Earth Flat? What the Bible Says

So how do these considerations relate to the shape of the Earth? Despite the preceding qualifications about reading and interpreting Scripture, we cannot locate a single verse in the Bible that teaches the Earth is flat. Neither in prose nor in poetry, neither by means of phenomenological language nor metaphor, do we find Scripture communicating a flat Earth. The flat-Earth theory is an interpretive deduction, usually based on poetic hyperbole. But is a flat Earth even an accurate interpretive deduction? As we will see, it is far from obvious that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22: A Flat-Earth?

The golden text for a spherical Earth is Isaiah 40:22: God “sits upon the circle of the earth.” It has been long argued that a ball must be intended, for God could not possibly sit atop something flat. Of course, such a literal reading ignores the poetic context and the obvious anthropomorphism. However, flat-Earth theorists point out (correctly, we may add) that the Hebrew term for “circle” (חוג,chūg) does not necessarily refer to a sphere. Instead, they say, the term refers to a disc, thereby communicating a flat Earth. Indeed, the ancient Greek translation renders the term γῦρος (gūros), or “ring.” Further, the term “on” (על, ‘al)can also be translated “above,” without implying contact with an object (e.g., NASB, ESV). So this passage does not necessarily communicate a spherical Earth, but neither does it imply a flat Earth.

The only direct parallel to the language of Isaiah 40:22 is Job 22:14. Here God poetically “walks on the circle [חוג, chūg] of the heavens.” Most modern English translations render the term commonly translated “circle” as “vault” in this context (e.g., ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV). A vault provokes images of the Earth having a rounded top, as though a bowl. In other words, the Earth is conceived (albeit poetically) with a convex lid. Why “circle” appears in English translations of Isaiah 40:22 and “vault” in Job 22:14 is beyond my understanding, although the NKJV is consistent in both.⁴ The term חוג (chūg) is used in both passages, and should probably be translated identically. And a convex “vault” is probably the better option than “circle.”

Ancient Near Eastern thinkers typically conceived of the Earth as having a bowl-shape, with a solid, convex top (Job 37:18) that was covered by water (Job 26:10).⁵ God poetically “engraves a vault” (חק חג, chōq chāg) over the Earth, perhaps indicating the horizon, or perhaps referring to the bell-shaped vault over the top of the sky (Job 26:10; Proverbs 8:27). The point is that God separates the Earth from the store place of water (cf. Genesis 1:7), and thus carves out a channel above the sky to contain it. Again, these passages occur in poetic contexts, and it can be dangerous to impose a literal meaning on figurative language, as we have discussed. Unlike God, Job’s friends did not necessarily have a perfect scientific understanding, and are, in any case, speaking hyperbolically in Hebrew poetry. Their words simply reflect a popular expression of God’s complete sovereignty over nature. Nevertheless, one thing is sure: there is no thought of a flat Earth anywhere. The “circle of the earth” is a metaphor to be sure, but not even metaphorically is it understood as flat.

It should be noted that the Hebrew Bible does not have an equivalent for the term “sphere,” which in modern Hebrew is the loanword ספירה (s^efîrāh). The word “ball” (דור, dūr) occurs in English translations in Isaiah 22:18, but it is clear from Isaiah 29:3 (the only other place the noun occurs) that it refers to a “roll” of items that have encircled a central object. A related verb form is found one other time in the Bible to describe stacked and perhaps “bound” wood (Ezekiel 24:5). In other words, the shape of such an object is beyond the scope of the term. So, the authors of the Hebrew Bible simply lacked the vocabulary to describe a perfectly round object. We cannot expect them to say what they did not have the words to communicate.

Joshua 10:12-13: The Sun Stands Still

Flat-earth theorists also cite the interruption of the Sun to “prove” their theory. The passage reports, “The sun stopped [דמם, d-m-m] and the moon stood still [עמד, ‘-m-d] until the nation avenged its enemies…. The sun stood still [עמד, ‘-m-d] in the middle of the sky and did not hurry to go about an entire day” (Joshua 10:13). Flat-earth theorists, who apparently also defend a geocentric model of the solar system, argue this passage certifies their position. They argue that, according to the standard heliocentric model, the Sun’s standing still would not interrupt the day at all. The Earth, heliocentrists argue, revolves around the Sun. In order for the Bible and the heliocentric model to be true, the Earth would need to pause its rotation on its axis in order for the Sun to appear to stop. But the Bible does not say the Earth stops; it says the Sun stops. Therefore, flat-earth theorists, adopting a geocentric model, argue the Earth must be fixed, and the Sun revolves around it.⁶

This reasoning violates one of the principles we have discussed: a failure to account for the audience’s understanding. Joshua was not written to Israelites in outer space. From the point of view of those on Earth, the “day” (or “daylight,” the Hebrew יום, yōm meaning both) was extended. Since a day is measured by the Sun, the Sun must have stopped its “going” (בוא, bô’). Indeed, it appeared to them that “the sun stopped in the middle of the sky.” This is a clear use of phenomenological language, and it simply means this day was unusually long. Daylight was halted miraculously so as to allow God’s forces more time to conquer their foes. This is the simplest explanation, and was virtually uncontested until recent times.⁷ But even if this passage is used to defend a geocentric model of the Universe (wrongly, I believe), Joshua 10:13 still has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. Flat-Earth theorists will need to look elsewhere for evidence.

The “Immovable” Passages

A number of biblical passages assert the immovability of the Earth (e.g., 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 104:5). These are often proposed as an “obvious” rationale for the Earth being flat. But they do not bear the weight loaded upon them. None of these passages necessarily implies a flat Earth, and even if they might be cited as evidence for geocentricity, note that each of them occurs in a poetic context. If we were to hold Bible-believing flat-Earth theorists to the literal implications of these passages, they would have to insist the Earth neither orbits the Sun nor rotates on its axis. And if the Earth is fixed immovably and permanently, God could never destroy it, for its dissolution would violate its immovability (2 Peter 3:10). But, of course, these poetic passages are not intended to be taken literally.

Since each passage employs similar language and is applied for the same purpose, we shall examine just one as representative. The relevant part of Psalm 96:10 states, “The world is fixed; it cannot be moved.” Two Hebrew words in particular deserve attention. One is the word “fix” or “establish” (כון, kūn). This term does not fundamentally refer to being fixed in position, but rather to being fixed in permanence. Such can be said of David’s kingdom being “established” forever (1 Samuel 20:31; 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Kings 2:12), or of cities that are “established” (Habakkuk 2:12). These are acts of intended permanence.

In reference to the physical world, the term is not used of the Earth alone, but of the heavenly bodies as well. The Sun, Moon, and stars “are established” by God (Psalm 8:3), as are the “heavens” (Proverbs 3:19). Does this mean the Bible envisions no movement among the heavenly bodies? If one took these passages literally, he or she would be required to say there are no orbits or movements of any astral body anywhere in the Universe. This is, of course, untrue, for even the earliest astronomers could map the stars and motions of the various heavenly bodies, as they serve to mark “seasons, days, and years” (Genesis 1:14). So, if these poetic passages are pressed literally, the Bible teaches that the Earth and all cosmic bodies are static. Is this what the Bible intends to communicate? Of course not. In fact, Scripture elsewhere affirms the movement of heavenly bodies (Jude 13). The Bible simply means to teach that God has programmed His creation to act according to determined, reliable patterns; in that sense, he has “fixed” the world.

The other Hebrew term, מוט (mūt), is translated “be moved.” Because the Earth does not “move,” it must be flat, right? Well, the term does not fundamentally refer to movement of position. It is the opposite of being “fixed” as expressed by the term כון, (kūn). Scripture declares the righteous “shall not be moved” (Psalm 10:6; 21:7; Proverbs 10:30), not meaning, of course, that the righteous are paralyzed, but that they can feel secure in their life. To be movable in this sense is to be insecure, uncertain, and unreliable. The term מוט/(mūt) is often translated “slip” or “sway” (Psalm 66:9; 123:1), and can be used of poorly constructed objects that are destined to fall (Isaiah 40:20; 41:7).

The meaning of this term with regard to the world is understandable. The Earth is “set” in the sense that it is well-designed and well-constructed, and therefore functions without deviation, exactly as the Maker intended. It is secure, dependable, and reliable. The season for sowing and reaping, consistent rain, the course of the astral bodies—these are all evidence that the Earth is “immovable” in the author’s intended sense. Derek Kidner appropriately observes: “The first and last lines of verse 10 [Psalm 96] make it additionally clear that this is a prophecy of perfect government, not a pronouncement on—of all things!—the earth’s rotation.”⁸ The “fixed Earth” passages, when taken literally, do not make sense with the rest of Scripture. And even if one presses their literal meaning, they still do not teach the Earth is flat. The “fixed Earth” Scriptures are best read as poetic reflections on a world designed for the flourishing of life.

Conclusion

It seems that the typical passages cited in favor of the flat-Earth theory are drawn from a poetic context, and thus readers must be very careful about taking them literally. However, even if we choose to take every biblical passage literally, we still do not find a clear endorsement of flat-Earth theory. It should also be noted that even the supposed “spherical Earth” passages occur in poetic contexts, filled with metaphor and hyperbole. So, the Hebrew Bible has no official “position” on the shape of the Earth, whether round or flat. Descriptions of the shape of the Earth in the Bible must be classified with the Sun having wings (Malachi 4:2) or God having arms (Exodus 6:6; 1 Kings 5:3). These are obviously metaphors, and few rational readers would press them literally. But again, even if we take poetry literally, and ignore all hyperbole and metaphor in Scripture, we still find no clear statement that the Earth is flat.

Endnotes

¹ http://www.nba.com/article/ 2017/02/18/commissioner-adam-silver-all-star-press-conference.

² http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2017/02/kyrie_irving_admits_science_su.html.

³ See Justin Rogers (2016), “How to Read Biblical Poetry,” Gospel Advocate, September, p. 11.

⁴ The NKJV has “circle” in both verses, and the KJV has “circuit” in the Job verse.

⁵ See David J.A. Clines (2006), Job 21-37 in Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Nelson), p. 559.

⁶ On geocentricity, see B. Thompson and T. Major (1988), “Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity?” http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp x?category=11&article=1151.

⁷ For a history of discussion, see David M. Howard, Jr. (1998), Joshua in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman), 5:238-249.

⁸ Derek Kidner (1975), Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms in Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP), p. 349.

The post Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of this two-part series appeared in the February issue. Part 2 follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

#6—Consider the Kind of Composition

On any given day, we may read a definition in a dictionary, a romantic love letter written by our spouse, a law passed by Congress, an article from a favorite satiric Web site, and the lyrics of an eccentric song we are contemplating downloading for our children. Obviously, if we really care to understand the meaning of these compositions, we are going to take note of the fact that they are categorically quite different. Love letters do not read like laws (at least we hope not); laws do not read like lyrics; and lyrics do not read like dictionaries. One particular preliminary principle of biblical interpretation to keep in mind is the need to pay special attention to the kind of composition. Are you reading laws, letters, prayers, and prologues penned in prose, or are you analyzing prophecies, lyrics, and speeches written in poetry?

The everyday language that people customarily use in writing (like that which you are reading at this very moment) is prose. This ordinary literary medium is distinguished from poetry, which may be characterized by its rhythm or rhyme (or some other regular, creative pattern), as well as varying kinds of figurative language. The Holy Spirit chose to communicate His message through man using varieties of both prose and poetry. If we want to succeed at effectively interpreting Scripture and arriving at the Truth that God communicated (and that He wants us to learn—1 Timothy 2:4), we need to identify the kind of composition Bible writers used in various sections of Scripture. Consider a few of these.

History

Much of the Bible should be recognized as a historical composition, full of real people, places, dialogue, and events, written primarily in ordinary language (prose). Genesis is principally a book of history that details the beginning of numerous things, including matter, energy, life, mankind, sin, and the nation of Israel.¹ The book of Numbers is a historical book that describes many events that occurred during Israel’s 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. The 12 Old Testament books of Joshua through Esther are oftentimes referred to as “the books of history.” They chronicle Israel’s history from the time they entered the Promised Land through the period of the judges, the United Kingdom, the Divided Kingdom, and their return to Jerusalem following 70 years of captivity in Babylon.

More than half of the content of the New Testament could be categorized as history. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John detail many events in the life of Christ, while the book of Acts (written by Luke) serves as a brief history of the first 30 years of the Lord’s Church. Although these books only make up five of the 27 in the New Testament, their total content is more voluminous than the rest of the 22 books combined.

Law

Though generally the Bible may be broken down into three law systems (Patriarchal Law, Law of Moses, and Law of Christ),² a few books are largely made up of numerous laws and need to be recognized as such. The Bible writers frequently referred to the first five books of the Bible as “the Law” (or more precisely, the Law of Moses) due doubtlessly to the number of laws that Moses communicated to the Israelites. Exodus records the giving of the Ten Commandments, laws about the Passover (which was instituted in Exodus), tort laws, slavery laws, and more. Leviticus contains over 200 individual laws, which, as the name “Leviticus” would suggest, largely focus on matters pertaining to the levitical priesthood, the Temple, sacrifices, religious festivals, etc. Deuteronomy, the English name given to the fifth book of Moses,³ means “The Second Law,” and refers to the retelling of the laws of God to a new Israelite generation (since the former generation passed away during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness). Unlike Leviticus, which contains many laws unique to the levitical priesthood, the laws in Deuteronomy focus more on all of Israel. This “retelling of the Law” includes the Ten Commandments, as well as laws concerning families, the community, war, idolatry, and much more.

Reading and interpreting books made up primarily of law is quite different than digesting other kinds of composition, whether written in prose or a poetic style. Poetry obviously includes a great amount of figurative language, but so do many speeches, letters, and descriptions written in prose. Law is almost always written in clear, concrete language. As D.R. Dungan explained:

If law is being interpreted, we do not expect to find a single figurative expression. The author has evidently tried to be severely plain and definite. The very purpose of law precludes the thought of anything in the composition but the plainest and most direct form of speech. It has been the intent of him who gave the law to have his will carried out by the people. Hence we expect him to use every precaution to prevent any misunderstanding.⁴

Keep in mind, though all biblical books may generally be categorized as a particular kind of writing (e.g., history or law written in prose), they often still contain sections of other unique forms of writing. The Law of Moses, for example, contains speeches, descriptions, genealogies, songs, and much more. But primarily, they are books of law and history.

Epistle

Although we refer to the 66 major sections of the English Bible as “books,” several of them are actually “epistles” (another term for “letter”).⁵ In fact, most of the New Testament “books” are epistles. One normally has to read only the first few lines of these documents to detect their epistle-type form (discovering the identity of the sender and the recipient, as well as a greeting and a prayer or statement of thanksgiving). Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude all wrote one or more New Testament epistles to many different people in a number of different locations for a variety of different reasons.

In their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart acknowledged various differences in the New Testament epistles, but went on to highlight what “all of the epistles have in common” that readers need to especially note—“the crucial thing to note in reading and interpreting them”:

They are all what are technically called occasional documents (i.e., arising out of and intended for a specific occasion), and they are all from the first century. Although inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus belonging to all time, they were first written out of the context of the author to the context of the original recipients. It is precisely these factors—that they are occasional and that they belong to the first century—that make their interpretation difficult at times.

Above all else, their occasional nature must be taken seriously. This means that they were occasioned, or called forth, by some special circumstance, either from the reader’s side or the author’s…. Usually the occasion was some kind of behavior that needed correcting, or a doctrinal error that needed setting right, or a misunderstanding that needed further light.⁶

If we ever want to arrive at a proper understanding of the biblical epistles, it is paramount that we first identify their unique format (which is not a difficult task). Then, once we learn of their letter-like style, we should move on and actually read it like a letter (though an inspired letter). That is, read it in its entirety, paragraph by paragraph, asking questions all along the way, such as, “What is the occasion of this epistle? What is the writer getting at? What is this letter all about? What is its purpose?” In short, if we expect to understand the New Testament epistles, we must do more than thoughtlessly picking and choosing a few verses here and there to prove some point that we think they teach (when upon a fuller, thoughtful, and serious study, they may not).

Prophecy

The last 17 books of the English Old Testament make up what is frequently called “the books of prophecy.” Isaiah through Daniel are known as the “Major Prophets,” while Hosea through Malachi are referred to as the “Minor Prophets.”⁷ Revelation is the only book in the New Testament that fits into the category of prophecy (though it is also a letter—1:4-7; 22:21), as it contains inspired visions given to the apostle John in the first century about “things which must shortly take place” (1:1).

Most people seem to have the impression that the prophets were primarily future-tellers. Though they certainly foretold (by the revelation of God) many things that would soon, or eventually, come to past, primarily the prophets were forthtellers. That is, they were first and foremost public proclaimers of the will of God, including, and especially, reminding their audiences of (1) the blessings of submitting to God’s laws, and (2) the consequences of rejecting them.

The prophetical books present interpretation challenges for at least three notable reasons.⁸ First, similar to some of the difficulties in properly understanding the New Testament epistles (as well as the Psalms), the Prophets generally offer few hints regarding their historical settings.⁹ Thus, Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and various handbooks can be quite helpful in ascertaining relevant historical background information. Second, many of the proclamations and prophecies in the last 17 books of the Old Testament are in the form of Hebrew poetry, which is significantly different than the customary poetic features (e.g., rhyme) of modern-day America. Third, the Old Testament prophets and the apostle John (in Revelation) used a great deal of figurative phrases and symbols, including apocalyptic language, which communicates important truths to the intended audience while veiling the message to outside forces (who could misuse the prophetic utterances against them). The book of Revelation, as well as various parts of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, etc., contain extensive amounts of apocalyptic language and symbols which conscientious 21^st-century Bible students must handle with the greatest amount of care and concern. (To interpret such language literally, rather than figuratively, leads to a complete misunderstanding of the inspired message.)

Poetry

Those unfamiliar with the Bible are likely surprised to learn how much poetry it contains. As mentioned earlier, the prophets (whose writings make up 17 of the 39 books of the Old Testament) often spoke and wrote their stirring messages in the form of poetry. Pieces of poetic history, prophecy, and lyric (including the songs of Moses and Miriam in Exodus 15, the beautiful, brief, priestly blessing of Numbers 6:24-26, and the song of Mary in Luke 1:46-55) are sprinkled throughout many books of the Bible. Poetry dominates the composition style of Job through Song of Solomon so much so that when grouping books of the Bible together, many refer to these five as “The Books of Poetry.” Psalms and Song of Solomon, as their titles suggest, are obviously poetic, while about 90% of the book of Job is poetry.

Although “the division between prose and poetry in ancient Heb. is not precise,” thankfully “certain literary devices in poetry allow us to identify poems with a high level of confidence.”¹⁰ In his helpful discussion of poetry in the New Bible Dictionary, T. Longman III highlighted three primary poetic devices frequently found in Scripture: terseness, imagery, and most notably, parallelism.¹¹ Hebrew parallelism is a “peculiar repetition of form, and usually of thought also, in successive, or alternate lines.”¹² Oftentimes the parallel thought is “synonymous,”¹³ while at other times there is an advancing thought (known as “synthetic parallelism”),¹⁴ or a contrasting thought (called “antithetical parallelism”).¹⁵

Except for the lyrics we hear from modern-day musicians, most Americans (including myself) generally seem to have little interest in poetry.¹⁶ No doubt, many today wonder why God chose to compose a significant amount of His written revelation to man in a poetic style. Surely He wasn’t simply trying to make life more difficult than it already is. In truth, there are at least two logical possibilities why God chose this style of composition. First, many ancient cultures highly prized poetic modes of expression. Thus, it made perfect sense for God’s messengers, at least occasionally, if not regularly, to compose poetic messages. Second, people tend to remember truths more easily when they are communicated in poetry. Even those of us who do not appreciate poetry as much as we probably should, must admit that truths conveyed with rhyme, rhythm, or some other poetic device are often much easier to remember.¹⁷ Furthermore, we must keep in mind that

God made use of this helpful phenomenon in an age where reading and writing were rare skills and where private ownership of written documents was virtually unknown. Thus the larger parts of the prophetic oracles were usually expressed in poetic form. People were used to poetry and could remember those prophecies; they would ring in their ears.¹⁸

One of the most important characteristics of poetry to keep in mind, especially as it relates to interpreting the Word of God fairly and accurately, is the amount of hyperbole it employs. Hyperbole is exaggeration. It is “language that describes something that is better or worse than it really is.”¹⁹ It serves the purpose of heightening the sense of what is being described. If a person hasn’t eaten all day, he could say that he is “really hungry.” Or, he mightsay it in a hyperbolic way: “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.” Could he really eat an entire horse? No, and to interpret his words thusly would be to misunderstand his intended exaggeration. Similarly, when, for example, David proclaimed in the poetic language of Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies,” he employed strong, figurative language. Obviously, no babies literally speak lies from the moment that they are born. However, the wicked judges of David’s day had been unrighteous for many years—since rather early on in their lives (but not when they were innocent babies).²⁰ As long as we are aware of the hyperbolic element of poetry, statements such as that found in Psalm 58:3 (and many other places in Scripture, especially in the poetic parts) will be rather easy to properly understand.

#7—Identify Four “Who’s”

Imagine going for an afternoon stroll in Central Park and finding a small, faded piece of paper on the ground with these words: “Help my son before he dies.” In addition to being shocked by the message, most likely you would immediately begin asking a number of reasonable questions: Who wrote the note? Who was the note about? Who was the note written to? Was the note meant especially for you or someone else, or was it meant for just anyone who reads it? Did someone in Manhattan pen the note, or was it from someone outside of the city? Was there an original recipient of the note who already helped the boy and discarded the note afterwards, or is the writer of the note still waiting for someone to help his/her son?

These kinds of questions are similar to the ones Bible students need to ask in order to come to a better understanding of Scripture. If we attempt to conclude certain things about the biblical text without giving serious thought to the following “Four Who’s,” we will likely misunderstand some of the divinely revealed message.

Who is Writing?

If you knew that the note you found in Central Park was written by a deceased 20^th-century playwright who worked on Broadway and specialized in fictional tragedy plays, you would become very relieved. First, since the famous writer has been dead for several years, there is likely no longer an immediate concern. Second, since the playwright often wrote tragedies about missing persons, the note you found may simply be from a fictional manuscript he produced that subsequently was lost.

Identifying certain things about the author helps to give context to his overall message. Of course, as stated in principle #3 (in Part 1 of this article), God is the ultimate Source of all of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).²¹ But God used humanity to communicate His Truth. If possible, Bible students need to learn something about the one whom God chose to write the particular Bible book they are studying. Does the penmen specifically identify himself?²² Is he identified by another writer?²³ Was the penmen a king (like David), a fisherman (like Peter), or a physician (like Luke)? Was the writer living under Patriarchal Law, the Law of Moses, or the Law of Christ? If under Mosaic Law, in what particular period was he living? Was it, for example, during the time of the judges, the United Kingdom, or the Divided Kingdom? If during the Divided Kingdom, was the penmen writing from the Northern Kingdom (Israel) or the Southern Kingdom (Judah)? Was he writing during the reign of King Jeroboam II of Israel (852-841 B.C.), or did the penmen live more than two centuries later, during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (640-609 B.C.)? Questions such as these (and others) help give us a proper perspective when reading and interpreting the Scriptures.

Who is the Writer’s Original Audience?

If you saw a man write a note on December 31^st that said, “I’ll see you next year,” you would understand the message much better if you knew something about the recipient. If the note, for example, was directed toward a colleague that the author normally saw five days a week, then you could understand that the message-writer most likely meant (in somewhat of a witty manner) that he would see his co-worker in the next day or two. On the other hand, if you knew the note was for a distant relative that the writer normally only saw once a year around the holidays, then you would obviously come to a different conclusion about the message.

The simple fact is, the 66 books of the Bible were written to a number of different people, who lived in different places, and at different times in history. Was the document originally directed to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to Christians? Was it written to a single individual or to a local church? Deuteronomy, meaning “Second Law,” was written to the entire national of Israel—but to a different generation (cf. Numbers 14:26-38) than the one that originally received the Ten Commandments and the laws of Exodus and Leviticus. The repetition of Deuteronomy (e.g., Deuteronomy 5:1-22) makes perfect sense in light of the original recipients of the “Second Law.”

The four inspired accounts of the Gospel of Christ make more sense when we consider that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had different audiences in mind while penning their narratives. In the introduction to his excellent article titled simply, “The Four Gospel Accounts,” Wayne Jackson observed:

When Jesus was crucified, the superscription on the cross above his head proclaimed, “This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” It was written in three tongues—Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—representing the three dominant cultures of the Mediterranean world when the New Testament was produced.

It is not without significance that there is a Gospel record designed for each of these societal elements. Matthew’s record was directed to the Hebrews, Mark was written for the Romans, and Luke was designed to address the Greeks. John’s narrative, however, was cosmopolitan in its thrust.²⁴

Jackson proceeded to give evidences throughout the rest of his article proving his thesis, including, for example, the fact that, unlike Matthew, Mark must have had a non-Jewish audience in mind, since he “has to explain Hebrew traditions (7:3) and Palestinian conditions (11:13).”²⁵ What’s more, the Latinisms within Mark indicate that he wrote for Roman readers.²⁶ In short, the individual books of the Bible come into much better focus when we consider their original recipients.

Who is Speaking?

This question is not, “Who is writing?” but rather “Who is speaking?” That is, who is the writer quoting? Is the speaker in the narrative an inspired spokesmen or an uninspired individual? Although the Bible contains many inspired quotations, including statements, sermons, and prophecies by Moses, David, Isaiah, Jesus, John the Baptizer, Peter, Stephen, Paul, etc., a careful distinction must be made between (a) an inspired statement recorded by an inspired writer, and (b) an uninspired statement recorded by an inspired writer.

Even though “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), not everything that the inspired writers recorded was a true statement. For example, after God created Adam, He told him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest he die (Genesis 2:17). Yet, when the serpent approached Eve, he “informed” her that she would not die if she ate of this forbidden fruit (3:4). Obviously, Satan was not inspired by God to lie and say, “You will not surely die.” However, hundreds of years later, when Moses wrote Genesis, recording the events that took place in Eden, he wrote by inspiration of God the lie that Satan told (cf. Luke 24:44; John 5:46). When Jesus healed a demoniac, some of the Pharisees accused Him of casting out demons, not by the power of God, but by the power of “Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons” (Matthew 12:24). Like Moses, Matthew did not write a lie, but merely reported a lie.

Bible students must keep in mind who is doing the talking in the particular text they are studying. The above examples are rather elementary: Satan’s statement and the Pharisees’ allegations clearly were false. But what about when statements are made by individuals who do not seem “as bad” as these? Oftentimes when attempting to defend a certain doctrine, a person will quote a verse from the book of Job and say, “See, that’s what it says…the book of Job says…therefore my doctrine is proven true.” Not long ago I read an article by a gentleman who was defending a doctrine by citing various verses in the book of Job. This man never indicated who made the statements; he simply cited all of them as being true statements. Sadly, such a handling of Scripture totally disregards one of the fundamental rules of interpretation—knowing who is speaking. One who studies Job must realize that it is an inspired book that contains many uninspired statements. For instance, we know that Job’s wife was incorrect when she told him to “Curse God and die” (Job 2:9). We also know that many statements made by Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were incorrect. Nine of the 42 chapters in the book were speeches by these “miserable comforters” (16:2) whom God said had “not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has” (42:7). Clearly then, one never should quote these men and claim it as an inspired truth.

Furthermore, we must understand that even though Job was “blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil” (1:1), there is no indication that his speeches were inspired. In fact, when Jehovah finally answered Job out of the whirlwind, He asked: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (38:2).²⁷ Obviously, God never would have asked such a rhetorical question had Job been inspired while stating the things he spoke in those chapters. Later, Job even said himself: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (42:3; cf. 30:16-23). Clearly, then, these passages indicate that Job’s speeches were not inspired (unlike God’s speeches in chapters 38-41). So, as Bible students, let’s handle them carefully. Let’s remember to pay close attention to “who is speaking.”

Who is the Speaker’s Audience?

When Moses wrote that God said, “Make yourself an ark of gopherwood” (Genesis 6:14), these words were spoken to a particular audience of one. The command was not given to Adam, Abraham, Moses, or any Christian in the 1^st century. The specific command was for a particular audience: “God said to Noah…” (6:13). God’s command to Noah was not part of the Old Law given to all Israelites, nor was it part of the Law of Christ to which everyone living today is subject. It was a specific command spoken by God to Noah, which Moses recorded approximately 1,000 years later for our learning (Romans 15:4), but not for our specific observance.

The apostle John recorded that in the last week of Jesus’ life, He said: “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26). He promised that “when the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth;… He will tell you things to come” (16:13). In order to understand properly this promise, we must consider the speaker’s audience; Jesus was talking to the apostles—His special disciples, including Peter, John, Thomas, and Philip.²⁸ The promise of supernatural revelation and guidance was promised to them (cf. Acts 2:1-40), not to every follower of Jesus for the past 2,000 years. The fact is, “the faith…was once for all delivered to the saints” in the first century (Jude 3), so that since that time Christians have had “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Since the Holy Spirit miraculously guided into “all truth” those to whom He was promised, Christians have been “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)—guided by the oral and written teachings of these men (cf. Ephesians 3:1-5). In short, paying close attention to the speaker’s original audience will go a long way in properly understanding Holy Writ.²⁹

#8—Observe the Context

Effective communication is impossible without the participants taking into consideration the context in which statements are made. Imagine a mother sitting in a warm gym in the middle of winter watching her son Jimmy miss 10 consecutive shots in the first half of a basketball game. She turns to her husband and says, “He’s as cold as he can be.” The mother obviously means that her son “can’t hit anything”; he’s not shooting the basketball very well. A little while later, however, when the family walks outside of the gym into the frigid Wisconsin winter night, the mother says to her husband, “Jimmy’s freezing.” The husband immediately understands what she means given the current context of the comment. Mom is simply concerned about her son’s well-being and wants to get him warm as soon as possible.

Given the multiple meanings of most words, the flexibility of language, and the many figures of speech that can be found in languages all over the world, context is critical to understanding most everything.³⁰ What exactly do we mean by “context”? Clinton Lockhart briefly defined the meaning of the word in his excellent book titled Principles of Interpretation:

The Context of a word or expression is that part of a discourse which is immediately connected with it, or that precedes or follows it. The parts which are closely connected are the immediate context; while those of another paragraph or chapter form the remote context. In most writings and utterances there is such a connection of thought in clauses, sentences, and paragraphs, that one part will to some extent indicate the meaning of another part.³¹

Perhaps no Bible verse has been misused more in modern times than Matthew 7:1—“Judge not, that you be not judged.” From church pews to barstools, from the “Bible belt” to Hollywood, Matthew 7:1 is ripped from its context and confidently quoted as proof that “Jesus said, ‘Don’t judge.’ Don’t tell anyone they’re doing wrong at anytime.”³² But is that really what Jesus meant? Actually, the context proves otherwise. Consider how a close look at the surrounding verses and chapters help to correct abuses of Matthew 7:1 and to give its true meaning.

Throughout Matthew chapters 5-7 (often referred to as the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus publicly criticized the Jewish scribes and Pharisees for their self-righteousness and abuse of the Old Testament. Near the beginning of this sermon, Jesus stated: “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” (Matthew 5:20). The unrighteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was at the heart of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus wanted His audience to understand that self-righteousness would not be permitted in the kingdom of heaven; rather, it would lead to “condemnation” in hell (5:20; cf. 23:14,33). A follower of God must be “poor in spirit” (5:3), not filled with pride. He must love his enemies, not hate them (5:44). He is to do good deeds, but only to please God, not men (6:1-4). The scribes and Pharisees were guilty of wearing “righteousness” on their sleeves, rather than in their hearts (6:1-8; cf. 23:1-36). It was in the midst of such strong public rebuke that Christ proclaimed:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye”; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye (Matthew 7:1-5).

In Matthew 6:1-4, Jesus instructed us not to do charitable deeds…“as the hypocrites do” (to be seen of men). In 6:5-8, Jesus told us not to pray…“like the hypocrites” (to be heard of men). In 6:16-18, Jesus taught us not to fast…“like the hypocrites” (to be seen of men). Likewise, in Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus was teaching us that judging another is wrong…when that judgment is hypocritical.

But, what if we are doing charitable deeds to be seen of God? Then by all means, “do good to all men” (Galatians 6:10)! What if our prayers are led from a pure heart and with righteous intentions? Should we pray? Most certainly (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:17). Can we fast today, if the purpose of our fasting is to be seen of God and not men? Yes. But what about passing judgment? In Matthew 7:1-5, did Jesus condemn all judging, or, similar to the above examples, did He condemn only a certain kind of judging? Matthew 7:5 provides the answer. After condemning unrighteous judgments (7:1-4), Jesus instructed a person to “first remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” He was saying, in essence, “Get your life right first. Then, in love, address your brother’s problem.” This is consistent with what Paul wrote to the church at Philippi: “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others” (2:4). God never intended for Christians to be recluses who never interacted with those around them (Luke 19:10; Galatians 6:1). Rather, He gave us the responsibility of helping others by lovingly correcting them when they sin. In Matthew 7, Jesus was not suggesting that a person can never judge. He was saying, when you judge, judge righteously (as when we pray, fast, and do good deeds—do it without hypocrisy—John 7:24). Incidentally, Jesus already had judged the Pharisees. Thus, He obviously was not teaching that judging is inherently wrong.

Further proof that Jesus did not condemn all judging can be found throughout the rest of chapter 7. In fact, in the very next verse after His statements about judging, Jesus implicitly commanded that His followers make a judgment. He said: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (7:6). Disciples of Christ must judge as to who are “dogs” and who are “hogs.” Otherwise, how can we know when not to give that which is holy to “dogs”? Or how can we know when not to cast our pearls before “swine”? Jesus said we must judge between those who are “worthy” and those who are like dogs and pigs (cf. Matthew 10:12-15; Acts 13:42-46).³³ A few verses later, Jesus again implied that His disciples must make a judgment.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7:15-20).

Question: How can we “watch out” for false prophets if we cannot make judgments as to who the false prophets are? According to Jesus, determining the identity of false teachers involves inspecting “their fruits” and making judgments—righteous judgments. The simple fact is, those who teach that Jesus was condemning all judging in Matthew 7:1 are guilty of ignoring the context of the passage (as well as the numerous verses throughout the rest of Scripture which teach that sincerely judging the sinful lifestyles of others is necessary).³⁴ In short, observing the context of any Bible statement is critical to understanding it properly.

Conclusion

Nothing in the world is more important to comprehend than the words that God revealed in written form for our eternal benefit. Millions of precious souls around the globe may have access to the Bible, but they often do not know where to begin. Their honest reaction to the idea of reading the Bible is similar to the reaction of a student walking into his first algebra class: intimidated and confused. They know that the Bible is a book, but that is about the extent of their knowledge.

We believe that a person can systematically understand the Bible better by taking special note of the eight elementary truths and preliminary principles discussed in this article. Let’s help interested individuals understand (1) the need to be fair with the Bible, (2) that the Bible claims to be divinely inspired, (3) that the Bible possesses the attributes of Divine inspiration, (4) the need for a reliable Bible translation, (5) the importance of breaking down the Bible in order to build up comprehension, (6) the need to recognize the style of composition, (7) the importance of identifying “four who’s” of any text, and (8) the significance of paying special attention to the context of all biblical statements.

Endnotes

¹ Genesis chapter 1 details the history of the six days of Creation. Chapter 3 describes the history of the Fall of Man. Chapters 6-9 record the history of Noah and the Flood, while chapter 11 gives various historical details of what occurred at the Tower of Babel. Although some liberal scholars have attempted to rationalize a non-historical view of Genesis 1-11 in an attempt to hang on to central components of the Theory of Evolution (e.g., billions of years of time), the fact is, critical analysis of Genesis (and especially of Genesis 1-11), confirms what most people can easily detect from even a superficial investigation of the book—it was written as a real history, and not as a myth or an exaggerated legend. For more information, see “Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical?” Apologetics Press, www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=451.

² Discussed in Part 1 of this article.

³ “Deuteronomy” is derived from the Greek name (Deuteronomion) given to the fifth book of Moses in the Septuagint. The Hebrew title for Deuteronomy is Hadebharim, meaning “the words,” which is derived from the first line of the book.

⁴ D.R. Dungan (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, reprint), p. 166.

⁵ Admittedly, some make various distinctions between letters and epistles (contending that epistles, rather than letters, are more formal literary works that were written more for posterity). It is not my purpose to make this distinction here, nor to propose which New Testament epistles are more or less formal. The purpose here is more general in nature.

⁶ Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart (2014), How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 60, italics in orig.

⁷ The “Minor” prophetical books are known as such, not because they are less important, but because they are much shorter in overall length.

⁸ Admittedly, other challenges exist, including the difficulty in attempting to discover the original chronological order of the various oracles.

⁹ Their cultural, political, and overall historical backgrounds were vastly different from our own. The three centuries covered in the prophetical books of Isaiah-Malachi (760 B.C.-460 B.C.) were characterized by “unprecedented political, military, economic, and social upheaval” (Fee and Stuart, p. 197).

¹⁰ T. Longman III (1996), “Poetry,” New Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity), p. 938.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 938-939.

¹² Clinton Lockhart (1915), Principles of Interpretation (Fort Worth: S.H. Taylor), p. 55.

¹³ E.g., Psalm 19:1.

¹⁴ E.g., Psalm 19:7-11.

¹⁵ E.g., Proverbs 12:1-2.

¹⁶ I am not opposed to poetry; it’s simply not a skill or passion of mine. Those who are more creative and artistic than myself doubtlessly have a much greater appreciation for poetry in general. Hopefully this admiration and passion will lead those individuals to be even more appreciative of the beauty of biblical poetry through which God communicated the most important and beautiful truths the world has ever known.

¹⁷ Think of the many songs you know “by heart.”

¹⁸ Fee and Stuart, p. 205.

¹⁹ “Hyperbole” (2016), Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole.

²⁰ For a brief discussion on whether babies are born sinners, see Moises Pinedo (2009), “Are Children Born with Sin?” Apologetics Press, www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2697. See also Kyle Butt (2003), “Do Babies Go To Hell When They Die?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201.

²¹ When the New Testament writers quoted from an Old Testament writer, they could truthfully say, “the Holy Spirit says” (Hebrews 3:7; cf. Psalm 95:7-11), even when the Old Testament writer did not mention the Holy Spirit in the text, because God is the ultimate Source of the information. Though God used the vocabulary and style unique to the various inspired writers, He did so with complete control over the words which they wrote (cf. Samuel 23:2; 1 Corinthians 2:13). Indeed, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers had complete trust in even the smallest portions of the Old Testament (cf. John 10:35; Psalm 82:6; Matthew 22:43-44; Psalm 110:1), we should have complete trust in both the Old and New Testaments.

²² Cf. Jeremiah 1:1-4; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 3:17.

²³ Bible writers throughout Scripture credited Moses with writing the first five books of the Old Testament (Joshua 8:32; 2 Chronicles 34:14; John 1:17; Romans 10:5).

²⁴ Wayne Jackson (2016), “The Four Gospel Accounts,” Christian Courier, September, p. 1.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 2.

²⁶ Ibid. “See 12:42 where Mark converts the Greek ‘two mites’ [lepta] into the Roman term ‘farthing,’” etc. (pp. 2-3).

²⁷ All bold text in Scripture quotations in this article was added for emphasis.

²⁸ John 13:5,6,22-23; 14:5,8; 16:17,29.

²⁹ For a logical and thorough treatment of “when an account of action in the Bible can be used correctly to show that some action is binding on men living today” (p. i), see Thomas B. Warren’s book When is an “Example” Binding? (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

³⁰ There are a few areas where “context” may not be as crucial to understanding a given statement, including various proverbs where “the preceding or following parts may not furnish any clue to the meaning of any sentence, or word in the sentence” (Lockhart, p. 108).

³¹ Lockhart, p. 108, italics in orig.

³² Of course, one cannot help but immediately ask if those who parrot this claim actually disobey their own interpretation and “judge” someone whom they deem as “judging” them.

³³ For a brief explanation of Matthew 7:6, see Wayne Jackson (2017), “Concerning ‘Dogs’ and ‘Hogs,’ Christian Courier, https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1343-concerning-dogs-and-hogs.

³⁴ 1 Corinthians 5:1-11; Ephesians 5:11; Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11.

Suggested Resources

The post Systematically Understanding the Bible Better [Part 2] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Never in world history has as much information been as easily accessible to as many people as in the 21^st century. If you want to know the name of Alexander the Great’s father, you can search for the answer on the World Wide Web using, for example, the Google search engine, which can search over 60 trillion Web pages at any given moment.¹ If you want to master the Rubik’s cube, you can begin by searching one of several thousand Rubik’s cube tutorial videos at YouTube.com. If you want to read 10 different English translations of Genesis 1:1, you can do so on-line at one of countless Bible-study Web sites in a matter of minutes (or perhaps seconds). The fact is, more people have the opportunity to acquire more knowledge than ever before in human history.

Although we live in the information age, and though Bibles and Bible study aids are more readily available to more people, tragically, Americans are increasingly ignorant of the Word of God. According to a 2014 study conducted by the Barna Research Group and published by the American Bible Society, 88% of households in the U.S. own at least one copy of the Bible.² Furthermore, 82% of adults consider themselves at least moderately, if not highly, knowledgeable about the Bible.³ Yet, 46% of Americans (and 61% of American millennials) are “non-Bible readers.”⁴ What’s more, nearly 60% of Americans cannot correctly identify the first five books of the Bible, even within a multiple-choice question.⁵ In 2013, over 50% of Americans either did not know if John the Baptist was one of the 12 apostles or actually thought (incorrectly) that he was.⁶ That same year, nearly 50% of American millennials indicated that Sodom and Gomorrah were (or might have been) married.⁷ We may live in the age of information, but sadly, Americans’ general knowledge and understanding of the Bible—the most important Book on Earth—could aptly be described as the age of ignorance. The simple fact is, Americans are increasingly unaware of the contents of the Bible and unprepared to rightly divide it.

Given these facts, Apologetics Press would like to help Christians and non-Christians systematically understand the Bible better. In this article, we concisely highlight several vital truths and preliminary principles of Bible study that everyone needs to know. Think of these principles as helpful tips to remember as we seek to treat the Bible fairly and interpret it accurately. Christians who are familiar with these principles may find a review of them refreshing and an organized collection of them in one place helpful in teaching others. We hope that those who are less familiar with the Bible will find the following systematic statements and principles helpful in coming to a correct understanding of the precious, soul-saving, life-enriching truths of the Book that has blessed more lives than any other book in history, and that students will soon be reading the Bible for all that it is worth as they systematically “search the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

#1—Be Fair with the Bible

Everyone wants to be understood. We want others to be able to comprehend what we attempt to communicate to them. Though different ages, languages, cultures, personalities, education levels, etc. can make communication among human beings difficult at times, people want to “be heard,” and they want their messages to be heard in the way in which they intend for them to be understood.

When a cashier at the grocery store says, “That will be $34.32,” he reasonably expects the customer to understand the exact cost of the groceries and to take appropriate action. When a teacher instructs her students to complete the pop quiz to the best of their ability, she rightly expects her students to comprehend her instructions and at least attempt to answer the questions before them. When a journalist writes a review of a book for a newspaper, he has realistic expectations that people will attempt to be as fair with his article as his readers should expect him to be with the book that he reviewed.

The Bible, likewise, deserves to be handled fairly. It deserves to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. The Bible, in fact, repeatedly warns of those who “keep on hearing, but do not understand” and who “keep on seeing, but do not perceive” (Isaiah 6:9).⁸ Paul wanted his readers to imitate his “simplicity and godly sincerity” and to “read” and “understand” (2 Corinthians 1:12-13). He wanted them to be “careful” and “wise,” and “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:15,17, NASB).

Many through the centuries have treated the Bible unjustly, but common decency demands that we attempt to interpret it fairly. We should not assume the worst about the Bible writers anymore than we should assume the worst about anyone whom we are genuinely attempting to understand. If a person or a document eventually is shown to be incorrect about one or more matters, we certainly should take note of such error and respond appropriately to it. However, a person’s communications (in whatever form they may be) are to be presumed truthful and consistent until it can be shown conclusively that they are false and contradictory. This unbiased approach has been accepted throughout literary history, and is still accepted today in most venues. After all, you cannot expect to have a coherent ancient history class using Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, etc. if you presume that they were all liars. Respected 19^th-century Harvard law professor, Simon Greenleaf, dealt with this principle in his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence:

The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”⁹

It is universally honorable to draw justifiable, coherent conclusions and to make “righteous judgments” (John 7:24) about people and the things they communicate.¹⁰ So why not apply the Golden Rule to our efforts at understanding any and all communication, including the Bible itself? “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Since everyone wants to be understood in a fair manner, let’s be sure to be fair with the Bible.

#2—The Bible Claims to be Divinely Inspired

Tens of millions of books have been written throughout history, but the fact is, the claim of inspiration at the hand of God is extremely rare. Many books assert special importance, while others claim to be a kind of “creed book.” However, as Kenny Barfield noted in his book, Why the Bible is Number 1, apparently only seven documents are known to exist in the entire world that openly claim divine inspiration.¹¹ Sadly, misguided devotees of various religions clamor about, defending books and various writings as allegedly being “inspired of God” when, in fact, the books themselves do not even make such a claim. Take, for instance, the many Hindu writings. Of some of their most notable “sacred” texts, including the Vedas, the Laws of Manu, and the Puranas, only the section of the Vedas known as the Rig Veda claims inspiration.¹² Similarly, the Christian Science group has led many to believe that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy are inspired. Yet, even though her writings claim special importance, they never openly claim divine inspiration.¹³ Why would anyone want to follow a creed book and claim it is from God when the book itself does not even make such a claim?

Indeed, the written claim of inspiration at the hand of God is extremely rare. For this reason, one of the fundamental facts to remember in any Bible study is that the Bible claims to be, not the will of man, but “of God,” Who “carried along by the Holy Spirit” His oral and writing prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV). This claim of divine inspiration is found, not just once or twice in the Bible, but hundreds of times. The phrase “The Lord spoke/said to Moses” is found 35 times in Leviticus alone (NKJV). King David claimed, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2). Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

If God exists (and there is ample evidence that He does),¹⁴ then it is reasonable to conclude that God (1) could freely choose to communicate to His human creation, (2) would have the ability (as the omnipotent Creator) to communicate to man, (3) would choose to reveal important information to His human creation if He expected anything from them (e.g., faith, commitment, obedience, worship, etc.), and (4) would reasonably inform humanity that the message was, indeed, from Him. (That is, He would not leave it up to mere guesswork as to whether or not He had ever communicated to mankind.) Indeed, unlike 99.999995% of the books on Earth,¹⁵ the Bible claims (many times) that it is from the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-16).

There is one all-important reason for Bible students to acknowledge the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration: the only reason that the Bible has any right to govern a person’s life in any way is if it is actually from the Creator of the Universe and the Judge of all mankind. Think about it: the Bible tells its readers how they should live. It instructs people what not to do (e.g., lust, hate, lie, commit sexual immorality) and what to do (e.g., be kind, loving, humble, forgiving), and then it pronounces eternal damnation on those who do not obey the words of the Bible (Galatians 5:21; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Revelation 21:8). No mere human being or mere human-authored book has the authority to tell someone the things that the Bible teaches. A rational person’s response to “do this or else” is, “Who exactly are you to tell me that I must obey what you are saying?” Published works that tell people to “do X, Y, and Z because I said so,” are logically met with immediate resistance. Simply put: it matters who says what—and why.

In truth, the Bible is crystal clear about why a person should seriously read, study, meditate upon, believe, and eventually obey its words: the Bible is not a mere man-made book, but a supernaturally inspired document—at least, that is its repeated claim. And such a spectacular claim must be acknowledged and digested early on in one’s attempt to understand the Bible correctly. After all, if the Bible is not the Word of God, then it was written by pompous charlatans who should be exposed as frauds.

#3—The Bible Possesses the Attributes of Divine Inspiration

Even though we would expect to find that any book produced by God would claim divine inspiration, any rational person knows that such a claim does not prove anything in and of itself. It is a necessary trait of inspiration, but it is not a sufficient trait. Simply because a book or writing claims divine inspiration is not positive proof of its inspiration. Any person could stand in front of an audience and claim to be the President of the United States. In fact, he could make that claim hundreds of times. But his many claims to the presidency would fail to prove his case unless he could provide adequate and sufficient evidence.

Those who penned the Bible did not expect the world to receive their writings as God’s Word simply because they claimed divine inspiration (anymore than Jesus expected people to believe that He was the Messiah simply because He claimed to be—John 5:31; 10:37-38). The Bible writers insisted that their writings were not based on imaginary, unverifiable people and events, but instead were grounded on solid, verifiable facts. The apostle Peter wrote: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). In his introduction to the book of Acts, Luke stated that Jesus “presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, emp. added). The Bible writers understood and insisted that the information they penned was accurate and factual, and should be accepted, not based on a lack of evidence or a “leap in the dark,” but on an abundance of verifiable proof.

So what is the proof that the Bible is of supernatural origin? Why should an honest truth-seeker come to the conclusion that the Bible is the special revelation from the Creator of the Universe? While it is beyond the scope of this article (and especially this brief section) to detail the many evidences for the Bible’s inspiration, we can certainly summarize the evidences for you. In short, the main, overarching reason that the Bible is demonstrated to be of divine origin is because the Bible writers were correct in everything they wrote—about the past, the present, and even the future.¹⁶

Eighteenth-century English poet Alexander Pope succinctly noted in “An Essay on Criticism” what every rational person knows all too well—“to err is human.”¹⁷ Even though we may set high standards for ourselves and learn all that we can, and even though we may put as many safeguards in place as is humanly possible, mistakes will be made; ignorance will be revealed; errors will occur. It simply is humanly impossible to be correct about everything a person says or writes. “With God,” however, “all things are possible” (Mark 10:27).

If an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists, then such a God could produce written revelation for His human creation that was flawless in its original production. He could guide uneducated men to write about events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years before their time with complete accuracy. He could “move” (otherwise) ordinary men to write flawlessly about any number of contemporary people, places, and things. He could even guide man to write about future events with perfect accuracy—a humanly impossible feat. In truth, the all-encompassing reason that a person can come to the rational conclusion that the Bible is “given by inspiration of God” is because the writers of the Bible were amazingly accurate about everything. The very existence of the Holy Scriptures cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that they are the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.

Consider how coming to the realization that the Bible is the Word of God impacts our treatment of it. If, as stated earlier, we strongly desire for our own words to be treated fairly, and if we can reasonably conclude that we should handle the communication from others with integrity, then revelation from the supreme Creator and Ruler of the Universe should be treated with the utmost integrity and reverence. If Shakespeare and Hawthorne are highly respected by readers, treated almost with reverence by some, how much more should we carefully and respectfully handle the Word of God?

Is there any wonder why the psalmist loved Holy Writ “more than gold, yes, than fine gold” (119:127)? Is there any question why he said, “my heart stands in awe of Your word” (119:161)? Are we surprised to find out that when Ezra and other Jewish leaders read from the Law of Moses “from morning until midday,” that “all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law” and respectfully listened to the teachers who “gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:3,5,8)? And why did the “fair-minded” Bereans take the time and effort to “search the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11)? For the same reason we all should: The Bible is divinely inspired and deserves to be interpreted fairly, carefully, and with the utmost respect.

#4—The Need for a Reliable Bible Translation

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.¹⁸ So unless you can read and understand these languages, a good Bible translation is essential to a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Everyone understands the importance of translation work in international travel, business, and politics. No serious, sane person visits a foreign country and asks for the worst translators possible. If people have a choice, they will always choose the best translators that they can afford for their particular purposes. When two international companies meet to discuss a partnership or merger, language cannot be a barrier to understanding the minute details of the terms of agreement.¹⁹ When the leaders of two countries on the brink of war meet to discuss the possibility of peace, the translation work is critical. In a very real sense, life and death are in the hands of the translators, and they are expected to perform their work as honestly and flawlessly as humanly possible.

In the Bible, God has set before His readers, as He did before the Israelites, “life and death, blessing and cursing” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Jesus said, “[H]e who hears My word and believes in Him Who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24). The fact is, the immortal soul of every accountable human being depends upon his or her understanding and faithful acceptance of the Gospel of Christ. However, for most people, a proper reading of the Gospel in one’s own language is required. Thus, translations matter!

Some translations are more literal²⁰—a more word-for-word translation, which “attempts to follow the form of the original document very closely in verbal and grammatical order.”²¹ Other translations are less literal,²² but are often more reader friendly. Such a translation “attempts to reproduce in the English reader the same understanding of meaning and degree of impact and challenge that the original Hebrew and Greek audiences experienced when the Scriptures were first produced. This is accomplished through a thought-for-thought, meaning-for-meaning, translation style.”²³ Still other translations²⁴ (which we do not recommend) are “almost colloquial or paraphrastic in places,” and “free in word choice.”²⁵ Thankfully, as Dave Miller noted, “generally speaking, most translations do not differ on the essentials. Most English versions convey these essentials: (1) what one must do to be saved and (2) what one must do to stay saved. As imperfect as translations might be, most still convey this basic information.”²⁶ That said, we would recommend that Bible students use a more literal word-for-word translation as their primary study Bible and a somewhat less literal, thought-for-thought translation as a secondary Bible, which one might use and consult as he would a good commentary or other helpful study aids.

An Example of a Potentially Perilous Bible Translation

The New World Translation (NWT) of the New Testament was first published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1950. It is a translation by Jehovah Witnesses and largely for Jehovah’s Witnesses. (In fact, I’ve never met anyone who is not a Jehovah’s Witness who uses the NWT as their primary Bible.) Although Jehovah’s Witnesses are some of the nicest, most zealous, religious people in the world, they advocate some very dangerous doctrines, including and especially the idea that Jesus is not divine and thus not worthy of man’s worship.²⁷

For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has attempted to circumvent the obvious references to Jesus accepting worship by changing the word “worship” in their translation of the New Testament to “obeisance” every time the Greek word proskuneo (the most prominent word for worship in the New Testament) is used in reference to Jesus. Over 30 times in the NWT proskuneo is correctly translated “worship” when God the Father is the recipient of glory and praise. This Greek word occurs 14 times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, yet not once does the NWT render it “worship;” instead, every time it is translated “obeisance.” Allegedly, Mary Magdalene, the apostles, the blind man whom Jesus healed, etc., never worshiped Jesus (which would imply His deity); rather, they only paid “obeisance” to Him (cf. John 9:38).

In a section in which the writer of Hebrews exalted Jesus above the heavenly hosts, he affirmed that even the angels worship Christ. He wrote: “Let all the angels of God worship (proskuneo) Him.” The KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, RSVand a host of other translations render proskuneo in this verse as “worship.” How does the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT render this passage? Unfortunately, as with all other times in the NWT when Jesus is mentioned as being the object of proskuneo, the word is translated “do obeisance,” not “worship.” Hebrews 1:6 reads: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him” (NWT).²⁸

Although no Bible translation is perfect,²⁹ and although the Truth of God’s Word can be learned from most translations, there are some translations (such as the NWT) that Bible students should be strongly discouraged from using as their primary Bible.³⁰ Indeed, the choice of one’s Bible translation is a serious matter. There may not be a perfect one, and there certainly is plenty of room for a variety of translations from which we may study and learn, but we should definitely take the choice of translations seriously.

#5—Break Down the Bible in Order to Build Up Understanding

Recently I spoke with an intelligent young man who had just left a college class that he had never taken, taught by a professor he did not know, who used terminology the student had never heard and a textbook he had never read. (He didn’t even understand the title of the textbook.) The student was “lost” and appeared as if he was about to have a panic attack. Why? Because of his unfamiliarity with the subject matter and the scholarly language with which it was presented.

Having an awareness of this young man’s Christian character, intellectual abilities, as well as his work ethic, I assured him (what I’ve been told at various times in my life) “everything was going to be okay.” He just needed to slow down, start from the beginning, and take “baby steps.” He needed to break down the intimidating terminology and concepts in order to start slowly building up a reasonable understanding of the subject matter.

If 46% of Americans are “non-Bible readers” and nearly 60% of Americans cannot correctly identify the first five books of the Bible, even within a multiple choice question, do you think that there may be more than a few Americans who, upon being handed a Bible and asked to read it, may be as puzzled by the Bible as the aforementioned college student was by his first day of class? Likely tens of millions of Americans would be lost on the first day of “Bible class.” However, they can learn the Gospel! They can come to “the knowledge of the Truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). They just need (a) an open heart, and (b) to begin by learning some foundational, fundamental truths about the Bible itself.

Breaking Down the Bible

The Bible is composed of two major sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is composed of 39 books³¹ penned by approximately 32 different men³² over a period of about 1,100 years (from approximately 1,500 B.C. to about 400 B.C.). The Old Testament covers over 3,500 years of human history (from the Creation to the Jews’ return to Jerusalem following 70 years of Babylonian captivity) and may be divided into five parts: (1) Books of the Law of Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy); (2) Books of History (Joshua-Esther); (3) Books of Poetry (Job-Song of Solomon); (4) Books of the Major Prophets (Isaiah-Daniel); and (5) Books of the Minor Prophets (Hosea-Malachi).

The Old Testament refers to two major law systems: (1) the Law of Moses (which was given only to the Israelites—and to those Gentiles, called proselytes, who converted to Judaism), and (2) the law that governed all men from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, and only Gentiles (non-Jews) from Adam until the Christian dispensation began. Although the Bible does not give this law a “proper name,” it has come to be known as “the Patriarchal Law.”³³

The New Testament is composed of 27 books penned by eight different writers over a period of about 50 years (from approximately A.D. 50-100). The New Testament can be broken down sensibly into four parts: (1) The Life of Jesus (Matthew-John); (2) A history of the first 30 years of the church of Christ (Acts); (3) Letters (Romans-Jude); and (4) Prophecy (Revelation).

The New Testament is “the Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2) under which all men (Jews and Gentiles) live today (Ephesians 2:11-22). This law is universal in scope; it is addressed to “all nations” and is to be obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 24:47; cf. Acts 1:8; Acts 17:30). Bible students should still read, meditate upon, and learn from the Old Testament (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), but we must all recognize that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) for all men everywhere. Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17), and ever since He died in about A.D. 30, His Will (not the Old Law of Moses nor Patriarchal Law) has been in force (Hebrews 9:14-17).

The Old Testament and the New Testament are different, and the books that make them up are distinctive. Understanding these differences will help the Bible student get a better initial and overall grasp of the Bible. Yet, the student of the Scriptures must always keep in mind that one central theme runs throughout Holy Writ—God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.³⁴ From the first messianic prophecy in Genesis 3:15 to Malachi’s prophecy (3:1; 4:5) of the one who would come to prepare the way for the Messiah, the Old Testament tells us through promises, prophecies, and word pictures that “the Savior is coming.” Then, some four hundred years after the close of the Old Testament, the first four books of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written to testify to the truth that, indeed, “Jesus, the Savior, came,” while Acts-Revelation testify to the fact that “Jesus will come again.” And, in light of such a day, God calls all people to humble themselves and submit to His Will (1 Peter 5:5-7) while we still have an opportunity (Revelation 22:17).

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ See Google Inside Search, September 27, 2016, https://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/thestory/.

² “The State of the Bible” (2014), American Bible Society, p. 9, http://www.americanbible.org/uploads/content/state-of-the-bible-data-analysis-american-bible-society-2014.pdf.

³ Ibid., p. 20.

⁴ Ibid., p. 11. The Barna research group classifies “non-Bible readers” as those who read the Bible less than three times a year outside of a church service or event.

⁵ Ibid., p. 55.

⁶ “The State of the Bible” (2013), American Bible Society, p. 66, http://www.americanbible.org/uploads/content/State%20of%20the%20Bible%20Report%202013.pdf.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Cf. Isaiah 43:8; Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27; Romans 11:8.

⁹ Simon Greenleaf (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics), p. 16, emp. added.

¹⁰ Even though some thieves, murderers, and other unruly individuals may brag about their unjust conduct, they still want to be understood and treated fairly.

¹¹ Kenny Barfield (1997), Why the Bible is Number 1 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers), p. 186.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ See Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5045&topic=93. See also the “Existence of God” section of ApologeticsPress.org.

¹⁵ If there are approximately 130 million books on Earth (as Google indicates; https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/you-can-count-number-of-books-in-world.html), and only seven of them claim divine inspiration, then only about 0.000005% of books in existence claim to be inspired of God.

¹⁶ For specific evidences on the inspiration of the Bible, see Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press). See also the “Inspiration of the Bible” section of ApologeticsPress.org.

¹⁷ Alexander Pope (1709), “An Essay on Criticism,” http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/ling001/pope_crit.htm.

¹⁸ The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with only small portions penned in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek with an occasional Aramaic word.

¹⁹ That is, language must not be any more of a barrier than it already innately is.

²⁰ E.g., the American Standard Version.

²¹ “Formal Equivalence” (2016), http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/glossary/formal.htm.

²² E.g., New International Version; New Century Version.

²³ “Dynamic Equivalence” (2016), http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/glossary/dynamic.htm.

²⁴ E.g., Today’s English Version; The Message.

²⁵ “Free Dynamic Versions” (2016), http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/glossary/dynamic.htm.

²⁶ Dave Miller (2015), “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible Has Not Been Corrupted,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5196&topic=103, emp. in orig.

²⁷ See Eric Lyons (2015), “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worship of Jesus,” Reason & Revelation, 35[11]:122-125,128, November, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1206.

²⁸ Interestingly, however, the NWT has not always rendered proskuneo in Hebrews 1:6 as “do obeisance.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society first printed the NWT in 1950, the verse actually rendered proskuneo as “worship” instead of “do obeisance.” Even the revised 1961 edition of the NWT translated proskuneo as “worship.” But, by 1971, Jehovah’s Witnesses had changed Hebrews 1:6 to read: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

²⁹ The open and honest imperfections of man’s translation work should not disturb us so as to think that we must have an absolutely perfect translation in order to know the Truth and please God. As Dave Miller observed about the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament translated around 250 B.C., “Though considered by scholars as an imperfect translation of the Hebrew, most of the direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint. Hence, the Bible gives implicit divine endorsement to the use of imperfect, manmade translations, further implying that God’s Word has been adequately transmitted down through the centuries via translation” (Ibid.).

³⁰ For a brief, balanced, non-technical study of translations, we recommend Wayne Jackson’s booklet titled, The Bible Translation Controversy (1995) (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

³¹ “The Hebrews divided their Scriptures, 24 books total, into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings…. The order and numbering of the Hebrew Bible is different from the Old Testament, which explains why they list 24 books, while we list 39. The Law consisted of the five books of the Torah, exactly like our English Bible. The Prophets contained Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve [Minor—EL] Prophets, in that order. They considered these eight books, but we divide Samuel into two parts, Kings into two parts, and the Twelve Prophets into their respective parts—yielding a new number of twenty-one books out of the same set of the Prophets. [NOTE: Stephen, in Acts 7:42-43, quotes from Amos 5:25-27 and cites it as the Book of the Prophets, showing how the Minor Prophets were considered a single composite work.] Finally, the Hebrew Bible placed Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles in the Writings. Our Bibles divide Ezra into two books (Ezra and Nehemiah) and Chronicles into two books. This order in the Hebrew Bible follows a rough chronology of authorship, based on Jewish tradition” [“The Canon and Extra Canonical Writings” (2003), Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=968&topic=103].

³² “The Authorship of the Bible” (2016), http://www.ukapologetics.net/12/authorship.htm.

³³ The English term “patriarch” derives from the Greek patriarches, which actually is made of two words—pater, meaning “father;” and arches, meaning “head” or “founder.” A patriarch is “the head of a father’s house—the founder or ruler of a tribe, family, or clan” [“Patriarch” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson)].

Other than Christianity and Judaism, there has been but one other law, through the ages, under which God accepted worship: This was the “patriarchal” system that had continued since commands were first given in Eden. Adam, Eve, and their non-Judean descendants were under some kind of law, for the apostle Paul stated, “where there is no law, neither is there transgression” (Romans 4:15). For the Gentiles to have been guilty of sin (which we know they were—Romans 3:10,23), they must have transgressed some law. What law was it? It was not the Law of Moses, because they were not amenable to that law (either because it had not yet been established or because they were not descendants of Abraham). What’s more, it was not the Law of Christ, because that Law did not come into effect until the first century A.D.

Although there still is much we do not understand about the Patriarchal Law (e.g., what direct revelations they received, what “laws” were passed down from generation to generation, etc.), we can know that the Gentiles were under a law (that was not the Law of Moses nor the Law of Christ), because they were guilty of “transgression” (Romans 4:15; 5:13), just as all men are. And if there is transgression, then there must be some law. Man has given this law a name—patriarchy.

³⁴ In order to get a better overall understanding of the Bible, we highly recommend Frank Chesser’s book, Portrait of God: Viewing the Divine Through His Work of Redemption (2004), (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs), http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=260.

Suggested Resources

The post Systematically Understanding the Bible Better [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If the Bible is from God (and it is¹), then we can know that it is accurate when discussing historical science. In order to interpret properly the natural evidence, then, one must know what the Bible teaches about the history of the Earth. There certainly are differing views about some of the particulars of the biblical Creation model, based on how one interprets certain passages. Some Scriptures are not explicit about precisely what happened at various times in Earth history (e.g., during the Creation week or during and immediately after the Flood). But the Creation scientist understands the importance of not contradicting Scripture when attempting to develop a comprehensive scientific model or framework within which all scientific disciplines must fit.

That said, the question of when death on the Earth began can have implications that affect our understanding of various questions in Creation science. It is clear, biblically, that humans would not have died had they not sinned (Genesis 3:22), but what of the rest of the Creation? If animal death could occur before the Fall (i.e., before Adam and Eve’s first sin), for example, then we would have to assume that death was a design feature of the planet from the beginning, rather than being a part of the Curse placed upon the Earth as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19). And if that is the case, one cannot argue against theistic evolution by claiming that there was no pre-Fall animal death. Pre-Fall animal death could also affect creationists’ attempts to understand cases of so called “natural evil,” where, for example, various living things seem to have been designed to kill (e.g., parasitoids, pathogens, and phages). If all death was solely a result of the Fall, then we would assume that such cases of “natural evil” were not part of God’s original design, but were part of the Curse. If death could, in fact, occur prior to the Fall, then a different response to some forms of “natural evil” might be more relevant (e.g., microevolution and/or diversification, displacement from intended habitat, or degeneration), although some forms of “natural evil” still might have been directly due to the Curse.

Also, if death could occur before the Fall, there might be implications of that fact when we examine the fossil record. Creationists generally interpret the bulk of the fossils that are found at the base of the fossil record to be a result of the Flood, since it is thought to be the first major catastrophic event in Earth history. It is thought that only local catastrophes happened in the 16 centuries up to the Flood. If death could occur prior to the Fall, however, then there may be another catastrophic event of global proportions that could be relevant when studying the fossil record as well: day three.

According to Genesis chapter one, prior to day three of the Creation week, the Earth was covered with water. On day three, God created the dry land and then created grass, seed-bearing herbs, fruit trees—the plants. Swimming and flying creatures were created on day five, and finally, land life on day six. It is easy for us to read through this simplified narrative of what God did on those four days without stopping to consider the possible geologic implications of His activity. On day three, God said, “‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so” (Genesis 1:9). This passage may be saying that God, in essence, scraped the surface of the ocean floor, piling up a massive amount of Earth to cause some of it to be exposed from the water, forming land.² If so, it seems likely that mudslides would have occurred over the next several hours and possibly days, due to the wet material from the ocean floor being raised in elevation and water rapidly running off the continental surface. This activity could have begun the fossilization process of some of the plants and aquatic creatures created on days three and five, respectively. There are other options that would not have caused such mudslides,³ but the point is that the Creation scientist must at least consider the possibility that the earliest fossils in the record were a result of day-three activity.

So could there have been death prior to the Fall? And if so, are there theological implications? First, we know that plants were certainly able to die before the Fall, because they were to serve as food for humans and animals throughout the Earth (Genesis 1:30). Nobody seems to dispute that truth. It is argued, however, that plants are not thought to be “alive” in the same sense as animals. Unlike animals and humans, plants are never described as being “living creatures” (nephesh chayyah).⁴ God seemed to be making a distinction between kinds of life in Genesis 1:30 when He said, “Also, to every beast of the Earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the Earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food” (emp. added). While that is true, it is also true that plants can die in some sense (Job 14:7-12; John 12:24),⁵ which tells us that not all death must necessarily be regarded in a negative light.

It is true that Adam, Eve, the flying creatures, and the land animals were told by God originally to be herbivores (Genesis 1:29-30).⁶ So it is clear that it was not part of God’s original design plan for there to be bloodshed by the hand of another, at least among humans, birds, creeping things, and the “beast of the Earth” (apparently the land animals created on day six, Genesis 1:24-25,29-30). But that does not mean that catastrophic activity, natural disasters, or natural death could not have still killed animals. Some argue that God’s creation could not have been “very good” (Genesis 1:31) if animals could suffer and die, since the creation was perfect.⁷ But this assumes (1) that animals, which are soul-less beings,⁸ can truly suffer in the same way humans can; and (2) that the creation could not still be “very good” and there be death. We have already seen that due to the occurrence of pre-Fall plant death, the creation could still be deemed as “very good” by God, even with death occurring simultaneously. So the question then becomes, what did God mean by calling the creation “very good,” and what kind of death, if any, would not have been considered “very good” to God? It seems logical to infer that a “very good” creation simply meant that the created order was exactly as God intended for it to be, whatever that might be—death or no death. As one Creation scientist acknowledged concerning the pre-Fall world, “Although the pre-Fall world was ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31), it was not ‘perfect’ (i.e., it did not exhibit every meaning of ‘perfect’).”⁹ What kind of death was a part of that “very good” creation must be gleaned, if possible, from the text.

It is argued that “Death is ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26) which Jesus Christ came and died to defeat. And this would include animal death.”¹⁰ In the context of 1 Corinthians 15, however, Paul is not including animals in referencing the defeat of death, but rather, humans—those capable of sin (vs. 17).

Isaiah 11:6 is sometimes quoted as evidence that there was no animal death prior to the Fall.¹¹ “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” The claim is that in the end, God will restore on Earth the conditions that were in effect in the Garden, where animals were not violent towards one another. Once again, however, in context we see that Isaiah 11 is a Messianic prophecy (cf. vss. 1-5), discussing the coming of Jesus and His kingdom in the first century using highly figurative, not literal, terminology. As evidence, consider that in Romans 15:12, Paul quotes from Isaiah 11 and applies Isaiah’s prophecy to the first century, noting that the prophecy had already been fulfilled at that time.¹² Isaiah may have simply been referring to the peace and harmony that would exist in the coming Church. In Christianity, for instance, those once viewed as predators—ferocious wolves, leopards, and young lions—are often found dwelling peaceably with those who would have once been their prey. If we understand Isaiah 11 to refer to the coming of Christ and the Christian dispensation, therefore, we could reasonably conclude that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled when the Kingdom (i.e., the Church¹³) was established in Acts 2.¹⁴

It is also argued that God’s Curse after the Fall included the animals according to Genesis 3, and by implication, humanity’s death curse would have applied to the animals at that point as well.¹⁵ But that assertion is an assumption—the text does not say that was the case. Second, the serpent was, indeed, “cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field” (Genesis 3:14), implying that the animals were all cursed, though not as much as the serpent. But it is also true that the plants were included in the Curse as well (vss. 17-18), and we have already seen that they were capable of death prior to the Fall.

Arguments have been made from various passages that tell us death was a result of sin (Romans 5:12-21), that shedding blood is necessary for the remission of sin, but would not have been necessary, by implication, without sin (Hebrews 9:22), and that Christ’s physical death and resurrection made it possible for physical death, initiated by Adam and Eve, to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:21,22,26).¹⁶ Such passages, however, contextually, are talking about mankind, not animals, which are not imputed with sin. It is argued that Romans 8:19-22 indicates that the “whole creation”—which is thought to include the animals—suffers, groans, labors, and is under a bondage of corruption (vss. 21-22) due to man’s sin, and therefore, that the whole creation would not have so suffered prior to man’s sin—i.e., animals would not have suffered death.¹⁷ In the end, however, “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (vs. 21, ESV), apparently returning to a pre-Fall state. Understand that there is considerable argument over the meaning of the word “creation” in Romans 8—whether or not it is referring to all of the created order, or merely humans. To base an entire argument on such a disputed passage would be unwise, to say the least. It could be argued from the context, that “creation” is referring to humans—the only ones who can “eagerly wait for the revealing of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19). More specifically, the “whole creation” (vs. 22) could be referring to mankind in general (which “labors with birth pangs,” referring back to the punishment which female humans would have due to Eve’s sin), while “creation” (vss. 19,20,21) could be referring to Christians—i.e., the “sons of God” whom Paul has been discussing in the preceding verses. After all, “whole creation” is used in precisely that way—to mean mankind in general—elsewhere in Scripture. In Mark 16:15 (ESV), for example, Jesus tells the apostles to go preach the gospel to the “whole creation,” which is another way of saying to “all nations” (Matthew 28:19) and does not include animals. Regardless, Romans 8 cannot be used as conclusive evidence that animals did not die prior to the Fall.

The hallmark passage that seems to be used to try to sustain the idea that death did not occur prior to Adam and Eve is Romans 5:12-19:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…). Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous (emp. added).

Notice that, contextually, while this passage does discuss death as being a result of sin, it is clearly referring to humans and the effect of sin with regard to mankind, not animals. It was humans, not animals, that were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), giving them the capacity to sin.

A passage that provides weight to the viewpoint that animals could die prior to the Fall is Genesis 3:22-24. After Adam and Eve sinned and God confronted them, pronouncing their punishments and making modest clothes for them, the text says:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden…and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the Tree of Life (emp. added).

Notice from this text that man’s ability to live forever was not a direct miraculous act by God, or something inherent in the physical body of mankind (i.e., part of God’s  original design of the human body), but rather, was coupled with his eating from the Tree of Life, which apparently possessed miraculous healing qualities (cf. Revelation 22:2). The implication is that Adam and Eve could have still lived forever, even after sinning, if they were able to access the Tree of Life and eat from it. That is the very reason why God used cherubim and a flaming sword to guard Eden and the tree. A further implication is that physical death was always possible from the beginning for anyone (and apparently, anything) that did not eat of the Tree of Life—i.e., entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics was in place from the beginning, governing the Earth. Adam and Eve were able to eat from the anti-entropy tree and not be subject to the effects of the Second Law; but without it, the effects of God’s natural laws would have taken their course.

With that understanding in mind, what are the implications for the rest of the living beings on the planet? A straightforward reading of the text in Genesis 2:9 and 3:22,24 leads us to believe that God made and placed in the Garden a single fruit tree that, unlike the other fruit trees throughout the Garden that humans and living creatures could eat from, had physical life-giving qualities tied to it. Any living being that did not eat from that Tree would apparently eventually suffer physical death—hence, the name given to it: “the Tree of Life.”¹⁸ If so, could the animals which were created throughout the Earth, which could not reach the Tree of Life to eat it, live forever? Could the swimming creatures that God had created on day five eat from the tree? If not, then how could they live forever? What about all of the animals that God created, surely spread out over the Earth, playing the crucial roles for the Earth for which God designed them? Were they able to access the Tree of Life and live forever? Surely not. If we suppose that perhaps animals could live forever apart from the Tree of Life prior to the Fall, we would be going beyond the clear message of the text regarding the nature of the Tree. God seemed to want to emphasize in Scripture the fact that He tied eternal life to the Tree of Life.¹⁹ One would need more biblical evidence before arguing that the animals received eternal life apart from the Tree. If humans needed the Tree to live forever and were denied access to it after the Fall, it seems logical to conclude that the animals were affected in the same way.

Summary

With this understanding about life and death in place, it becomes important to consider various implications. Arguing that theistic evolution is not biblical on the grounds that it would require billions of animal deaths prior to the Fall is not a valid argument. Theistic evolution (and related old Earth options) are false for several biblical and scientific reasons, but not that one.²⁰ Creation geologists must also consider the possibility that some of the fossils in the record could have been from day-three activity. We can also see that some cases of “natural evil” among the animals may have been in place from the beginning. Calling such cases “natural evil” is, therefore, not appropriate. It cannot be said to be “evil” at all, if it was part of God’s design for those creatures all along.

The world was designed to serve as a “vale of soul-making”²¹ for humans. It was intended to prepare them for the afterlife, giving them an opportunity to make their choice about where they will spend eternity. A fundamental component of that design for the Universe is life and death. As part of our studies on Earth, while preparing for the afterlife, God seems to want us to understand life and death and their ramifications. We simply cannot escape death. Everywhere we look, whether by the naked eye or when studying bacteria under a microscope, we are reminded of mortality. It is clearly important to God for humans to acknowledge the reality of death. It appears that even before their first sin, Adam and Eve were capable of observing the evidence around them that death was a real thing—that God knew what He was talking about. They could know, by His mercy, they were not being subjected to death. They could understand the concept about which God was warning them: “in the day that you eat of it, you [also—JM] shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). When they sat on an ant, it could die. When a sauropod dinosaur stepped on a snake, the snake was not protected from death by a force field. Rather, the dinosaur’s weight would most certainly crush it, in harmony with God’s natural laws.

A wise man certainly “regards the life of his animal” (Proverbs 12:10), but he also understands that humans are different from animals. According to Jesus, we are “of more value” than them (Matthew 6:26; 10:31; 12:12; Luke 12:24). Those who submit to the will of God in faith will be able to live forever, spiritually (John 3:16); but not the animals. They were never intended to live forever. They serve as a reminder that we should seek life (John 10:10).

Endnotes

¹ Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

² NOTE: This is, no doubt, an oversimplification of what could have actually occurred on day three if God created land from sea floor material. God could have used basaltic rock from the base of the ocean to form the granitic rock that comprises much of the land continents today. Granitic rock is less dense, causing it to float higher in the mantle (exposing land), while the basaltic rock of the ocean floor tends to float lower in the mantle, lowering the sea level.

³ It is possible that the Earth was completely made of water to this point, and God created the infrastructure of the Earth on day three, including the core, mantle, and crust, from that water (2 Peter 3:5), rather than raising material from the sea floor. There would likely be no mudslides if He chose to create land in this way.

⁴ Ken Ham (2014), “Was There Death Before Adam Sinned?” Answers in Genesis On-line, April 25, https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/was-there-death-before-adam-sinned/.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2012), “Did Jesus Contradict the Law of Biogenesis in John 12:24?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=106&article=1590.

⁶ Kenneth Ham (1991), “Adam and Ants,” Acts & Facts, 20[9].

⁷ Avery Foley (2015), “Did Adam Step on an Ant Before the Fall?” Answers in Genesis On-line, December 4, https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-adam-step-on-an-ant-before-fall/.

⁸ Bert Thompson (2001), The Origin, Nature, & Destiny of the Soul (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/onds.pdf.

⁹ K.P. Wise (2014), “Spectra of Perfection: A Case for Biological Imperfection before the Fall,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 4:28, emp. added.

¹⁰ Foley.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Bible scholar Homer Hailey highlighted that Isaiah 1l:10 is quoted by Paul “and applied to the present time under Christ in which the Gentiles hope in Him (Rom. 15:12). If the prophecy is not now fulfilled, the Gentiles have no hope. But they abound in hope at this present time (Rom. 15:13); therefore, the passage is now fulfilled.” (2006), Prayer and Providence (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications), pp. 177-178.

¹⁴ Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:9; Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 10:7.

¹⁵ Foley.

¹⁶ Ibid.; Ham (1991).

¹⁷ Foley.

¹⁸ Why would God give it that name if its purpose was not to sustain life? Further, if living beings could live forever without the Tree of Life, what would be the point of the Tree?

¹⁹ Genesis 2:9; 3:22,24; Revelation 2:7; 22:2,14.

²⁰ cf. Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 2nd edition.

²¹ John Keats (1895), The Letters of John Keats, ed. H. Buxton Forman (London: Reeves & Turner), p. 326.

Suggested Resources

The post Could There Have Been Any Death Before the Fall? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Did you hear that? The mom did not even mention the arcade or cinnamon rolls, and the son did not say a word about the clothing stores. Does that mean that the stories contradict one another or that either the boy or the mother was lying? Certainly not. It simply shows that no one ever tells all the details of a story when they retell it, and additional information does not mean there is an error. If the boy had said that they only went to the arcade and no stores, then there would be a problem. Or if the mom said they did not go to the arcade, there would be an error; but that is not what they said.

When we go to the Bible, we see similar situations. In Matthew 28:1, the Bible says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to visit the tomb of Jesus. Mark explains that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Solome visited the tomb (16:1). And Mark says that the women brought spices, but Matthew says nothing about spices. Then in John 20:1, the writer mentions Mary Magdalene but neither of the other women or the spices. Does this mean that Mark, Matthew, or John made errors? No. It just means that each of the authors included additional information that is different from the other writers, but not contradictory.

Notice that none of the writers said “only Mary” or “Mary and no one else.” Furthermore, Matthew and John did not mention the women bringing spices, but they do not say that “the women brought no spices.” When we think about it, we understand no person ever gives all the information when retelling a story, that would be unnecessary and would take a very long time. The Bible writers often gave additional information to help readers understand more about the story. Just because the details in each story are different, that does not mean they are wrong. In fact, just like the boy and the mom at the mall, we would expect each of the writers to include different, additional information.

Let’s look at another illustration. Suppose you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. A man comes up and asks, “Do you have one dollar in your pocket?” You tell him that you do and pull out one of those bills to show him. Then you put it back. A few minutes later a lady comes and asks if you have five dollars in your pocket. You again say “yes” and pull five dollar bills out of your pocket. Finally, your friend from school wants to know if you have 10 dollars in your pocket. You say, “Yes, I have 10 dollars,” and you pull the bills out to show him. Notice how your answers are different. You said that you had “one dollar,” then you said you had “five dollars,” and then you said you had “10 dollars.” So, which one of these answers is right? They all are. You gave different answers because each person asked a different question, but your answers weren’t wrong or contradictory.

When we look at the Bible, we see that God inspired the writers to be perfectly accurate in everything they said. There may be accounts where we see different, additional information, but we never see the writers making errors or contradicting one another.

Suggested Resources

The post Addition is Not Contradiction appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The fact is, however, God could logically be both pleased and displeased with His Creation, if the statements were referring to two different periods of time. Most any Bible student knows that, though only four complete chapters separate Genesis 1:31 and 6:6, they are separated—chronologically speaking—by more than a millennium. “In the beginning” God was pleased with His Creation. Several hundred years later, after “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), God was then “sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart” (6:6). It is quite telling that such a simple explanation has apparently eluded the minds of many skeptics.

The post Was God Satisfied with His Creation or Not? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

According to the skeptic, these verses teach that a man who rapes a woman gets to have her as his wife. The skeptic then demands that any God who would reward a rapist with the woman he rapes is wicked and immoral. Thus the God of the Bible cannot be the loving God Christians say He is.

The reason the skeptic at first glance seems to have something of a case is simply because most English translations of these verses do not accurately render the original intent of the Hebrew. To be fair, this issue causes even those who are not skeptically minded some difficulty. When most English speakers hear that a person has “seized” another person, we necessarily jump to the conclusion that it is a violent action against the will of the other person. This problem has been aggravated by the fact that some translations inaccurately and mistakenly translate the word as “rape.” The truth is, however, the Hebrew word in this case translated “seizes” (tapas) can mean many things. Here are some examples of the way it is translated in Deuteronomy 22:28 in several different English translations:

• “lay hold on her” (ASV)
• “taking her” (DRA)
• “and takes her” (NLV/NAB)
• “and hath caught her” (YLT)

By looking at other passages that use the word, we can see that the word tapas sometimes has nothing to do with force, and therefore nothing to do with rape. As Greg Bahnsen has written:

The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. 1 Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17)… [T]he Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force (italics in orig.).

In truth, we use English words in this way on a regular basis. For instance, a brief look at the English word “take” illustrates the point. You can take someone’s cookie, or take a person’s wife, or take a bride to be your wife. The idea of force is not inherent in the word at all. If you take a person in your arms, what have you done? Or if a young man takes a young woman to be his wife, is there force involved? No. Also, think about the English word “hold.” You can take hold of something in a number of ways. We often say that a woman will hold the child in her arms, or a bridegroom takes a bride to “have and to hold.” The Hebrew word tapas is acting in exactly the same way as the English words “hold” and “take” are.

In addition, it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29. We know that for two primary reasons. First, verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed. In that case, a man raped a woman, she “cried out” (v. 27), but she was in the country and no one was there to help her. The text says that the man who committed the crime “shall die” (v. 25), but the Israelites were supposed to “do nothing to the young woman” since “there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death” (v. 26). It is of great interest that in this clear case of rape, the text uses a completely different word. The word translated “forces her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew word chazaq and yet in verse 28, the verb has been intentionally changed to tapas (see Shamoun, 2015). Second, the natural reading of verses 28-29 makes it evident that both parties are guilty of at least some of the blame. Notice that at the end of verse 28 the text says, “and they are found out.” When the passage discusses the obvious case of rape, the text specifically only mentions the man in verse 25 when it says “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out any indication of “they” being involved in the sin. Dr. Bahsen compares Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16, which reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife” (1992). Notice that in this verse in Exodus, there is no force and both parties shoulder some of the guilt.

The practical value of God’s instruction in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is easy to see. A man has sexual intercourse with a young woman who is not betrothed to anyone. There is no force involved, and it is not rape. But their action has been discovered. Now, who in the land of Israel wanted to marry a young girl who has not kept herself pure? The man cannot walk away from his sin. He has put the young woman in a very difficult life situation, in which there would be few (or no) other men who would want to marry her. Since it was often the case that women had an extremely difficult time financially without the help of a husband, this would be even more devastating to the young woman. God holds both the parties accountable, instructing them to get married and stay together, both suffer the shame, and work through the difficulties that they have brought on themselves. Nothing could be more moral, loving, and wise than these instructions. Once again, the skeptical charge against God’s love is without foundation.

REFERENCES

Bahnsen, Greg (1992), “Premarital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed,” Covenant Media Foundation, http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe152.htm.

Shamoun, Sam (2015), “The Old Testament and Rape,” http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm.

The post Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Rape appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The idea of an unpardonable sin scares some people, because they believe they may have committed it, even though most of them do not have a proper understanding of what the sin actually is. We read about the unpardonable sin in Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30, and Luke 12:10. The sin is the very specific sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That means the act of speaking evil of the Holy Spirit. It was committed by those who actually saw Jesus perform miracles and attributed His power to Satan. Because no one today can see Jesus perform such miracles, then the sin apparently cannot even be committed today. Some have suggested that the sin is any sin that is unrepented of, or murder, or adultery, or various other behaviors. The text is plain that those sins cannot be the unpardonable sin. It was specifically blasphemy that was the result of seeing Jesus’ miracles (see Butt, 2003).

With the idea of an unpardonable sin in mind, many people then go to Hebrews 6:4-6 and are convinced that they have fallen away from God and that it is now impossible for them to be saved. A closer look at Hebrews 6:4-6 will show the problem with this thinking. The text reads:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame (Hebrews 6:4-6).

Notice what the text does not say. It does not say it is impossible to forgive a person who has fallen away. This is in contrast to the unpardonable sin. The gospel writers describe that sin as an “eternal” sin, for which there was never any forgiveness. The text in Hebrews says that if people fall away it is impossible to “renew them again to repentance.” The difference between forgiveness and repentance is profound. The message in Hebrews 6 is not that those who fall away have committed sins that God will not forgive, it is that their hearts have become so hard that they will not repent. Thus, if a person is willing to repent, he or she cannot be one of those who have fallen away according to Hebrews 6:4-6. A similar idea is found in 1 Timothy 4:2, where we read about those who have “their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” Again, it is not that God will not forgive these people, it is that they will not repent and come back to God.

An excellent example of the difference between forgiveness and repentance is seen in the lives of Judas and Peter. In a very real sense, both of these apostles betrayed their Lord. Judas sold Him to the Jewish leaders, and Peter denied three times even knowing Him. Their actions after their sins, however, show that Peter was willing to repent and come back to his Savior, but Judas’ heart was so calloused he would not repent. Peter was forgiven and Judas was lost, not because Judas’ sin was so much more grievous than Peter’s, but because Judas had allowed his heart and conscience to be so seared that he would not repent.

In summary, any person who reads Hebrews 6:4-6 and wonders if he or she is a person who is without hope and has fallen away from God can easily answer that question. If that person is willing to repent of sins and obey God, that passage cannot apply to him or her.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The ‘Unpardonable Sin,’” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1218.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2015), “Receiving the Gift of Salvation,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf.

The post Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Unpardonable Sin appeared first on Apologetics Press.

These are David’s words regarding what God can do to the man who is not following His commandments. There are two different things that may be intended here. One is that the verse is saying that man is like the moth.

There is a very large and beautiful moth in Palestine. This moth can be seen flying about in all its beauty. But the moth’s life is very short. Dry weather and many enemies keep it from living very long. It either is eaten, or it dies from lack of moisture. And it is easily crushed if touched by a human hand.

David may be saying that a person who does not follow God is like the moth. The person’s life may appear to be wonderful. He may be rich and live in great beauty. Everyone may like looking at the person and all of his belongings. Many may even consider his actions good. But God quickly can bring all of the beauty to an end.

At the final judgment, all of those who did not follow God will have their beauty ended. They will go to the very ugly place of hell. Read your Bible. Make sure that you are following God. Do not be like the moth.

The post Wisdom's Corner: Like a Moth appeared first on Apologetics Press.