This Week in Review - 3/24/2017

Here's another list of interesting links and resources I discovered this week. Quite a few to share here, from a variety of topics!

Creation Accounts and Ancient Near Eastern Religions from Christian Research Institute - It's common for people to say the Genesis narrative is just a rehash of Near Eastern religions, or at the very least that the ancient Jews may have been influenced by them. As this study from CRI shows, a lot of those connections are at best weak or superficial. It's a lot like many of those supposed connections between Christ's death and resurrection and other "dying and rising" myths.

Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi? from GotQuestions.org - A common claim is that the Law of Moses didn't really present anything new that Hammurabi didn't already try. This article provides some comparisons, and shows that all similarities are due to the fact that Hammurabi, and countless other cultures, recognize that things like theft, adultery, etc., are serious crimes that deserve punishment (y'know, that whole Romans 1 thing). The key differences are that, while Hammurabi's code dealt with criminal and civil law, the Law of Moses expands things into the spiritual and personal realm.

The Human Kind from Answers in Genesis - A little known fact among many people today is that, in the early stages of the theory of evolution, racism, and the concept of different levels of racial development, was wildly popular and accepted. Nowadays evolutionists and atheists like to distance themselves from that truth, but, rationally speaking (and looking at the issue of human biodiversity), that is evolution's logical step.

Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis? from Answers in Genesis - Good read that answers the question on if scripture itself interprets Genesis as a literal, or figurative account. A lot of these arguments are similar to ones I've made in the past, so it's good to see other, more learned men coming to the same conclusions.

Jesus Created The Universe: The Deity Of Christ from Reasons for Jesus - Christ is divine not only from His own claims to being divine, but also the fact that scripture attests to His role as a "causal agent" for the act of creation.

How Early Was Jesus Being Worshiped As God? from Jonathan Morrow - A short read that provides both a quote from scripture and a quote from Pliny on the issue of the historicity of the worship of Christ. Some additional links are provided.

Is the Original Text of the New Testament Lost? Rethinking Our Access to the Autographs from Canon Fodder - A common argument from many today is that, since we don't have access to the original copies of the books in the Bible, we can't really know what they say. Is that true? A few scholarly thoughts on the subject are found here.

Two Moral Atrocities God supposedly committed from DyerThoughts - William Dyer addresses two supposed moral dilemmas that God commits in scripture: creating people with disabilities, and the infamous she-bear incident with Elisha and the youths. Do these prove God isn't worthy of worship? Dyer addresses each, especially by clarifying what's going on in the Elisha narrative.

Did Daniel Accurately Predict a Succession of Nations? from Christian Research Institute - Nice read on the historical narrative found within Daniel, from the fall of Babylon to the rise of the Seleucid Empire. In some respects it could have gone into even deeper detail, or handled the troubling passages from Daniel 11:40-onward, but it's good for what it is.

God, The Shack, and the Christian Mind from Southern Evangelical Seminary - There are a lot of responses out there to The Shack, many of them strictly doctrinal. This article gets to the heart of the matter, by addressing the "experiential emotionalism" so rampant in modern western Christianity. It's a gracious and fine read.

The Most Dangerous Man in Christendom? from First Things - Carl Trueman addresses the charge made that he's "the most dangerous man in Christendom" due to a charge of "high sacramentalism." Trueman goes on to discuss the problem within modern Evangelicalism of loving conversion/witnessing tactics, while at the same time glorifying the men of the Reformation-era, many of whom would be deemed "high sacramentalists" by those same Evangelicals.

Leaving the NAR Church: Derrick's story from Pirate Christian - Derrick, from the UK, shares the experiences of how his family was sucked into the New Apostolic Reformation. He talks about how it left some family members homeless and without jobs due to the advice of a false prophet, while others became involved under false teachers like Mike Bickle. As it grew more stranger and destructive, Derrick eventually left the movement, seeing it for the demonic deception that it was.

The Mailbag: I “feel led” in a different direction from my husband from Michelle Lesley - As the title implies, what does a wife do when she "feels led" differently than her husband? How is she able to still "submit"? Ms. Lesley covers that question from a biblical viewpoint.

Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond from BeliefNet - Excellent article by Alister McGrath on the supposed disconnect science gives faith. He speaks a little on his own journey into faith, and how he eventually came to realize how philosophically shallow Richard Dawkins' arguments were. As he writes, "Dawkins and his circle" present a rationale which, "far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone."

Secularism isn't a Neutral Position from Come Reason Ministries - Is secular thought really a "neutral" point compared to religion? On the contrary, it basically becomes a religion all its own.

What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? from Answers in Genesis - Because it's a topic that comes up every now and then...

Ten quick responses to atheist claims from Christian Today - As the title suggests, these are some quick responses to common atheist objections like "I just believe one less God than you," "There are so many denominations," etc.

44 Quotes from Former Atheists from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - What the title implies. Includes some well known former atheists like C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, as well as some lesser known ones.

3 Apologetics Strategies From the Book of Acts from Alisa Childers - Three quick points about the way the apostles handled apologetics against Jews and Gentiles in the book of Acts.

This Week in Review - 3/17/2017

Time for yet another roundup of highlights this week.

What Does The Shack Really Teach? “Lies We Believe About God” Tells Us from Tim Challies - An important read for any Christian tackling any debate that exists over The Shack. Tim Challies goes through William Paul Young's straight theological treatise Lies We Believe About God and presents excerpts and summaries of what Young truly believes, but might have kept vague in his fictional novel. Would you be surprised to learn Young isn't too fond of the topics of the crucifixion, sin, or God's absolute sovereignty?

Did Jesus Exist? All Scholars Agree He “Certainly” Existed from Reasons for Jesus - Do all scholars teach that Jesus never existed? Actually, that's far from the truth - even atheist or agnostic scholars widely believe he at the very least existed. This article provides relevant quotes to that very topic.

How Atheist Hate & Mockery Led a Richard Dawkins Fan, Richard Morgan, to Faith from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - It wasn't a superficial reason like "Oh, these guys are mean, I'm going to stop being one." Rather, it was seeing how vitriolic they were towards all contrary thought, especially when a pastor joined the forum and started to present calm, reasonable, and kind answers to atheist objections, and only received more of the same. This article is a good read on that whole experience.

Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language from Reasons to Believe - A discussion on how language developed, and what makes a language to begin with. As the author points out, it's not just a bunch of grunts and barks.

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig responds to Richard Dawkins' six-part argument against the existence of God, and why it's philosophically unsound.

The Definition That Will Not Die! from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris discuss five common arguments in favor of atheism that even some atheists consider unsound. These include "You can't prove something doesn't exist," "Lack of belief isn't a belief," etc.

Answering the Galileo Myth from Stand to Reason - A small post dealing with the story of Galileo and the church, which is often cited to say that science and religion conflict with each other. I might add to this a post I shared quite a while ago, covering that same topic, and bringing up a few points rarely discussed in the Galileo story.

Basic Training: The Bible Is Sufficient from Michelle Lesley - A little guide on the sufficiency of scripture, especially in this day and age of the New Apostolic Reformation nonsense.

The Reliability of the Bible – 4 Quick Thoughts from Reasonable Theology - If you've read anything on manuscript evidence before, you'll probably already recognize these four "quick thoughts." Still, it pays to be reminded every now and then.

5 apologetics arguments Christians should avoid from Premier Christianity - Most of these are just silly claims (eg., the Blood Moons stuff), however, they're worth mentioning, just in case anyone takes any of these seriously.

And in the humor corner...

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Reject Santa Claus from A Clear Lens - Funny, short read. (It's not what you think.)

This Week in Review - 3/10/2017

And now another weekly roundup.

Heidelberg 80: We Don’t Need Any Footnotes from The Heidelblog - An interesting explanation of Question 80 from the Heidelberg catechism, and whether or not it truly misrepresents the position of Roman Catholicism regarding the Lord's Supper.

The Reformed Reject Lent In Basle In 1534 from The Heidelblog - Article XI from the First Confession of Basle, regarding the topic of fasting during Lent.

Why Did Arminianism "Win"? from The Heidelblog - An article discussing how we went from the teachings of Jacob Arminius (which was closer to Calvinism) to historical Arminianism, to today's Evangelical scene in western Christian.

Reformed Books Online - I discovered this recently. It's a treasure trove of resources on various subjects.

The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon? from Canon Fodder - A good, short read on the history of Revelation's entry into the canon, who objected to it, when those objections were raised, etc.

The Poisonous Songs of Arius from Mystagogy Resource Center - With all the debate still going on about Jesus Culture, Bethel Church, IHOP-KC, Misty Edwards, etc., this article was a timely read. In essence, the Arians employed music and easy-to-memorize songs in order to spread their doctrine. As the article cites, even Athanasius had to comment on it.

What Led You To Become An Atheist? Some Surprising Answers from David Murray - An interesting summary of a study on what made a group of people atheists, and what we can do to improve this situation. Some of the reasons aren't all that surprising, honestly.

The Mailbag: Which Bible Do You Recommend? from Michelle Lesley - There are dozens upon dozens of "Which translation should I use?" posts out there, but this one summarizes things nicely.

A Day Without A Woman from Femina Girls - A response to the whole "day without a woman" nonsense that feminists had a while ago, as well as a warning to not pay the "danegeld" to feminists.

Sharing Heaven with Serial Killers from The Gospel Coalition - A reflection on the story of Jeffrey Dahmer's repentance, and what it means for all of us.

Cain’s Wife—Who Was She? from Answers in Genesis - An analysis of where Cain's wife came from, and what this means about interpreting scripture.

When Does Personhood Begin? Part I from Cross Examined - A good, thorough beginning discussion on the philosophical arguments behind personhood within the abortion debate.

Gay Rights Activists Bully Authors of LGBT Study from Answers in Genesis - The story is from November 29, 2016, but nonetheless it's an example of how there's an agenda being pushed that's not very concerned about truth and reality.

And in the humor section...

Some of the longer "carol" "conversations" with H/T to Frog Morton - How easy is it to troll internet atheists? A troll account (probably a Twitter bot) named Carol, aka "christianmom18," posts some short, simple statements and finds out. Most amusing is when she corrects people on the proper use of "your." Also amusing is just how some people continue to respond even when it's clear it's a troll. Warning: As might be expected, there's bad language, crude humor, blasphemous statements against God, etc. If you don't want to see these, don't click on the link. I'm sharing this simply because it demonstrates how people who claim to be rational against emotional opinion can betray their own emotional state when faced with nothing more than contrary thought.

The Original Original Source

I recently came across some Thomas Jefferson quotes regarding the Constitution (taken from here). One such quote:

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

And another quote:

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

The gist of it is this: the Constitution is a historical document which had a history behind it. We are to understand the Constitution not according to how later generations defined it, but to how its writers defined it. We are not to read backwards in history and force our current situation into the Constitution, but we are to look forward in history, and see what led up to the formation of the Constitution. Most of all, we are to hold everything by the wording of the Constitution and what the Constitution says, not how we choose to define it.

There are many Christians today who would gladly adhere this way to the Constitution...but not to the Bible. They would never take uncritically what a modern-day Democrat said about the Constitution and what it means, and yet they would gladly accept uncritically what someone a few hundred years after the writing of the last books of the Bible said. They would never accept what a politician a hundred years after the writing of the Constitution had to say about it if it contradicted the context and historical background of the document, and yet they would gladly accept words and explanations which clearly contradict the Bible. Once I was asked by someone if I believe a Christian can lose their salvation - I said no, to which they asked, "Oh, then you disagree with what such-and-such Church Father said?" I replied, "I agree with what Jesus said."

Obviously we should read the works of men who come after a document - don't mistake my words here as a certain extreme. As I wrote before, we should not dismiss all Church Fathers, Reformers, modern theologians, etc. Many of them have wonderful insight. However, we need discernment, and we need scripture to be our source for discernment. If scripture says x, and a later theologian says y, we should immediately accept x. When we see a later theologian handling a theological subject, or looking at a passage of scripture, we should ask ourselves, honestly, "Is this person treating the scriptural passage/the teaching of scripture with honesty and clarity?" If we find something lacking or contradictory, we should dismiss it - it is as simple as that.

Next time you want to treat the Bible solely through the lens of later generations - be it 200 years after Christ or 2000 years after Christ - just ask yourself, "Would I treat the Constitution this way?"

The Development of Language

It's amazing how language can change in a short span of time, or how the understanding of a verse can develop. Here's John 3:16 as it transitioned over 220 years...

WYCLIFFE BIBLE (1382-1395)
For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.


TYNDALE BIBLE (1526, 1531-34)
For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.


COVERDALE BIBLE (1535)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his onely sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in he, shulde not perishe, but haue euerlastinge life.


MATTHEW BIBLE (1537)
For God so loueth the worlde that he hath geue his only sonne that none that beleue in him shulde perisshe: but shulde haue euerlastyng lyfe.


GREAT BIBLE (1539)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue hys onlye begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not peryshe, but haue euerlastynge lyfe.

GENEVA BIBLE (1560)

For God so loueth the world, that he hath geue his only begotten Sone: y none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe.

BISHOP’S BIBLE (1568)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.

KING JAMES BIBLE (1611)
For God so loued the world, that he gaue his onely begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Spurgeon and Personal Revelation

H/T to A Twisted Crown of Thorns. The following is by Charles Spurgeon.

Is the truth that which I imagine to be revealed to me by some private communication? Am I to fancy that I enjoy some special Revelation and am I to order my life by voices, dreams and impressions? Brothers and Sisters, fall not into this common delusion! God’s Word to us is in Holy Scripture. All the Truth that sanctifies men is in God’s Word! Do not listen to those who cry, “Lo here!” and, “Lo there!” I am plucked by the sleeve almost every day by crazy persons and pretenders who think that they have Revelations from God. One man tells me that God has sent a message to me by him—and I reply, “No, Sir, the Lord knows where I dwell and He is so near to me that He would not need to send to me by you.” Another man announces, in God’s name, a dogma which, on the face of it, is a lie against the Holy Spirit. He says the Spirit of God told him so-and-so, but we know that the Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. If your imaginary Revelation is not according to this Word of God, it has no weight with us! And if it is according to this Word, it is no new thing!

Brothers and Sisters, this Bible is enough if the Lord does but use it and quicken it by His Spirit in our hearts. Truth is neither your opinion, nor mine—your message, nor mine! Jesus says, “Your Word is truth.” That which sanctifies men is not only truth, but it is the particular Truth of God which is revealed in God’s Word—“Your Word is truth.” What a blessing it is that all the Truth that is necessary to sanctify us is revealed in the Word of God, so that we have not to expend our energies upon discovering the Truth of God, but may, to our far greater profit, use Revealed Truth for its Divine ends and purposes! There will be no more Revelations—no more are needed! The Canon is fixed and complete—and he that adds to it shall have added to him the plagues that are written in this Book! What need of more when here is enough for every practical purpose? “Sanctify them through Your truth: Your Word is truth.

MacArthur: How Should We Interpret the Bible?

A John MacArthur sermon about...well...read the title of the post.

How Should We Interpret the Bible?

Comparison of the Canon

This is something I dug up from the archives in my old blog. It's a comparison between the canon as recognized by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Here's the link.

Three Days and Three Nights?

The following is quoted from the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

Matthew 12:40: On which day of the week was Christ crucified?

Matthew 12:40 states: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the general tradition—that Christ was crucified on Friday of Holy Week, died at 3:00 P.M. (the “ninth hour” of the day), and then rose again from the dead on Sunday at dawn—is correct, how can it be said that Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave? He was interred about 6:00 P.M., according to Luke 23:54. (“And it was the day of preparation [hemera paraskeues] and the Sabbath was coming on [epephosken].”) This would mean that the period of interment was only from Friday night to Saturday night before the Resurrection on the dawn of Sunday; and it would also mean only one dawn-to-sunset day, namely Saturday, had passed. How do we get “three days and three nights” out of two nights and one day? Must not the actual day of crucifixion have been Thursday or even Wednesday?

It is perfectly true that a Friday Crucifixion will not yield three full twenty-four-hour days. But neither will a Thursday afternoon Crucifixion, nor a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion either. This results from the fact that Jesus died at 3:00 P.M. and rose at or about 6:00 A.M. The only way you can come out with three twenty-four-hour days is if He rose at the same hour (three days later, of course) that He was crucified, namely, 3:00 P.M. Actually, however, He rose “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4). Obviously, if He rose on the third day, He could not already have been buried for three whole nights and three whole days. That would have required His resurrection to be at the beginning of the fourth day.

What, then, is the meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40: “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”? (NASB). This can only refer to three twenty-four-hour days in part or in whole. That is to say, Jesus expired at 3:00 P.M. near the close of Friday (according to the Hebrew method of reckoning each day as beginning at sundown), which would be one day. Then Friday 6:00 P.M. to Saturday 6:00 P.M. would be the second day, and Saturday 6:00 P.M. to Sunday 6:00 P.M. would constitute the third day—during which (i.e., Sunday 6:00 A.M. or a little before) Christ arose. Christ rested in hades (where paradise, or “Abraham’s Bosom,” still was, according to the indications of Luke 16:22-26; cf. Luke 23:43) for a portion of the three days: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The same would be true, or course, if the Evangelists had been reckoning according to the Roman method, from midnight to midnight.

Why then are three portions of day referred to in Matthew 12:40 as “three days and three nights”? The simple answer is that the only way “day” in the sense of dawn-to-dusk sunlight could be distinguished from the full twenty-four-hour cycle sense of “day” was to speak of the latter as “a night and a day” (i.e., an interval between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. of the day following). In other words Friday as a twenty-four-hour unit began on Thursday 6:00 P.M. and lasted until Friday 6:00 P.M. Correspondingly, Sunday began at 6:00 P.M. Saturday, according to Hebrew reckoning (but 12:00 P.M. Saturday according to Roman reckoning). According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, “Three days and three nights”—even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where “he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights” is equated in v.13 with hayyom se losah (“three days ago”)—which could only mean “day before yesterday.” But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. (“Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the “Feast of Weeks” because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the Fiftieth Day— Pentecoste in Greek.)

Jeremiah 29:11 is NOT ABOUT YOU!

Recently on Facebook I came across the image on the left, which someone had placed up as their profile cover. I asked the person: "Are you an ancient Jew living in Babylon?" My comment got deleted and I was told not to post it again. I explained my position in a detailed, respectful post, in which I went over the context, as seen in the very image itself. You can see in verse 10 that the Lord, through the prophet Jeremiah, states: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again." Immediately, what is the context? Who is being spoken of in this verse? The Jews who would live in the Babylonian Captivity, which was to last seventy years. They're the subject of discussion. We then go to verse 11: "For I know the plans I have for you"...now let's stop here - who is the you here? It's still the same context; that is, it's the Jews of verse 10. God is saying: "For I know the plans I have for you [the ancient Jews enduring the Babylonian Captivity], plans for good and not for disaster [that is, the nation would be restored], to give you a future and a hope [that is, that their nation and Temple would be rebuilt]." It isn't about people living in the year 2012, and the "good," "future" and "hope" are all specific. You can especially see this latter point later on in verse 14, where the Lord says, "I will end your captivity and restore your fortunes. I will gather you out of the nations where I sent you and will bring you home again to your own land." Again, I'm demonstrating this from the very image itself: it shows that the highlighted verse is being taken out of context. All this was what I wrote the individual - and my post was, of course, immediately deleted, as was any evidence a conversation had taken place. Social media is, for many, a chance to "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18).

I have been told that people will read the Bible and see the context any way, but I don't believe people really do. How many times have we heard this verse uttered on K-LOVE? How many times have we seen bumper stickers of this? How many times have we seen this sold on goofy business cards at Christian bookstores? How many times has this been shared on social media like Facebook? If people as a whole understood the context of the verse, they wouldn't abuse it so frequently. I've beaten this dead horse before, I know. Some might be sick of hearing about it, or wonder why I spend so much time on it. Why is it such a pet peeve for me? I'll tell you why. It's because this kind of thing teaches "feel good" theology. It teaches a sappy world where God just wants you to be happy. It tells you good things will only get better, because that's what God wants.

Folks, you don't need to be the love child of Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen to understand how bad a theology that is. Even an extreme atheist will tell you life is not like that. Sometimes life just stinks. Only too recently I experienced some of the worst years of my life. By God's grace, my life is doing better now, but who am I to suppose the circumstances around the end of my life will be happy? The fact is, the "plans" God may have for your life, especially near the end, may not be "good" or "hopeful" with a great "future" ahead. As I've brought up before, you might end your life peacefully, or you might end it like Paul, Ignatius, Tyndale, or Bonhoeffer - killed for your faith in an embarrassing or violent way.

So why do I hate the abuse of Jeremiah 29:11? I hate it because it's an abuse of God's word. I hate it because it's a sacrifice of context for "Evan-jellyfish" theology. I hate it because it teaches people to look for emotional kicks in the Bible rather than God's truth. I hate it because it gives a distorted presentation of what God's word says on how our lives will be. I hate it because it's a smack in the face to every Christian whose life ended because he was torched by Hindu radicals, or shot by Muslim extremists, or executed by atheists. I hate it because it's insulting to God, as if we're trying to tell Him that we're expecting hope and good despite His actual plans for us. I hate it because I have seen people abuse this verse and turn it into an idol, and respond harshly to those who dare question the power of this idol.

What will you do, dear Christian, if God does not desire hope and goodness for your future? What if He desires suffering, as many early Christians endured? What if He desires that you shall lose your high paying job (as the apostle Paul did), or lose a beloved one (as the prophet Ezekiel did), or find yourself hated by most within your society (as the prophets Elijah and Jeremiah did)? Where will be your faith then? What drove the early Christians on as they endured three hundred years of persecution? Was it the silly idea that eventually they would find greener pastures because of eisegeting an Old Testament passage? Or was it because, as the apostle Paul wrote, they considered "the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Rom 8:18). Do you truly have this mindset, dear Christian? Are you ready to endure pain and anguish in this life knowing that God has provided the one thing you truly need? That is, your very redemption. Are you ready to be like the blind man in John 9 who, after persecution and banishment, still desired to see and worship Christ? Do you have such a heart?

Consider these things prayerfully. God bless.

Authority of Exposition

The following is from Adam Clarke's commentary on the Song of Solomon. Although he was referring specifically to that book, I think it pays to remember these words when attempting to over-allegorize any book of scripture.

In the preceding notes I have carefully avoided all attempts to spiritualize this song. My reasons I have already given in the introduction; and in the course of writing these short notes I have seen no cause to alter my opinion. Any man may allegorize it; that is an easy matter; for when he once considers it to be an allegory, his own creed will furnish him with enough to say, write, or preach, upon the spiritual meanings of every part, which will be an exhibition of his own confession of faith! But when he has finished his work, the question will recur, By what authority do you give it these meanings? And till the day of judgment none shall be able to say, "I have the authority of God for my exposition."

Silly Arguments Part II

Well, kids, that ol' Facepalming Picard means that it's time once again for a very silly argument.

Has this ever happened to you? Have you ever been sitting in a Starbucks, minding your own business, enjoying a good venti-sized vanilla bean frappacino, when suddenly some guy crashes his Dodge Ram truck through the window, rolls out the driver door dressed as Ronald McDonald, and proceeds to tell you that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD? You were probably thankful that you hadn't been hit, then after those sentiments of survival subsided you immediately asked the person a bit more about their position. You come to found out that they believe the copy of the Septuagint written before Jesus' time was merely the Law, and the rest of the Old Testament wasn't translated until the second century AD. Hence, when Matthew and the other Gospel writers quote the Old Testament in Greek, they were either inventing their own Greek verses, or the New Testament as a whole was written from the middle to late second century. You then tased him, not for what he said, but for the simple fact he's a lunatic crashing through buildings dressed as Ronald McDonald.

OK, maybe I've exaggerated this account just a little, but I did hear someone make the argument mentioned here.

The biggest thing we need to do is discuss some biblical history. When the books of the Old Testament were originally written, they were a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic texts. In the middle third century, under the funding of Ptolemy Philadelphus (then ruler of Egypt), it was decided to translate the Law into Greek, which had become the international language during the inter-testamental time. According to various stories, seventy-two Jewish scholars were selected, and finished translating the Law during the reign of Ptolemy Soter. It was perhaps the first major organized translation of scripture in history, similar to the work done by the King James Bible translators thousands of years later (and like the KJV, there's much mythology around its translating...but that's for another post).

The original Septuagint, as previously stated, wasn't the entire Old Testament, but rather was simply the five books of the Law. The question then comes: when were the other books finished? We have no solid evidence for the exact date that all the books of the Old Testament were finished. There are many signs, however, that much of it was done before the time of Christ, as seen by external evidence: the mid-second century Jewish historian Eupolemus mentions a Septuagint Books of Chronicles; the writer known as Aristeas quotes from the Septuagint Job; a footnote in an early Septuagint version of Esther suggests that it was in circulation before the end of the second century BC; the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in the apocryphal 1 Maccabees 7:17.

One of the biggest evidences we have that the Old Testament was completed by the time of Christ is found in the apocryphal work known as the Wisdom of Sirach. In the introduction, the author writes:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed. [RSV]

While speaking of translating from the Hebrew into the Greek, the author makes mention of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books." This is compounded with the fact that Philo and Josephus - two well known Jewish authors who lived during the lifetime of the early Christian church - quoted extensively from the Septuagint, and not just the Law. All historical signs point to evidence that the Septuagint, as in the complete Old Testament, was completed by the time of Christ. Most scholarly sources place its completion in the middle second century BC.

So, was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? Absolutely positively not - there is too much evidence to the contrary. So...where did this idea that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD come from? One can't just make this stuff up out of thin air. I personally believe the individual making this argument was confusing it with the various streams of Septuagint revisions, most of which happened about the second century AD. The ones most known about:

The revision by Aquila (early 100's AD). By this time, the Septuagint was becoming unpopular among Jewish circles, partially because of the rise of Christianity which heavily utilized the Septuagint. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte, attempted to make the first major revision to the Septuagint, and did so by translating from the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word. This made for a somewhat awkward rendition, but one that was popular among the Jews for the next 500 years or so. Today it is only known through fragments.

The revision by Theodotion (late 100's AD). Theodotion was a Jewish convert that relied heavily upon the original Septuagint. His version was heavily quoted by many Church Fathers (including Justin Martyr), and his version of Daniel was especially widely preferred by many over the Septuagint's version.

The revision by Symmachus (soon afterward). Symmachus was said by the writer Epiphanius to have simply been a Samaritan convert to Judaism, although Jerome and Eusebius claim he was an Ebionite. He sought to smooth Aquila's translation by using the original Septuagint and Theodotion's work as reference. His translation likewise only exists in fragments.

Perhaps a worthy final mention is that of the Church Father Origen (late second century, middle third century AD). Origen was a Christian who understood Hebrew, and saw differences between the Masoretic texts of his time and the Septuagint. He collected together what was probably the first interlinear Old Testament, as well as the first example of textual criticism. What he did was place side by side: the Hebrew; the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters; Aquila's work; Symmachus' work; the Septuagint; and Theodotion's work. Origen even included notes and symbols that signified when the Septuagint added or left out specific parts of a verse (not unlike the use of italics and footnotes in today's translation). Unfortunately, this momentous work only exists in fragments today, although it helped to preserve examples of the Septuagint revisions done by the other three men.

So to repeat our question of the day: was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? As we've seen, some streams of it were, but the Old Testament translated into Greek was finished and widely available by the time of Christ. The writers of the New Testament were not making up Greek verses, nor is the Septuagint evidence that the New Testament was written in the second century AD. The contention made at the beginning of this post is, as stated before, simply a silly argument.

------

UPDATE, February 12, 2013: Another possible source of this confusion might be that the individual is using KJV-Only sources. Some KJV-Only advocates try to teach that the Septuagint comes from a later date, even after the time of Christ. One such KJV-Only advocate writes: "People who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ are living in a dream world." (pg. 50; Peter Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 1976).

Where did Cain's wife come from?

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch... [Genesis 4:17]

These words appear after Cain has been banished from his family's land, as punishment for the slaying of his brother Abel. It is most likely that Cain was married before he was banished, and hence the account here is simply when the couple began to bear children. What follows in chapter five up to chapter six and the flood details the sons of man (Cain's descendants) and the sons of God (Seth's descendants).

Cain's wife had not been previously mentioned nor named - indeed, neither was anyone else other than Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. This, however, does not presume they did not exist, as the author of Genesis had a point in focusing on a select group of people. John Calvin writes that "many persons, as well males as females, are omitted in this narrative; it being the design of Moses only to follow one line of his progeny, until he should come to Lamech." Genesis 5:4 mentions that, besides Cain, Abel, and Seth, Adam and Eve begat many other sons and daughters. Therefore, although other human beings were not named specifically, this first generation of man was much larger than simply four people.

The situations around our verse presents what is to many a large stumbling block: just where did Cain's wife come from? If there were no other women outside the immediate family unit, does that mean he married his sister? These are difficult questions for certain, and from them arise two possible explanations for Genesis 4:17:

1) These women existed outside of the Adam/Eve family unit. This can go one of two ways: a) these women were made by God in the same manner Adam and Eve were; b) these women existed in populations outside Adam and Eve. However, if we permit either of these, we must then ask what becomes of the federal headship of Adam, and how his sinful nature carried down into the rest of mankind. One would have to explain the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin..." (Rom 5:12). This would also affect the previously mentioned dual lineage seen in chapter five.

2) These women were sisters of Cain and Abel. This will, to many, sound strange, given the ban on incest in the Mosaic Law (Deu 27:22). Many commentators say the reason it was permitted here was necessity, as well as the fact humankind had not fallen into such a state that the health ramifications were a problem. As Albert Barnes writes in his commentaries:

The wife of Cain was of necessity his sister, though this was forbidden in after times, for wise and holy reasons, when the necessity no longer existed.

David Guzik likewise writes in his commentary:

We don’t know where did Cain got his wife. Genesis 5:4 says Adam had several sons and daughters. Cain obviously married his sister. Though marrying a sister was against the law of God according to Leviticus 18:9, 18:11, 20:17, and Deuteronomy 27:22 (which even prohibits the marrying of a half-sister), this was long before God spoke that law to Moses and the world. Here, necessity demanded that Adam’s sons marry his daughters. And at this point, the “gene pool” of humanity was pure enough to allow close marriage without harm of inbreeding. But as a stream can get more polluted the further it gets from the source, there came a time when God decreed there no longer be marriage between close relatives because of the danger of inbreeding.

And the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament writes:

The marriage of brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of the children of the first men, if the human race was actually to descend from a single pair, and may therefore be justified in the face of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families that the bands of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from one another, and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of which is sin. (Comp. Leviticus 18.)

John MacArthur writes in his commentary:

Cain's wife obviously was one of Adam's later daughters (5:4). By Moses' time, this kind of close marriage was forbidden (Lev 18:7-17), because of genetic decay.

Hank Hanegraaff, in an article related to this very subject, writes:

Furthermore, because genetic imperfections accumulated gradually over time, there was no prohibition against incest in the earliest stages of human civilization. The Levitical law against incestuous relationships was given by God hundreds of years after Cain at the time of Moses. Thus familial relationships were preserved and birth defects were prevented (Leviticus 18:6, 9). [source]

We might conclude from this, then, that at this time it was not only a necessity, but that the human condition had not fallen into such a state that the medical effects of incestuous relationships were worthy of concern. We can definitely see a steady decline in the state of man's health up to the time of Abraham, if ages are to mean anything: Adam lived to be 930-years old (Gen 5:5), while Abraham lived to be 175-years old (Gen 25:7).

John Gill, in his commentaries, presents what may seem to some a more reasonable possibility. Namely, that this woman Cain married could have "descended from Adam by another of his sons, since this was about the one hundred and thirtieth year of the creation." This still does not, however, answer how the other, unnamed son reproduced, and we would have to assume it was through a sister. Therefore, we return to the dilemma we started with.

John Gill likewise mentions a tradition among the Jews and others, that Cain and Abel each had twin sisters when they were born, and that one married the other.

At first indeed Cain could marry no other than his sister; but whether he married Abel's twin sister, or his own twin sister, is disputed; the Jews say, that Cain's twin sister was not a beautiful woman, and therefore he said, I will kill my brother and take his wife: on the other hand, the Arabic writers say, that Adam would have had Cain married Abel's twin sister, whom they call Awin; and Abel have married Cain's twin sister, whom they call Azron; but Cain would not, because his own sister was the handsomest; and this they take to be the occasion of the quarrel, which issued in the murder of Abel.

This would still present something of a problem, as marrying a sibling's twin sister is still technically marrying a sibling - hence, once again, we are back to the original conundrum.

After reviewing this situation and the various solutions, the most likely answer is that Cain's wife was an unnamed daughter of Adam and Eve, being Cain's sister. At the time, this was permissible, both for necessity's sake, as well as for the simple reason man had not fallen into such a miserable condition as they are today.

Many will here ask why God would permit it in one moment, yet ban it later on. God, however, permits and forbids actions or deeds according to His purpose and according to the timeliness of the ban or permit. For example, ravens were declared unclean diet for the Jews under the Mosaic covenant (Deu 14:14), and yet ravens were earlier saved from the flood due to God's mercy on His created animals (Gen 8:7). In fact, there were many unclean foods the ancient Jews were banned from eating under the Mosaic covenant, and yet they are permitted under the covenant with Christ (Mark 7:19). Another example, the looking upon a bronze snake was permitted by God for a temporary time (Num 21:9), but banned later on when it became idolatrous (2 Ki 18:4). These are not contradictions any more than a law enacted by a civil government that limits or bans something which was at one point permitted but has now become an issue or a problem. A city, for example, may keep a public park open 24/7, but because of crimes at night enact an ordinance that bans activity in the park after a certain hour. That, however, is not a "contradiction," and those who argue as such are ignoring the circumstances around the change.

Using Evil Recorded in the Bible Against the Bible

It's popular for many today to quote passages dealing with evil in the Bible, and use it against the Bible. It's done either in the tone of "Look! Evil! That must mean this book is evil!" or "This happened in the Bible, this must mean God approves it." How many times, for example, have we heard the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30-38) quoted as if to embarrass us that it exists in the Bible?

Let's review a few things regarding this:

Firstly, let's clarify what the Bible is. The Bible is not about how nice a guy Jesus was. It isn't about how God is nothing but love, love, love, exciting and new. It isn't about how wonderful a people Christians are. It isn't about how great the world would be if we were just all so gosh darn nice to one another for a change. It isn't about how better your life can be. It isn't about getting rich. It isn't a children's book. And it most certainly isn't about buying some panhandling kid a pair of goofy shoes.

What is the Bible about, then? It is the story of mankind's fall and his salvation by the merits and salvific atonement of Christ. In order to talk about mankind's salvation, however, one must give a reason for man to be saved, and that entails either a discussion of or examples of mankind's evil. How can you possibly understand the words of the apostle Paul, that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), unless you see this discussed or displayed beforehand?

Secondly, and on that same train of thought, it is fallacious to assume that the mere mention of evil makes an entire work evil. A work on the proper mode of government would have to, by example, give poor examples of leadership, as Machiavelli does in his famous work, The Prince or his other, lesser known work, The Discourses. Yet if an author gives poor examples of leadership so that we may more properly understand the better examples, that does not give us the right to simply dismiss his entire argument. If anything, it's a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Thirdly, it is fallacious to state that, simply because a writer includes evil in his work, he must somehow approve it. According to such logic, an author who writes on the Holocaust must approve of the Holocaust, irregardless of whether or not he wrote on the Holocaust as an evil and barbaric act of inhumanity. In like manner, simply because an incident is recorded in scripture does not mean God approved of it.

Is there evil in the Bible? Yes there is. There's incest, rape, fraud, the murder of best friends, the breaking of oaths, and other examples. Yet man is a fallen creature, and even unbelievers would agree that man is capable of doing all the aforementioned evil. The Bible does not mince words when it comes to mankind's depravity. Men in toto are by their nature objects of wrath because of their sin (cf. Eph 2:3). Let us therefore give thanks to God for Christ, who "knew no sin," yet became sin "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). The Bible does mention evil, but it likewise tells us how we are able to flee from it and seek the righteousness of God.

Jeremiah 29:11

The following I've touched on before in this post.

Pragmatic Evangelism and God's Word

When writing about those who come to the Lord's Supper without proper evaluation of their own lives, Jonathan Edwards responded to many objections he was receiving from his opponents on the subject. The main position of his opponents was that the Lord's Supper was a converting tool rather than an ordinance for the saints of God. Objection 20 specifically dealt with a form of argumentation that said: "Some ministers have been greatly blessed in the other way of proceeding, and some men have been converted at the Lord's supper" (quoted from the book).

This kind of argumentation is not unlike the mindset of many today who support what is today known as Pragmatic Evangelism. The notion is that the methodology of evangelism is irrelevant if the consequences are that people are saved. Some will respond to criticism of a minister or a particular methodology with "Well I was saved by the preaching of x," or "Well God saved me by y." It is the "ends justifies the means" mindset that has seeped into many churches today. As such, I believe Edwards's own response to this mindset, some 250-years ago, is still relevant even today.

Though we are to eye the providence of God, and not disregard his works, yet to interpret them to a sense, or apply them to a use inconsistent with the scope of the word of God, is a misconstruction and misapplication of them. God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule. God is sovereign in his dispensations of providence; he bestowed the blessing on Jacob, even when he had a lie in his mouth; he was pleased to met with Solomon, and make known himself to him, and bless him in an extraordinary manner, while he was worshiping in an high place; he met with Saul, when in a course of violent opposition to him, and out of the way of his duty to the highest degree, going to Damascus to persecute Christ; and even then bestowed the greatest blessing upon him, that perhaps ever was bestowed on a mere man. The conduct of divine providence, with its reasons, is too little understood by us to be improved as our rule. "God has his way in the sea, his path in the mighty waters, and his footsteps are not known: And he gives none account of any of his matters." But God has given us his word, to this very end, that it might be our rule; and therefore has fitted it to be so; has so ordered it that it may be understood by us. And strictly speaking this is our only rule. If we join any thing else to it, as making it out rule, we do that which we have no warrant for, yea, that which God himself has forbidden. [Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Church]

Christians and Cafeteria Morality

I came across this meme a few weeks ago, and - after some interaction with certain people - asked a coworker to find it for me again, as it was quickly inspiring a blog post. The meme is called something like "hypocritical Christian girl" and is popular around some online atheist circles. Despite the source material, God always has a way of making truth come out of error, and I believe there's a lot to be said from this one image.

Throughout my life, I've encountered people who held what one might call "cafeteria morality" - in other words, they would pick and choose that part of God's moral law to follow. In my atheist days, I knew a girl who would lament my unbelief, then a few minutes later talk about the physical relations she had with her boyfriend the night before. I've known people who were on the level when it came to the teachings of God's word regarding homosexuality, abortion, the definition of marriage, etc., and yet would engage in sex with other people and even have premarital sex with their future spouse.

Of course, whenever anyone begins to talk of morality, straw men and emotional arguments fly, and so I must take a moment here to dispel any possible attacks against my person rather than my position. If you are like the people I described in the previous paragraph, then know that I am not saying I am any better than you as an individual. I am also not saying I am any more justified before God because you do x and I don't do x. At the time of this writing I am unmarried and a virgin, and intend to keep my virginity until marriage. However, I have done things in the past for which I am not proud, and still struggle in certain ways that would warrant judgment. I have always agreed with the words of the apostle James that being guilty of any transgression against God's commands made you are guilty of transgressing them all (Jam 2:10). Therefore, I am not writing this post in the spirit of "I'm better than you," but rather as a call for discernment and biblical dialogue about an important matter.

We must, first and foremost, recognize that the biblical teaching regarding sexual relations is that it always exists within the confines of marriage. When Adam and Eve first met, it was written in a kind of "divine commentary" that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This was something Christ later affirmed, saying "they are no longer two but one flesh" (Matt 19:4-6).

The apostle Paul wrote on this explicitly in his first letter to the Corinthians, continually drawing allusion to the concept of "becoming one flesh." Interestingly, he begins with the theology of Christ being the husband of the church, saying we are essentially of one flesh with him (cf. 1 Cor 6:13). He states that our bodies are "members of Christ," and so we should never do anything as bad as go to a prostitute for her services, for we are in essence "becoming one flesh" with her (1 Cor 6:14-15). We are therefore commanded to flee sexual immorality, as it is a sin against our body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (1 Cor 6:18-19). To commit a sin of the flesh is to transgress against God.

With the same flow of thought, Paul moves into a discussion regarding relationships within marriage. As the apostle recognized that sexual immorality would be a greater temptation to some, he encouraged marriage (1 Cor 7:2), adding later that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:9). However, this was not a case of the woman being a submissive outlet for the man's lusts - rather, this is a continuation of the "one flesh" mindset. I say this because Paul gives very clear language regarding man and woman completing one another physically: 1) the husband gives his wife her "conjugal rights," as does the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:3); 2) the husband has rights over the wife's body, but the wife also has rights over the husband's body (1 Cor 7:4); 3) the husband and wife are not to deny their physical bonds except upon mutual agreement, and for moments of prayer and meditation, but even then they are meant to eventually unite together again (1 Cor 7:5). This is beautiful (and incredibly tasteful) imagery of what "one flesh" means: the wonderful bond between man and woman in marriage, submitting to one another as equals in physical intimacy. Husband and wife fulfill one another, and in this manner they truly become "one flesh." However, we must reiterate that such a beautiful bond is only possible within marriage.

Scripture has less kinder things to say about sexual relations outside of marriage. It is said many times that the sexually immoral have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8, 22:15). The apostle Paul even advised Christians not to associate with so-called "brothers" if they were guilty of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:11). He also said that sexual immorality was one of the works of the flesh, which are opposed to the desires of the spirit (Gal 5:17-21). Let's also not forget that Christ identified looking with lust at someone to whom you were not married made you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28) - if the mere thinking of non-marital relations makes you guilty, how much more does the very act!

Many, of course, will ignore all these relevant passages, as well as the clear teaching of the entirety of scripture. They will then do one of two things:

1) Jump to irrelevant passages. Many will find any way they can to abuse the word of God to justify what they do - some of them outright bizarre. In one Christian forum, I read a post where a man actually used Genesis 9:7 as justification to look at pornography! Some jump to the imperfect lifestyles of men like Samson, forgetting that such men eventually received judgment for their actions. Some jump to the strong physical language of the Song of Solomon, seemingly forgetting that the dialogue is between husband and wife. Some say that prostitutes were allowed to spend time with Christ, not seeming to realize that these were repentant prostitutes who weren't continuing their trade. If a person wishes to argue the morality of sex, they will have to do so by going to the passages that actually speak on the morality of sex.

2) Present philosophical arguments. When the word of God is clearly against you, people turn to the thoughts of man, which are by their very nature corrupt (Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9). They try to calculate and philosophize why sex outside of marriage would be all right, even within a religious context. One girl I was speaking to told me how she thought of buying her boyfriend's favorite yogurt while at the grocery store, and from this one experience she held the firm belief that God was all right with premarital sex. Perhaps my favorite argument used is "Surely God's OK with it if you love each other?" Paul gave us a fitting warning when, right after identifying sexual immorality as evil, he wrote: "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5:6).

Knowing, then, that the scriptural teaching regarding sexual relations is that it is meant for marriage, and sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral, Christians are compelled to at least acknowledge this reality. To not do so is not only moral hypocrisy, but playing games with the moral law of God - something very severe before the eyes of the Lord. "Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments," Christ said, "and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). We cannot pick and choose morality because it is simply not our place. When God says, "Don't do x, y and z," we don't get to say "Well I choose to do x and y while condemning z" because it is simply not our place.

For many, the issue is that they are quick to condemn homosexuality as a sin while they forget that homosexuality is but a part of the larger umbrella of all sexual immorality. Heterosexual sins make one just as guilty before a holy God as homosexuality. I would propose that a true Christian who struggles with homosexual desires is far more righteous before God than a supposed Christian who unrepentantly cheats on his wife in a heterosexual relationship. The former knows his sin is ever before him (Psa 51:3); the latter is blind to his own error, condemning the one brother for the speck in his eye while ignoring the plank in his own (Matt 7:4-5).

It was to such people that Paul wrote the second chapter of the letter to the Roman church. After detailing the depravity of the Gentile world, Paul turned towards the Jews and said "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Rom 2:1). He likewise wrote: "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3) These are words many supposed Christians should be asking themselves, for in condemning homosexuals and abortion doctors while justifying their own personal sexual immorality, they merely heap judgment upon themselves.

Many reading this post may be such people who claim to be Christian and yet engage in premarital sex or sexual immorality. If this is the case, you must now be aware that what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of God, and that if you are to stand against one brand of sexual immorality, you must likewise condemn your own sexual immorality and repent of it. The good news is that while you still have breath and while you still have voice, you still have the ability, by the grace of God, to repent. Know that Christ is a far, far greater Savior than you could ever be a sinner. God bless.

Some Incredibly Misused Passages of Scripture

The following are just a handful of verses that tend to get misused the most in this day and age.

"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." [Jeremiah 29:11]

This baby right here is probably the granddaddy of all misused verses. We've all seen this verse on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and those little verse cards they sell at Lifeway. We've probably also heard at least one pastor use this verse in the midst of his sermon. The basic interpretation by most people is that God has plans for you (you, the individual), and that in your future will be welfare and hope.

First, let's ask ourselves something obvious: if this verse is true, why don't we see it more often? If God has "plans for welfare and not for evil," or "a future and a hope" for all believers, then what about those Christians whose end saw anything but welfare or hope? The apostle Paul was sent to Rome in chains and eventually beheaded - was that the "welfare" and "hope" in his future that God had planned for? William Tyndale, the famous Bible translator, was burned at the stake and strangled - was that the "welfare and "hope" that God had planned for him? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great Lutheran theologian, died naked in a concentration camp - was that the "welfare" and "hope" God had planned for him? Let me ask a blunt question: if you sincerely believe with absolute certainty that God has plans for "welfare" and "hope" in your future, then what is it about you that makes God treasure you over the apostle Paul, William Tyndale, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

You see, this is the problem when we treat scripture in such a therapeutic way. Reading this verse might make us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but the only thing fuzzy is the theology we get from it.

Second, what does this verse really mean? Well, a verse before, God says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place" (Jer 29:10). This verse is actually in reference to the exiles in Babylon, and verse 11 is God's promise of restoration for them. Verse 11 is therefore only relevant to you if you were one of the exiles in Babylon.

Some people might still argue, "Yeah, well, why can't you say verse 11 is for us?" Go to verses 15-23, which are about the Jews still in Jerusalem, and read them. God promises "sword, famine,  and pestilence," and becoming like "vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten" (v. 17). Is that part of the plan God has for us? Are those verses applicable to us? Why is verse 11 applicable to us, but verse 17 isn't? In fact, why is it only the good verses are applicable to us, but the bad verses are only relevant to their proper audience? Again, this is the problem with reading scripture in a therapeutic rather than exegetical fashion.

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." [Matthew 18:20]

A lot of people - and I do mean a lot - take these words to be a definition of the church. In fact, Christ is actually talking about church discipline, not an identity of what the church is. For more information on this, see this post.

But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." [Matthew 19:26]

Those last few words - "with God all things are possible" - are perhaps some of the most misused words in scripture, and are the most abused next to Jeremiah 29:11. Ask yourselves the following questions. Do these words mean that you'll get healed? Do these words mean you'll get a white Christmas in Hawaii? Do these words mean your car is going to miraculously fill up with gas? Do these words mean that space aliens might exist? Does this mean that, between ages 12 and 33, Jesus might have gone to Wisconsin and been a raging Packers fan?

The quick answer to all these questions, courtesy Darth Vader...



These words are speaking of salvation. This takes place right after the encounter with the rich young ruler. Christ says, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven," adding "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (v. 23-24). The disciples, hearing this, are greatly stunned by this, and so they say "Who then can be saved?" (v. 25). It is then that Christ states, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (v. 26). The great impossibility that God can overcome is the very fact that man can be saved at all.

"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" [Matthew 25:40]

This is another passage that gets seriously misused, almost to the point where I think most people don't even know what it's originally talking about. Most of the time it's used to promote the social gospel, universal health care, or any other program. To see an in depth discussion on how this is referring to Christians in the midst of persecution and not your local homeless shelter, see this post.

[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]

These words are perhaps not necessarily misinterpreted, but are taken to a certain extreme. Most people take this verse to mean that God wants everyone everywhere to be saved. While this in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing to believe, it has led many down the trail of inclusivism and, even more erroneous, universalism. When they go this road, this verse is often used to justify what they believe. Rob Bell, in his book Love Wins, used this verse as a kind of battle cry for universalism, asking the question "Will God get what God wants?"

We must, however, understand the full context of what is being said here. This is being addressed to Paul's disciple Timothy, to whom he is giving instructions. He first says that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people," (v. 1) for "kings and all who are in high positions," so that Christians "may lead a peaceful and quiet life" (v. 2). Paul says this is "pleasing in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), and then says the famous words "who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). He follows up by saying there is "one God, and there is one mediator between God and men," being Jesus Christ (v. 5), who gave himself as a ransom for all (v. 6), and for this reason Paul was appointed a preacher to the Gentiles (v. 7).

From this fuller context, what is being discussed here? Does God desire everyone everywhere at all times to be saved? Actually, what Paul is saying is that God desires all kinds of men to be saved including kings and those who are in high positions, and Jews and Gentiles. He is not a God of the Jews alone, nor is he simply a God for the poor (despite what the "social gospel" may say). He desires all men - commoners and those in authority - to be saved, and gave himself as a ransom for all - both Jews and Gentiles. Verse 4 is therefore a very inclusivist verse, but in regards to classes, rank and ethnicity. It does not mean God desires every single person to be saved, and hence all people will be saved, or some will be saved with a little bit of leeway.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." [Revelation 3:20]

This is a popular verse to be used by street preachers and people witnessing to others. The words are interpreted as Christ offering salvation to all who will answer the door - however, it is actually a call from Christ for a church to repent. For an explanation on this, please see my post here.

Context is everything

When I was in college studying for my undergrad, my first year roommate was showing me the game Morrowind. This is a game set in a fantasy setting (elves, orcs, etc.), and takes place on a large continent with various populations, many cities and villages, and even terrain you can  explore freely. My friend started to tell me about how powerful his character was, how strong the armor was, and how he was at a higher level than most of the non-playable characters in the game. He then said, and I quote:

"I could kill the whole world if I wanted to."

Now stop for a moment...what if I took that quote isolated from everything else and just started throwing it around? People would probably think my friend was either a crazed maniac or insanely cocky. Neither is the case. Within the proper context of what he was talking about, he was actually saying "I could kill the whole world [in Morrowind] if I wanted to." He's not talking about going on a murder spree, he's talking about how powerful his in-game character is.

This is why context, context, context is so vitally important in our study of scripture.

The Importance of the Written Word

In the 1957 Stanley Kubrick film Paths of Glory, set during World War I, French military forces launch an attack against German forces entrenched upon a hill. The initial attack fails miserably with heavy losses, and the fire from the Germans is so intense that some units refuse to attack. The French general, viewing the attack from afar, is so upset at the supposed cowardice of the soldiers that he calls the artillery commander and orders him to direct his fire on the French trenches to drive them out. The artillery commander, in response, requests a written order to do so. The general, growing irate, demands the artillery officer open fire any way. Again, a request for a written order is made. Finally, the general hangs up.

The tactic of the battery commander in asking for a written order is a very wise one, and for two obvious reasons: firstly, the general could later deny the order and have the officer court martialed for firing on friendly troops; secondly, the order was an immoral one - the general was demanding the artillery officer shoot at and possibly kill his fellow Frenchmen. If there was a written order, then the situation would change: it would be confirmed that the general had given the order, and the artillery commander could go through with the order with greater sense of accountability.

Christians likewise today have to follow our Lord's command to be "shrewd as serpents" yet "innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16) when it comes to things such as this. From every turn in the pilgrim's trip to the celestial city, they will be attacked by arrows from the enemy in the form of commands from God. Extra-biblical commands and instructions - in the form of divine commission - will assail them. They will demand that they be followed, whether they make such a demand in the tone of a forceful tyrant or a loving mother. They will appeal to our emotions, our ego, our intelligence, our desire for a tradition, and many other facets of our being. They will all, however, say the same thing: "You may have your Bible, but we have something else you need."

Some have often criticized me for always asking, "Where is that in scripture?" I don't say that, however, to be contentious, but because anything we speak of God should comply with the words of God. The model we should follow is that of the prophet Isaiah who, when confronted by those going after mediums and spiritualists for their answers, replied: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20). God spoke this word to us first "in the prophets," and finally through His Son (Heb 1:1-2). Anything that strays from these revelations - or attempts to add to these revelations - is outside the frame of God and His special revelation to mankind, and thus should be avoided at all costs.

God, in His wisdom, has permitted His revelation to be written down and preserved, so that the individual believer may have "the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). The scriptures not only have (primarily) the testimony of God, but (secondarily) the historical and intertextual eyewitness attesting to its validity. Nothing else in world religion has this kind of validity. Any extra-biblical authority, while perhaps having some use in individual circumstances, does not have this same kind of validity. Scripture is God-breathed (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) and springs forth from God to give life, rejuvenation and direction to the sons of God. It gives us no real wisdom and no real dawn. It is simply a dead yoke to be placed around our neck and bring us down.

Anytime any one comes to us with a special "something" which they desire to impart on us and demand we follow, and it does not comply with the words of scripture, or it is separate from scripture entirely, let us take heed to our predecessors within scripture itself, who sought after the word of God and persevered in the knowledge of it. Let us pray to God as the Psalmist: "I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word" (Psa 119:16).