First, let us establish the fact that the New Testament clearly shows that demon possession did occur during the first century while Jesus was on Earth and during the miraculous age of the Church. On a number of occasions, we read that Jesus cast out demons. For instance, Matthew 8:16 states, “When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.” Notice that the text makes a distinction between casting out demons and healing those who were sick. In addition, verses such as this one make a very general statement about Jesus “casting out demons.”  They do not detail how it was done, whether He talked with the demon, or what other events happened during the process.

In other cases, the Bible gives specific details about the events that occurred when Jesus cast out demons. The story of Legion is one of the most well-known accounts of Jesus talking to a group of demons who begged Him to let them go into a herd of swine. Jesus complied with their request, and the herd of 2,000 pigs rushed down the hill into the water and drowned (Luke 8:26-39). Notice that in this account, the demons that possessed the man could talk, and could affect other physical entities such as the pigs when they were cast out of the man. Whatever physical effects the demons had on the man were eliminated once Jesus cast them out. The important point here is that the demon possession of the man and of the pigs brought about different physical effects. The herd of pigs did not rush down the hill to their deaths because of an extremely contagious disease that somehow instantaneously was transferred from the man to 2,000 pigs without affecting any of the other people present. The biblical writer obviously was not treating this account of demon possession as if it was the equivalent of a sickness. The writer recognized that the demons were capable of bringing about certain physical effects in the man, and different physical effects in the herd of swine.

In Matthew 4:23-24 we read: “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.” Notice that the text says that people had “various diseases,” and it mentions others who were “demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics.” Again, this verse helps us see that a person could have epilepsy or be paralyzed without being demon-possessed. The New Testament does not assume that a person was demon-possessed just because he/she had a disease or physical malady. While it was true that some people who were epileptic, blind, or mute were that way because of demon possession (Mark 9:25; Matthew 12:22), others who had those same physical maladies were not said to be demon-possessed. Take, for instance, the blind man in John 9. Jesus healed him of blindness, but the Bible says nothing about him being demon-possessed. He was born blind. So, it was not the case that the Bible necessarily associated blindness with demon possession. In fact, we read that God personally struck some groups of people in the Old Testament with blindness (2 Kings 6:18-23; Genesis 19:11). And the New Testament records that through Paul’s actions, the wicked sorcerer, Bar-Jesus, was struck blind by “the hand of the Lord” (Acts 13:11).

It becomes clear, then, that demon possession could result in certain “diseases or torments” such as blindness, deafness, and being mute, but other causes existed for those infirmities as well. Let us consider this illustration. There are several reasons why a car might swerve off the road and crash into a ditch. The driver might be texting instead of paying attention. The steering wheel might break and fail to effectively turn the car. A carjacker from the backseat might knock the driver unconscious and take the wheel and intentionally crash it. In each case, a person watching from the street sees the car veer off the road into the ditch. The effect is the same, but the cause is different. So, if we think of the carjacker as a demon who was given the ability to afflict a person’s body in the first century with some kind of disease, that would not mean that every time we see that disease, it would be caused by a demon. Other natural situations, such as physical accidents injuring the brain, might cause epilepsy. Staring too long at the Sun could cause blindness. Prolonged exposure to very loud noises could cause deafness, etc. The Bible writers often recognized various causes of physical diseases and maladies such as blindness. Demon possession was just one among many.

Thus, we see that God could have allowed demon possession in the first century in order to prove that Jesus and the Holy Spirit, through the apostles and early Church, had power over the spiritual realm as well as the physical. It makes sense that this brief period of time would have ended with the disappearance of the miraculous spiritual gifts in the Church, when the last person who was touched by an apostle and given a miraculous spiritual gift died (see Acts 8:18; Zechariah 13:1-2). Physical diseases and maladies such as epilepsy, blindness, or deafness would continue, however, since there have always been numerous natural causes for them which were not connected to demon possession.

Endnotes

¹ Wayne Jackson, “Demon Possession, the Bible, and Superstition,” http://apologeticspress.org/demon-possession-the-bible-and-superstition-1154/.

The post Demon Possession and Disease appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One pervasive cultural phenomenon in American society is the predilection to be averse to law, restriction, and limitation. “Freedom” gradually has come to be conceptualized as freedom from restraint. Those who do not embrace a lax, casual, and open attitude toward moral value and ethical behavior are labeled “intolerant” and “mean-spirited.” Even within Christian circles, stressing the need to conform strictly to the will of God in all matters of faith and practice can cause one to be labeled a “fundamentalist.” He is set aside as an immature and pharisaical misfit who simply has never “grown” to the point of grasping the grace of Jesus. He is “judgmental,” “negative,” and lacks “compassion.” And, yes, he is a “legalist.”

Listening carefully to the majority of those who bandy about the term “legalistic,” it is soon apparent that they understand the term to refer to too much attention to legal detail. In the 1960s, Joseph Fletcher, the “Father of Situation Ethics,” pinpointed the prevailing notion of “legalism”:

In this ethical strategy the “situational variables” are taken into consideration, but the circumstances are always subordinated to predetermined general “laws” of morality. Legalistic ethics treats many of its rules idolatrously by making them into absolutes.… In this kind of morality, properly labeled as legalism or law ethics, obedience to prefabricated “rules of conduct” is more important than freedom to make responsible decisions.¹

It would be difficult to underestimate the cataclysmic consequences of this thinking on the moral fiber of human civilization.

Typical of the widespread misconception that “legalism” has to do with giving too much attention to complete obedience, is the illustration given by a preacher, college professor, and prominent marriage and family therapist in a university lecture titled “Getting Ahead: Taking Your Family With You”:

I found out when you’re dialing numbers…you have to dial about eighteen numbers to get started, and then you have to dial eighteen more—you know what I’m talking about? And if you miss, what? If you miss one—just one—you say ugly things to yourself, don’t you? Because you know you blew it again. It is amazing how legalistic the telephone company is.²

In other words, if God imparts, say, 10 laws to human beings, He would be guilty of being “legalistic” if He expected all 10 of them to be obeyed.

The very idea that obedience to God’s laws would one day be viewed as negative by those who profess adherence to Christianity, and then for this obedience to be denounced as “legalism,” is utterly incomprehensible. If such thinking were to take root throughout Christendom and throughout the nation, one would expect society’s standards of morality to be shaken at their very foundation, eliciting a corresponding widespread relaxation of moral behavior. Is this not precisely what has happened to American civilization in the last 60 years? And, in turn, this cultural trait has exerted a profound influence on Christendom.

2 Chronicles 30

One incident appealed to in an effort to find biblical sanction for the notion that “seeker sincerity” takes precedence over divinely-stipulated ritual³ took place in the waning years of the 8^th century B.C. when 25-year-old Hezekiah ascended the throne of Judah. Hezekiah immediately spawned a restoration movement, instituting sweeping reforms that were calculated to bring the nation back into harmony with the written will of God. One goal was to reinstate observance of the Passover. For those who recognize that obedience to God in every particular is enjoined by God throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13; 30:16; 32:46; Ecclesiastes 12:13; John 14:15; Romans 6:16; 1 John 5:3), what happened on this occasion must surely raise eyebrows:

For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, “May the good Lord provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.” And the Lord listened to Hezekiah and healed the people (2 Chronicles 30:18-20, emp. added).

The reader is left with the impression that a number of individuals from the northern tribes ate the Passover in direct violation of the Law of Moses and yet were “excused” or accepted, despite their disobedience, on the basis of their earnest, sincere hearts. On this basis, some have further concluded that this incident proves that full compliance with Bible directives (like water immersion as opposed to sprinkling for baptism) is flexible and optional (i.e., will not affect salvation status) when the “seeker” is genuine and sincere.

It is quite surprising that those who wish to relax biblical rigidity in the practice of their religion would appeal to an Old Testament text. After all, these same antinomians often have been known to denigrate the Old Testament as legalistic and lacking grace. They have insisted that God was nit-picky and strict in requiring absolute obedience under the Mosaic system, but He has altered His treatment of people in the New Testament era. They claim that Jesus brought grace and people no longer have to be so concerned about legal detail. But having detected an obscure verse inconspicuously tucked away in the history of Judah that appears to give aid and comfort to their illegalistic propensities, they are eager to brandish it as a sure weapon of offense.

However, this hasty and premature assessment of a single passage pits itself against, not only the entirety of the rest of the Bible, but against the context of the passage itself. The general context is one of restoration—going back to the Word of God, reinstating pure Mosaic religion, and recovering and reinstituting the practice of correct procedures and stipulations with regard to the Temple and its seasonal observances. If the whole point of the general context is to get the people to obey God’s precise directions, why would the same context also intend to convey that disobeying God’s laws is permissible?

The Context

As a matter of fact, God anticipated the circumstances of this incident when He spoke to Moses centuries earlier. Observance of the Passover was first enjoined upon the Israelites shortly before their exit from Egypt (Exodus 12). A year later, while at Sinai, the Passover injunction was renewed (Leviticus 23:5-8; Numbers 9:1-5). However, on this latter occasion, Moses was faced with a special circumstance that required clarification from God:

Now there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron that day. And those men said to him, “We became defiled by a human corpse. Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the Lord at its appointed time among the children of Israel?” And Moses said to them, “Stand still, that I may hear what the Lord will command concerning you.” Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If anyone of you or your posterity is unclean because of a corpse, or is far away on a journey, he may still keep the Lord’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it’” (Numbers 9:6-12).

This legal description contains two significant features of Passover observance that show that God built into His own Passover regulation certain exceptions to the general rule. First, if a person had recently come into contact with a corpse, that person was exempt from observing the Passover on the regularly scheduled 14^th day of the first month but could instead observe it exactly one month later—on the 14^th day of the second month. Coming into contact with a corpse caused the individual to be ceremonially unclean (cf. Numbers 5:2; 19:11). When this occurred so near to the approach of Passover that appropriate “decontamination” procedures could not be completed in time for the 14^th day of the first month, a God-ordained postponement was permissible.⁴

What if a person just happened to be unclean on the 14^th day of both months? It is evident that such an individual would be excused from observing the Passover for that year. This corollary follows from verse 13: “But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the Lord at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.”

A second exception to Passover observance was made for the individual who was “far away on a journey.” This stipulation implied that a person conceivably could be detained, incapacitated, or otherwise prevented from appearing and observing the Passover in Jerusalem. In Hezekiah’s day, the northern tribes had been similarly “detained,” i.e., were in the process of being taken into captivity by the Assyrians (2 Chronicles 30:6; cf. 2 Kings 17:6). Many of them had, in fact, chosen simply to cease their practice of Mosaic religion. But for those who were willing to reinstate their obedience to God, the exceptions provided in the Law of Moses were designed to offer accommodation.

Observe, however, that due to the past apostasy and negligence on the part of the southern kingdom, and though Hezekiah enacted an immediate reformation when he ascended the throne, repairs to the Temple and purification procedures were not completed until the 16^th day of the first month (2 Chronicles 29:17). Thus the first legal observance time for the Passover (i.e., the 14^th day of the first month) had already passed. The deadline for the second and final observance for the year (i.e., the 14^th day of the second month) was approaching (2 Chronicles 30:2,15). Time was of the essence! Priests and Levites worked feverishly to achieve the mandatory ritual cleansings for themselves and the people (2 Chronicles 29:34; 30:3). However, despite their valiant efforts to accomplish the feat, their attempts to meet the deadline were about to fall short:

For there were many in the assembly who had not sanctified themselves; therefore the Levites had charge of the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone who was not clean, to sanctify them to the Lord. For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written (2 Chronicles 30:17-18).

Due to the sheer number that needed to be cleansed (“multitude”—vs. 18), and due to the increased numbers resulting from the influx from the apostate northern tribes (vs. 17), those yet unclean proceeded to partake of the Passover meal in violation of Mosaic injunction. Was this clear violation of God’s Word acceptable to God? That is, did He overlook, compromise, or brush aside His own instructions? Did He intend to leave the impression that strict obedience to His commands is optional if inconvenient? Will God save and accept those who, out of ignorance or neglect, fail to comply with His stated prerequisites for salvation—as long as their hearts are seeking Him?

To answer in the affirmative to these questions is to place a single passage in contradiction to a host of other Old and New Testament passages that discredit and invalidate such a conclusion (e.g., Leviticus 10:1-3; 1 Samuel 13:12-14; 15:22; 2 Samuel 6:1-8; 1 Chronicles 15:11-15; 2 Chronicles 26:16-18; Hebrews 10:28-31; 12:25). David made this point clear when his efforts to transport the Ark of the Covenant back to its rightful location were thwarted by God. His insightful, decisive conclusion on the fiasco ought to ring loudly in the ears of the liberal element in the Church today: “we did not consult Him about the proper order” (1 Chronicles 15:13, NKJV; “We did not inquire of him about how to do it in the prescribed way,” NIV; “we did not seek him according to the rule,” ESV). Similarly, Jeroboam’s adjustment of divinely-stipulated worship protocol, specifically the change in month, was condemned as “devised in his own heart” (1 Kings 12:33).

Likewise, the immediate text contains visible evidence to the contrary as well. In the first place, the whole point of Hezekiah’s restoration movement was to bring the nation back to complete compliance with the details of the Law of Moses. Second, observe in the context how frequent are the allusions to the fact that strict adherence to God’s detailed specifications was mandatory: “at the words of the Lord” (29:15); “the commandment of the Lord by his prophets” (29:25); “set in order” (29:35); “in the prescribed manner” (30:5); “at the word of the Lord” (30:12); “according to the Law of Moses” (30:16). If obeying details does not matter, why even have a restoration? To what were they trying to restore the people—except a careful compliance with God’s instructions pertaining to Temple ritual?

Third, the context also indicates that a number of details were strictly observed in harmony with Mosaic injunction: the specific day, i.e., the 14^th day of the second month (vs. 15; Numbers 9:11), the specific place, i.e., Jerusalem (vs. 1; Deuteronomy 16:5-6), the slaughter of the Passover lambs (vs. 15; Deuteronomy 16:2), roasting the meat as opposed to eating it raw or boiling it (vs. 15; Exodus 12:9; Deuteronomy 16:7), and the sprinkling of the blood by the priests (vs. 16; 35:11). If God is not overly concerned with details, why would He not show comparable flexibility on these items? Why would God insist that He be obeyed on some details and not on others? Isn’t one detail as important or unimportant as another? By today’s unbiblical notion, all their attention to detail was “legalistic.”

The Grammar

There is another factor to consider. Due to the fact that Hebrew verbs do not indicate time or tense, but rather simply completed or incomplete action, English translations sometimes have difficulty reflecting the subtleties of the grammar, in this case, the ambiguity of the tense. The text could just as easily be translated to convey the idea that the people were in the process of eating or had even completed their eating before Hezekiah prayed to God on their behalf, requesting His forgiveness for their infraction.⁵ In other words, thousands—perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands—of people were present at the Passover observance. There was no way for Hezekiah personally to oversee the condition of every participant. The text clearly states that those who had not completed cleansing procedures prior to eating the Passover were from among the estranged and alienated northern tribes (vs. 18)—who had been long neglectful of Mosaic institutions. It is logical to assume in such a case that, as conscientious as Hezekiah was shown to be, as soon as he learned of their violation, he would have confronted the offenders, rebuked them for their violation of the law, urged them to repent, and then he would have prayed to God on their behalf.⁶

In fact, this passage parallels precisely the circumstances that often characterized Israelite history. The Israelites often deviated from divine protocol, only to have intercession made for them by Moses or some other faithful leader of the people. For example, on the day after the rebellion of Korah, the congregation asserted itself against Moses and Aaron, blaming them for the tragic events of the previous day. God instigated a plague against the people. Aaron implemented atonement procedures that eventually stayed the plague—but not before over 14,000 people died (Numbers 16:41-49). On another occasion, worship violations led to another divinely-implemented plague against the population. Once again, a valiant leader, Phinehas, acted quickly to minimize punishment, but not before 24,000 died (Numbers 25:1-13). These incidents reflect affinity with Hezekiah’s Passover, in that those who ate the Passover in violation of the law—though apparently sincere—were nevertheless susceptible to divine retribution (“wrath upon them from the Lord”⁷), perhaps in the form of not just spiritual, but physical, plague. Indeed, Hezekiah “believed the threatened plague to be a reality.”⁸ Due to their sin, they certainly “had cause to fear disease and even death”⁹—as the law warned (Leviticus 15:31). Hezekiah’s intervention, like those by Aaron and Phinehas, meant that the Lord “healed the people” (vs. 20).¹⁰ Indeed, the Hebrew word translated “healed” is “the strict word for physical healing.”¹¹

Summary

Those who attempt to justify disobedience today misapply this incident from Old Testament history. The practice of Judaism entailed certain logistical features that share no comparison with the practice of New Testament Christianity. For example, the Passover involved a particular place on Earth (Jerusalem), a particular time/day once a year (14^th day of Nisan), and specific rituals tied to specific men who qualified as priests. Consequently, a Jew could theoretically find himself in a predicament, through no fault of his own, that would legally disqualify him from observing the Passover. How is this circumstance parallel to whether baptism is immersion or sprinkling, or whether instrumental music may be used in Christian worship, wherein individuals have either failed to study and come to a knowledge of what God requires, or they have chosen to reject New Testament teaching on the subject? If the Ethiopian Eunuch could learn the truth in short order and ask the question, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36), people today can do the same, and will have no excuse for failing to comply with God’s will on the matter—Hezekiah’s Passover notwithstanding.

A fairer analogy with this Old Testament text would be the situation wherein a Christian traveling to worship on Sunday (in compliance with mandatory assembling with the church—Hebrews 10:25; Matthew 6:33) experiences a mechanical breakdown with his automobile, physically preventing him from arriving at the assembly in time to observe the Lord’s Supper. Or an automobile accident or serious illness might prevent assembling. These scenarios come closer to matching the variables of 2 Chronicles 30 wherein Christians (versus non-Christians) are logistically hampered from compliance.

In any case, the Bible teaches with great clarity that one must be immersed in water prior to receiving forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38; 10:47-48; 18:8; 22:16). Until one complies with this divinely-designated prerequisite to salvation, God is powerless to apply the blood of Christ to the believer’s sin-stained spirit (Romans 1:16; John 3:5; Romans 6:3-4; Revelation 1:5). Will God make exceptions to His own requirements? Only if He contradicts what He has already said in His Word (cf. “unless” in John 3:5). Another way to ask the question is: Can God forgive a person without the blood of Christ? The unqualified response to that question from Scripture is: no. Only through the blood of Christ may sin be forgiven (1 Peter 1:2,18-19; Acts 20:28).¹²

God Has Not Changed

God has always required that man approach him “in truth,” i.e., according to the divine directives that He revealed to man. The only worship that has ever been acceptable to God has been that worship which has been undertaken with (1) a proper attitude, frame of mind, and disposition conducive to spirituality, and (2) faithfulness to the specific “legal” requirements that God pinpointed as the proper external acts to be performed. God has never accepted one without the other. He has, in fact, always required both—the right action along with the right attitude. Study carefully Table 1 below.¹³

It is a grave mistake to attempt to pit God’s Word against itself. To emphasize one dimension of obedience over the other is to hamper one’s acceptance by God. Bible history is replete with instances of those who possessed one without the other and were unacceptable to God. The Pharisees (Matthew 23:3), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2-4), and the people of Amos’ day (Amos 5:21-24) engaged in the external forms—but were unacceptable because of their insincerity. On the other hand, Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:1), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2), and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6) all demonstrated genuine motives—but were unacceptable to God because of their failure to observe the correct legal forms.

Conclusion

Hezekiah’s Passover does not offer justification for violating specific worship regulations laid down by God’s Law. Nor does it offer justification for concluding that a person whose heart is turned toward God and Christ, but who has not complied with the prerequisites to salvation, i.e., belief, repentance, confession, and baptism for the remission of sins (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38; 22:16; John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10), may be saved. Those who seek to justify or excuse sprinkling for baptism, should look again at the Passover of Hezekiah’s day and ask themselves a question: Why would anyone wish to defend an action today on the basis of an action that stands as a historically long-term violation of the law, confessed to be a sin, a sin that had to be presented to God, and for which pardon had to be secured?

Endnotes

¹ Joseph Fletcher (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press), p. 31, emp. added.

² Paul Faulkner (1992), “Getting Ahead: Taking Your Family With You,” Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship, Cassette Tape (Henderson, TN: FHU), emp. added.

³ E.g., Rubel Shelly and John York (2003), The Jesus Proposal (Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood); John Hicks and Greg Taylor (2004), Down in the River to Pray (Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood).

⁴ NOTE: The theory that “ritualistic details” of God’s Word may be set aside, when a person is sincerely seeking from the heart, conflicts with the fact that God reconfirmed the necessity of complying with four legal details: (1) The alternate day had to be the 14^th day of the second month—as opposed to just any day selected by the worshipper. As Keil observed: “The postponement of the Passover until the second month in special circumstances was provided for by the law, but the transfer of the celebration to another day of the month was not. Such a transfer would have been an illegal and arbitrary innovation, which we cannot suppose Hezekiah capable of [C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 3:455, emp. added]; (2) Only unleavened bread and bitter herbs were to be eaten (vs. 11); (3) none of the food was to be left until morning (vs. 12); and (4) The lamb’s bones were not to be broken (vs. 12). Apparently, God’s law is sufficiently inflexible as to disallow humans from excusing themselves from strict obedience. This truth is further demonstrated by the fact that, after articulating the exception to the general rule, God immediately reiterated the essentiality of meticulous compliance with His law: “But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the Lord at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). The foreigner was likewise required to comply (vs. 14). Observe: if the liberal was correct in his assessment of Deity, such legal details would have been waived aside and God would have simply said: “These stipulations are optional. Don’t sweat the small stuff!”

⁵ Willem VanGemeren, ed. (1997), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 4:1061.

⁶ To suggest that Hezekiah prayed for those who were ceremonially unclean before they ate the Passover, in order to get forgiveness before the sin was committed, is to suggest that the Medieval Catholic practice of selling indulgences was right!

⁷ Matthew Henry, (no date), Commentary on the Whole Bible: Joshua to Esther (New York: Fleming H. Revell), 2:1003.

⁸ George Williams (1960), The Student’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), sixth edition, p. 254.

⁹ Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 282; cf. Edward Curtis and Albert Madsen (1910), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), p. 475.

¹⁰ cf. VanGemeren, 3:1163-1164.

¹¹ P.C. Barker (1950), The Pulpit Commentary: II Chronicles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 361.

¹² Dave Miller (2019), Baptism & the Greek Made Simple (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Baptism-and-the-Greek-Web.pdf.

¹³ Taken from Dave Miller (1996), Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications), pp. 184-185.

The post Hezekiah’s Passover and Situation Ethics appeared first on Apologetics Press.

However, both the context, as well as the occurrence of tongue-speaking elsewhere in the New Testament, demonstrates that the practice consisted solely of known human languages that were unknown to the one speaking the language, i.e., the speaker had no prior training by which to learn or know the language. He spoke the language strictly by God’s miraculous empowerment. Undoubtedly, the insertion of “unknown” by the KJV translators was not intended to convey the idea that the tongues were unknown to all humans and, as such, were non-earthly, non-human languages.

Acts 2 illustrates how tongue-speaking functioned in the early church. The miraculous endowment by the Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to speak foreign human languages (which they had not studied) to people from a variety of geographical locales (e.g., Parthians, Medes, Arabians—Acts 2:9-11). That is precisely why Paul made the point that “tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22). Unbelievers would hardly be impressed if a Christian merely babbled in mindless gibberish. But he would be very impressed—and would sit up and take notice—if a Christian began speaking his language, well knowing that the speaker did not know that language on his own.²

Endnotes

¹ AMPC, BRG, JUB, MEV, NMB, VOICE, YLT.

² I am reminded of the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street in which a Dutch girl, newly arrived from an orphanage in Rotterdam, is brought by her adopted mother to Macy’s to see Santa. The forlorn child is clearly in the throes of loneliness as she is separated from her country and culture, and unable to converse with others in her birth language. When Kris Kringle suddenly addresses the girl in her native tongue, she instantly lights up with excitement and wonder that Santa can speak Dutch. Therein lies the power of 1st-century tongue speaking. For a lengthy discussion of this subject and miracles in general, see Dave Miller (2020), Modern-Day Miracles? Do Miracles, Tongue Speaking, & Holy Spirit Baptism Occur Today? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post “Unknown Tongue”? 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.

“What made King David so special that he could dictate matters strictly reserved for ‘Thus says the Lord’? And, further, why did Solomon and other succeeding kings follow David’s expansion of musical instruments?”

A:

David committed several grievous sins in his lifetime, including his sin with Bathsheba, his unauthorized taking of the census, and the eating of the showbread (which Jesus said was “not lawful”—Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). However, overall, he seemed to have a committed heart most of the time. Like all of us, he stumbled on occasion (like Abraham, also). His intermittent failures were not likely to be attributed to “indifference,” but merely giving in to temptation and the pressure of the moment, again, like the rest of us. God did not brush aside those infractions, nor would He want us to draw the conclusion that David was somehow “special” and given greater leeway or forgiveness than the rest of us, nor that God approved of any action on David’s part in which he presumed to dictate worship protocol. God is consistent throughout human history in His insistence that His law be obeyed—by everybody—and He never authorizes violations of it. To violate God’s law is, by definition, “sin” (1 John 3:4), and sin must be forgiven in accordance with the divine prescription for atonement—no exceptions.

Regarding the introduction of instrumental music, the Bible plainly states that it was not David who made this change—but God Himself. Read 2 Chronicles 29:25—And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.

Notice the line of authority in that verse: (1) God, (2) Nathan the prophet, (3) Gad the King’s Seer , and (4) David. So God authorized the introduction of instruments (for the Levites), doing so via the chain of authority from Himself to prophet, to seer, and then to David. It would make sense, then, that some passages would say that they were introduced “by the command of David.” But that is simply the Bible’s not infrequent way of shortening a concept. One must gather everything in the Bible on a particular subject and fit it together properly before drawing any conclusions (1 Thessalonians 5:21). David commanded/added instruments into Temple worship because he was authorized to do so by God Himself. See also 2 Chronicles 30:12 for this same sequence: “Also the hand of God was on Judah to give them singleness of heart to obey the command of the king and the leaders, at the word of the LORD.” The intermediate authorities who issued commands to the people were simply operating under the overall jurisdiction and instructions of God. Observe, then, that this clarification answers the second question: Solomon, Hezekiah, et al. added instruments because God authorized them to do so.

Of course, the lesson for Christians living today is to recognize that God has always acted in harmony with His principle of authority. All people are to worship God in accordance with His worship instructions specified in the New Testament. It so happens that since the cross, God confines all musical worship expression to vocal music—not instrumental (1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13).

What About Amos 6:5?

Some have suggested that the use of instrumental music in worship in David’s day was condemned on the basis of the fact that the prophet Amos uttered “woe” on those who invented for themselves musical instruments like David (Amos 6:5). The context of the passage, however, clarifies the meaning of this statement as originally intended by the inspired prophet.

Like most of the Old Testament prophets, the primary mission of Amos was to rebuke God’s people for their disobedience in hopes of restoring them to the righteous living that God required and expected of them. After spotlighting the sins of the surrounding nations and announcing their punishment (chs. 1-2), Amos turned his attention to the Israelites’ own sins, including their dishonesty, unethical treatment of others, sexual immorality, oppression of the poor, and other acts of injustice. The population was particularly immersed in materialism—living in ease, luxury, and comfort while forsaking the priority of spiritual things. Amos’ response? “Woe to you who are at ease in Zion” (6:1). In his booklet on the minor prophets, Jack Lewis provides a fitting summary of their materialistic condition:

Women, whose insatiable desire for finery drives their husbands to oppression, stretched out on their couches of ivory, call each to her husband, “Mix us another drink” (4:1). The people have their summer houses and winter houses (3:15) and their beds of ivory (6:4). At ease in Zion, the people eat the finest food, anoint themselves with fine oil, and invent instruments of music like David for their entertainment, but do not concern themselves with the approaching ruin of their country.¹

The passage has nothing to do with worship, comparing the Israelites of Amos’ day with David only in the matter of using instruments. Their use of instruments was directed to their wanton lifestyle in the midst of spiritually barren lives. In the same way that there was nothing inherently wrong with the Israelites having ivory couches, summer homes, and lambs and calves to eat, there was nothing inherently wrong with the invention (and use) of musical instruments. The problem was that their submersion in luxury dulled their spiritual appetites and caused them to turn against God.

ENDNOTE

¹ Jack Lewis (1998), The Minor Prophets (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications), p. 19.

The post Q&A: David and Musical Instruments appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Based on 1 Samuel 20:30, is it possible that Saul thought Jonathan was a homosexual?

A:

The passage in question reads: “Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?’” The word rendered “confusion” in the KJV is the normal Hebrew word for “shame.”¹ It has the same latitude of meaning that our English word has. It does not include any hint of homosexuality. The word is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the disgrace or shame that one experiences due to one’s own behavior, or the shame/disgrace brought upon a person by the behavior of another. See, for example, Jeremiah 2:26 where the prophet compares the shame of the caught thief to Israel’s shame due to her incessant involvement in idolatry. Or consider Bildad’s admonition to Job to admit his sin so that “Those who hate you will be clothed with shame” (Job 8:22). Regarding his enemies, David used a trilogy of synonyms in his request of God that they “be ashamed (bohsh) and brought to mutual confusion (chah-pher)” and “clothed with shame (boh-sheth) and dishonor” (Psalm 35:26). The word rendered “confusion” in the NKJV is rendered “confounded” in several other translations and means to “humiliate,” “embarrass,” “bewilder,” “baffle,” or “discomfit.” In the midst of national defeat, the psalmist moans: “My dishonor is continually before me, and the shame (boh-sheth) of my face has covered me.” Micah refers to the “naked shame” of the inhabitants of Shaphir (Micah 1:11). Hence, the word is even used of the mistreatment/shame that Jesus endured from His opponents: “You know my reproach, my shame, and my dishonor; My adversaries are all before You” (Psalm 69:19; cf. Acts 5:41). In a psalm that possesses Messianic overtones, God declares concerning the Messiah: “His enemies I will clothe with shame” (Psalm 132:18). Again, in all these instances, no reference is being made to anything sexual in nature.

The context, indeed, all of 1 Samuel and Saul’s 40-year reign, makes clear that Saul was upset about the threat that David posed to his own throne and, therefore, Jonathan’s prospects for becoming the next king. Saul considered David a serious rival to the throne (his own in particular). Spiritually-minded Jonathan demonstrated that he was perfectly submissive to God’s intention to make David the next king. Hence, “chosen” refers to Jonathan’s willingness to acquiesce to David’s right to the throne. Other translations render the word “siding with” (CSB), “allied yourself with” (CEB), “chosen to be loyal to” (CEV), “chosen to support” (ERV), “on the side of” (NCV), “you are choosing” (NASB). The NLT says it well: “Do you think I don’t know that you want him to be king in your place?” No hint of anything sexual is in the text. Further, the allusion to “your mother’s nakedness” is simply a Hebrew way to refer to a woman giving birth to a child. Hence, Saul was using a harsh insult to try to bully his son into siding with himself by suggesting that by siding with David, Jonathan was disgracing/shaming the mother who gave him birth.

Endnotes

¹ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004 reprint), p. 102.

The post “The Shame of Your Mother’s Nakedness”? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness…. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

These words are hardly surprising, since most people understand that they are not perfect and, in fact, have sinned many times. Yet reading further in 1 John, one encounters the follow startling remarks:

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him…. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God (1 John 3:6,9).

The skeptic might easily conclude that the Bible contradicts itself—or at least John did.

However, in Greek, tense generally refers to “kind of action” which consists of linear or punctiliar. “Linear” refers to continuous action, while “punctiliar” refers to point action, a single event. The verb rendered “have (not) sinned” (a perfect active indicative) in chapter 1 refers to point action in the past with abiding results. John was saying that Christians sin, but they commit isolated, less frequent acts of sin since they are no longer under the rule of sin, and they constantly repent and confess their sins (vs. 9).

Chapter 3, on the other hand, uses a present indicative of continuous action. It refers to habitual, ongoing sin without compunction, with sin ruling one’s life as in his pre-Christian state. John did not contradict himself. He simply called attention to the fact that Christians are certainly not perfect. We make mistakes like everyone does. However, having changed our minds (the meaning of “repent”) about our pre-Christian lifestyle, we have deliberately chosen to forsake the sinful behavior that characterized our lives as non-Christians. Those who have not become Christians, however, have no motivation to resist sin, striving every day to eliminate it from one’s mind and life.

The post Can Sin vs. Cannot Sin? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”¹ Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”² The highly respected 17^th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”³ The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

• “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
• “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
• “On the next day” (vs. 23)
• “the following day” (vs. 24)
• “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave “one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.”⁴ The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “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, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”⁵

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

The post The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In order to answer that question, one must first define terms and, more specifically, ascertain the meaning behind the original word from which an English translation is taken. After all, the current state of English is such that we use the word “evil” to refer to spiritual, moral evil, i.e., sin or wickedness. But is that the meaning of the Hebrew word that lies behind the word “evil” in this verse?

As a matter of fact, the Hebrew word translated “evil” (rah) has various shades of meaning. It often has the meaning of distress, misery, injury, calamity, and adversity.² For example, consider its use in Amos 6:3—“Woe to you who put far off the day of doom” (NKJV). The NASB has “the day of calamity.” Jeremiah 42:6 reads in the ESV: “Whether it is good or bad, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God.” The NKJV has: “Whether it is pleasing or displeasing, we will obey the voice of the LORD our God.” Isaiah 31:2 renders the word “disaster” in the NKJV: “Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster.” In Micah 1:12 “good” is contrasted with “disaster.”

Ahab complained to Jehoshaphat that the prophet Micaiah never prophesied “good” concerning him, but only “evil” (1 Kings 22:8,18). He was referring to the misfortune that came upon himself.³ In the great admonition that Moses issued to the younger generation near the end of his life, he urged: “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil” (NKJV). The NASB rightly renders the verse: “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity” (Deuteronomy 30:15). “Good” and “evil” here refer, not to sin or moral evil, but to “prosperity” vs. “adversity.” The previous generation grumbled against Moses in the desert: “And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us to this evil place?” (Numbers 20:5). They did not mean that the desert was immoral or sinful. They meant it was a “wretched place” (NASB/NRSV), a “terrible place” (CJB/ISV/NIV), a “horrible place” (EHV).

The NKJV renders Job 31:29 as: “If I have rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, or lifted myself up when evil found him.” A clearer rendering is: “If I have rejoiced at my enemy’s misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him” (NIV). What did Jacob mean when he explained to Pharaoh “few and evil have the days of the years of my life been” (Genesis 47:9)? He used the word to mean “poor, not beneficial.”⁴ The CJB renders it: “they have been few and difficult.” The NCV has: “short and filled with trouble.” Many additional verses manifest similar meanings for rah that have nothing to do with sin, moral evil, or wickedness.

One final observation regarding Isaiah 45:7. Based on the way Hebrew parallelism functions, the verse itself offers assistance in defining its use of the word “evil.” It is placed in antithesis to the word “peace.” The opposite of “peace” is not moral evil or wickedness—but physical disturbance, trouble, and adversity. The same is true in verse 11:

Therefore evil shall come upon you;
You shall not know from where it arises.
And trouble shall fall upon you;
You will not be able to put it off.
And desolation shall come upon you suddenly,
Which you shall not know.”

Hebrew parallelism in this verse demonstrates that “evil” = “trouble” = “desolation.”

Returning to verse 7, the NKJV reflects the parallelism nicely:

“I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.”

God is not the author of evil. Intrinsic evil, by definition, refers to violations of God’s will, i.e., sin (1 John 3:4). Sin is committed when human beings⁵ exercise their free will and choose to transgress God’s laws, thus committing evil. Humans are the source of evil in the world—not God.⁶

 Endnotes

The post Is God the Cause of Evil in the World? 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.

The problem with this “argument” is that it’s not an argument at all. It’s a neat little play on words, but when looked at closely, it is not a logical reason for anything. The idea being presented is that just because there are many wrong answers, then all the answers must be wrong. In fact, the statement implies that the “one less” answer is just the next step in the sequence. But let’s think through that. If there really is just one correct answer, then of course all the others would be incorrect. For instance, if a person were to say, “You don’t believe that 2+2 equals 5 or 6 or 7 etc., therefore 2+2 does not have an answer. See, I just believe in one less answer than you.” The problem with such reasoning is easy to see: If there is a singular answer, then the “one less” statement leaves out the one most important correct answer.

To further illustrate, when Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, the story is told that he said that after trying 10,000 different filaments, he had not failed; he just found 10,000 things that don’t work in a light bulb. Now suppose a person were to say, “Tell me why those 10,000 substances did not work and I will use the same reasoning to tell you why the one thing you say will work, won’t. I just believe in one less filament than you.” Again, the fault in the reasoning is evident. The characteristics of the filaments that don’t work are obviously different from the ones that do. Yes, it may be true that atheists believe in one less God than the God of the Bible. But the fact is, no other God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator of life Who came down to the Earth in human form and sacrificed His life for His human creatures simply because He loved them. Yes, atheists believe in one less God, but it is that God, and only that God, Who truly fits all the criteria to be the singularly correct answer (John 11:26).¹

The post "I Just Believe in One Less God Than You" appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Ehrman claims that the Old Testament teaches that once a person dies, there is no consciousness after death. That would mean that the Bible writers did not believe in a soul or spirit that lived on after the physical body died. Therefore, if we could show just one instance of the Old Testament representing a conscious, disembodied spirit of any person, it would refute Ehrman’s claim. Such an example is not difficult to find. In 1 Samuel 28 we read the intriguing story of King Saul disguising himself and visiting a spiritualist referred to as the medium of Endor. In the account, Saul asks the women to, “Bring up Samuel for me” (1 Samuel 28:11). The women states, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth” (vs. 13). The spirit turns out to be that of the physically dead prophet Samuel. He then appears to Saul and asks why Saul would disturb him. The spirit of Samuel then explains to Saul that because of his disobedience, “tomorrow you and your sons will be with me” (vs. 19). The next day Saul and his sons were killed in battle. Their bodies remained on the Earth, while their spirits went to be with Samuel. Regardless of whether or not you believe the story and it’s supernatural elements², it cannot reasonably be denied that this story represents the belief that although Samuel’s body was dead, his disembodied spirit lived on.

The New Testament overwhelmingly supports the teaching that the soul lives on after death. The Sadducees based their belief system on similar thinking to what Ehrman adopts in his article. They claimed that once people die, there is no remaining soul or spirit. Acts 23:8 states, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit.” This group posed a situation to Jesus that they believed would prove their point. They presented the scenario to Jesus of a woman who had been married seven times, then asked Him, “Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be?” (Matthew 22:29). Jesus’ scathing response showed the Sadducees and those listening to the exchange that the denial of an immortal soul went against both the Old Testament and His own teachings. He said, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God…. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead but of the living” (22:29-32). What was Jesus’ point? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were physically dead. But God is the God of the living, so they must be alive. But where are they alive? Not in bodily form. Their spirits, which the Sadducees denied, were still very much alive. Those who teach anything other than this truth simply “are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Sure, some ancient Jews misunderstood the teachings of the Old Testament; but they were just wrong, as are modern teachers who teach the same thing.

Paradise

Ehrman further insists that Jesus did not endorse “the view that departed souls go to paradise or everlasting pain.” On the contrary, Jesus absolutely and unequivocally endorsed and openly taught that the souls of those who were righteous went to paradise and the souls of the wicked were ushered into torment. One of the clearest examples of this teaching is found in Luke 16:19-30. Jesus related the events of the lives of a particular rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus. “So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame’” (Luke 16:22-25). The rich man went on to beg Abraham to send Lazarus back to Earth to talk to the rich man’s five brothers who were lost (vss. 25-31). Notice the elements of Jesus’ teaching. First, the physical bodies of both the rich man and Lazarus were dead. Second, their souls were then removed to an afterlife. Third, the afterlife consisted of two different destinations: one called “Abraham’s bosom,” which was a place of comfort; the other labeled as “torments,” which was a place of burning and pain. Fourth, this was not a final, bodily resurrection since the events on Earth were still happening at the time.

Jesus’ discussion with the thief on the cross provides further clarity of His view of the soul. When the thief acknowledged Jesus’ true identity, Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus knew His physical body was going to die, but His spirit and the spirit of the thief on the cross would be together in a place Jesus called Paradise. When we turn to Acts, we see that Jesus’ soul “was not left in Hades [the realm of the dead—KB]” (Acts 2:31). Jesus died, His soul went to the realm of the dead, specifically, to the destination known as Paradise, and was brought back three days later and reunited with His resurrected body. Jesus most certainly taught that righteous people go to Paradise when they die.

The Eternality of Hell

When we look closely at what Dr. Ehrman is saying, however, we see that he recognizes that Jesus believed in a resurrection. But, Ehrman insists this resurrection would involve “eternal life here on earth, instead of eternal bliss for souls.” He continued his thought that Jesus “did not believe in hell as a place of eternal torment.” “Jesus did not say souls would be tortured there. They simply would no longer exist.” Such a denial and twisting of Jesus’ actual teachings is painful for the conscientious Bible reader to stomach. In Jesus’ discussion of the end of the world and the destination of the righteous and the wicked, He said of the wicked, “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:45). Ehrman insists that “everlasting punishment” simply means annihilation and has nothing to do with pain or discomfort. How did Jesus respond to such an idea? “So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:49).³ When Jesus told the story of the unforgiving servant, He said, “And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses” (Matthew 18:34-35). Everlasting punishment, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and torturers are all mental pictures designed by Jesus to help us see the unspeakably painful and perpetual nature of what will happen to a person’s soul in hell forever. Jesus clearly taught that souls would be “tortured” in hell for their refusal to accept God’s grace.⁴

The Fear of Death

Ehrman begins his article laying bare the fact that humans are scared of death “our constant companion.” He discusses how most of us try to ignore it or laugh it off, but even in our laughing at death such mockery is “rooted precisely in terror.” He explains that the fear of eternal torment and misery are quite ancient. And he suggests, “Possibly this is a good time to help people realize that it simply will not be that way.” Ehrman’s solution to the fear of death and punishment after death is to dismiss it with a wave of the hand and deny that an eternal hell exists. I know he wishes such were the case. In his book God’s Problem, he states, “As a result, when I fell away from my faith—not just in the Bible as God’s inspired word, but in Christ as the only way of salvation…I still wondered, deep down inside: could I have been right after all? What if I was right then but wrong now? Will I burn in hell forever? The fear of death gripped me for years and there are still moments when I wake up at night in a cold sweat.”⁵ Sadly, denying the reality of an eternal hell will not solve the problem anymore than denying cancer will make it go away.

Jesus and the inspired Bible writers understood humanity’s fear of death. That is the reason Jesus came to Earth. “He, Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15). For Ehrman, his readers, and all humanity, there is only one solution to the fear of death and everlasting punishment. Jesus’  death and resurrection provide the only real hope any person can have. “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:26).

The post Bart Ehrman, the Afterlife, and Hell: Misrepresenting Jesus Again appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The concept of a saint and sainthood is often misunderstood. Due to the teachings of certain religious groups, sainthood is supposedly only achieved by “super” Christians who lived an almost perfect life and did some type of verifiable miracle. After the person’s death, his or her life and actions are put through an extensive process of nominating, voting, and ultimately confirmation as a saint. When we look into the Bible, however, we see a completely different, and much simpler explanation of what a saint actually is.

The short answer to the sainthood question is that God refers to any person who becomes a Christian as a saint. The word “saint” is a form of the term “sanctify” and simply means one who is set apart in holy service to God. First Corinthians 1:2 gives us a clear example of this use of the term: “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” Notice that the letter is written to all the members of the church in Corinth. They are all said to be sanctified, or set apart. Furthermore, Paul insists that all the Christians were “called to be saints” with “all those….” The Bible declares that all Christians, everywhere, are saints.

To better understand this idea, consider the concept of being “sanctified.” What group of people is sanctified, or set apart for holy service to God? In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul reminded the Corinthian church about sins they had committed in the past. He then stated, “But you were washed, but you sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (vs. 11) Notice that all the Christians in Corinth were sanctified and set apart to God’s service, not just a chosen, elite group.

The beginning of Paul’s epistle to the Romans clarifies sainthood even further. Paul explains that He is a servant of Christ “separated,” or better translated “set apart,” to the Gospel of God (1:1). He then writes, “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” Again, take note of Paul’s use of the word “all” to refer to all the Christians in Rome who were “called” to be saints. How, then, is a person called to be a saint? Paul hints at that with his statement about being set apart “to the gospel of God.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, He more directly states that “God from the beginning chose you [the church of the Thessalonians—KB] for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” God, through the inspired Paul, explains that any person who has become a Christian through belief and obedience to the Gospel (see 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8), has been sanctified and is considered a saint.

Depending on the translation you use, the terms saint or saints are used approximately 60 times in the New Testament. Even a brief look at those verses will show that the Bible contains no concept of a “Super Christian” being a saint. Paul concluded his letter to the Philippian church with these words: “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you” (4:21). He wanted the Philippians to understand that all Christians are saints. These saints were alive and well. Their lives had not been granted sainthood after their deaths. Nor did they have to verify that they had performed a documented miracle to achieve a higher level of holiness. What had they done to become saints? They simply obeyed the Gospel of Christ when it was preached to them, just as the 3,000 did on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

It is sometimes tempting to compare our lives to others and view ourselves as “less holy.” We might even have stated in the past, when asked about our behavior, “Well, I’m no saint.” The fact is, however, that no one ever gained a level of holiness that could earn a place in heaven. Christians are holy, able to be called saints, not because they earned salvation or because they are super spiritual. On the contrary, God made “Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him [Christ—KB]” (2 Corinthians 5:21). All faithful Christians are holy saints, not because they are spiritual giants, but because of “the precious blood of Christ” which He shed “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

The post What is a Saint? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it”’” (NIV).

Skeptics claim that these verses prove that the God of the Old Testament condones abortion. As Atheist John Hamill wrote: “The verses appear to describe explicit divine support for abortion. In fact, the context in which it seems that Yahweh approves of abortion, is when a husband wishes to force his wife to terminate a pregnancy (even against her will) if he suspects he may not be the biological father.”¹ Do these verses condone abortion?²

First, it is important to ask why the skeptic believes this passage discusses abortion. The bulk of the passage has to do with adultery and nowhere even mentions pregnancy. The accusation of condoning abortion is based primarily, if not entirely, on the final verses that say of the woman “your womb miscarry” and “may this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your womb miscarries.” In truth, the NIV in this case provides an unfortunate and inaccurate translation of the terms in the passage. Compare how these terms from verses 21 and 22 are translated in other versions.

NKJV: “when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell…and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”

KJV: “when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell…to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot.”

ESV: “when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell…and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.”

ASV: “doth make thy thigh fall away, and thy body to swell…and make thy body to swell, and thy thigh fall away.”

Notice that other translations say nothing about a miscarriage or miscarrying. The term that the NIV translates “womb” is yarek. This word actually means “thigh, loin, side, or base.”³ It can be used to describe both males and females. It is used in Genesis 32:25 to describe the area that God wounded on Jacob when they wrestled, described as “the socket of his hip” (NKJV). It obviously could not have been Jacob’s “womb.” Judges 3:16 contains the word, describing Ehud’s dagger that he fastened “on his right thigh.” Furthermore, the term translated “miscarry” is the Hebrew word naphal, which means, “to fall, waste away, rot.”⁴ It can be used as broadly as an animal falling into a pit (as in Exodus 21:33), a sword falling from one’s hand (Ezekiel 30:22), or a violent or untimely death (Judges 5:27). The word could possibly be used to describe the death of an unborn infant, but is not in any way confined to the idea of a miscarriage and should only be translated as such when there is a very clear connection to a baby. When the word describes what happens to “the thigh” (yarek), there is no verbal connection to any type of pregnancy or child and should not be translated as miscarriage, which is why the other major translations say, “thigh fall away,” “thigh rot,” etc. Furthermore, it should be noted that the curse is directed at the woman. It is her thigh that shall rot off if she is found guilty of adultery. It is her belly, abdomen, or middle section that will swell. In order to accuse God or the Israelites of condoning abortion, there must be a clear statement or connection to an unborn baby in the text. Needless to say, that connection does not exist. Thus, we can dismiss the accusation that this passage proves that God was instructing the Israelites to perform abortion.

Let us then move on to what the passage actually discusses. In the context, if a man believes his wife has committed adultery, he takes her to the tabernacle where she is instructed to drink “holy water” that has some dust from the tabernacle floor and some type of parchment or paper fragments that are scraped into the water (Numbers 5:23). If the woman is innocent, then nothing adverse happens to her (Numbers 5:28). If she committed adultery, then her thigh would rot, her belly would swell, and she would “become a curse among her people.” Notice that this entire procedure implies the fact that divine judgment is directly at work in this case. There is no secret formula in the water that somehow is able to detect whether or not the woman has committed adultery. No special chemicals are concocted to cause sickness if adultery has occurred, but that are harmless if she has been faithful. The entire ordeal is designed to make a public example to show that God was working personally in the lives of the Israelites.

When we look more closely, we notice that the text mentions that there were no witnesses to the supposed adultery and the woman was not caught (Numbers 5:13). Some have argued that the Bible writers are showing favoritism here because no man is accused with the woman. The point is, however, that the husband suspects the wife of adultery, but has no physical evidence of her suspected accomplice. There is no favoritism toward the man in this instance, since the Old Testament clearly states that if a man and woman are caught in adultery, and there are witnesses, then both of them were to be punished equally (Deuteronomy 22:22). In this case, the woman is suspected of adultery and only God knows (besides the potentially guilty parties) whether or not she is guilty. If she is guilty, then it is God who sees and knows and will punish her. There is nothing inherent in the water that makes her sick in the case of adultery, but does nothing in the case of innocence. [As an aside, when God did act in such cases, and the woman fell ill and was cursed, there is no reason to think that God would let the guilty man go unpunished. Moses’ admonition to the men of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, when he stated, “be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23), would surely apply in this case. The stories of David’s adultery and the sin of Achan illustrate God’s ability and willingness to be directly involved in the reparation of sin.]

The skeptic’s accusation that Numbers 5:21-22 shows that God or the Israelites condoned abortion is groundless. The text never mentions a pregnancy, and the NIV translation of the terms “miscarry” or “miscarries” is unfounded. The punishment for any adultery that took place is directed at the woman. And God’s involvement in the ceremony is necessary for it to have any significance. There was nothing in the water that would or could cause an abortion, cause sickness, or differentiate between a guilty or innocent person. Only the all-knowing God could manifest the woman’s guilt or innocence.

Endnotes

The post Bitter Water that Causes a Curse: Does Numbers 5:11-22 Condone Abortion? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Many skeptics question how David could be a descendant of Ruth, a Moabite, and yet also become the divinely chosen King of Israel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). After all, Moses wrote: “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:3). So how could King David, the great-grandson of a Moabite woman, be allowed into the assembly of God?

First, one must consider the meaning of the phrase “shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Did Moses mean that Ammonites or Moabites (1) could not live within the borders of Israel, (2) could not become part of the Israelite community in general, (3) could not gather together and become part of an actual assembly of the Israelites (cf. Deuteronomy 5:22; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16), (4) could not become one of the elders or officials who often assembled together (cf. Deuteronomy 31:28,30), and/or (5) could not become part of the religious community (cf. Leviticus 21:17-21)—that is, were they forbidden “from participation in religious rites in the homes and at the tabernacle and later at the temple”¹? While Moses and the original recipients of this command doubtlessly understood the precise meaning of Deuteronomy 23:3, those living 3,500 years this side of the giving of the Law of Moses (and who have never been accountable to that law), may never know for sure exactly what the Lord meant. And, if neither the Christian nor the skeptic can know for sure what the precise meaning of the “assembly of the Lord” is in Deuteronomy 23:3, then obviously no proven contradiction exists.

Second, different kinds of “outsiders” lived in and around the Israelites. With two-and-one-half tribes of Israel inhabiting the east side of the Jordan (Numbers 32), where the Moabites and Ammonites lived and where the Israelites were currently camping (Deuteronomy 1:5; 29:1) when Moses gave the Moabite/Ammonite restriction of Deuteronomy 23:3, he was referring to the non-converted, uncircumcised “alien” or “foreign” Moabite/Ammonite who was never to be allowed into the general Israelite community. Ruth may have been a Moabite ethnically, but religiously she was a dedicated follower of the LORD (Ruth 1:16-18), who participated in and abided by Mosaic law (Ruth 3:1-18; 4:1-12; Deuteronomy 25:5-10).² Thus, she and her faithful descendants (including David) were rightly accepted in Israel.

Another reason Deuteronomy 23:3 would not have applied to Ruth and her offspring is simply because a non-Israelite mother in Israel (especially one who was a proselyte!) did not determine the nationality of her offspring. Joseph’s Egyptian wife did not make their sons Ephraim and Manasseh Egyptians (Genesis 41:50-52). Moses’ marriage to Zipporah, a Midianite (Exodus 2:11-25), did not disqualify their sons Gershom and Eliezer from being Israelites (Exodus 2:22; 18:1-4), nor did it make them Midianites. Salmon’s marriage to Rahab (the Jerichoan harlot) did not mean their son Boaz was a recognized Gentile of Jericho (Matthew 1:5). And the Moabitess Ruth, wife of Boaz, did not make their son Obed, their grandson Jesse, their great-grandson David, or their descendants Joseph and Mary (the earthly parents of Jesus) anything other than legitimate descendants of Abraham (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)—according to the standard reckoning of Israelite heritage. In the eyes of all of Israel, David was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah—and was no more a Moabite than he was a Jerichoan.³

Although Boaz, Ruth, and David were imperfect people (Romans 3:23), who broke various Old Testament commandments (cf. Samuel 11-12), neither these three nor God (in appointing David as king over Israel) ignored or broke the law of Deuteronomy 23:3.

Endnotes

¹ Earl Kalland (1992), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 3:140.

² Some think that Nehemiah 13:1,25,27 contradicts this explanation of Ruth and Deuteronomy 23:3. The social situation in Ezra and Nehemiah’s day (approximately 600 years after the time of Ruth), however, was quite different than what is found in the book of Ruth. Many of the Jews who had returned from 70 years of Babylonian captivity had taken for themselves “pagan” wives from among the Moabites, Ammonites, etc. (Ezra 9:1-2,14; 10:2,10-18,44; Nehemiah 13:23-30), rather than enter into lawful marriages with Jews or faithful converts to Judaism. The Old Testament prohibitions of marrying foreigners (Exodus 34:15-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4) applied to pagan non-converts, not faithful proselytes.

³ He was the great-great-grandson of Rahab of Jericho, but David was not Jerichoan.

Suggested Resources

The post Ruth, David, and a Moabite Mandate appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers is the Director of the Graduate school of Theology and Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

The personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible is יהוה (YHWH). Occurring over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, this name is by far the most common way of referring to God. Translations and traditions have developed a number of ways to represent this name respectfully without crudely spelling out “Yahweh.” English translations have typically chosen “Lord,” following the custom intitated by the Septuagint, and perpetuated in the Latin Vulgate. Normally, the small caps typeset (“lord”) is used in mass-produced English translations to mark YHWH as the underlying Hebrew, as opposed to “Lord,” which normally renders the Hebrew ’ādôn. Some Jewish traditions, however, choose to render YHWH as “HaShem” (literally, “the name”). The ASV (1901) is unique among mainstream translations in opting for “Jehovah” as the preferred translation for YHWH. To be clear, none of these renderings is a translation per se. They are merely reflections of respect for the personal name of God.

Respect for the Name of God

Respect for the personal name of God was an established custom already in the earliest history of Israel. Proper esteem for the Name is one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11), and cursing the Name is a sin punishable by death (Leviticus 24:10-16). After all, one’s name stands in for his or her essence (which is why changes of names are important). With the Bible placing such importance on the name of God, it is no surprise to find Jewish people in the post-biblical period going to great lengths to reverence the name YHWH.

Some Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts have the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew, a more archaic form of the Hebrew language. Instead of יהוה in the traditional block characters, the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew appears as . The name of God is the only word in those manuscripts written in this fashion—indicating respect. Likewise, when the translators of the Old Testament into Greek rendered the personal name of God, they chose the Greek word κύριος (kyrios), meaning “lord.” This may indicate that Jews as early as the third century B.C. were already pronouncing the Hebrew term אדון (’ādôn), meaning “Lord,” when they encountered YHWH in the text. Fear of mispronouncing the holy, personal name of God perhaps led them to develop the custom of not pronouncing it at all. Consequently, we have no sure idea how the name ought to be pronounced at any stage of the language.

Where Did “Jehovah” Come From?

The word “Jehovah” is a Medieval mistranscription from the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. It takes the consonants of the divine name YHWH and combines them with the vowels of another Hebrew word, ’^adōnāy (“my lord”). How such a combination occurred might be worth explaining a little more, so we begin by discussing briefly the consonantal nature of the Hebrew language and the Masoretic vowel additions.

Hebrew is a language of consonants. Vowel sounds are spoken of course, but are not traditionally written. This custom dates to ancient times. As a result, we are unable to determine exactly how the Hebrew language in the Old Testament era was pronounced. Concern, however, to preserve the precise pronunciation of the text led a group of Jewish scribes in the Middle Ages, known as the Masoretes, to invent and apply vowel symbols to the traditional consonantal text. The two oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible—the Aleppo and Leningrad codices—feature these vowel markings.

Jewish scribes were very traditional, and thus scrupulously copied the text exactly as they received it, even if they were certain they were passing along an erroneous reading. When the Masoretes encountered a text they believed to be corrupt, or one that made no sense when read publicly, they marked the word or phrase with a marginal correction known as the q^erî, literally meaning “it is read.” What was copied in the body of the text came to be known as the k^etîv (“it is written”). When one read the Hebrew text publicly, he was supposed to replace the k^etîv with the q^erî for the sake of accuracy, or, in the case of the name of God, respect. The name of God is the most common k^etîv/q^erî combination in the Hebrew Bible. Because the name of God is so common, however, the Masoretes simply placed the vowels of the q^erî around the k^etîv rather than utilizing the marginal system.

The Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible reflect the ancient custom of pronouncing ’^adōnāy (ah-dohn-EYE) as the q^erî in place of YHWH as the k^etîv. The term ’^adōnāy is a fitting choice of q^erî. First, the noun ’ādôn occurs 775 times in the Old Testament, over 400 times in reference to God. Second, the suffix –āy is a marker of the first person singular (in address), making the q^erî appear as a personal claim on the part of the reader. In other words, the public reader of Hebrew Scripture is understood to mean “My Lord said to Moses,” or “Let them praises give my Lord.” This was intended as a symbol of respect, but the need for a more literal rendering of the name of God than the standard “Lord” created the desire to use this made-up Masoretic term in English transliteration.

The word “Jehovah” first appears in A.D. 1381. It is easy to understand where it came from. Someone simply transcribed the Masoretic q^erî into a European language. In other words, someone simply took the vowels of ’^adōnay and placed them around the consonants of YHWH. This yields the name “Jehovah,” more or less. The Aleppo and Leningrad Codices of the Hebrew Bible write the nonsensical יְהוָה (Y^eHVāH), which takes the vowels of ’^adōnay (except for the ō) and places them around the consonants of YHWH. They attempt to preserve in writing a tradition of reading.

English readers are probably wondering exactly how YeHoWaH becomes Jehovah. To explain, the Y in English represents the sound J in certain other languages. The raised ^e is a “half-vowel,” and represents a hurried sound of barely distinguishable vocalic value (this is why ’^adōnāy starts with an ^a, but the Masoretes point YHWH with an ^e). This “shewa,” as it is often called, is transcribed as e in the European languages. H is H. The long ō sound is reinserted (absent in the Masoretic q^erî) from ’^adōnāy. W is pronounced in many languages as the English v. The ā of ’^adōnāy is represented as a. And, again, H is H. Taken together, this yields the word “Jehovah.”

The name Jehovah fell into fashion in early English translations. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and others used the term Jehovah, at least some of the time, to represent the Hebrew YHWH. The term occurs only four times in the King James Version of the Bible (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4). A mixture of “Jehovah” and “Lord” remained consistent in most English translations. The English Revised Version (1885), and its North American counterpart the American Standard Version (1901), choose “Jehovah” as its standard rendering of יהוה (YHWH), a name it uses over 6,800 times. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses also consistently uses the name Jehovah. More recent translations have not followed suit, preferring “lord” to “Jehovah.”

The question arises, then, is “Jehovah” the real name of God? The answer is a clear and firm “no.” First, the Masoretes themselves would not allege “Jehovah” represents the name of God. As we have discussed, the k^etîv is inspired and sacred, whereas the q^erî is a Masoretic protection on the way the text ought to be read. By adding the vowels of ’^adōnāy to YHWH, they never intended to create a new word, but to mark a respectful reading of the personal name of God.

Second, the vowel sounds the Masoretes added to the text represent a reading tradition much later than the biblical text itself. To get a sense of how much pronunciation can change in this length of time, watch online videos of the Canterbury Tales read with contemporary English pronunciation. Does this sound anything like modern English? Even if Hebrew pronunciation remained remarkably static over that period of time (a period of 1,000 years!), the fact that the name was not transmitted with vowels renders certainty in pronunciation simply impossible. The Masoretes preserved a reading tradition passed down in their time, not necessarily one dating to biblical times.

Third, the Masoretes did not actually give the name Jehovah or its Hebrew equivalent. Remember, the Masoretes omit the ō vowel from the q^erî, yielding the nonsensical Hebrew word Y^eHWāH (it is nonsensical since every Hebrew consonant must have an accompanying vowel; the middle “H” does not). So, the builders of the make-believe word “Jehovah” added something the Masoretic Hebrew does not have in the first place.

Conclusion

The term Jehovah is less than 700 years old. Even its Hebrew near-equivalent can date no earlier than the Masoretic application of vowels to the consonantal text in the Middle Ages. The same holds true for the spelling “Yahweh,” although scholars feel confident this form is much closer to the original pronunciation (based partially on ancient transliterations). That said, is it more respectful to use the name Jehovah? Some think so. Those who stringently defend the use of the name Jehovah argue their position on the basis of its being more literal and more original. However, we have observed that the term “Jehovah” is neither original to the Bible nor to the Masoretic tradition. And it is simply inaccurate to use an English transliteration of a Hebrew word that was never intended to be pronounced in the first place. The Jewish tradition is careful not to misuse the personal name of God, distancing itself with epithets such as “the Lord” or “the Name.” A biblical Israelite, if transported to modern times, would not understand what “Jehovah” even meant since it isn’t actually a Hebrew word. The name Jehovah is no more literal, no more respectful, and no more accurate than the more commonly used lord.

The post Where Did “Jehovah” Come From? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as Director of the Graduate School of Theology and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from F-HU as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

A minority of Christian voices through the centuries have insisted on stressing the Jewishness of Jesus.¹ Already in the New Testament, we learn that some Christians were retaining Jewish customs and doctrines in an attempt to create a hybrid religion. These attempts met stern apostolic criticism (e.g., Galatians 5:2; Colossians 2:16). Generally, as Christianity transitioned from a majority-Jewish to a majority-Gentile religion, these voices were steadily muted. However, a resurgence of the Jewish Jesus movement has led a number of people to allege ecclesiastical conspiracies to “cover up” the Jewishness of Jesus. Among the sensational claims is the alleged “change” of the name of God’s Son from Yeshua to Jesus.

Before we analyze the rationale and legitimacy behind the question of the name, let us affirm two incontrovertible truths. First, Jesus was a Jew. Scripture is clear that the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:16-17). Therefore, Jesus (or Yeshua, if you like) lived His entire life as a Jew under the Law of Moses. The name has nothing to do with His Jewishness. Second, His name in Hebrew was indeed Y^ehōshūa‘, or more likely in Aramaic Yēshūa‘. Growing up in the Galilee region, Jesus would have almost certainly spoken Aramaic, and He would not have heard His name as “Jesus.” Indeed, the Syriac translations of the New Testament spell the name Yēshūa‘.² The New Testament, however, is not written in Aramaic or in Syriac, but in Greek. And the English name “Jesus” is a transliteration based on the Latin, which is based on the Greek, which is in turn based on the original Aramaic.

Alleged Reasons for the Name “Change”

“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” This maxim is taught to third-graders and college students alike. Still, it doesn’t seem to sink in. People continue to read websites that propagate fictional conspiracy theories to allege the name of God’s Son was changed from its pure Hebrew form to its current corruption. And here are a few of the most common reasons why.

First, it is alleged that early Christians—even the authors of the New Testament!—were racists. They wished to erase the Jewishness of Jesus from the record in an effort to make Him seem “Christian” and “Gentile.” This simply isn’t true. First, every author of the New Testament seems to possess a Jewish background of some kind, and most were born Jewish (cf. Galatians 2:15). Second, Paul can boast not only of his Jewish lineage (Philippians 3:5), but also claim, “I am a Pharisee” (present tense!) long after his conversion (Acts 23:6). Third, where there is racism in the New Testament, it is usually against Gentiles rather than Jews (Galatians 2:12-16; cf. Romans 2:14).

Second, some would never lay such an allegation as racism at the feet of the Apostles, but they have no qualms about hurling this insult at the Catholic Church. They believe the early church falsified manuscripts of the New Testament in order to erase “Yeshua” and insert the more Western-sounding “Jesus.” There is no evidence for such a claim. We have nearly 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and approximately 19,000 New Testament manuscripts in other early languages, such as Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. In addition to these direct copies, we have tens of thousands of pages of early Christian writings, some of which are from Jewish-Christian groups. The name of Jesus occurs hundreds of thousands of times collectively in these ancient documents, and none of them speaks to a conspiratorial name change. If the “change” from Yeshua to Jesus was an early Catholic conspiracy, it is the best-executed cover-up in world history.

Third, it is occasionally alleged that the name Jesus is an attempt to insert paganism into Christianity. A few (very, very few) argue the name “Jesus” means “hail Zeus.” I suspect someone somewhere noticed the pronunciation of the name, especially in a language such as Spanish, sounds strikingly like “Hey-Zoos.” This must be a furtive nod to the chief god of the Greek pantheon, right? Not in the slightest. The New Testament was not written in English or Spanish, but in Greek. In Greek, “hail Zeus” would be chaire zeu, which bears absolutely no phonetic resemblance to “Jesus.”

How Did We Get from Yeshua to Jesus?

Although Jesus probably grew up in Galilee hearing His name as Yēshūa‘, it is not the case that the Christian world moved from Yeshua to Jesus. This is because Yeshua and Jesus are not different names, but different pronunciations of the same name. Different languages hear sounds differently. The Hebrews of the Old Testament era heard the name of the Persian king as “Ahasuerus” whereas the Greeks heard it as “Xerxes” (compare ESV with NIV in Ezra 4:6). If your name is Peter in the United States or Great Britain, you are Petros in Greece, Pietro in Italy, Pierre in France, and Pedro in Spain. Did each of these languages change your name!? No. These languages simply pronounce the same name in different ways. And so it is with Jesus. The Greek Iēsous represents the Aramaic Yēshūa‘.

But what about the meaning of the name? Those who argue in favor of the superiority of the name Yeshua insist that the Hebrew form means “salvation” whereas the Greek form is meaningless. This is true, and I believe every Christian should know the name of Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic means “salvation.” However, Peter-Petros-Pietro-Pierre-Pedro means “rock” only in the Greek language. It is meaningless in the others; yet none of us seems bothered by this problem, and no one insists on a consistent, universal pronunciation as Petros. Second, Matthew already felt the need to explain the name of Jesus in his Gospel (Matthew 1:21). And it is routine in the New Testament to translate the meaning of certain foreign words (e.g., Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41; John 1:38, 41). If the inspired writers were content to use the medium of the Greek language, while also providing explanations, is it wrong of us to follow their example?

Third, there is more than one “Jesus” in the New Testament. In the genealogy of Christ a certain “Jesus son of Eliezer” is named (Luke 3:29). Then there is the Jesus also known as Justus (Colossians 4:11). Finally, the Old Testament hero Joshua is known in Greek transliteration as Iēsous, his name being indistinguishable in Greek from Jesus the Christ (Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8, KJV).

Conclusion

Technically, if the New Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, Yeshua would have been the form the authors used. But it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. So the authors represented the name as it was known in Greek. The name “Jesus,” in fact, was well-established in Greek transliteration as Iēsous thanks to the Septuagint, where it is found over 250 times. The New Testament authors did not change the name from Yeshua to Jesus, nor did the early Catholic Church.

Whenever modern theorists insist on the name Yeshua, they are contending for a position the New Testament authors themselves never took. The name of Jesus appears over 900 times in the Greek New Testament, every single time as Iēsous. If one travels to Israel, one will find the name of Jesus is still pronounced “Yeshua” today. But not in China, nor in Russia, nor in any European, North, or South American country will he or she find this pronunciation. The spelling and pronunciation of the name of Jesus is not a matter of conspiracy, but of culture.

Endnotes

The post Jesus or Yeshua? 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.

What does the text mean when it says, “the Sun stood still”? Did the Sun literally stand “still,” or did the Earth stop its approximate 1,000-mph rotation on its axis in order to give the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies? And what about the Moon; did it actually stop, too? What are we to make of such language?

First, is it possible that the same God Who miraculously created the entire Universe out of nothing could supernaturally (and literally) stop the Sun (or any other part, or all parts, of the Universe that He so chooses)?¹ Could the same God Who made light, as well as mornings and evenings on Earth, without a Sun (on days 1-3 of Creation; Genesis 1:3-19)² also cause the Moon to “stop”?³ Is it possible for the omnipotent Creator, Who currently “upholds the Universe by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, ESV), to miraculously manipulate a day on Earth to His liking? Is it possible for God to refract light or to specially create some kind of light to illuminate a part of the Earth for a longer period of time than the normal daylight hours? Though skeptics often ridicule the idea of miracles, in truth, if a supernatural God exists, then supernatural miracles are possible. Could God Almighty work an astronomical miracle on behalf of the Israelites when they faced the armies of the Amorites if He so chose? Indeed, He could.

But how, exactly, could God have “stopped” the Sun and Moon? The fact is, we are not told how God could have worked such a miracle any more than we are told how He miraculously fed several thousand people with merely five loaves of bread and two fish (Matthew 14:13-21), how He made an iron ax head float in water (2 Kings 6:4-7), or how exactly Jonah could have survived for three days in the belly of a fish. The recognition of God’s unlimited knowledge and power should be a logically sufficient explanation.

Bible students must keep in mind that the book of Joshua is a historical composition, full of real people, places, dialogue, and events, and is written in ordinary language. Joshua is not a book of prophecy or poetry filled with extensive amounts of figurative language. Nothing in Joshua 10 suggests that we should interpret the account as highly figurative or symbolic. That said, one common element of normal, “everyday” speech and writing, both in Bible times and today, is the description of things as they appear (and not necessarily in the scientifically precise manner that we would expect in a geometry or chemistry classroom). Since to everyone on Earth (both in Bible times and today) it appears that the Sun moves from the east to the west, man has long referred to the Sun rising and setting (though technically what we see is the result of the Earth’s rotation on its axis). Could it be that the miracle God worked in Joshua 10 had less to do with the Sun than one might initially think? Certainly. As Hebrew scholar Justin Rogers commented: “Indeed, it appeared to them that ‘the sun stopped in the middle of the sky.’ This is 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.”⁴ God did not inform us of the precise manner in which He chose to work this marvelous miracle, but rest assured, it happened, and it was amazing. In fact, “there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man” (Joshua 10:14).⁵

Endnotes

¹ The Sun literally moves. It rotates about every 27 days at its equator (www.nasa.gov/sun), while traveling through the Milky Way Galaxy at an estimated 514,000 miles per hour (starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html).

² Keep in mind that “the Father of lights” (James 1:17), Who is “light” (1 John 1:5), could create light easily without first having to create the Sun, Moon, and stars. Just as God could produce a fruit-bearing tree on day three without seed, He could produce light supernaturally on Day 1 without the “usual” light bearers (which subsequently were created on Day 4). For more information, see Eric Lyons (2006), “When Were the Sun, Moon, and Stars Created?” www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1990&b=Genesis.

³ The Moon also rotates on its axis as it revolves around Earth (moon.nasa.gov/about/in-depth).

⁴ Justin Rogers (2017), “Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth?” Reason & Revelation, July, 37[7]:74-77, apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5428&topic=82, emp. in original.

⁵ A story has circulated on the Internet for many years that NASA discovered Joshua’s “missing day.” This story is a hoax. Although some (such as C.A.L. Totten and Harry Rimmer) have alleged to have discovered a “missing day” (in connection with Joshua 10), their calculations and differing conclusions are highly questionable and unproven at best and laughable at worst. Rimmer goes so far as to “arrive at the conclusion that the day of battle was Tuesday…July 22” [Rimmer (1944), The Harmony of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 251-283].

The post “The Sun Stood Still”—Really? appeared first on Apologetics Press.