|
|
|
THE BIBLE CONTAINS BUILT-IN RULES OF INTERPRETATION: H.I.C.E.E
I) THE PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETATION
1) THE BIBLE IS TO BE INTERPRETED MUCH IN THE SAME WAY ONE READS THE NEWSPAPER
There are many opinions and interpretations of what the Bible says - most do not reflect any truth at all. The proper method is summarized as follows:
a) THROUGH INDUCTIVE REASONING
c) WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NORMATIVE RULES OF LANGUAGE & CONTEXT
e) AND INSTRUCTION FROM OTHERS
It is interesting to note that many people will read an article in the newspaper from beginning to end and interpret it on the basis of the normative meanings of the words, within the context, keeping in mind the who, what, why, where and when of it and the rules of logic so as to discover what the writer is actually saying. But give that person a Bible and he will most likely trash this proven method of interpretation and deliberately violate God's intended message, imposing on each passage whatever he compels himself to believe. For upon careful examination of the Bible it is evident that the authors whom God inspired to write every word utilized normative rules of language, context and logic. In the absence of evidence anywhere that God's Word is to be interpreted with a specialized set of rules outside of what man would normatively expect and in view of the evidence that a strict adherence to normative rules of language, context and logic produces an inerrant and absolutely consistent interpretation, we must thereupon follow God's plan of how to interpret His Word which He holds in such high esteem - on a par with His holiness. So if God's truth is to be arrived at, then His sovereignly established method must be used, not one's own.
It does not take a theologian to read and properly interpret the bible. For just as a brick layer needs only to select one brick at a time by color, size and strength and lay it on the mortar to build a magnificent structure designed by another without needing to have an expertise in architecture; so in order for an individual to properly build an interpretation of the magnificent building of words, the bible; he needs only to determine the meaning of one passage at a time by selecting the 'color,' in the sense of the proper context of that passage; the 'size' in the sense of the proper application of the rules of language to that passage; and the 'strength,' in the sense of the proper application of logic which supports that interpretation. Hence he does not have to be the Author Himself or an elite scholar. In essence this is simply a matter of applying ones reading skills in an honest and objective manner.
On the other hand, it takes time and discipline to dig into the text including repeated efforts. Most people read into the text by going elsewhere in the bible or adding personal thoughts and conclusions that the text at hand just doesn't warrant instead of working hard to limit themselves to only what the text is saying - to what God is saying. That's why we have so many differing points of view about God's Word and so many denominations. Actually God's Word is very clear if you take the time to read it thoroughly one passage at a time - simply "listening" to what the author is saying and not adding your own thoughts to it. For example, if John did not see fit to address a certain point you feel is important, you must put that thought aside and listen to John because he was the one that was inspired by God to pen those words and he hasn't told you or I to go anyplace else in the Bible or outside the bible to add those thoughts to his. Yes, you might argue that there are other passages that say more about it, but God did not tell you or I to be editors, we are to be honest listeners only. On the other hand, once one has done a thorough job of "listening" to what God is saying in a particular text, then it is of course ok to go to another text and thoroughly listen to it and compare with other passages. But to jump around from one passage to another is like cooking 10 meals at the same time, without ever thoroughly cooking or preparing any meal. This creates indigestion, stomach pain and you miss the point of the meal as you do what God is saying in the passage.
The places to go in order to find out what words in the bible can mean are dictionaries and books on grammer and logic which set the rules of how words in the translated language may be used. The reason for this is that the bible, which is a translation / interpretation by others of the original writings, is neither a dictionary, nor a grammar book nor a source of the rules of logic. It does not provide all the available meanings for a word which has been translated, nor rules of grammar and logic so that the reader can decide whether his translation and/or his interpretation of that translation is accurate. If you use the bible translation as if it were a dictionary / grammar or logic book, you are in effect relying on the translators and/or on your interpretation of their translation which may not be correct.
Objectors to this principle state that one cannot just take a particular passage to teach some Biblical truth such as the one which is contained in Ephesians 2:8-10 or John 3:16, both of which teach faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life. Objectors state that there are other passages throughout the Bible that teach on salvation and add to what Paul and John say a man must do to be saved, (creating the inference that the passages in Ephesians and John are contradictory or incomplete with error of omission). But this is an approach to Scripture which would make the understanding of any passage in the Bible unreachable until one had completely mastered every passage and allowed for passages to be changed or modified into their 'final' meaning. And this would take more than a lifetime of careful consideration and study to arrive at any kind of determination, something which is beyond the capacity of any individual. Furthermore, what could the saints of old do before there was a completed Bible with the 27 books of the New Testament? Have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob perished into Hades since they were not provided with New Testament revelation? If this approach is valid, then Ephesians and the Gospel of John are wrong by leaving important information out - God is wrong by allowing His Word to be so indeterminate and contradictory, the Bible is untrustworthy and no one can truly know what Scripture teaches on any subject.
The context of a verse/sentence within a passage cannot be made to depend upon or changed by other verses/sentences in other passages, especially other verses/sentences from books by other authors written years, decades or centuries earlier/later. This demands that everyone throughout the ages have access to every book of the bible and be totally familiar with every verse in the bible and how it relates to every other verse in the bible, something that is not possible. For how can one master every verse in the bible when one cannot master the first verse to begin with which would depend upon a mastery of every verse in the bible beforehand!! Furthermore, to master the whole bible even in the proper manner is a task with man which would take more than one lifetime in any age given the availability to everyone of every book of the bible in ones native language.
The normative rules of language, context and logic with which the bible was penned limit the interpretation of a verse/sentence to its own context which lies within it's own book relative to what has been previously stipulated in that book and most specifically the passage of that book it is located in. That's how the normative rules of language, context and logic work - even in the Word of God. Otherwise, how is an individual going to know what a verse means and be held accountable by God for what it says? If the rules to interpret the bible have changed beyond the normative rules of language, context and logic without a clear declaration anywhere in Scripture as to what those changes are and to what each verse's meaning is dependent upon, then this puts the bible out of reach of mankind.
The truth of the matter is that just as a cook can follow the directions of a recipe in order to produce the stated result of, for example, an angel food cake, without having to go to another recipe like one for roast beef; so an individual can follow the direction of faith alone in Christ alone as enunciated in Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16 in order to produce the stated result of eternal life without having to go to other passages which add corrections and/or directions, (even if there were any in the Bible, and there are not). Furthermore, just as adding roast beef will ruin an angel food cake; so adding anything that an individual must do to faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life will utterly destroy one's chances for going to heaven. The truth of the matter is that one can quickly and easily discern the teachings and build an understanding of God's Word by studying one passage at a time, following the built-in rules of interpretation and without years of agonizing examination of the entire Bible and thereby determine what God is saying in His Word. Most passages in the Bible declare a clear message of what they mean by themselves or at times with the use of a few parallel passages. Further investigation of parallel passages often provides the same message without additional information to be gleaned for the understanding of the original passage; or those parallel passages may provide more information on the same or related subjects, but that information came from those parallel passages and offers no further help in the interpretation of the original passage. Furthermore, when properly analyzed in detail in accordance with the 'normative' method, there simply are no contradictory passages anywhere in God's Word, especially verses which contradict what is taught in Ephesians chapters one & two and John chapter 3.
3) THE WORD OF GOD IS TO BE INTERPRETED BY ITS DIVINELY INSPIRED MESSAGE AND NOT BY HOW IT IS APPLIED
God's Word is to be interpreted by the message as designed & inspired by God. This interpretation is to be a direct result of how the original words exegetically, grammatically and contextually fit together in a normative sense = the original and normatively expected word meanings, figures of speech, background of the times, etc. all contributing to what that exclusive interpretation is as opposed to how it may or may not be applied.
Furthermore, in the same way that a tool can be applied to any number of uses - some effective, some not and some a patent misuse of the tool, so when one applies truths from the Word of God to one's life, one verifies what that truth can and cannot do without changing the basic truth itself, i.e, its basic interpretation.
This is contrary to objectors who claim that there is no end to what a particular passage in the Bible teaches because each individual applies such truths to himself in a unique way, thus drawing the false conclusion that such unique applications add to the meaning of that truth in the Bible. However, when the passage is carefully examined one finds that this is not the case: any scriptural application simply verifies what the passage already teaches; and any unscriptural application contradicts what that passage teaches and must be rejected and not applied at all!
B) INDUCTIVE RATHER THAN DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS REQUIRED
Furthermore in order for Scripture to be properly interpreted and understood, inductive rather than deductive reasoning must prevail. Another way to express the point that inductive reasoning must prevail is to say 'Let the words say what they mean'. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co, Springfield, Ma, 1980, pp. 583 & 293 defines inductive and deductive as follows:
1) Deductive Reasoning Defined:
'capable of being deduced from [preconceived, external] premises...'
'deduce...to infer from a [preconceived] general principle..'
'inference...the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former.'
In other words, to employ a deductive procedure on Scripture is to approach a passage from an external point of view - with a preconceived notion as to what it should say and then to find evidence in that passage which verifies one's preconception.
2) Inductive Reasoning Defined:
'of, relating to, or employing mathematical or logical induction... reasoning...'
'induction..the act, process, or result or an instance of reasoning from a part to a whole, from particulars to generals or from the individual to the universal'
In other words, to employ an inductive procedure on Scripture is to use an internal approach and study what the words and grammar of the sentences actually add up to say, regardless of what one might understand beforehand.
3) A Deductive Approach to God's Word Means Presupposition & Often Bad Interpretation
To approach God's Word from the first mentioned standpoint of deductive reasoning is to maintain that what you already believe is true and then to look for support in the passage one is examining. This often results in selecting some parts of the passage to support one's presupposition, skipping over other parts that contradict it, redefining terms that conflict with the way Scripture defines them, and ignoring the context.
Critics often maintain that what the Bible says cannot truly be ascertained by finite fallible men. They point to supposed centuries of universal disagreement. And they further support their position by emphasizing the imprecision and ever changing nature of languages, especially over thousands of years. This is a classic example of deductive reasoning: deciding ahead of time that nothing absolutely true can be ascertained from Scripture in the light of ages of falsely presupposed universal controversy supported by the equally false presupposition that the meaning of what people wrote in the past cannot ever be accurately determined, even if God had something to do with it.
In defense of the Bible, one might ask if any of these critics bothered to faithfully and inductively follow the Bible's own built-in rules of interpretation. And then one might ask the critics if they are not presumptuous in concluding that no one has yet ascertained what the Bible teaches when facts indicate otherwise.
4) On The Other Hand, Approaching God's Word Inductively Means Taking A Risk
On the other hand it is often frightening for one to approach God's Word using the inductive way, i.e., putting all of one's understanding of what the Bible says 'on the back burner' and simply trusting in what the words actually say in each passage that is examined. Therefore, every time one studies God's Word, one is putting one's entire belief system to the test, letting the individual words, phrases and passages condemn or verify that belief system.
5) An Accurate Interpretation By And Large Must Be Done By internal Evidence, Not External
Accurate interpretation by and large must be done by internal evidence from the passage itself within its own context - established via a verse by verse examination; and not by any kind evidence from a corroborating passage - which is external. External evidence serves to corroborate what has already been determined by internal evidence of the passage at hand. There are some passages where one must go back to the original language to determine what it is specifically saying internally. This is so because the passage has been incorrectly or inadequately translated and offers more than one or no clear possibility of interpretation. The solution to these difficult passages is as follows:
1) Offer no interpretation if one has no resources to go back to the original language. This is not disastrous because the bible repeats itself all the time relative to the doctrines of the faith. So missing a doctrinal message in one passage, one can be assured will be clearly available elsewhere.
2) Offer a possibility or possibilities of interpretation and refer to other passages that corroborate each possibility based on internal observation of the corroborating passage.
Point number 2 is dangerous at best because it relies on external evidence from elsewhere rather than internal evidence from the original passage itself and its own context. Hence one must clearly stipulate that the passage at hand is not fully understood and then stipulate a possibility from another passage which appears to be telling the same message. This kind of honesty and proper exegesis is rarely done, however.
Point number 2 is further dangerous because it teaches one to go elsewhere to determine what a passage says often with the assumption that the ‘elsewhere’ passage is interpreted correctly, i.e., internally via the normative rules of language, context and logic. But such is rarely the case. Most interpreters use the external snippet, disregard the context, method to corroborate falsely deduced, human viewpoint interpretations of passages that are located elsewhere.
II) THE H.I.C.E.E. RULES OF INTERPRETATION
The Bible provides - from within - its own rules on how it is to be interpreted. A convenient way to remember these rules is to call them the H.I.C.E.E. rules of interpretation. The letters refer to the words
Hermeneutics, ('H"),
Isagogics, ("I"),
Categories, ("C")
Exegesis, ("E")
Etymology, ("E").
B) H.I.C.E.E EXPLAINED IN DETAIL
We begin with hermeneutics which is a Greek word which, relative to Scripture, means principles of interpretation which the Bible itself has established. Rule number one we can investigate:
a) LET THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE SAY WHAT THEY NORMATIVELY MEAN
The most important principal of interpretation is: Let the words of Scripture say what they normatively mean, i.e., let the words convey their original normative meaning at the time that they were written.
Recall anytime man has an input into something, there is the inevitable contamination by the intrinsic sin nature which results in conflict and untruth:
(v. 21) "So I [the Apostle Paul and all believers from the contextual purpose of the book of Romans] find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
(v. 22) For in my inner being I delight in God's law;
[So Paul here must be born again having an inner man, (Eph 3:16)]
(v. 23) but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
(v. 24) Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
(v. 25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."
And this sin nature is easily influenced by the Devil and the world:
(v. 1) "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
(v. 2) in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, [the Devil, (Eph 6:12)] of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."
"Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
So the interpretation of Scripture outside of the structure of normative language which God has established through His inspired writers is no exception to being manipulated by the sin nature, the Devil and the world. Such subjective methods inevitably lead to error and the consequent misleading of others. Unsubstantiated symbollism, spiritualizing where literal is intended, arriving at multiple contradictory interpretations for the same passage, (even when the normative meaning on the same subject is clearly stated in more than one passage), are prime examples of approaches which produce error and sin.
In general, misinterpretation occurs because the sin nature creates in man an unwillingness to be structured into truths from the Bible. Even truths about God which He made evident from creation are purposely suppressed:
(v. 18) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
(v. 19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
(v. 20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Objectors to being restricted to normative language principles of interpretation suppress the leading of the Holy Spirit, violate the normative rule, and impose their own viewpoint on God's Word instead. They even attribute their own false opinions to God Himself. But if it violates the normative rule which evidences itself as God's only established method, then it cannot be of God. So Scripture must be approached in much the same way as a newspaper article - from beginning to end, using normative word meanings, context, who, what, why, where and when, etc, so as to determine what the author is actually saying under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, (2 Tim 3:16).
Just as individuals who communicate successfully today in American English by following rules of language and utilizing meanings which have been established by the very people of today who use that language, so the successful and accurate communication of each Book of the Bible is done in much the same way: by following the rules of language and utilizing meanings established for that original language by the very people using that language at the time the particular book of the Bible was written. These rules of language and word meanings have been carefully documented through the efforts of innumerable individuals in countless hours of study and research of thousands of documents written in the original languages at the various times that each particular book of the Bible was written.
So normative is herein defined relative to Scripture as the normally expected meaning of the original language as it was established by usage of the people of the time when each book of the Bible was written. Since God is sovereign, consider that His system by which His Word is to be interpreted has been sovereignly established by Him and will be maintained by Him, especially in view of how highly regarded God holds His Word:
"I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for Your loving-kindness and for Your truth and faithfulness; for You have exalted above all else Your name and Your word, and You have magnified Your word above all Your name!" Since the normative meaning of the authors' words have been frozen in time, the Bible cannot be influenced to communicate error by the sin nature, the devil or the world when it is normatively interpreted.
3) A Perspective Of The Normative Rule As The Method By Which Men Are To Understand The Bible:
The Holy Spirit intructs us within the framework of the normative meanings and rules of language which one finds in Scripture.
In Matthew chapter 24, our Lord is explaining in detail the scene of His Second Coming. He draws upon Scripture and interprets it literally according to the normative meanings of the words. Here are several examples:
(v. 29) " [Jesus says]: 'But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken,
[Note that this is a literal interpretation of a number of passages, some of which follow:
(v. 9a) "Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
[i.e., His Second Coming, the subject of our Lord's discourse in Mt 24]
(v. 10) For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises, And the moon will not shed its light."
(v. 13) "Therefore I shall make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place at the fury of the LORD of hosts in the day of His burning anger."
(v. 7) " 'And when I extingtuish you, I will cover the heavens, and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, And the moon shall not give its light.
(v. 8) All the shining lights in the heavens. I will darken over you. And will set darkness on your land, Declares the Lord God.' "
"Before them the earth quakes, The heavens tremble, The sun and the moon grow dark, And the stars lose their brightness."
(v. 30) [Jesus said] and the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
"In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem..."
"And behold, with the clouds of heaven, One like a Son of Man was coming..."
The following passage refers to Isaiah chapter 53 which has been subjected to innumerable false interpretations. Our Lord Himself, however, interprets it as referring to the only one about Whom it can be interpreted:
HIMSELF.
(v. 37) "[Jesus said] For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS' for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.' "
"Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors."
In the next passage, our Lord takes the commandments in Scripture in a literal and absolute way, disallowing the tradition of men to impose itself upon and vary the meaning of Moses' commandments to suit the situation. In other words, He takes the Word of God in the absolute and literal sense of the language as author Moses intended - the normative way:
(v. 6) ''' "And He [Jesus] said to them, 'Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me.
(v. 7) But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
(v. 8) Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
(v. 9) He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
(v. 10) For Moses said, 'honor your father and your mother' and 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death';
(v. 11) but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban" (that is to say, given to God),'
(v. 12) "you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
(v. 13) thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." '''
b) Following The Normative Rule Results In A Single, Perfect, Non-contradictory Interpretation
And God has indeed communicated His Word in a perfect manner utilizing normative rules of language. For whenever the normative rule is strictly adhered to, what results is a 'single line' of interpretation with no contradiction, no confusion and perfect consistency throughout every book of the bible! This is especially evident in the area of prophecy relative to prediction of future events. Therefore, all men are without excuse. Every man is provided by God with the capability to understand the Bible through the normative use of their native language. It is a matter of their will when they do not. It cannot be a lack of opportunity - even for those without the indwelling Holy Spirit. For all men are given the opportunity to be led unto salvation by God the Holy Spirit, (Jn 16:7-11; Ro 1:19), and thereafter be led into the ever increasing knowledge of God's Word, (Jn 14:26; 1 Jn 2:27; Eph 4:11-13).
The fact is that the Bible can be clearly understood. As a matter of fact, in order to determine the meaning of God's Word, one does not have to be an expert in the ancient languages of the Bible because there are many resources available from the teaching of pastors, teachers and fellow believers to very accurate and reliable translations to dictionaries, commentaries, grammar books, concordances, study lessons, etc., etc.; all of which will enable the diligent student of God's Word to discern the full meaning of the Bible in his daily walk with God.
So, rather than imposing one's own predetermined meaning on a particular word or phrase in Scripture; instead, one merely has to use the inductive approach and let God's Word tell you what it means - by using the built-in rules of interpretation with the aid of all of the sovereignly provided study helps.
So we are to use the normative meanings established by the people and the author who used that original language at the time the words were written - which by and large is a literal meaning or a figure of speech which has a predetermined literal meaning. Furthermore, when the built-in rules of interpretation are faithfully followed, what results is an interpretation which never finds contradiction, error or omission - no conflict, no error, no omission. This testifies to the authenticity and absolute reliability of the normative interpretative method. The many many prophecies that have been perfectly fulfilled to the last literal detail testify to this rule of taking the Bible literally.
So there is no mystery as to the meaning of God's Word, except in the minds of those who do not wish to accept what God is really saying. They often impose their own version of rules and meanings by which the Bible is to be interpreted in order to establish their own particular agenda, rather than to abide by the rules of those who actually used the language thousands of years ago. Keep in mind that it was God's sovereign choice to select particular fallible individuals using particular languages during particular times in order to communicate His Word to everyone - such languages carrying with them rules of interpretation and established meanings as a result of the people who used them at that time. And in spite of fallible authors, imperfect languages and the passing of ages of time, His Word comes shining through to the mind of the believer time after time. One would ask the inevitable question: If God had something to do with the Bible could He not have seen to it that its meaning would be attainable to the average individual?
Otherwise men could plead ignorance at God's Judgment Throne because they would not have been able to understand God's Word from some unexplained, unknown framework.
d) Otherwise God Would Have Conspired To Restrict The Knowledge Of His Word To Only A Chosen Few
For if God's Word is not to be interpreted utilizing normative rules of language which are reflected in their language instruction, common, ordinary, man-produced dictionaries, grammar books, etc., then it must be concluded that God has conspired to restrict the knowledge of salvation and the rest of His written revelation to a chosen few enlightened ones.
But God's Word would not contradict itself and provide some with the one true meaning and permit the rest of mankind to be deceived by a contradictory meaning because they only knew the normative way. This would therefore condemn the great majority of humanity to the Lake of Fire without a chance. For if normative language cannot be relied upon to communicate what God has to say in His Word, especially relative to eternal life, then the great mass of humanity which would not have a special revelation has no chance to accept or reject the truth. This would speak ill of a God of love, justice and righteousness Who is not willing that any should perish:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise [of His Second Coming, (v. 2)], as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
So there is no mystical set of rules or supernatural communications from heaven needed to understand God's Word. The words are plain and clear in their normative sense as God intended them to be to every individual who will ever be born.
Without a universally known, consistent and sovereignly structured system of interpretation, the result would be what happens today when the normative rule is not adhered to:
multiple contradictory interpretations reflecting untruth which create a lack of confidence in the validity of God's Word when individuals trust in such subjective methods of interpretation.
Furthermore, in answer to objectors who insist upon:
imposing their own rules and word meanings on the Bible or
promoting multiple interpretations on God's Word even to the extent of creating a maze of contradiction and confusion or imposing 'today's' viewpoint on the Bible because viewpoints of the past are supposed to be obsolete, (and individuals of every age maintain this false concept);
...in view of all of the aforementioned objector viewpoints...
consider that if any of this were true, then there would exist the impossibility for billions of people throughout history of truly understanding what God intended to communicate in the Bible because the words would then NOT convey their normative meanings as everyday people understood them. If the Bible is supposed to be interpreted in such ways as objectors maintain then the average individual of any historical period would not know for sure what the Bible had to say. What would be the purpose or value of such a communication? What kind of God would communicate His Word to mankind in such an indeterminate way - not giving ALL individuals a chance to fully understand it?
People tend to make up their own rules, not willing to be structured into God's established and sovereign order of communication of His Word. Keep in mind that IT IS HIS WORD AFTER ALL. So it is not surprising to find so many denominations and other religious organizations maintaining that their particular interpretation is the one true one. Nor is it surprising to find millions upon millions of individuals who insist that their own personal speculations or interpretations are just as valid as anyone else's. Some even maintain that their personal interpretation is the only acceptable one.
(v. 21) "For even though they [mankind who is inherently unrighteous, (v. 18-19; Ro 3:23)] knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(v. 22) Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
Furthermore one could not be led by the Holy Spirit and at the same time violate the grammatical construction, context or normative word meanings of God's Word.
God is a God of order and consistency, not of confusion and contradiction:
"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace..."
So any confusion, contradictory interpretations included, could not be of God. Subjective methods of interpretation will inevitably differ from and add private interpretations to the objective normative method and thereby contradict it, causing error and confusion - a result which violates God's clear command in His Word:
(v. 18) "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
(v. 19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." [Cp. 2 Pet 1:20-21]:
(v. 20) But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
(v. 21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
So any interpretation of the Bible which violates the normative rule could not be what God intended to communicate.
Following the normative rule results in a perfect interpretation of God's Word every time reflecting the inerrancy of God's inspired Word. This is especially evident with 100% accuracy in prophecy passages and 100% absence of contradictions. A feat no other method or book can claim. So it is self-evident that it is the one and only true method of interpretation.
So the Bible is a work of 66 books extending over a period of hundreds of years by approximately 40 fallible men, utilizing normative fallible languages, providing an absolutely reliable, inerrant, perfectly harmonious communication from God Himself, something only God could accomplish.
And we can have confidence in the reliable translations that we have today because the words portray an accurate reflection of what the original authors intended in the original languages.
And in order to perfect and refine the meaning gleaned from these reliable translations we can frequently refer to the various study helps such as commentaries, lexicons, concordances, footnotes, cross references, dictionaries, etc. As one earnestly studies the Bible it becomes quickly evident that God communicated His Word in specific languages in specific times so that those meanings could be frozen in time and then translated accordingly into the languages of the world. Otherwise one could impose what he wished upon God's Word due to the ever changing nature of languages. So a particular word used in a particular time in God's Word in a particular context will only have one meaning and not be subject to change as languages change. Furthermore, the reliable translations are accurate. They reflect what the original authors wrote down in the original language. But one must keep an eye on the original languages since translations are not perfect because none of the translated languages perfectly coincides with any of the original languages. A good English translation, for example, is by and large all that is required to determine what a passage is saying. But it must be done by internal evidence from the passage itself within its own context and not by any kind evidence from a corroborating passage - which is external. External evidence only serves to corroborate what has already been determined by internal evidence of the passage at hand. I said a good English translation by and large because there are some passages where one must go back to the original language to determine what it is specifically saying internally. This is so because the passage has been incorrectly or inadequately translated and offers more than one or no clear possibility of interpretation.
The solution to these difficult passages is as follows:
1) Offer no interpretation if one has no resources to go back to the original language. This is not disastrous because the bible repeats itself all the time relative to the doctrines of the faith. So missing a doctrinal message in one passage, one can be assured will be clearly available elsewhere.
2) Offer a possibility or possibilities of interpretation and refer to other passages that corroborate each possibility based on internal observation of the corroborating passage. This is dangerous at best because it relies on external evidence from elsewhere rather than internal evidence from the original passage itself and its own context. Hence one must clearly stipulate that the passage at hand is not fully understood but here is a possibility from another passage which appears to be telling the same message. This kind of honesty and proper exegesis is rarely done. It is further dangerous because it teaches one to go elsewhere to determine what a passage says and assumes that the ‘elsewhere’ passage is interpreted correctly, i.e., internally via the normative rules of language, context and logic. This is rarely the case. Most interpreters use the external snippet out of context method to corroborate falsely arrived at human imposed points of view on passages that are located elsewhere.
Following this is a list of 28 of the hundreds of perfectly fulfilled prophecies in Scripture - predications which were made hundreds of years before the event occurred and which came to pass in every single detail that was foretold, testifying to the authenticity and absolute reliability of the normative interpretative method:
The Messiah is to be:
1) born of a virgin:
Isa 7:14 [prophecy]
Mt 1:18, 24, 25; Lk 1:26-35. [fulfillment]
2) born of the seed of a woman, i.e., not involving a man indicating a supernatural birth: Gen 3:15 [prophecy]
Mt 1:18 [fulfillment]
3) coming through the descendants of Abraham:
Gen 12:1-3; 22:18 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1; Gal 3:16. [fulfillment]
4) from the family line of David:
Jer 23:5-6; II Sam 7:12-16 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1; Acts 2:29-31
[fulfillment]
5) of the Tribe of Judah:
Gen 49:10; Mi 5:2 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1-2 [fulfillment]
6) in the family line of Jesse:
Isa 11:1,10 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1 [fulfillment]
7) born in Bethlehem Ephrathah:
Micah 5:2 [prophecy]
Mt 2:1-6; Lk 2:4-7; Jn 7:42.
[fulfillment]
8) called out of Egypt:
Hos 11:1 [prophecy]
Mt 2:14-15 [fulfillment]
9) a Prophet like Moses:
Dt 18:18-19 [prophecy]
Mt 21:11; Acts 3:19-26;
Jn 4:19; 6:14; 7:40-41. [fulfillment]
10) King:
Zech 9:9, Num 24:17 [prophecy]
Mt 27:37; 21:5; Jn 18:33-38. [fulfillment] [+ future also]
11) sending forth His messenger to "...clear the way before Me...":
Isa 40:3 [prophecy]
Mt 3:1-3; 11:7, 9-10. [fulfillment]
12) performing miracles:
Isa 35:5-6; 61:1-3 [prophecy]
Mt 9:35; 11:3-6.
[fulfillment]
13) a Teacher of miracles:
Ps 78:2 [prophecy]
Mt 13:3, 34-35 [fulfillment]
14) hated without cause:
Ps 69:4 [prophecy]
Jn 15:25 [fulfillment]
15) rejected by His own people:
Isa 53:3, Ps 118:22 [prophecy]
Jn 1:11, 5:43; 7:5; I Pet 2:6-8 [fulfillment]
16) entering Jerusalem on a donkey:
Zech 9:9 [prophecy]
Mt 21:6-11 [fulfillment]
17) betrayed by a friend:
Ps 41:9 [prophecy] Mt 26:47-50 [fulfillment]
18) betrayed for thirty pieces of silver:
Zech 11:12 [prophecy]
Mt 26:14-15 [fulfillment]
19) forsaken by His disciples:
Zech 13:7 [prophecy] Mk 14:27, 50 [fulfillment]
20) not defending Himself before His accusers:
Isa 53:7 [prophecy] Mt 27:12 [fulfillment]
21) physically beaten and spit upon:
Isa 50:6 [prophecy] Mt 26:67-68 [fulfillment]
22) crucified:
Ps 22:16-17; Zech 12:10 [prophecy]
Mt 27:29-44 [fulfillment]
23) crucified exactly 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem - to the day!:
Dan 9:25-26 [prophecy] Mt 21:1-11 [fulfillment]
24) forsaken by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit:
Ps 22:1a [prophecy] Mt 27:46 [fulfillment]
25) buried in a rich man's tomb:
Isa 53:9 [prophecy] Mt 27:57, 59-60 [fulfillment]
26) executed within a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple: Dan 9:26a; Gen 49:10 [prophecy] Secular history: 70 A.D. [fulfillment]
27) raised from the dead:
Ps 16:10, Isa 53:10-12;
Zech 12:10
[prophecy]
Acts 2:31; 13:33-37
Mt 28:5-6; Mk 16:6.
[fulfillment]
28) the God-man:
Isa 9:6 [prophecy]
Lk 1:31-33 [fulfillment]
ALL PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE ARE INSPIRED BY GOD AND WORTHY FOR INSTRUCTION
One of the key principles of interpreting Scripture which we have already investigated is that all passages in Scripture are inspired by God and worthy for instruction - not just a select few, (2 Tim 3:16).
Since all passages are worthy for instruction and perfectly inspired by God unto righteousness then there are no contradictions in God's Word and the truths that are relayed in each passage are irrefutable. They are therefore not ever contradicted, modified or added to elsewhere in Scripture or outside of Scripture.
Objectors to this principle state that one cannot just take a particular passage to teach some Biblical truth such as John 3:1-18 which teaches faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life. They state, for example, that there are other passages throughout the Bible that teach on salvation and add to what John 3:1-18 says, (creating the inference that the passage in John chapter 3 has an error of omission). They, for example, add more conditions than what John 3:1-18 states that an individual must meet in order to be saved. But this is an approach to Scripture, if valid, which would take more than a lifetime of careful consideration and study to arrive at any kind of determination. And if this approach is true, then John 3:1-18 is wrong by leaving important information out - God is wrong by allowing His Word to be so indeterminate - the Bible is untrustworthy and no one can truly know what Scripture teaches on any subject.
The truth of the matter, however, is that one can easily and quickly discern the teachings of God's Word by studying one passage at a time, following the built-in rules of interpretation and without years of agonizing examination of the entire Bible. Furthermore, when properly analyzed in detail, there simply are NO contradictory passages anywhere in God's Word, especially verses which contradict what is taught in John 3:1-18.
This leads to a corollary principle:
IF IT IS THE TRUTH HERE THEN IT IS THE TRUTH EVERYWHERE
If a truth in one passage of Scripture is taught then according to the doctrine of inerrancy one may then say, 'If it is the truth here then it is the truth everywhere'
For example:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 says in plain language that God loved the world, (mankind), so much that He saw to it that His one and only Son was given to die and thereby in death suffer the penalty for the sins of the whole world, (1 Jn 2:2).....
and God plainly says in this passage that whosoever believes in His Son - this belief being a trust that God will make provision for one's eternal life exclusively and solely through His Son - having paid this penalty for their own particular sins - will then not perish but have eternal life with Him in heaven. Notice that the tense of the verb "have" is not in the future indicating a promise to come but it is in the present which says that at the point of believing the believer immediately - in the present - possesses eternal life forever, never to lose it no matter what. This well quoted verse in John chapter 3 is a complete 'if-then' statement that presents a complete message about how to go to heaven: believe alone in Jesus Christ alone and you immediately begin to have eternal life forever never to lose it. If this is the truth as stated in Jn 3:16 then it is the truth everywhere in Scripture.
SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF
One of the most significant of these rules of interpretation which we have already investigated is that Scripture is without error and therefore does not contradict itself, (Jn 10:35; Ps 19:7-9; 2 Tim 3:16; Mt 5:17-18; 24:35; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Since Scripture testifies that it is without error, then another rule which follows is:
LET THE CLEAR PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE DICTATE WHICH DIRECTION THE DIFFICULT PASSAGES SHOULD TAKE
Difficult passages often have several but conflicting interpretations, only one of which can be the correct one, the others to be ruled out by carefully utilizing the built-in rules of interpretation. So it is vital to the understanding of God's Word that one not derive an interpretation of a difficult passage which directly contradicts the interpretation of a clear passage.
For example consider the following phrase:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...."
This phrase when considered outside of the context has four possible interpretations at first glance: salvation by faith only, or by baptism only, or by faith or baptism or by faith + baptism be directed toward the one true interpretation by clear passages on salvation..............................
Dave Hunt comments on this verse, ('The Berean Call', Mar 1995 issue):
[This verse is saying that] "All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel:
'[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' (1 Cor 1:21; see also Jn 3:16, 18, 36, 5:24; Acts 10:43, 13:38-39, 16:34; Rom 1:16, 3:28, 4:24, 5:1; 1 Cor 15:1-5; Eph 2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.
Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.) to whom Christian baptism was unknown..." [Cp Hebrews chapter 11].
Therefore let this phrase in Mark be directed toward the one true interpretation of the four possible ones by the interpretation of a clear passage such as the one which follows:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this [being saved, i.e., salvation] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast."
This very clear passage in Ephesians prohibits the contribution of any kind of human effort toward one's salvation which includes water baptism. So Mark 16:16 teaches that salvation is by faith alone. The water baptism which one later goes through then illustrates to mankind the condition of already having been saved by faith alone in Christ alone as Mark 16:16a indicates when correctly interpreted. Note that this is verified in the second half of the verse in Mark which most people fail to take into consideration. Thus we indicate another vital rule in interpreting Scripture -
TAKE THE ENTIRE PASSAGE INTO CONSIDERATION
Much damage is done to the communication of God's Word by simply not taking the entire passage into consideration. [Mk 16:16a]:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..."
This part of Mark 16:16 seems to say that one must express one's belief in Christ and then be water baptized in order to be saved. However, the rest of the verse sheds more light on what is being said:
"but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Mk 16:16b indicates that the sole condition for being condemned is disbelieving in the gospel of salvation. Nothing is mentioned about being condemned for not being water baptized. Therefore, Mk 16:16b makes a strong argument for the fact that water baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. But it is a requirement for believers in order to be obedient faithful Christians.
Compare a passage which is often misinterpreted because most individuals consider only a few verses, out of context, without comparison to parallel passages and thereby do not Rule out the nonessential:
Consider these passages of Scripture in light of the what was just stated:
" 'He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.' "
Notice that this passage indicates that if one believes and is water baptized one shall be saved. From the first half of verse 16, one can conclude that salvation is gained in one or more of three ways: either by faith alone, water baptism alone or faith plus water baptism. The second half of verse 16 strongly points toward faith alone in Christ alone and it definitely states that faith alone in Christ alone is at least one way to heaven and probably the only way. Verse 16b indicates that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone because it states that the only way to condemnation is to never believe - to disbelieve. There is no mention that never being water baptized will result in condemnation. This would be a serious omission if water baptism were indeed essential to salvation. This verse establishes that the only basis for condemnation is unbelief.
The subject of Christian water baptism is a highly controversial one. Many insist that it is a requirement for being saved.
Dave Hunt states, ('THE BEREAN CALL' periodical, Bend, Oregon, March 1995 issue):
"Then what about Mark 16:16: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'? All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel: '[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' (1 Cor 1:21; see also Jn 3:16, 18, 36, 5:24; Acts 10:43, 13:38-39, 16:341; Rom 1:16, 3:28, 4:24, 5:1; 1 cor 15:1-5; Eph 2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.
Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.) to whom Christian baptism was unknown... [Ref Hebrews chapter 11].
"For this is the will of My Father, that every one who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
If one concludes that water baptism, (Mk 16:16) is an essential part of salvation, by extraction of a verse out of context then we must use the same extraction process in Jn 6:40, above, and conclude that only those living at the time of Christ, and that only those who actually saw Him can be saved.
Consider Mk 1:4 which, when taken out of context appears to teach that forgiveness of sins comes only through John the Baptist's water baptism - which was strictly for Jews, leaving the Gentile world totally condemned without a chance for salvation:
"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
One might conclude that salvation - forgiveness of sins - comes through the water baptism of repentance of John the Baptism.
Or that only those who believed that the covenant of Abraham would be fulfilled within them - would be credited with righteousness - in order to be saved:
(v. 4) "Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 'This man will not be your heir; but One shall come forth from your own body, He shall be you Heir.'
(v. 5 ) And He [God] took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.'
(v. 6) Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
One might take verse 6 out of context and conclude that salvation was through faith in God's plan through Abraham and only through Abraham. If this true then descendants of Abraham will therefore be the only ones who are eligible for salvation. Most Jews believe this way.
One might even falsely conclude that Our Lord supported the conclusion on the previous page when he said the following:
(v. 5) "These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, 'Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; [One might conclude here that salvation was exclusively for the Jews]
(v. 6) but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
(v. 7) And as you go, preach, saying, '''The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'''
(v. 32) Every one therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father Who is in heaven.' "
So by the method one uses in falsely interpreting Romans 10:9-10 in order to conclude that one must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in order to be saved one must also conclude that one must be a Jew who saw the Lord Jesus Christ as a Man 2000 years ago, (Jn 6:40), and one must have been water baptized by John the Baptist himself, (Mk 1:4), and have been a believer in the Abrahamic covenant as well as a descendant of Abraham, (Gen 15:6), etc. etc. This is however only the beginning. There are dozens of passages which, one might conclude, add even more to what must be done in order to be saved. The truth is, however a different matter. Paul answered it best when the frightened jailkeeper in Philippi asked him:
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' "
[And Paul's simple and complete answer was]:
" 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved....;' "
So it is belief and belief alone in Christ alone as Savior that is the way to heaven - nothing else can be added. If anything else was required, then Paul was lying to the frightened jailer. Anything else such as confession of Jesus as Lord, water baptism, Lord's Supper, leading a repentant lifestyle etc. etc. may immediately accompany a person's first time expression of faith in Christ; yet these spiritually important things in a believer's life also contribute nothing toward that believer's salvation, (Eph 2:8-9).
All of the passages in Scripture relative to salvation might be likened to following a recipe. Many recipes contain nonessential instructions such as suggesting a number of ways to serve the results. Once a recipe has been followed and a successful outcome is obtained, further action such as serving it on a dish in some special way merely demonstrates what has already occurred. In like manner, once salvation has occurred by a single moment of trusting alone in Christ alone as Savior, (Jn 3:16, Eph 2:8-9), actions such as public confession, water baptism, divine good works, etc. serve to demonstrate to man what has already occurred. So the water baptism or the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord demonstrates the successful results of the faith which is exercised in Christ as Savior such faith resulting in salvation even before there is the slightest confession or any other deed.
CONSIDER ALL THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS AND RULE OUT THE FALSE ONES
The error that is taking place when false interpretations are arrived at is often that the false interpretation is the only interpretation that is considered for a particular passage.
So a corollary of ruling out the nonessential is:
Consider all of the possible interpretations
There are many passages which have more than one possible interpretation - the one correct interpretation and the rest which are not correct. One must honestly list all of the possible interpretations of the passage and then, by the H.I.C.E.E. method of interpretation which the Bible demands be utilized, the one correct interpretation ruled in while all the other false interpretations ruled out. For example, in Philippians 2:6 the word "robbery" is often misinterpreted because the correct interpretation is never considered:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
"robbery" = "harpagmon" = refers here to a treasure which is to be held on to. It is in a noun form which can have one of two basic meanings: An active meaning = robbery in the sense of a person taking something that doesn't belong to him and... a passive meaning = robbery in the sense of a prize or a treasure which one rightfully possesses but which is robbed from him.
The passive meaning must apply here because the first part of verse 6 states that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. So our Lord, Who is God, could not rob something from Himself. And God, being Who He is, cannot give up being Himself. He is eternal, (Ps 90:2; Isa 9:6), and immutable, (Mal 3:6). But He can sovereignly choose to humble Himself and not exercise His attributes as God:
i cont.) [Phil 2:6-7 AMPLIFIED cont.]:
(v. 6) "...Who [Christ] although He [continually] subsisted in the [internal and external] form of God, did not think this equality with God [with respect to expressing His attributes as God] was a thing to be eagerly grasped [held onto] or retained;
(v. 7) But stripped Himself [of all of His privileges and rightful dignity to express Himself as God] so as to assume the guise of a servant, in that He became like men and was born a human being."
So Jesus Christ voluntarily dispossessed Himself for the moment of His privileges and rightful dignity to express Himself as God. This is what the verse is saying: that He did not consider this to be robbery. He did this voluntary out of an infinitely great love for man. Objectors to the truth of the diety of Christ do not consider the passive meaning as a possibility even though the context, grammar and many other passages demand it! Thus they attempt to prove by these omissions that Jesus Christ is not equal to God nor is He God at all. Phil 2:6a however indicates that in eternity past our Lord always subsisted - existed - as God. So Jesus Christ would not be in an active position of robbing something He already had - that of being God. Rather, the passive meaning of "harpagmon" applies: that of having the expression of His Diety taken away, and not the essence since God is immutable and cannot lose His essence in any way. Compare Malachi 3:6.
So Jesus is spoken of as NOT thinking it robbery to not express the glory which is His, being God; and instead becoming a Man to die for the sins of the whole world.
CONTEXT: WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, TO WHOM DOES IT APPLY
Another principle of interpretation which is so often taught in journalism classes and emphasized in newspaper reporting is to determine who, what, why, where, when, how & to whom does it apply. Once these questions have been thoroughly answered, then one can begin to properly interpret the passage and determine to whom the passage applies. Another way of expressing this rule is to state the three most important terms to keep in mind when interpreting God's Word:
1) CONTEXT 2) CONTEXT 3) CONTEXT
For example, all the passages which refer to tithing are set in the context of a required tax payment in the form of animals and crops or a monetary substitute thereof which applies to Jews under the Mosaic Law system for the purpose of the support of the
Temple and the priesthoods of Levi and Aaron. (Compare: Lev 27:30-32; Nu 18:21, 24, 26, 28; Dt 12:16, 7, 11; 14:23-25, 28; 26:12; 2 Ch 31:5-6, 12; Ne 10:37-38; 12:44; 13:5, 12; Am 4:4; Mal 3:8, 10). Application cannot be made to the life of a Christian relative to tithing. Free and joyful giving out of abundance received rather than out of the firstfruits of one's labors is another matter which does apply to Christians, (2 Cor chapters 8 & 9).
Another example of taking a well known passage out of context is to apply the following verse to the way God operates throughout the ages:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever."
It is often said of this verse that since Jesus performed miracles 2000 years ago He will continue to heal people today in the same way since He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Recall, however, that our Lord has operated in a number of different ways throughout the ages from the days of Adam and Eve onward through history. And recall that throughout the history of mankind, miracles came in certain periods of time - those periods being very short, few and far between: i.e., miracles are rare. So this passage is not teaching that the Lord operates in the same identical way throughout history. The previous verses confirm this:
(v. 5) "Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, 'Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.'[Dt 31:6]
[The context of our Lord's almighty power as God and His absolute sovereignty in a believer's life is established here. Therefore, as quoted above, a Christian can have absolute confidence in God's working in his life at all times] (v. 6) So we say with confidence,
'The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
What can man do to me?
(v. 7) Remember your leaders, who spoke the Word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
(v. 8) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
So the context of verse 8 therefore does not teach that our Lord operates the same identical way throughout the ages. On the other hand it does teach of His eternality and consequent infinite capacity as God to continue to be the once for all time sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, (chapter 10); thus assuring believers of their salvation unto eternal life and of the Lord's unfailing sovereignty in their lives especially over the schemes of evil men, (v. 6).
If this passage were to say that our Lord operates in men's lives the same yesterday, today and tomorrow then we are all to operate under the same principles given to Adam and Eve: not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - and under the temple and animal sacrifice system of the Law of Moses.
SIMILARITY DOES NOT PROVE IDENTITY
A corollary of the context * context * context rule is, similarity does not prove identity.
Rapture vs The Second Coming: The Rapture of the Church is not the same event as the Lord's Second Coming
For example, objectors claim that the Rapture of the Church and our Lord's Second Coming are part of the same event. One of their proofs is that both the Rapture and the Second Coming have a 'last trumpet' in them which announces each occurrence:
(v. 30) "and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
(v. 31) And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet [sound] and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one of the heavens to the other."
Compare this to three passages dealing with the Rapture:
(v. 1) "Do not let your hearts be troubled.
(v. 2) In My Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
[Our Lord is going to prepare a place for us in heaven where the Lord went on His ascension - not to prepare a place on the earth]
(v. 3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me that you also may be where I am.
(v. 4) You know the way to the place where I am going."
[So our Lord will come back and take His own back with Him to heaven and this coming of our Lord will also be announced by trumpets]:
(v. 51) "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(v. 52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."
[Objectors point to the phrase "last trumpet" here and demand that it be interpreted as the same trumpet in Mt 24:30-31 because this trumpet in Matthew comes after the 7 trumpets in Rev 8-11. They demand that there be no trumpets after this "last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15, otherwise they say it wouldn't be a last trumpet at all. Thus they ignore the dissimilarities between the Second Coming and the Rapture and they overlook the obvious interpretation of 1 Cor 15:51-52: That 'the last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15:52 is the last in a series, not the last heard from heaven on earth to end the age.
A conductor might tell his orchestra, for example, 'Lower the volume of the last trumpet call' referring to a particular musical piece. This would not be saying that this was the last time the trumpets would play that evening; only the last for that piece of music. Likewise, "the last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15 is the last in a series to announce the rapture.
(v. 16) "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
(v. 17) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord."
There are other trumpets in Scripture which also announce occurrences which are unrelated to one another with respect to not being part of the same event, (cp Isa 27:13; Ez 33:5; Rev 8:7-8, 10, 12, 9:1, 13; 10:7).
The same kind of argument is made by objectors when referring to the term Second Coming. Objectors ask how the rapture could not be part of the Second Coming otherwise, in their minds, the Second Coming would be the Third Coming. They likewise ignore the differences between the two events. The obvious interpretation is that the Second Coming refers to our Lord's Second Coming to set down on the earth in order to bring in His Millennial Kingdom. During the rapture, our Lord does not set down on the earth, so it would not qualify as the Second Coming. Nor is He at that time purposing to bring about His Millennial rule as He did in the First Coming and will accomplish in His Second Coming. Incidentally, there were a number of comings to the earth of our Lord in Old Testament times as the Angel of the Lord which would not apply as the First or the Second Coming either, (cp. I Cor 10:1-4). Finally, comparison between the Rapture and the Lord's Second Coming follows, which shows that the two are in fact two separate events in the Day, (i.e., the end time events of), the Lord:
Let us review systematically the differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming. John Walvoord summarizes the differences between the translation (the rapture) and the Second Coming on pages 101-103 of "The Rapture Question":
"The preceding discussion has offered many inherent contrasts between the translation of the church and the second coming of Christ to establish the millennial kingdom. These contrasts are such as to make any harmony of these two events an impossibility. Those who attempt it must resort to wholesale spiritualization of details that clash and avoidance of striking differences in general character. These contrasts can be stated by comparison of details of the translation designated (a), and details of the second coming designated as (b).
(a) At the time of the translation, the saints will meet the Lord in the air...
[The Mount of Olives will remain unchanged. I Thes 4:13-18]
(b) At the time of the second coming, Christ will return to the Mount of Olives which on that occasion will undergo a great transformation, a valley being formed to the east of Jerusalem where the Mount of Olives was formerly located [Zech 14:1-15; Mt 25:31-46; Rev 19:11-21].
(a) At the coming of Christ for the church, the living saints are translated...
[and given immortal bodies. I Cor 15:35-54; I Thes 4:13-18]
(b) At the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom, there is no translation whatever.
[nor transformation into immortal bodies]
(a) At the translation of the church, Christ returns with the saints to heaven.
[i.e., believers go from earth to heaven. Jn 14:2-3]
(b) At the second coming, Christ remains on the earth and reigns as King.
[i.e., believers of the Church age and previous ages go from heaven to earth. Rev 19:11-21]
(a) At the time of the translation, the earth is not judged and sin continues.
[Church age believers will be judged in heaven relative to their divine good work production for rewards in heaven. II Cor 5:10; I Cor 3:11-15]
(b) At the time of the second coming, sin is judged and righteousness fills the earth.
(a) The translation is before the day of wrath from which the church is promised deliverance...
[This principle is illustrated in Scripture in such historic cases as the deliverance of Lot from Sodom, Noah and his family from the flood by the ark and Rahab at Jericho from the doomed city.
In 2 Thes 2:3, the phrase 'falling away' referring to what must happen before the 'Man of Sin' is revealed, (and therefore before the Tribulation), can be more accurately translated 'the departing away' (of the saints in the rapture) since the Greek word 'aphistemi' is used that way in the New Testament 11 out of 15 times.
Finally, there is no evidence in passages on the Tribulation which describe the Church Age saint as being present on the earth at that time. Rather, the purpose of the Tribulation is expressly and repeatedly stated as purging and judging Israel and punishing and destroying Gentile power - leaving no reason for the Church Age saints to be present. (Dt 4:29-30; Jer 30:4-11; Dan 9:24-27; 12:1; Mt 24:15-31; Rev 4-19; I Thes 1:9-10; 5:9; Luke 21:36; Rev 3:10; Rom 5:9; 2 Peter 2:6-9]
(b) The second coming follows the great tribulation and outpoured judgment and brings them to climax and culmination in the establishment of the millennial kingdom. [Dt 4:29-30; Jer 30:4-11; Dan 9:24-27; 12:1; Mt 24:15-31; Rev 4-19; I Thes 1:9-10; 5:9; Luke 21:36; Rev 3:10; Rom 5:9; 2 Peter 2:6-9; Mt 25:31-46]
Rapture vs. Second Coming, (cont.)
(a) The translation is described as an imminent event.
[1 Cor 15:51-57; 1 Thes 4:13-18; Jn 14:2-3]
(b) The second coming will follow definite prophesied signs...
[It will constitute a series of events that will take many hours, (Rev 19:11-21), with many signs which as yet are to be fulfilled, (II Thes 2:3-12; Mt 24:3-31; Rev 4:1-19:10)] (a) The translation of the church is revealed only in the New Testament.
(b) The second coming of Christ is the subject of prophecy in both Testaments
(a) The translation concerns only the saved of this age.
[1 Thes 4:13-18; Jn 14:2-3; 1 Cor 15:51-57]
(b) The second coming of Christ deals with saved and unsaved.
[Mt 25:31-46]
(a) At the translation, only those in Christ are affected.
[1 Thes 4:13-18; Jn 14:2-3; 1 Cor 15:51-57]
(b) At the second coming, not only men are affected but Satan is bound.
[Rev 20:1-3; Mt 25:31-46]
While it is evident that there are some similarities in the two events, these do not prove that they are the same. There are similarities also between the first and the second coming of Christ, but these have been separated by almost two thousand years. These similarities confused the Old Testament prophets but are easily deciphered by us today. Undoubtedly after the church is translated, tribulation saints will be able to see the distinction of the coming for translation and the coming to establish the kingdom in a similar clarity."
DISTINGUISHING FULFILLMENT IN DETAIL FROM POINT OF IDENTITY COMPARISONS
Another corollary rule of context, context, context is the rule of point of identity comparison rather than fulfillment in complete detail. Determining whether a passage is a complete fulfillment in detail or whether it is simply making a point of comparison depends upon the examination of the context of each of the passages concerned.
The literal fulfillment possibility is ruled in or ruled out by comparing the passages concerned in order to see if the setting, all of the details, and the chronological order of the events match up perfectly - if not then we are looking at a point of identity comparison.
Acts chapter two points to a similarity in Joel chapter two and is not a fulfillment of it
For example, let's examine Acts 2:4-16 which has often been grossly misinterpreted:
(v. 4) "And they [the disciples] were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
(v. 5) Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
(v. 6) And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language.
(v. 7) And they began to be amazed and to marvel, saying, 'Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?'
(v. 8) And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
(v. 9) Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
(v. 10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
(v. 11) Cretans and Arabs - we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.
(v. 12) And they continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?'
(v. 13) But others were mocking and saying, 'They are full of sweet wine.'
(v. 14) But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: 'Men of Judea, and all your who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give heed to my words.
(v. 15) For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day;
(v. 16) but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel."
Notice that in verse 16 above, Peter states that "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel" and not 'this is what is being fulfilled as spoken of through the prophet Joel' The word "this" refers to the occurrence of the disciples' "declaring the wonders of God in...[the] tongues" [of all the people from foreign countries, (vv. 11-12)]. Peter then says, "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel." Then Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32a which is part of a chapter which begins with the description of the horrors of God's judgment on the world:
(v. 1) "Blow a trumpet in Zion, [Israel]
And sound an alarm on My [God's] holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the Lord is coming; surely it is near,
["the day of the Lord" = that period of time beginning with the rapture of the church, (1 Thes 4:13-18; 2 Thes 2:1-12; Jn 14:1-4); then the 7 year tribulation, (Isa 2:12, 19; 13:9-11, 13; 26:20-21; 34:1-2, 8; Ezek 30:2-3; Joel 1:15; 2:1-3; 2:30-32; 3:12-16, 18; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad vs. 15-17; Zeph 1:14-15, 17; Zech 12:2,9,10; 14:1-5, 8-9, 20; Mal 4:1-3; 1 Thes 5:2-3; 2 Pet 3:8, 10; Mt 24:1-28; Rev 6:1-19:10) and then the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring in His Millennial Kingdom, (Rev 19:11-20:4; Mt 24:29-25:46), and finally the Great White Throne Judgment and eternity future with a new heaven and a new earth, (Rev 20:7-22:21)]
[Compare Joel 2:1-2; 28-32a cont.]:
(v. 2) "A day of darkness and gloom,
A day of clouds and thick darkness.
As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people; There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it. To the years of many generations."
[The rest of this passage up to verse 18 continues to describe the future horrors of the tribulation period before Jesus Christ appears at His Second Coming. Verses 18-27 then describe our Lord's coming and His setting up of the millennial kingdom. This brings us to the part which the Apostle Peter quoted in Acts 2:17]:
[Compare Joel 2:1-2; 28-32a cont.]:
(Joel 2:28) And it will come about after this, that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind, And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions."
["And it" = The Kingdom with the Lord ruling, (vv 18-27).
"And it will come about after this" = And the Millennial Kingdom will come about after the tribulation period and our Lord's Second Coming which were described earlier. The phrase "after this" is located in the text such that it tells us that the Rapture, the 7 year tribulation period and our Lord's Second Coming must occur before the pouring out of the "Spirit on all mankind"]
(v. 28 cont.) And it will come about after this, that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind, And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions."
(v. 29) And even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
(v. 30) And I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth,
Blood, fire, and columns of smoke.
(v. 31) The sun will be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
(v. 32a) And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered..."
Notice that what is described in Joel 2:28-32a has not occurred yet.
For example:
"I will pour out My Spirit on ALL mankind" = God's Spirit has not yet been poured out on ALL people - not at that 'first' Pentecost and not throughout history.
"The sun will be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes." = All of this which is just preceding when our Lord comes in glory in His Second Coming in the clouds of heaven, (Dan 7:13-14; Mt 24:30-31), has not occurred yet.
So these events as described by the prophet Joel having not happened yet raises the question about Peter's statement: "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel". Since Joel 2:28-32 cannot be a fulfillment in every detail of what was going on that day of Pentecost when Peter preached, then one must rule out a prophecy in detail and review the contexts of both passages to determine the points of identity that Peter is referring to. The main point of context in both passages is the working of God the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 2, Peter is referring to the Holy Spirit's working in the believers' the gift of speaking "in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." So Peter says to the "utterly amazed" bewildered crowd:
i cont.) [Acts 2:4-16 cont.]:
(v. 15) "These men [who are speaking in other tongues supernaturally] are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only nine in the morning!
(v. 16) No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel..."
[Notice that Peter does not say that this is a fulfillment of what was spoken by the prophet Joel. Instead, he says "this is what was spoken [about] by the prophet Joel..." And what was it that Joel spoke about that is a common point of identity? It was the working of God the Holy Spirit:
"And it will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;..."
It is God the Holy Spirit Who will be acting in the future time of the Day of the Lord and Who acted at the time in the past on that day of Pentecost 2000 years ago. The point of identity that Peter is making is that just as God the Holy Spirit will work in all men beginning at the time of the millennial rule of our Lord, so the disciples were expressing the working in them of God the Holy Spirit when they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."
So the prophecy of Joel which Peter mentions in Acts 2:17 has yet to be literally fulfilled, but the Agent behind the events is One and the Same God the Holy Spirit. That's what Peter was referring to in a point of comparison of fulfillment.
Matthew paraphrases and draws a parallel from the writings of the prophets with the life of our Lord years later
Another example of a point of identity comparison occurs in Mt 27:1-10:
(v. 1) "Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death.
(v. 2) They bound Him, led Him away and handed Him over to Pilate, the governor.
(v. 3) When Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders.
(v. 4) saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.' But they said, 'What is that to us? See to that yourself!'
(v. 5) And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary [of the Temple] and departed ; and he went away and hanged himself.
(v. 6) The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.'
(v. 7) So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.
(v. 8) That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
(v. 9) Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on Him by the people of Israel,
(v. 10) and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'"
['They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on Him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.' = This part of the passage is very closely related to a passage from the prophet Zechariah:
(v. 4) '''This is what the Lord my God says [to Zechariah]:"Pasture the flock marked for slaughter.
["flock" = the nation Israel who is slated for destruction due to their apostasy]
(v. 5) Their buyers slaughter them and go unpunished. Those who sell them say, 'Praise the Lord, I am rich!' Their own shepherds do not spare them. [Israel's rulers and leaders betray and slaughter their own]
(v. 6) For I will no longer have pity on the people of the land," declares the Lord. "I will hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king. They will oppress the land, and I will not rescue them from their hands."
(v. 7) So I [Zechariah] pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock. (v. 8) In one month I got rid of the three shepherds.
The flock [Israel] detested me, and I grew weary of them
(v. 9) and said, "I will not be your shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh.
(v. 10) Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations [the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel]
(v. 11) It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the Lord.
(v. 12) I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if no, keep it' So they [the leaders representing Israel] paid me [Zechariah] thirty pieces of silver.
[They - the people of Israel, Zechariah is saying, paid 30 pieces of silver in order to be rid of this man whom they recognized as a prophet of God but did not want to hear and obey his message from God]. Comparing Mt 27:9-10 with Zech 11:4-13:
ii cont.) [Mt 27:9-10 cont.]:
(v. 9) "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on Him by the people of Israel,
(v. 10) and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'''
(v. 12) "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if no, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
(v. 13) And the Lord said to me, 'Throw it to the potter' - the handsome price at which they priced me!' So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter."
"And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price at which they priced Me!" = a sardonic, sarcastic comment on such a small sum of money paid to God's chosen man which is approximately equivalent to what one would pay for a slave.
"So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord [the Temple] to the potter" = the potter who worked his trade inside the Temple grounds - evidently for Temple use.
So, Zechariah took the 30 pieces of silver -the price of getting rid of God's message and God's prophet and threw them into "the house of the Lord" - the Temple - to the potter who did his work there. Hundreds of years later, Matthew draws on this account in Zechariah with common points of fulfillment involving Judas Isacariot who would take his 30 pieces of silver paid to him to betray our Lord, the price again of getting rid of God's message and God's Prophet the GodMan Jesus Christ. And Judas would throw the money into the temple - the sanctuary where the priests were; just as Zechariah threw his 30 pieces to the potter who had his shop inside the Temple grounds.
Notice that Matthew's words are not a precise quotation from Zechariah at all, but a commentary:
[Zech 11:12-13]:
(v. 12) "I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they [the leaders representing Israel] paid me [Zechariah] thirty pieces of silver.
(v. 13) And the Lord said to me, 'Throw it to the potter' - the handsome price at which they priced me!' So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter."
ii cont.) [Mt 27:9-10 cont.]:
"Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on Him [Jesus] by the people of Israel
(v. 10) and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'''
The critical part of this passage in the original koine Greek looks like this:
kai ..elabon ta ..triakonta arguria
And I took .the thirty .......pieces of silver
ton timen tou .............tetimemenou
the price .of him who was set a price on
on ........etimesanto ..............apo .nion ............Israel
whom ..they set a price on .of ....[the] sons of Israel
kai .edokan auta ...eis ..ton agron tou
and gave .....them. for ..the field ...of the
kerameos katha ..........sunetaxen .moi .Kurios
potter ......according ..as directed me ..[the] Lord
Matthew wrote his gospel presuming that his readers would have a good knowledge of O.T. Scripture, (cp Mt 1:1-17, 22-23; 2:17-18). The presumption of writers of Scripture that the readers would be familiar with the context of passages in the Old Testament occurs frequently both in the Old and New Testaments. So considering that Matthew presumes that his readers are familiar with Old Testament Scripture, that he does not actually quote Jeremiah or Zechariah verbatim, and that instead he paraphrases and draws a parallel from the writings of the prophets with the life of our Lord years later, then it cannot be concluded that Matthew is equating what Zechariah or Jeremiah wrote as a literal and detailed fulfillment in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, but as a fulfillment in certain common points of identity.
[D.A. Carson states, ('The Expositor's Bible Commentary', Vol 8, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1984, Frank E. Gaebelien, Editor, 'Matthew', p. 543)]:
"In both instances [referring to the passages in Matthew and Zechariah] Yahweh's shepherd is rejected by the people of Israel and valued at the price of a slave. And in both instances the money is flung into the temple and ends up purchasing something that pollutes."
On the one hand we have the passage in Zechariah, and on the other hand, the book of Jeremiah provides a lesson which is also very closely related to what author Matthew is saying in Matthew chapter 27:
(v. 1) ""This is what the Lord says: '''Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests
(v. 2) and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate. There proclaim the words I tell you,
(v. 3) and say, "Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: 'Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle.
(v. 4) For they have forsaken Me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.
(v. 5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
(v. 6) 'So beware, the days are coming', declares the Lord, 'when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.
(v. 7) In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.
(v. 8) I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds.
(v. 9) I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.' (v. 10) Then break the jar [which the Lord told Jeremiah to purchase, (v. 1)] while those who go with you are watching,
(v. 11) and say to them, "This is what the Lord Almighty says; 'I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter's jar is smashed and cannot be repaired. They will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room.'
["Topheth" = an area in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem where children were sometimes sacrificed to the false Ammonite god Molech (2 Kings 23:10; Jer 7:31; cf. Jer 7:32; 19:4-6, 11-14). Later the Assyrian army was destroyed there by God by fire, (Isa 30:31-33)]
(v. 12) This is what I will do to this place and to those who live here", declares the Lord. "I will make this city like Topheth.
(v. 13) The houses in Jerusalem and those of the kings of Judah will be defiled like this place, Topheth - all the houses where they burned incense on the roofs to all the starry hosts [they were star worshipers] and poured out drink offerings to other gods." ''' ""
[D.A. Carson, op. cit., pp. 563-4]:
[In Jeremiah 19:1-13] "Jeremiah is told to purchase a potter's jar and take some elders and priests to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, where he is to warn of the destruction of Jerusalem for her sin, illustrated by smashing the jar. A further linguistic link [to Mt 27:9] is "innocent blood" (Jer 19:4); and thematic links include renaming a locality associated with potters (19:1) with a name ("Valley of Slaughter" denoting violence (19:6). The place will henceforth be used as a burial ground (19:11), as a token of God's judgment.......
[So, Dr. Carson states on pp. 564-5, op. cit.]:
"The reference to Jeremiah 19....provides equally telling parallels. The rulers have forsaken Yahweh and made Jerusalem a place of foreign gods (19:4); so the day is coming when this valley, where the prophecy is given and the potter's jar smashed, will be called the Valley of Slaughter, symbolic of the ruin of Judah and Jerusalem (19:6-7). Similarly in Matthew the rejection of Jesus........leads to a polluted field, a symbol of death and the destruction of the nation about to be buried as 'foreigners'......
In the light of these relationships between the events surrounding Jesus' death and the two key OT passages that make up Matthew's quotation, what does the evangelist mean by saying that the prophecy 'was fulfilled'?
Matthew does not need to devise farfetched explanations for each word and phrase, because in each case he has truly represented the central theme. The verbal differences he introduces in citing the OT are not an embarrassment to him, because he is not claiming that the OT text is a prophecy to be fulfilled by a simple one-on-one pattern..........what we find in Matthew, including [Mt 27] vv. 9-10, is not identification of the text with an event but fulfillment of the text in an event"
[Let's examine the parts of the passages which objectors claim involve a misquotation]
(v. 4) For they have forsaken Me [God] and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. [Zech 11:12-13]:
(v. 12) I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if no, keep it." So they [the leaders representing Israel] paid ME [Zechariah] thirty pieces of silver.
(v. 13 cont.) And the Lord said to ME [Zechariah], "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord [the Temple] to the potter
ii cont.) [Mt 27:9-10 cont.]:
(v. 9) Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They [the chief priests: the leaders representing Israel] took the thirty silver coins, the price set on HIM [Christ] by the people of Israel,
(v. 10) and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded ME.' [Zechariah]
Notice that the passage in Matthew does not quote verbatim what Zechariah wrote down, or what Jeremiah wrote for that matter. Instead it draws on a number of points of identity - a number of parallels - with a commentary on what Zechariah and Jeremiah say. Matthew uses the pronoun "Him" in Mt 27:9 to mean Christ in order to emphasize a point of identity: which is to identify the prophet and GodMan Jesus Christ with the prophet Zechariah in the passage in Zechariah and God in the passage in Jeremiah in their rejection of God by the nation Israel. The 30 pieces of silver are also brought out as another point of identity. Notice that Matthew uses the pronoun "me" in 27:10 which cannot refer to Jesus because He was not given the 30 pieces of silver, Judas was. This use of "me" then must refer to Zechariah who was commanded to throw the money into the potters' area in the Temple, as Judas did years later, (Mt 27:5). Matthew states that Zechariah was ordered to buy the potters' field, something which the chief priests did in Judas' time, (Mt 27:7), not Zechariah:
ii cont. ) [Mt 27:10 cont.]:
(v. 10) and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded ME.' [Zechariah] This is Matthew's way of bringing out points of identity.
[D.A. Carson states, op. cit., p.564-5]:
Here "ME" [in Mt 27:10] can only refer to the prophet [Zechariah and not to our Lord]; yet Matthew keeps it ["ME"] even though he changes other parts....to "HIM" [meaning Christ] because he believes that in obeying the Lord, the prophet - whether Jeremiah or Zechariah - was setting forth typological paradigms...
["typological paradigms" - patterns of behavior of individuals pointing to future parallel events in the life of our Lord. Therefore, by this construction, the author Matthew is maintaining NOT a literal fulfillment in every detail but a fulfillment in contextual points of identity, i.e., as Carson puts it:
"... he [Matthew] believes that in obeying the Lord, the prophet [of the O.T. passage which Matthew referred to] - whether Jeremiah or Zechariah - was setting forth "typological paradigms" [emphasis mine] that truly did point to Jesus and the greatest rejection of all.......
....Matthew sees in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11 not merely a number of verbal and thematic parallels to Jesus' betrayal but a pattern of apostasy and rejection that must find its ultimate fulfillment in the rejection of Jesus, who was cheaply valued, rejected by the Jews, and whose betrayal money was put to a purpose that pointed to the destruction of the nation..."
Jeremiah alone is mentioned, perhaps because he is the more important of the two prophets, and perhaps also because, though Jeremiah 19 is the less obvious reference, it is the more important as to prophecy and fulfillment.....
.....in Zechariah 11 the "buyers" (v.5) and the three shepherds (vv 5,8,17) apparently represent Israel's leaders, who are slaughtering the sheep. God commands Zechariah to shepherd the "flock marked for slaughter" (v.7), and he tries to clean up the leadership by sacking the false shepherds. But he discovers that not only is the leadership corrupt, but the flock detests him (v. 8). Thus Zechariah comes to understand the Lord's decision to have no more pity on the people of the land (v. 6).
Zechariah decides to resign (11:9-10), exposing the flock to ravages. Because he has broken the contract, Zechariah cannot claim his pay (presumably from the "buyers"); but they pay him off with thirty pieces of silver (v.12). But now Yahweh tells Zechariah to throw this "handsome price at which they priced me" (probably ironical....) to the potter in the "house of the Lord", i.e., the temple (v.13).
[Footnote from Carson, op. cit., p. 566]:
"...if the amount [of thirty pieces of silver] represents a substantial sum, it is still [only] the price of a slave and representative of how God's prophet is valued [so little] by an apostate people. The same kind of irony probably stands behind ...Matt 27:9...[which literally states - from the original Greek]'the price of the one whose price had been priced by the sons of Israel!'
Temple ritual required a constant supply of new vessels (cf Lev 6:28); so a guild of potters worked somewhere in the temple precincts. Certainly Jeremiah could point to a potter as he preached and could purchase pottery somewhere near the temple (Jer 18:6; 19:1)"
[D.A. Carson, (op. cit., p. 563)]:
"[Matthew's] quotation appears to refer to Jeremiah 19:1-13 along with phraseology drawn mostly from Zechariah 11:12-13..... Such fusing of sources under one 'quotation' is not unknown elsewhere in Scripture."
For example:
(v. 2) "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
'Behold, I send My messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way; [blends Mal 3:1 & Ex 23:20]
(v. 3) 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
make ready the way of the Lord,
make His paths straight.' "[ comes from Isa 40:3]
[cf. 2 Chron 36:21, verbally drawn from Lev 26:34-35, yet ascribed to Jeremiah [25:12; 29:10...]..."
[John D. Grassmick states re: Mk 1:2-3, (Bible Knowledge Commentary, Victor Books, U.S.A., Walvoord & Zuck, 1988, p.95)]:
'''Mark prefaced this composite quotation from three Old Testament books with the words: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet." This illustrates a common practice by New Testament authors in quoting several passages with a unifying theme. The common theme here is the "wilderness" (desert) tradition in Israel's history. Since Mark was introducing the ministry of John the Baptist in the desert, he cited Isaiah as the source because the Isaiah passage refers to "a voice...calling in the wilderness."
Under the Holy Spirit's guidance Mark gave those Old Testament texts a messianic interpretation by altering "the way before Me" (Mal 3:1) to "Your way", and "the paths of our God" (Isa 40:3 LXX) to "paths for Him." Thus the speaker "I" was God Who "will send" His "messenger" (John) "ahead of You" (Jesus) "who will prepare" Your (Jesus') way. John was a "voice" urging the nation of Israel to "prepare" (pl. verb) "the way for the Lord" (Jesus) and to "make straight paths for Him" (Jesus). The meaning of these metaphors is given in John's ministry (Mark 1:4-5).'''
[C.I. Scoffield, Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, New York Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 1017, footnote #2]:
"A Talmudic tradition states that the prophetic writings were placed in the canon in this order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. Many Hebrew manuscripts follow this order. Thus Matthew cited the passage as from the roll of the prophets and by the name of the first book."
Objectors to the inerrancy of Scripture point to an apparent error in the Book of Matthew in misquoting Old Testament Scripture, (Mt 27:10). Careful analysis of God's Word says differently. Because of the rule of context which applies to all of the passages concerned: i.e., the details of the earlier passages in Jeremiah and Zechariah do not perfectly match up with the details of the later historical passage in Matthew and therefore cannot be considered as a detailed fulfillment of a prophecy; it can therefore be established, because of the rule of context, that Matthew is not stating in Mt 27:9 that a prophecy in Jeremiah and Zechariah is herein literally fulfilled in all of its detail.
Objectors might claim 'foul' to this corollary rule of context stating that this kind of reasoning is too contrived and unheard of. Objectors support their stand by pointing to instances in Scripture where they claim that an O.T. passage is misquoted by a N.T. writer such as Matthew or that a Bible passage is applied to a new situation or individual which is not directly referred to in the passage. Yet this is a common practice in Scripture and in the way people communicate with one another even today! For example, in describing the ways in which one might go to the airport one might bring up a point of comparison between an airport commuter bus and an automobile. But otherwise an automobile is quite different from a bus. So the point of comparison does not equate a car with a bus in every aspect - only with the relative commuting services they provide from home to the airport.
In the book of Galatians, the Apostle Paul takes a number of historical passages from the Old Testament and uses them figuratively to emphasize and clarify the difference between the Law and the Promise, (grace). Paul directly explains in verse 24 that he is taking these O.T. passages figuratively to make a point. Other Bible authors like Luke in Acts chapter 2 explain what they are doing more subtly by simply stating something on the order of, 'This instance is like what happened over here in the O.T., 'not intending that the reader conclude that the two instances being compared are identical in all aspects.
Let's examine what commonly occurs in Scripture, namely the use of a passage in God's Word to emphasize and clarify a point of identity:
(v. 22) "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.[Gen 16:15; 21:2]
(v. 23) His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.[Gen 17:15-19]
(v. 24) These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. [Ex 19:5] One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: [Ex 24:6-8] (v. 25) Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
(v. 26) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
(v. 27) For it is written:
'Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.'[Isa 54:1]
(v. 28) Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise [Gen 17:5-19]
(v. 29) At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. [Gen 21:9] It is the same now.
(v. 30) But what does the Scripture say?
'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.'[Gen 21:10]
(v. 31) Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."
So when Matthew writes in Mt 27:9:
"Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled...", he was not saying that what was spoken of in Jeremiah was literally fulfilled in all of its detail because the context, chronology and details obviously do not match up. What author Matthew is writing about is a comparison of points of identity which focuses on Israel's rejection of God's message of repentance from idolatry and sin through the prophet Jeremiah and through the prophet Zechariah and then again through the Prophet and GodMan Jesus Christ. The thirty pieces of silver mentioned in Zech 5:13 and the brutal, bloodletting violence alluded to in Jeremiah, (vv. 6-9), are also points of identity referred to in Matthew's account, (Mt 27:6), this time with respect to the crucifixion of our Lord.
1 cont.) HERMENEUTICS (cont.)
(PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION)
LET SCRIPTURE CORROBORATE SCRIPTURE
Another rule is to let Scripture corroborate Scripture. This requires a detailed study of God's Word including the knowledge of relative passages which corroborate one another. For example:
"Abram believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness."
The above verse is further corroborate by the following passage inspired by God through the Apostle Paul:
(v. 1) "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
(v. 2) If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God.
(v. 3) What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'
(v. 4) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
(v. 5) However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."
From verse 2 we have: "he (Abraham) had something to boast about but not before God." = Abraham could boast about his faithfulness to God before men but he could not boast about anything he did before God because he was saved by faith alone as Paul testifies to in the next verse:
(v. 3) "What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'"
So God credited Abraham with the righteousness he needed in order to be saved. God did this when Abraham simply exercised his faith in God's plan of salvation. Nothing else but the faith was required of Abraham or anyone for that matter:
(v. 5) "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."
On the other hand if Abraham had decided to add works toward his salvation he would have lost the opportunity to receive eternal life as a gift. Now he would have to be as absolutely perfect as Jesus Christ in order to go to heaven, which is impossible: (v. 4) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation."
['Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift" = The one and only condition of salvation being as a gift thus excludes the individual who chooses to work toward his eternal life, (cp Eph 2:8-9). Instead his wages are credited to him as an obligation - which disqualifies one from eternal life for salvation cannot be based on works, (Eph 2:8-9). So the passages which corroborate Genesis 15:6, which includes Romans 4:1-5, say that salvation is by faith alone and not by works at all; as exemplified by Abraham's salvation. For Scripture indicates that Abraham could not boast about anything he did in order to be justified, (saved), before God. Abraham was saved, Scripture says, by faith alone.
The following passages in Genesis are further corroborate in Hebrews:
(v. 3) "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord.
(v. 4) But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
(v. 5) but on Cain and his offering He did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast."
"By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." ["And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." = Even though Abel died physically he is alive and speaks - i.e., as a result of faith he has eternal life]
(v. 22) "And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
(v. 23) Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years.
(v. 24) Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away."
(v. 5) "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
(v. 6) And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
[So as a result of Enoch's faith alone in God's plan alone of salvation he received the gift of eternal life and as a result of his faithful walk he did not have to die he was simply translated into heaven]
(v. 14) "So [God commands Noah] make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.
(v. 15) This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.
(v. 16) Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
(v. 17) I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
(v. 18) But I will establish My covenant with you, and you will enter the ark - you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you.
(v. 19) You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
(v. 20) Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
(v. 21) You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.
(v. 22) Noah did everything just as God commanded him."
"By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."
[Although Noah's faith in what God said about a coming world wide flood resulted in Noah's obedience to God's instructions and the salvation of his physical life; his obedience, this verse, in the Book of Hebrews, is saying, was not what brought him eternal life. What Noah did by obeying God was to provide evidence of his trust in God to mankind. On the other hand, what brought him eternal life was simply the trust itself. And that's precisely what the last part of Heb 11:7 literally states:
"By his faith he....became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." - So by faith alone in God's provision of salvation alone, Noah received the gift of God's righteousness justifying him for eternal life, cp Ro 3:21-24] Finally, consider the following verse:
"The Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'To your seed I will give this land.' "
which is further corroborate by:
(v. 16) "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed, ' meaning one Person, Who is Christ."
(v. 17) What I mean is this: The Law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
(v. 18) For if the inheritance depends on the Law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise."
(v. 19) What, then, was the purpose of the Law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to Whom the promise referred had come. The Law was put into effect through angels by a mediator."
So Galatians 3:16-19 corroborates Genesis 12:7 to say that the "Seed" is Christ Who is the Promised Savior through Whom only is salvation by faith alone in Him as God promised. So those who trusted alone in God's promise of inheriting eternal life in the kingdom of God would not have it abrogated as a result of not perfectly following the Mosaic Law which came after the promise - or following any law - any system of 'good behavior.'
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.[the promised "Seed"[Jesus Christ]
The passage in Galatians also says that salvation is not through the Mosaic Law or any law. Verse 17 of Galatians 3 states that proof of this is that the Mosaic Law came 430 years after Abraham himself was saved by faith alone in the Messiah alone. So Scripture indeed corroborates Scripture.
Greek for background. The ancient attitudes, customs, understandings, lifestyles, and even the limited understandings of particular words, phrases and concepts of the peoples to whom each particular book of the Bible was written and the time that it was written in and the author who was doing the writing must be taken into consideration. New word meanings for a previously established word will not apply if that new meaning was not in use at the time of writing a particular book.
Unlike the modern English language which deals quite often with abstract thoughts, ancient Biblical Hebrew focuses mostly upon specific facts of life experiences in order to communicate an idea. For example, F.F. Bruce states, ("The Books and the Parchments," Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, N.J., 1963, pp. 45-46):
"...Where we [modern day Americans] should say that Moses, in his solitary communion with God on Mount Sinai, 'suddenly became aware of the afterglow of the divine glory, so to speak,' the book of Exodus (33:20-23) is much more vigorous and tells how God told Moses that he could not see His face, but would have an opportunity of seeing His back......Hebrew is not afraid to use daring anthropomorphisms when speaking of God...
[anthropomorphism = ascribing human characteristics to God in a figurative way for the purpose of clarifying instruction in God's Word. Dr. Bruce goes on to say, (op. cit., p.45)]: ...Much of the vivid, concrete and forthright character of our English Old Testament is really a carrying over into English of something of the genius of the Hebrew tongue......... [For example]
....Nations or groups of people are frequently given a personality and called after the name of their ancestor in such a way that one might almost think that an individual was being spoken of. When we open the book of Judges and read of Judah and Simeon his brother agreeing to help each other to take possession of their allotted territories, it is not the actual sons of Jacob that are meant, but the tribes descended from them. Another example of this sort of thing is the way in which the northern kingdom is personalized as Ephraim in the prophecy of Hosea. This expresses a Hebrew attitude to which the name 'corporate personality' has been given. So, too, when we read in Malachi 1:2-3:
" 'Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' saith the Lord: 'yet I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated'"
It is not so much the two sons of Isaac that are meant but the two nations of Israel and Edom...........
But the words of Malachi, "I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated'", illustrate another feature of Hebrew thought and speech. Here a contrast is stated in extreme terms for the sake of emphasis. Of course, in this instance what is being emphasized is that Israel, by contrast with Edom, was the object of God's electing love. But the same two words are used in contexts where it is as clear as daylight that "hate" is not to be taken literally. We think of our Lord's solemn affirmation: "If any man commeth unto Me, and hateth not his own father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). The Teacher of the law of universal love does not intend His followers to indulge in unnatural hatreds! What He means, of course, is that His disciples must give all other objects of love a second place in relation to their devotion to Him...
[In other words, what Dr Bruce is saying is that a believer must give all other objects of love a second place to their love for Christ to such a great extent that the difference between a believer's love for the Lord and His commandments, (cp Jn 14:15, 21), and love for one's spouse and family, etc., is like the difference between love and hate]
...the parallel passage in Matt. 10:37 gives the sense in less paradoxical language: "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me". But the paradoxical idiom preserved in Luke's version is in the true Hebraic style." An example of incorrect interpretation due to no considering the background is as follows:
Many have concluded from Acts 19:2a, 5-6 that all who are saved will receive a separate and 'later-on' baptism of the Holy Spirit after they believe. Then all who do believe will speak in tongues and prophesy:
(v. 2a)""and [Paul] asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed:'
(v. 5 ) On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
(v. 6) When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied"
The background of this passage from which the above verses have been pulled out of context is that historical period of time in Israel when there were many born again believers from the nation Israel. These individuals were saved by faith in the Messiah to come, i.e., before the cross, (cp Jn 3:1-18). They were baptized in water by John the Baptist in order to identify themselves with all of those of the nation Israel who had changed their mind, (repented), about needing a Savior and therefore trusted in the Messiah to come and save them from their sins and then bring them into the Kingdom, (compare Luke 3:1-20). These believers were not yet indwelt by God the Holy Spirit because our Lord had not yet gone to the cross and then ascended into heaven so that the Holy Spirit could come and indwell all church age believers, (Jn 16:7). So this was a special circumstance in history, a transition period, when believers who had accepted John the Baptist's testimony about the Messiah were now being transitioned from Jewish believers in the Messiah to church age believers. One cannot violate the one time historical precedent of this type of occurrence and determine that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurring AFTER the point in time of trusting in the Messiah Jesus Christ always applies to all believers. Nor would tongues speaking and prophesying necessarily occur at the point of Holy Spirit baptism of all believers either. Consider the following excerpts from God's Word:
"Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"
Answer demanded by context and grammar: one receives the Spirit at the very moment of believing in Christ as Savior. Therefore a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit after placing one's faith in Christ as Savior for all church age new born believers is unscriptural. Cp Eph 1:13-14, I Cor 12:13. The above passages cited, (Gal 3:2b; Eph 1:13-14; I Cor 12:13) also indicate that the laying on of hands is not a requirement for baptism of the Holy Spirit or for salvation either, for salvation is taught in these passages as occurring at the point of trusting in Christ as Savior without anything else having to be done but the trust. So the nonessential ingredients for Holy Spirit baptism are ruled out by letting the clear passages dictate the direction and details of a particular doctrine.
(v. 29) "Are all Apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
(v. 30) Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"
The above two verses indicate that not all church age believers will speak in tongues, nor prophesy.
Most objectors ignore the rest of the passage in Acts 19 which indicates the special historical nature - the unique circumstances - of the situation which the Apostle Paul describes:
(v. 3) "So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'
''John's baptism,' they replied.
(v. 4) Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He [John] told the people [of Israel] to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.'
So this passage in Acts which some misinterpret as teaching a separate Holy Spirit baptism and a universal speaking in tongues for all believers........................
...................this passage in Acts sets the historical - isagogical - background as an unprecedented and unique one rather than a universal or common one for all Christians relative to Holy Spirit baptism, tongues and the laying on of hands. The tongues speaking and separate Holy Spirit baptism and laying on of hands in this passage cannot be interpreted as applying to all believers for all times, especially since many other clear passages teach differently.
Note that a number of passages in the Book of Acts describe other unique historical events after the church was begun which are not to be taken as the norm either. For example, the first Holy Spirit baptism of Jewish believers, (Acts 2:1-4); the first church age conversion of Gentiles, (Acts 10:44) and the first church age conversion of Samaritans, (Acts 8:12-18). Due to the bitter animosity between Samaritan and Jew, Holy Spirit baptism was delayed at the first Samaritan conversion in order to permit Jewish believers, (Peter and John), to arrive and participate in this baptism so as to promote the unity of Believers in Christ whether Jew or Samaritan or Gentile, (Acts 8:14-16; Eph 3:6). The first Gentile conversion of the church age however had an instantaneous and normal Holy Spirit baptism with Peter present. But the first Holy Spirit baptism of Jewish believers came upon the Apostles and other believers after they believed and it was accompanied by the blowing of a violent wind and the tongues of fire. Each of these one time historical events had unique characteristics which were outside of the norm set by God for the rest of the church age, as testified to in His Word.
Consider another passage whichis often misinterpreted due to missing the implications of the background to which our Lord is referring:
(v. 5) "And He said unto them, 'Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves;
(v. 6) For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?'
(v. 7) And he from within shall answer and say, 'Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.' (v. 8) I say unto you, 'Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his...
["anaideian" = desire NOT to bring shame to himself by refusing]
...he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.
(v. 9) And I say unto you, 'Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
(v. 10) For everyone who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened.
(v. 11) Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?
(v. 12) Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?
(v. 13) If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"
[Leon Adkins, sermon at Berean Memorial Church, Irving, Texas, 1996]:
"Now this term, 'Which of you' is a way that Jesus began many of His sayings. This was a device that He used to capture the hearer. You are forced to get involved in what He is saying. He says, 'Which of you..', and then He gives an imaginary situation in which you're called upon to imagine yourself is such a situation. And then He gives an absurd situation, something so ridiculous you can't imagine it and you're forced to make an opinion. Before you even realize it, you catch yourself taking a stand and saying, 'Why, certainly not!' And this is what the answer in every one of the 'Which of you' sayings is...
...Memory experts tell us that if you want to remember something, associated it with something absurd, something ridiculous. We remember things that are just totally out of the ordinary. And so this was a device that Jesus used to help people remember the lesson He was teaching and to get them involved...
...For example in Luke 14:5, He used this term:
'''He answered them saying, 'Which of you shall have a donkey or an ox...'''
And incidentally, the most recent manuscript... they have discovered doesn't say 'Which of you shall have a donkey,' but it says, " 'Which of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well and will not straight way pull him out on the Sabbath Day?' "
Jesus is saying, 'Can you imagine a valuable animal like your ox or your son - your little boy - falling into a well and it happens to be on Saturday. And you say, 'Well, I can't do anything about it today. But first thing in the morning I'll get around to trying to pull my little boy out of the well.' This is ridiculous, isn't it. It's absurd. Can you imagine being in a situation like that? Another instance is in Luke 15 verse 4:
" 'Which man of you, having a hundred sheep if he lose one of them does not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness and go after that which is lost until he find it?'
Now the people Jesus was talking to... many of them were shepherds, many of them were sheep farmers and had shepherds in their family. And incidentally, they hardly ever hired shepherds. They were almost always people in the immediate family...
..People in the Middle East to this day take pride in their profession[s]. Each profession has a code of honor. Shepherds have a code of honor. And one of the unwritten rules of conduct for a shepherd is that you never lose a sheep...
..So what Jesus is saying in... ...Luke 15:4, He is saying, 'Can you imagine a shepherd who has a hundred sheep to take care of and one of them turns up missing, that he doesn't immediately make arrangements for the ninety and nine sheep to be under the care of another shepherd or make sure they're safe and then go search for the one sheep? ...That was just unthinkable that a shepherd would [not] do that. And when He [Jesus] said this the people in the audience were saying, 'Yeah, you're right. I know something about the shepherd's honor code. And I know that a shepherd - any shepherd worth his salt - would never consider not going out and searching for that one lost sheep' Another example where this... ...form is used is in Luke 17 verse 7:
'' 'Which of you having a servant plowing or feeding cattle will say unto him by and by when he has come from the field, 'Go and sit down to eat.' "
Can you imagine having a hired hand - hiring somebody to work for you as a servant and... ...when they come in from work saying, 'Well, here make yourself comfortable at the table and sit down and let me fix you something to eat'. In the Middle East during the time of Christ this just wasn't done. You hired a person to be your servant. When they came in from working in the field, you would say, 'O.K.... now I want you to go the kitchen and fix me something to eat and then you can eat yourself'. So to tell your servant, your hired hand, 'Come on in, sit down, let me fix you something to eat,' was ridiculous, it was absurd. Can you imagine saying this to your servant? And the answer was always in all of these things, 'No, I cannot imagine such an absurd situation.'
And incidentally... ...as far as we know, there are no contemporary parallels to this form. In the literature that archeologists have discovered in the Middle East during the time of Christ there is no other teacher that we know of who used this form, especially not as extensively as... Jesus did....
....What was the absurd situation here that Jesus was calling our attention to in [Luke] chapter 11 verse 5: "Which of you shall have a friend..." 'Can you imagine,' He was saying, 'I'm going to tell you an absurd situation and I want you to imagine it. Can you really imagine something like this happening - having a friend dropping in at midnight?'... ....What was the absurd situation here that Jesus was calling our attention to in [Luke] chapter 11 verse 5: "Which of you shall have a friend..." 'Can you imagine,' He was saying, 'I'm going to tell you an absurd situation and I want you to imagine it. Can you really imagine something like this happening - having a friend dropping in at midnight?'...
..In Palestine having friends drop in at you at night is somewhat unusual but it's really not unheard of because, due to the excessive heat during the daytime sometimes people choose to travel at night. And so having a friend or a relative from another town come drop in on you at midnight may not be something that happened every day or even every week, but it was something that everybody could identify with. It wasn't really an absurd situation. So that's not the absurd situation - a friend dropping in at midnight. Now, according to the hospitality code of the Middle East you were obligated to entertain guests and one of the obligations was [that] you had to give your guests a meal. You remember all the way back to the days of Abraham when the three me dropped in on Abraham? He went and butchered... ...a young goat and had Sarah to bake some bread and they fed them a meal. Whether or not the guest is hungry has nothing to do with it. The host must offer his guest food and the guest must eat. You don't say, 'Oh no thank you, ...I just ate before I left my own home and I'm really not hungry... ...So the fact that the man had a friend drop in at midnight and that he had to feed him, that was not an absurd situation. And also when you had guests, according to the hospitality code, you were to feed your guests and you were to make an elaborate deal out of it. You were to entertain your guests in a manner that you were not accustomed to being entertained. And so the fact that he had to go next door or down the street... ...to borrow some bread is not an unusual situation because people in Palestine - most people didn't have an oven in their homes. They had... ...a common village oven and they didn't bake every day. They would go to the common village oven - several women in the town and they would bake enough bread to do their families for several days and then they would take it home. And to run out of bread was common. And have to go next door to borrow bread from a neighbor was not an uncommon thing. Chances are the host - the man who had been called upon at midnight to be a host was making the rounds, borrowing everything... ...As soon as he got the bread he was gong to go to the next house and see if he could borrow a nice pitcher. And then he was going to go and see if he could borrow a nice tray, and really entertain his guests in style because this was what was expected of him. This was the hospitality code...
...When you had a guest in your home to just set out before them enough for a meal was considered an insult. You were supposed to entertain lavishly. So chances are these type[s] of loaves he asked for were big loaves of bread. And they very well could have been the flat bread... ...It's about two feet long and ten inches wide and it's flat. And people in the Middle East used this for a spoon and a fork. You sit down to eat and there's one bowl placed in the middle of the floor where you're usually sitting or the low table - that's the main course, maybe some meat stew or something and then some lesser, smaller dishes - the fruit or vegetables. And the only spoon or fork or knife you have is the flat bread. And it isn't unsanitary because the people are taught to be very sensitive to the feelings of the others that may be at the table with them and you only break off enough bread for one bite and then you dip it or you sop it in the main common dish and you take a bit and so the food itself is never touched by your hand or by your mouth. So chances are this is the kind of bread he is asking for...
Traveling was rough in the Middle East back then... ...You were obligated to be hospitable to travelers.... And...you were obligated to entertain them in style, even more style than you yourself lived. This wasn't a written code... ...it was just understood... ...it was an oral code that people lived by, like the shepherd's code...
There are traditions which prescribe behavior and this is the thing you do. It's an honor code. You don't do otherwise because it would be dishonorable... ...In Palestine in the first century you did not violate the honor code because it brought disgrace on your community - on your family.... ...The one thing you didn't want to do was disgrace your community. When a guest came to your home, you would say, 'You have honored our village by being here.' Or you would say, 'You have honored my home by being a guest here.' You'd never say, 'You've honored me by being here', because people were conscious of the community...
...And if you violated one of the honor codes of the Middle East, for example, the hospitality code, your family would be known for generations as the family that violated the honor code. When this man got up in the morning and went downtown, people would already be talking...'Hey, did you hear about old '''so and so''' who violated the code of hospitality? He sent his neighbor away who had come to borrow three loaves of bread to entertain some guests. He refused to do it....' ..And that would be a subject for conversation for many years to come, about how he had violated the hospitality code....
..So what Jesus was saying is, 'Can you imagine a man holding the hospitality code in contempt and bringing disgrace on the community and among his own family for generations for such silly reasons?' Did the man give him any good reasons for not getting up and giving him three loaves of bread:
'Well... ...the door's ...already been bolted.'
...People in the Middle East leave their doors open all day - the peasants did... ...Then at night time, after all the kids were in and you'd had your evening meal and it was time to retire, the father... would go and bolt the door, which consisted of just dropping a plank, a board down... ...It wasn't such a hard thing to lift the plank. It was pretty ridiculous to say 'Naw, I can't get up and let you in, the door's already been bolted because it was so easy to unbolt the door... ..'Well, the kids are asleep..'
..Houses back then in this part of the world consisted of one room. Everybody slept in the same room on a mat on the floor... ...So the man was saying, 'I can't get up to let you in because, first of all, the door's locked and I'd have to go to all that trouble to lift the bolt. And secondly, I'd have to step over a couple of kids laying on the floor. And so it's too much trouble. This was ridiculous. So Jesus was saying, 'Can you imagine a man who would bring such disgrace upon his family.'...
...And so Jesus was saying, 'Can you imagine a man so foolish as to hold the honor code in such contempt for such trivial reasons, he didn't want to get up out of bed, step over his kids and unbolt the door?' And of course the answer was clearly no. Everyone in the audience was thinking, 'No, I cannot imagine that.' And so Jesus says, 'That he may say, [at first]'...Don't bother me, the door's shut, I can't get up and give it to you...' [And at first]...He's not going to get up... [And] at first he might say, 'Naw, I can't get up and give you three loaves of bread. It's too much trouble.' But he's going to change his mind. And he'll get up and go get it... But not because of friendship.
D cont.) [Lk 11:5-10 cont.]:
(v. 8) "I say unto you, 'Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity...
[Actually "importunity' is incorrectly translated from the Greek word "anaideian". It actually should be rendered 'desire NOT to bring shame to himself'] ...he will rise and give him as many as he needeth."
[...Apparently they weren't best friends.... If you go to your best friend's house in the middle of the night and you knock - you not only knock when you go a friend's house, but especially at night you say something so that he can hear your voice... And if he's a good close friend, you're going to say, 'Sure, what's on your mind.' Your not going to say that it's too much trouble. So it wasn't for friendship that the man was going to change his mind and say, 'Yes, I'll give it to you.'...
[But 'so as to avoid shame']
...he will rise and give him as many as he needs. He's not only going to give him three loaves of bread, he's going to say, 'Here take four and do you have a nice tray to sit it on? Here, let me loan you a tray and a nice pitcher to pour water. And... what about some fruit... He's going to give him more than he needs, not because they're such great friends. But because of 'shamelessness' ['so as to avoid shame']
This word "anaideian"... = a desire to avoid shame, a desire to preserve a quality of honor that you have. This man doesn't want to be known...[as one] who sends his neighbors away who want to entertain guests. He wants to be known as a man of honor and a man of integrity....
[Walter L. Liefield in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Vol. 8, 1984, pp. 948-9, states]:
"The point of the parable [Lk 11:5-13] depends partly on the context and partly on the meaning of the word anaideia (v. 8), translated 'persistence'. (NIV, NASB) or 'importunity' (RSV, KJV). If anaideia does mean persistence, the parable would seem to teach that if we persist long enough, God will finally answer our prayers. But since the larger context, especially vv. 10, 13, as well as the rest of Scripture, teaches God's eagerness to hear and grant our requests, the meaning persistence has little in its favor....
The word anaideia can mean 'avoidance of shame'.... the concept of shame was linked with... [anaideia] ...in the first century. The parable would thus mean that just as the man in bed would respond so as not to incur shame (for having refused the needs of a visitor to his community so God will always do what is honorable and consistent with his character."]
So what was the Lord Jesus trying to teach us... about prayer?...
[Which is the subject of this passage, (cp. vv. 1-4 and 9-10)]
...He was using here the principle of contrast, which is common in the Old Testament, whereby... the teacher helps the hearer to understand something important by explaining something less important and then using the principle of 'much more': If 'so and so' is true on a human level then how much more will it be true on a divine level.
So here's the crux of the matter: The man was called upon to be a host in the middle of the night... He had a need... And so he went to his neighbor, who was sleeping... and made a request... Now, everything was against him when he made this request. First of all, it was late at night. Most people don't appreciate someone knocking on [their] door to ask a favor in the middle of the night. And his neighbor was in bed, he was asleep and he had to wake him up... And then, all of the excuses the sleeper gave him: the door was locked, children were asleep. And apparently he doesn't especially like the host. Maybe they've been neighbors long enough that they know each other 'too well', maybe they've had a few disagreements and... apparently they weren't best friends because of the first response of the sleeper. And so you've got all of these things going against you when you go to ask a man for a favor to help you out of a problem. But, you can cross all of these out - they don't count - because there's one thing that is in your favor and that is: your neighbor is a man of integrity. He's not going to violate the honor code of hospitality for some ridiculous reason like not wanting to get up and step over the kids and open the door... Now, he may not especially like you, and he doesn't especially like to be inconvenienced at midnight but he is going to give you what you ask for and more!... The application is that when we come to God with a need... circumstance may be against us... but we can 'X' out everything we have against us because of the character of God... God is a God of integrity... He says, 'Anything you ask in My name, I will do it.' He invites us, He encourages us to bring all of our wants and needs to Him and then commit them to Him and then watch how He works them out. And He's a God of love. The sleeper might not especially have liked the host. But God loves us. He has an attitude of agape love for us which means that He isn't unwilling to give to us like the sleeper in the parable. God is more willing to give us good things than we're capable of receiving them..."
= classifications of doctrine = the procedure of taking into consideration all of the passages which relate to the passage in question. This rule of interpretation is another aspect of the rule: 'Let Scripture interpret Scripture'. Often a particular doctrine is limited to a particular period, person or people, or is even a one-time event. The full picture and the boundaries of application of a Bible doctrine are determined by utilizing the entire HICEE method which includes the examination and comparison of all related passages. The Bible stipulates the rule of categories as well as the rule of exegesis in Isaiah 28:9-10:
(v. 9) "Who is it He [God] is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?
(v. 10) For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there."
(v. 9) "By whom doth He teach knowledge? And by whom doth He cause to understand the report? The weaned from milk, the removed from breasts,
(v. 10) For rule [is] on rule, rule on rule, line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there"
(v. 9) "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand the report? Them that are weaned from the milk, withdrawn from the breasts?
(v. 10) For [it is] precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little."
(v. 9) ""To whom would He teach knowledge, And to whom would He interpret the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just taken from the breast?
(v. 10) ""For He says, "Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there.'''
(v. 9) "Whom shall He [God] teach knowledge?[from Scripture] and whom shall He make to understand doctrine [Bible doctrine] them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
(v. 10) "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little."
(v. 9) "Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
(v. 10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
"precept" = command (Str # 6680), [command from the prophet of God, i.e., from God's Word = doctrinal teaching, a precept.]
"precept upon precept" = understanding Scripture involves the study of commands, i.e., precepts which relate to one another. All the doctrinal teachings of Scripture perfectly relate, support and enhance one another and are to be studied categorically, i.e., by category as well as in the order that it was written so as to maximize one's understanding.
"line" = "qaw", rule, line (Str # 6757)
"line upon line" = instruction is to be line upon line, i.e., in the order that the text was written so as to carefully develop the context.
"a little" = little, small, adj, Str. #2192
"here a little, there a little" = in view of who is being addressed, i.e, those who are addressed "them that are weaned from breasts" then a little from here and a little from there is all that they can handle in the way of doctrinal instruction.
[http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/comm_read/1001109832.html
Matthew Henry Commentary on Isaiah 28]:
Matthew Henry Commentary on Isaiah 28
"In this chapter,
I. The Ephraimites are reproved and threatened for their pride and drunkenness, their security and sensuality (v. 1-8). But, in the midst of this, here is a gracious promise of God’s favour to the remnant of his people (v. 5, 6).
II. They are likewise reproved and threatened for their dulness and stupidity, and unaptness to profit by the instructions which the prophets gave them in God’s name (v. 9–13).
The prophet here complains of the wretched stupidity of this people, that they were unteachable and made no improvement of the means of grace which they possessed; they still continued as they were, their mistakes not rectified, their hearts not renewed, nor their lives reformed. Observe,
I. What it was that their prophets and ministers designed and aimed at. It was to teach them knowledge, the knowledge of God and His will, and to make them understand doctrine, v. 9. This is God’s way of dealing with men, to enlighten men’s minds first with the knowledge of his truth, and thus to gain their affections, and bring their wills into a compliance with his laws; thus he enters in by the door, whereas the thief and the robber climb up another way.
II. What method they took, in pursuance of this design. They left no means untried to do them good, but taught them as children are taught, little children that are beginning to learn, that are taken from the breast to the book (v. 9), for among the Jews it was common for mothers to nurse their children till they were three years old, and almost ready to go to school. And it is good to begin betimes with children, to teach them, as they are capable, the good knowledge of the Lord, and to instruct them even when they are but newly weaned from the milk. The prophets taught them as children are taught; for,
1. They were constant and industrious in teaching them. They took great pains with them, and with great prudence, teaching them as they needed it and were able to bear it (v. 10): Precept upon precept. It must be so, or (as some read) it has been so. They have been taught, as children are taught to read, by precept upon precept, and taught to write by line upon line, a little here and a little there, a little of one thing and a little of another, that the variety of instructions might be pleasing and inviting,—a little at one time and a little at another, that they might not have their memories overcharged,—a little from one prophet and a little from another, that every one might be pleased with his friend and him whom he admired. Note, For our instruction in the things of God it is requisite that we have precept upon precept and line upon line, that one precept and line should be followed, and so enforced by another; the precept of justice must be upon the precept of piety, and the precept of charity upon that of justice. Nay, it is necessary that the same precept and the same line should be often repeated and inculcated upon us, that we may the better understand them and the more easily recollect them when we have occasion for them. Teachers should accommodate themselves to the capacity of the learners, give them what they most need and can best bear, and a little at a time, Deu. 6:6, 7. 2. They courted and persuaded them to learn, v. 12. God, by his prophets, said to them, "This way that we are directing you to, and directing you in, is the rest, the only rest, wherewith you may cause the weary to rest; and this will be the refreshing of your own souls, and will bring rest to your country from the wars and other calamities with which it has been long harassed.’’
For example, the doctrine of the total depravity of man is taught in the following passages:
"But the Scripture has [revealed that God has] shut up all men under sin...."
"the Scripture" = God's revelation to man of His decrees
"has shut up all men under sin." = God's Word shuts the door on man with respect to anything but condemnation; for man is under sin and totally depraved.
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
So anything that man does even that which is of an humanitarian nature, since all comes out of man's contaminated nature, is as filthy rags to God - totally unacceptable - even good deeds.
"for all [ALL MEN] have sinned and are continuously falling short of the glory of God,"
The Greek verb form "usterountai" is used here which is rendered, "are continuously falling short"
Nothing less than the standard of the perfect glory of God - nothing less than His absolutely perfect righteousness is acceptable to God with respect to man's behavior. There is therefore nothing that man does which is acceptable to God since all have sinned and are continuously falling short of His glory.
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all."
ALL men are disobedient to such an extent that they are totally 'bound over' to behavior which is contaminated by their sin natures. Nothing, not even the human good, which they do is escapes such a corrupting influence.
Since Scripture teaches the total depravity of man, then there is nothing man can contribute toward his salvation that is acceptable to God. So, for example, to conclude from the following passage in Mark chapter 16 that water baptism is required of man for his salvation would contradict the doctrine of the total depravity of man:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
According to the doctrine of the total depravity of man, anything, even humanitarian deeds that man would contribute toward his salvation, would be contaminated by his sin nature and would be unacceptable to God. Consider your own mentality as you prepared and carried out your own water baptism. Can you honestly say that your thoughts, words and deeds were as absolutely perfect, holy and righteous as the Lord Jesus Christ's when He received His own unique water baptism - not even a single unrighteous thought, not a doubt, not a whisper of a thought of pride, or of anger, or any fear, or a lack of humility? Otherwise, without a continuously perfect mentality toward God your water baptism is then contaminated. The doctrine of the total and exclusive sovereignty of God in a person's salvation, (Ephesians 1:3-2:9), is another doctrine which prohibits any contribution of a person toward his salvation - including water baptism. So let us consider the correct interpretation of Mark 16:16 in light of the above doctrines.
K cont.) [Mark 16:16 cont.]:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
This verse has four possible interpretations: The three possibilities which a close examination of God's Word proves to be false because they involve works which other salvation passages prohibit:
1) salvation by water baptism alone
2) salvation by either faith or water baptism
3) salvation by faith + water baptism
And the one true interpretation:
4) salvation by faith alone
The main subject in this particular section is prayer.
[J. Ronald Blue states, in the Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, editors, Victor Books, USA, 1988, p. 834-5]:
"A fitting climax to James' letter is his emphasis on prayer. The greatest assistance any believer can offer another is faithful prayer."
(v. 13) "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises.
(v. 14) "Is anyone among you sick [correction: spiritually weak]? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
(v. 15) and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick [correction: spiritually weak], and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
(v. 16) Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
(v. 17) Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.
(v. 18) And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit.
(v. 19) My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back;
(v. 20) let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins."
M cont.) [Jas 5:13-20 cont.]:
(v. 13) "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises.
(v. 14) Is anyone among you sick [correction: spiritually weak]? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"
Note that the overriding principle of prayer is that it must be according to God's will in order for it to be answered in accordance with the stated request:
"And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us."
However, many ignore this overriding principle and falsely claim that this passage teaches that God will always heal if the proper 'formula' of faith, anointing of oil and prayer is followed. And when a believer is not healed there is often made a statement to the effect that the believer did not have sufficient faith or in some other way violated the 'formula' for healing. But what if it is not God's sovereign will that an individual be healed at that moment or at all?
What of other passages in God's Word which teach doctrines that contradict this false perception of infallible healing:
(v. 25) "But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need;
(v. 26) because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick.
(v. 27) For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.
(v. 28) Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly in order that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you.
(v. 29) There receive him in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard;
(v. 30) because he came close to death for the work of Christ, rising his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me."
So if Paul prayed for Epaphroditus to be healed, which it is not unreasonable to assume he did, then his prayers were not immediately answered such that the man was immediately healed. Instead, Epaphroditus' illness lingered on until he almost died, while he remained in the care of the Apostle Paul! Yet, nowhere does Scripture blame Paul for not using his spiritual gifts or for praying improperly.
The same situation occurred with Trophimus:
"Erastus remained at Corinth; but Trophimus I [Paul] left sick at Miletus."
And then what of Paul's own physical affliction? Was Paul's persistent prayer plagued by a lack of faith or conformance with some kind of prayer formula or was God's grace sufficient for Paul:
(v. 7) "And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me - to keep me from exalting myself!
(v. 8) Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me.
(v. 9) And He has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you for power is perfected in weakness.'..."
And what of God's testing? Suppose God permits illness as a test of one of His children?
"Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."
For example, is it possible that the correctly structured and faithful prayers of Job could have overridden Satan's afflictions of Job when God intended them to be a test of Job's faithfulness, (Job 1:8-12; 2:3-6)? Would this not have foiled God's own sovereign plan for Job?
And what of Daniel, whose prayers were not held up due to his lack of faith or poor prayer technique, but by Satan himself - all of this under the sovereign permission of God for His own purposes:
(v. 12) "Then he [an angel, probably Gabriel, (vv. 10:7, 8:16] said to me, 'Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this [Daniel's third vision, v. 10:1] and on humbling yourself before your God, your words [of prayer] were heard, and I have come in response to your words.
(v. 13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia [a demon angel] was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, [a high ranking angel, vv. 10:21, 12:1, Jude 9] one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. [Ref. to demonic angels since men cannot fight with angels, cp v. 20]
(v. 14) Now I have come [in answer to your prayer after 21 days] to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future."
So, in general, physical ailments can be permitted by God at times for a number of reasons. And even if we were to pray 'correctly', God's answer would still be no. In these cases, God's sovereign plans will not be overruled by what an individual requests in prayer if to the contrary.
Such reasons include:
TESTING:
"No temptation [peirasmos - trial, temptation] has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, Who will not allow you to be tempted [peirasthenai - tested] beyond what you are able; but with the temptation [peirasmps - test] will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it."
DISCIPLINE:
(v. 10) "For they [earthly fathers, v. 9] disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness.
(v. 11) All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness." and a time to go home to be with the Lord.
(v. 1) "There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven -
(v. 2) A time to give birth, and a time to die..."
It is also interesting to note that individuals were often healed by God without performing any kind of ritual such as prayer + anointing with oil - even when their attitude did not demonstrate 'adequate' faith:
(v. 2) "And a certain man who had been lame from his mother's womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple.
(v. 3) And when he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them.
(v. 4) And Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze upon him and said, 'Look at us!'
(v. 5) And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them.
(v. 6) But Peter said, 'I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene - walk!
(v. 7) And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened.
(v. 8) And with a leap, he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God."
"Then there was brought to Him [Jesus] a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw."
Innumerable individuals throughout history have become ill and then have recovered illustrating the common grace of God:
'For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
The vast majority of mankind is not Christian, but instead is of other faiths. They are worshipers of demonic god(s), rejecting our Lord's sacrifice for them on the cross - living a lifestyle of evil idolatry. Since they are not believers their prayers are not acceptable to God, (Pr 15:29), yet indeed they are healed of innumerable diseases.
"Is anyone among you sick [= 'asthenei' = correction: weak]? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"
[J. Ronald Blue states, Ibid]:
"James asked a third question and then answered it fully. 'Is any one of you sick? A great deal of misunderstanding has resulted from these verses. Some seem to teach from this passage that full physical health is always just a prayer away. Others have found in this passage justification for 'extreme unction'... Still others have tried to relate the process outlined by James to the modern practice of invoking God ('pray over him') and using medicine ('anoint him with oil') - prayer plus a physician.
The heart of the problem lies in just what James meant when he referred to the 'sick'. Actually there is no reason to consider 'sick' as referring exclusively to physical illness. The [Greek] word 'asthenei' literally means 'to be weak.'... [Vines Expository Dictionary, (W. E. Vine, Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1981, p.27), defines 'asthenei' as follows:
"ASTHENEO..., [Verb] lit., to be weak, feeble... sick, diseased... especially weak.
ASTHENE... [Adjective] lit., without strength, hence, feeble, weak, is used of bodily debility... ...sick... impotent..."
The New ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Ma, 1992, p. 56:
"To be weak, infirm, deficient in strength, to be inefficient... to be sick... to be weak in faith... to doubt, hesitate, be unsettled, timid... to be deficient in authority, dignity, or power, be comtemptible... to be afflicted, distressed, needy."
Thayer's also offers the same possibilities of definitions of this word but incorrectly tags James 5:14 with the definition of sick rather than weak, another possibility.
So notice that 'asthenei' can mean weak minded, weak in faith, powerless, not strong enough, physically weak, physically sick, etc. or even a combination thereof depending upon the context. It's usage in the New Testament however is predominately to mean weak. For example I Cor 11:30 has both 'weak' and 'sick' in it: The word for sick being the Greek word 'arrostoi' and the word for weak being the Greek word 'astheneis' which is the one in question in James chapter 5:
(v. 30) For this reason many among you are weak [- astheneis] and sick [- arrostoi], and a number sleep."
Notice that when the concept of being physically ill is desired the Greek word "arrostoi" was selected as opposed to "asthensis" in this passage] [J. Ronald Blue, cont.]
...Though it ['asthenei'] is used in the gospels for physical maladies, it is generally used in Acts and the Epistles to refer to a weak faith or a weak conscience...
"In every thing I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak..
[= asthenounton] "
"I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness [= astheneian] of your flesh...."
"Now accept the one who is weak [= asthenounta] in faith..."
(v. 9) "But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling-block to the weak. [= asthenousin]
(v. 10) For if someone sees you who have knowledge dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak [= asthenous], be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? (v. 11) For through your knowledge he who is weak [= asthenon] is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
(v. 12) And thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak [= asthenousan], you sin against Christ."]
[J. Ronald Blue, cont.]
...That it ['asthenei'] should be considered 'weak' in this verse [Jas 5:14] is clear in that another Greek word ('kamnonia') in James 5:15, translated 'sick person' literally means 'to be weary.' The only other use in the New Testament (Heb. 12:3) of that word clearly emphasizes this same meaning...
"For consider Him Who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary [= kamet] and lose heart." [Pershabacher's Lexicon, op. cit., p. 219, states the definition possibilities of 'kamnonia']:
"to tire with exertion, labor to weariness; to be wearied, tired out, exhausted... ...to labor under disease, be sick."
So 'kamnonia' can mean weary, tired out, exhausted, weary due to disease or sickness depending upon the context of the passage. And since the context of James 5:13-20 is a spiritual one especially relative to prayer rather than one about healing of physical diseases, then the word weary is ruled in and sickness ruled out. This determination is further affirmed by the all important conjunction 'Therefore' which begins verse 16 tying the previous verses in context to what follows:
(v. 14) "Is anyone among you sick [correction: spiritually weary]? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (v. 15) and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick [correction: spiritually weak], and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
(v. 16) THEREFORE, [i.e., in view of what was just stated] confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
(v. 19) "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back;
(v. 20) let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins."
Note that confession of one's sins, straying from the truth, effective prayer, turning a sinner from the error of his way, and covering a multitude of sins are spiritual matters - as is their forgiveness, i.e., being healed of the weakness, weariness or whatever else which would result from those sins. So it is a spiritual cause not a physical one which is at the root of the problem which is presented in verses 14 and 15.
(v. 28) "But let a man examine himself [i.e., his conscience relative to sin in his life, v. 27], and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
(v. 29) For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly.
(v. 30) For this reason many among you are weak [- astheneis] and sick [- arrostoi], and a number sleep."
Having a sinful attitude while celebrating the Lord's supper causes believers to be weak, or sick, or to even die.]
[J. Ronald Blue, cont.]
...James was not referring to the bedfast, the diseased, or the ill. Instead he wrote to those who had grown weary, who had become weak both morally and spiritually in the midst of suffering. These are the ones who 'should call' for the help of 'the elders of the church.' The early church leaders were instructed (1 Thes. 5:14) to 'encourage the timid;' and 'help the weak' ('asthenon').
James said that the elders should 'pray over him and anoint him with oil.'. It is significant that the word 'anoint' is 'aleipsantes' ('rub with oil') not 'chiro' ('ceremonially anoint')...
[Relative to Scripture] ...The former is the 'mundane' word and the latter is 'the sacred and religious word' (Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, ninth ed. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950, pp. 136-7)... [Vines Expository Dictionary, (W. E. Vine, Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1981, p.58), defines aleipsantes' and 'chiro' as follows:
"ANOINT...
1. ALEIPHO... is a general term for an anointing of any kind, whether of physical refreshment after washing... or of the sick... or a dead body...
2. CHIRO... is more limited in its use than No. I; it is confined to sacred and symbolical anointings"]
[J. Ronald Blue, cont.]
...Therefore James is not suggesting a ceremonial or ritual anointing as a means of divine healing; instead, he is referring to the common practice of using oil as a means of bestowing honor, refreshment, and grooming'
(Daniel R. Hayden, 'Calling the Elders to Pray,' Bibliotheca Sacra 138. July-September 1981:264). The woman 'poured' ('aleipho') perfume on Jesus' feet (Luke 7:38). A host 'put oil' ('aleipho') on the head of his guest (Luke 7:46). A person who is fasting should not be sad and ungroomed, but should 'put oil' ('aleipho') on his head, and wash his face (Matt. 6:17). Thus James' point is that the 'weak' ('asthenei') and 'weary' ('kamnonia') would be refreshed, encouraged, and uplifted by the elders who rubbed oil on the despondents' heads and prayed for them...."
(v. 15) "and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick [correction, 'weary'], and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him."
[J. Ronald Blue states, op. cit., p. 835]:
"For the fallen, discouraged, distressed weary believer, restoration is assured and the elders' 'prayer offered in faith will make the sick person (lit., 'weary one') well (i.e., will restore him from discouragement and spiritual defeat), and 'the Lord will raise him up.'
That the restoration is spiritual, not physical [Emphasis mine] is further clarified by the assurance, 'if he has sinned, he will be forgiven.' Many physically ill Christians have called on elders to pray for them and to anoint them with oil, but a sizable percentage of them have remained sick. This fact suggest that the passage may have been mistakenly understood as physical restoration rather than spiritual restoration."
"Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Note that confession of known sins directly to God is the remedy for temporal, (not eternal), unforgiveness. (The remedy for eternal unforgiveness is through faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life, Jn 3:16, Eph 2:8-9, Acts 10:43). Temporal forgiveness or cleansing of daily sins by confession directly to God does not contradict Jas 5:16 which says to weak brethren, 'confess your sins to one another' because James is indicating that weak believers are to direct others in a general way without going into detail in how to direct their prayers relative to sinful areas in the life of the weak brother in Christ. Providing too much detail is liable to tempt others into sinful attitudes so this is indeed a sensitive area which is often misinterpreted and grossly abused. Recall that God the Holy Spirit will reconstitute the prayers of a believer so that it is properly presented at the Throne of Grace, (Ro 8:26-27). So the confession to others of every single sinful detail in an individual's life is not required, rather it is unwise and a temptation to weaker brothers]
[J. Ronald Blue states, op. cit., p. 835]:
"The conclusion is clear: 'therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other.' A mutual concern for one another is the way to combat discouragement and downfall. The cure is in personal confession and prayerful concern. The healing ('that you may be healed') is not bodily healing but healing of the soul ('iathete'; cf. Matt. 13:15; Heb 12:13; 1 Peter 2:24). It is the 'powerful and effective...prayer of a righteous' person that brings the needed cure from God. This of course relates to the closing two verses of James' letter. If James 5:14-16 refer to physical healing, then those verses seem disjointed with the verses before and after them."]
(v. 17) Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. (v. 18) And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit."
[J. Ronald Blue states, op. cit., p. 835]:
"James again gave an example well known to his Jewish audience. First, it was the prophets (v. 10), then Job (v. 11), and now 'Elijah'. James identified Elijah as a fellow sufferer. 'A man just like us' could be translated 'a man of like feeling' or 'of similar suffering' ('homoiopathes''; cf. 'kakopathei' in vv. 10, 13). Elijah knew all the frailties of human nature but 'in prayer he prayed' ('proseuche pros eyxato''), that is, 'he prayed earnestly' and 'rain' was withheld and later restored (1 Kings 17:1; 18:41-46). Earnest and persistent prayer, of course, is essential, whereas halfhearted prayer is self-defeating (cf. James 1:6-8)."
(v. 19) "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back;
(v. 20) let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins."
"He who is steadfast in righteousness will attain to life,
And he who pursues evil will bring about his own death."
[J. Ronald Blue states, op. cit., p. 835]:
"James' last appeal to his readers has a touch of tenderness and a clear note of encouragement to those who have helped others who have grown weary and have fallen from the way. 'My brothers', he wrote, 'if any one among you strays from the truth, and someone turns him around, let him know that the one who turns him back from his error will save his soul from death and will hide a multitude of sins' (author's trans.).
These who have lost their way are the 'sick ones' of the church family. They have wandered away. The Greek word here ('planethe') suggests one who has missed his path and is hopelessly lost [and not physically ill]. 'Planet' was taken from this Greek word to convey the idea that the luminaries were 'wandering stars' (cf. Jude 13), not 'fixed' like the rest.
Wandering ones need to be brought back to the fold. James referred here not to evangelism but to restoration. Revival, not redemption, is in view. The rescue action is of great significance. A lost sheep is saved from destruction and his 'sins' (the sins of the restored one, not the restorer) are covered as if a veil were thrown over them (cf. 1 Peter 4:8). He can move ahead again on the path toward spiritual maturity.
James has given clear instructions about how to achieve practical holiness and spiritual maturity. His pointed exhortations were designed to stab the consciences and stir the souls of his beloved Jewish brothers. Stand with confidence, serve with compassion, speak with care, submit with contrition, and share with concern. A believer should be what God wants him to be, do what God wants him to do, say what God wants him to say, sense what God wants him to sense, and share what God wants him to share. Spiritual maturity involves every aspect of life."
The category rule of interpretation which is expressed in Isaiah 28 as "precept upon precept" is closely related to the rule of "line upon line" or EXEGESIS:
(v. 9) "Whom shall He [God] teach knowledge?[from Scripture] and whom shall He make to understand doctrine [Bible doctrine] them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. (v. 10) "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"
"line upon line" = line after line in the order that the Scriptures were written. All of the passage is therefore to be considered, not just a single verse or a few verses which are extracted out of the context with no regard as to how the overall passage relates to those verses.
EXEGESIS = A line upon line explanation of a text of Scripture within the context of the passage, chapter, and book that that text is in. Exegesis is well described as, 'the explanation of how the grammar of the text was put together so that the words and meanings are as God the Holy Spirit had the writers originally record those words and meanings.'
All verses are to be included in the instruction of God's Word from the first line that begins the passage all the way through in the order that it was written to the last line in the passage that completes the subject being taught. Therefore, taking a verse or two out of a passage and instructing from just those verses without giving careful consideration to all of the lines in the passage is violating God's rules of interpretation as set forth in Scripture. So God's Word in Isaiah instructs that the proper way to teach Scripture is to teach it line upon line and precept upon precept - to teach entire passages in the order that the Scripture was written and comparing it to other passages which contain related precepts in the same line upon line way for the full and complete meaning of God's Word. The book of Acts, for example, has often been misinterpreted due to failure to follow the rules of interpretation. Many conclude that all must receive the Holy Spirit as a separate event from salvation and that all who are saved will speak in tongues. The following two verses in Acts are often used to arrive at these false conclusions: that there is a separate Holy Spirit baptism after one is saved and that all believers will speak in tongues:
(v. 1) "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place
(v. 4) All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
The following verses of the passage in Acts chapter 2 are thereby ignored:
(v. 2) Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
(v. 3) They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.
[If all who are saved are to speak in tongues according to Acts 2:1, 4 then why don't all who are saved have the wind from heaven come to them and the tongues of fire rest on each believer as it also states in Acts 2:2-3. Or maybe these occurrences are limited to just those people during the time frame in which the passages were written. Other passages, when studied, prove this out. For example, if all who are saved will evidence their salvation by speaking in tongues, how is it that the Apostle Paul himself states to the contrary:
(v. 28) "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
(v. 29) Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
(v. 30) Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"
The context, grammatical construction and type of question asked demand the answer: 'No, not all believers speak in tongues.' So every line in the passage is to be studied in the order that it was written and in the grammatical organization that it appears; and other passages teaching related subjects must likewise be investigated.
ETYMOLOGY - (from the Greek) - the detailed study of the specific words and phrases of the original language that God Almighty used to communicate His Word to all of mankind. The rule of interpretation called ETYMOLOGY relates closely to the Biblical rule of interpretation called ISAGOGICS or historical background. The understanding of Biblical terms is therefore arrived at by studying the etymological meaning of the original Greek words that God uses in Scripture. For example,
A) [REPENT = TO CHANGE THE MIND]
The word which is translated "repent" in Scripture relative to salvation and truths from God's Word do not refer to feeling sorry for one's sins nor does it require a change in behavior. There is another Greek word in Scripture, "metamelomai", which is often rendered "repent" in English, and means to feel sorry, to experience remorse, (Heb 7:21; II Cor 7:8). This word is never found in a salvation passage.The word "repentance" in salvation passages is translated from the Greek word "metanoias" which means a turn about, a deliberate change of mind resulting in a change of direction in thought. Relative to God's revealed Word: when one believes a fact, one turns from doubt or unbelief to faith in that revealed truth.
J. Dwight Pentecost states, ('Things Which Become SOUND DOCTRINE, Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, N.J., 1965, pp. 62-63):
1) "In 2 Timothy 2:24-25 we find the particular object that produces repentance. Paul writes...
[2 Tim 2:24-25]:
(v. 24) "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
(v. 25) Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth."
...Now, in laying down the qualifications for the servant of the Lord, the Apostle emphasizes that the Lord's servant must have the ability to teach. That, of course, which he teaches - according to II Timothy 4:2 - is the Word of God. As the servant of God teaches the Word of God, the truth of the Word of God will be brought home by the Spirit to the mind of the hearer, and the hearer will change his mind because of the truth that has been presented. This change of mind, in respect to a revealed truth from the Word of God, is called in II Timothy 2:25 "repentance."
[Repent] ....comes from the combination of the Greek word meta meaning to change and the Greek word noias meaning the mind, the understanding. The sphere of this word is therefore limited to within the mind. A change in behavior may result from a change in mind but such is an added concept and must therefore be part of an additional expression of words. Therefore metanoias in and of itself does NOT include a change of behavior.
[Vines, (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, Revell Publishing, Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1981, pp. 279-280), states]:
"METANOEO... lit. to perceive afterwards (meta, after, implying change, noeo, to perceive; [comes from the Greek noun] nous, the mind, the seat of moral reflection), in contrast to pronoeo, to perceive beforehand, hence signifies to change one's mind or purpose..." ).
B) REPENTANCE RELATIVE TO SALVATION MEANS TO TURN FROM A BELIEF SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT SOLELY IN CHRIST ALONE TO ONE WHICH IS
In order to turn to Christ alone for forgiveness of sins...which means that you BELIEVE that He can and will forgive you ...you must turn from your rejection of Him - from the belief that your sins are something you yourself can and will deal with in your own way and not God's way. So instead of rejecting Christ you turn to faith placed alone in Him alone as Savior - that is God's way of dealing with your sins. That is what the Bible defines as 'repentance for the forgiveness of sins':
"Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, Jesus.' "
"All the prophets testify about Him [Jesus Christ, v. 39] that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name."
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.."
(Ref. Acts 2:38; Mt 3:11)
So the word which is translated "repent" in Acts 3:19 and Acts 2:38 = "metanoesate", the imperative form of the Greek verb "metanoeo", and the noun which is translated "repentance" = "metanoian" in Mt 3:11, are derived from the Greek word "metanoias". Both words mean a turn about, a deliberate change of mind resulting in a change of direction in thought, literally, to perceive afterwards. Scripture does teach that to repent is to turn from one's sin within the mind such that one now seeks for God to remedy the situation through faith in what Jesus Christ did on the cross.
Vines further defines repent as it is found in the New Testament more specifically as follows, (p. 281): '"In the N.T. the subject chiefly has reference to repentance from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God".
So the New Testament use of the word repent relative to salvation is restricted to an action which is within the mind - (especially since the stem of the word 'repent' in the Greek is the word for the mind or the seat of moral reflection).
Therefore the phrase 'turn from sin relative to the word repent = "metanoeo" cannot be anything other than an activity which is restricted to within the mind. The New Testament definition of turning from sin relative to salvation therefore is a mental adjustment in which one turns from thinking that one does not have a sin problem...
(Some consider themselves relatively more moral than others and therefore God doesn't have a problem with them. There are 'worse' offenders than themselves. Others state that they are not doing anything so seriously wrong that God should be concerned about them. They're doing the best that they can and that's all they think that God expects. Still others feel that their sins are something that they themselves can and will deal with - often with a system of works which includes water baptism, church going, asking for forgiveness, etc., etc. And still others who are born into a family such as being a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, think that God will automatically favor them because of this).
...to the attitude that they are helpless and hopeless sinners before God and must turn to God's mercy for forgiveness through faith alone in His Son alone:
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."
[Pentecost, op. cit., p. 71]:
[The] word 'turning' gives us this basic concept that we have been considering [relative to the meaning of the word 'repent' in the New Testament]. There was a change in attitude, a change of mind.... [For example, the people of Thessalonica to whom Paul preached had known no God but idols]... Then Paul came to them to present the truth of God. They turned from their idols to believe the truth that had been revealed, and the Apostle says that the act gave them salvation...
"For they themselves [believers from other parts of the world, (v. 8)] report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God."
In the passage, the change of mind was not the precursory step to salvation. It is not the first of several steps to salvation. It is not a prerequisite for salvation. Rather, salvation depends upon believing, and believing involves repudiating the false teaching that one espoused, and holding to the revealed truth of the Word of God. From Scripture, then, we see that salvation is predicated upon faith. Faith involves the repudiation, or turning from all falsehood, from every false basis of salvation, from every false hope, and turning to accept from God the gift of salvation through His Son. But salvation is not dependent upon the work of repentance; rather, it depends upon the faith that involves repentance.
Salvation will be preceded by repentance. The one who turns to God accepts God's judgment upon sin, accepts the fact of his need of a Saviour, accepts the fact of his guilt, accepts the fact of his lostness apart from Christ, accepts the fact of his helplessness. He turns from all self-righteousness in which he trusted, turns from his own works, turns from his church as a means of dispensing salvation, and [in this one time process of turning, he] turns to the Lord Jesus Christ, accepts the fact of God's judgment upon sin and sinners, and by faith receives Jesus Christ as the One Who is judged for him [all of this in the one time process of turning - of changing his mind - of repenting].
C) REPENTANCE RELATIVE TO SALVATION UNTO ETERNAL LIFE IS A SYNONYM FOR FAITH
[Pentecost, op. cit., pp. 63-64]:
"Scripture establishes that salvation is a one step by faith in Christ as Personal Savior process. It is not by repentance and then faith. Scripture establishes that faith and the repentance that it refers to are synonymous. According to Scripture, repentance with respect to salvation is hearing the truth of the gospel and changing one's mind about believing it. So in effect, repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin. One does not believe in the gospel of salvation unless one has changed one's mind............. [i.e., repented = "metanoeo"] .........from not believing it to believing it.
One changes one's mind about not believing the gospel and then what happens is that one believes - two sides of the same coin. An unbeliever who has repented from disbelief of the gospel of salvation is now a believer.
There are a number of references we could cite to show that repentance is often used as a synonym for faith. In these passages you could eliminate the word 'repentance' and substitute the word 'faith' and it would not change the truth of the Word at all.
"The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance [ faith ]."
(v. 37) "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?'
(v. 38) Peter replied 'Believe all of you [Repent, plural] for the forgiveness of sins and [each one of you then] be baptized [singular] in the name of Jesus Christ. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
(10:43) "All the prophets restify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name."
"...'Believe [on the Messiah Who has come, (v. 3)] [i.e., repent], for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"
"Produce fruit in keeping with faith [repentance]."
[Notice that the command is to change the behavior in keeping with the change of mind from unbelief to belief "
The point to be observed is this: repentance [relative to truths from Scripture] is a change of mind toward the revealed truth of the Word of God. Previously a man disbelieved the revealed truth; and he has changed his mind and now accepts or believes the revealed truth, so that faith and repentance, on occasion, seem to be used interchangeably.
What part, then does the change of mind, or repentance, have in salvation? We would suggest to you from the Word of God that repentance is included in believing. It is not a separate act which conditions salvation, but rather it is included in believing; for when one believes a fact, he turns from doubt or unbelief to faith in that revealed truth. I think this is seen very clearly in...
(v. 8) "The Lord's message [of the gospel of salvation] rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia - your faith in God...
[Notice the phrase 'faith in God' here which is indicated a direct result, (verse 9), of a turning 'from idols']
...has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it,
(v. 9) for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.
(v. 10) and to wait for His Son from heven, Whom He raised from the dead - Jesus, Who rescues us from the coming wrath."
[So the faith in verse 9 which results in being rescued 'from the coming wrath' is equated with the turnint 'to God from idols'
[Pentecost, cont.]:
"...Paul said, '...ye turned to God from idols...', This is one act. There are not two acts herein - only one; but the one involved the other. Notice, very carefully, what Paul said and what he did not say. Paul did not say, 'Ye turned from idols to God.' Had Paul stated it that way, two acts would have been involved: ye turned from idols -
Act Number One; ye turned to God - Act Number Two. If there were two acts here, you could terminate the process in the middle. For instance, a man could turn from idols, and stop there, without turning to God. And so, the Apostle is not saying that you took two steps. Rather, Paul said, 'You turned to God from idols - that is one act. The turning to God involved the abandonment of the idols, but it all is one act."
[Pentecost, op. cit., pp. 65-68]:
"We would next like to consider the concept of repentance in the Old Testament, for it is in this portion of the Word of God that a great deal of the confusion concerning the relationship of repentance to salvation arises. For our consideration, we are including in the Old Testament Scriptures all that took place before the death of Christ, and, for the purpose of our study, even those portions of the Word addressed to Israel immediately after the death of Christ: for we believe that the concept is the same in all these portions of Scripture.
[Dr Pentecost is stating here that he is including New Testament passages which refer to Old Testament times in his treatment of the Old Testament meaning of the word repentance]
In the first Gospel of the New Testament, you find that John the Baptist appeared suddenly on the scene in Israel with a startling announcement. He commanded and exhorted the people...
'Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
After he introduced our Lord, and our Lord identified Himself with the believing remnant in Israel by His baptism at the hand of John, Jesus began to preach and His message was identical to John's message as recorded in Matthew 4:17:
'Jesus began to preach, and to say, ' '''Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.''' '
Both John, the forerunner of the Messiah, and the Messiah called upon the nation Israel to repent. John's message, as it is recorded in the third chapter of Matthew's Gospel, was a scathing denunciation of sin and sinners. But John did not call upon them to be sorry for their sins, nor to weep tears because their sins were being uncovered. John called upon them to change their mind concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning their need of a Deliverer.
[In other words, John called upon them to believe that they had a sin problem, to believe that they were not righteous enough to go into the kingdom, and to believe that they indeed needed a Deliverer - Jesus Christ their Messiah, Who was 'at hand' - in their presence]
The nation Israel had been delivered over to rule by the Pharisees, and Pharisaism told the people of Israel that they were righteous because they were the children of Abraham, and that God would deliver any child of Abraham from going down into the pit. Pharisaism was a system of works; if a man observed the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments, and the two hundred and fifty positive commandments, as the Law was summarized by the Pharisees, the Pharisees assured him he was safe. Our Lord denied that there was righteousness in Pharisaism, and demanded that the people turn to God to receive righteousness from Him. In that portion we call the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord said,
'...Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
...These people were trusting Pharisaism for righteousness; they were trusting the Law of Moses for righteousness. Righteousness is not in Pharisaism, nor in the Law, but it is in the Messiah Who offers His righteousness to you. Men needed to change their minds about their own need. They were complacent in their self-righteousness, for the Pharisees counted themselves and their disciples as righteous before God. Our Lord and John preached to the nation that there was need for a change of mind: a change of mind concerning sin, a change of mind concerning righteousness, a change of mind concerning their need, that they might come to God to receive God's forgiveness [by trusting alone in the Messiah alone].
In Matthew 22 we find that our Lord pronounced a judgment upon the nation because the nation would not repent...
[The major reason for our Lord not bringing in the kingdom right then was the fact that although multitudes did truly repent [believe], many many more Jews did not. The nation in effect did not all repent. Not even a majority repented, thus rejecting the offer of bringing in the kingdom by our Lord at that time. It was a question of the entire nation changing its mind about the Messiah Jesus Christ relative to trusting in Him and not their own righteousness and entering the kingdom, i.e., eternal life]
And the nation to whom Christ had given a call to repentance repudiated Him as God's heaven-sent Messiah, and continued to trust in their own righteousness [which is as filthy rags, Isa 64:6].
In Matthew 21:43-44 Christ said,
(v. 43) " 'The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
(v. 44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.' "
This was our Lord's announcement of judgment upon those who refused to repent and had rejected Him.
And then, in Matthew 23:37-38 our Lord says,
(v. 37) " 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(v. 38) Behold, your house is left unto you desloate.' "
Christ announced judgment upon the city of Jerusalem and upon the institutions within the city. The Temple, the priesthood, the Sanhedrin that had condemned Him - all would come under divine judgment. That judgment fell in the year A.D. 70 when Titus and his Roman legions, as the instruments of divine judgment, marched in and conquered the city, and destroyed and dispersed the people."
[Pentecost, op. cit., pp. 67-69]:
"As we come over to the Books of Acts we find frequent exhortations to repentance. Peter, preaching in Acts 2, proclaimed the resurrection of Christ, proved the resurrection from the Old Testament Scriptures, [notice that the content of the gospel is clearly proved to Peter's audience which is mostly of Jews] and concluded in verse 36
(v. 36) "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, Whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.'
[So convincing and convicting was Peter's message that we read in verse 37]:
(v. 37) When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brothers, what shall we do?'
[i.e., fellow Jews, (cp. vv 14, 22, 29, 36), what shall we do?]
...And then Peter gave his answer, which has caused so much confusion in the world today:
(v. 38) Peter replied, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'
...Based upon a misunderstanding of this passage, some teach that apart from repentance (that is, a sorrow for sins) and water baptism there is no forgiveness for sins. There are large denominations which teach that apart from repentance and baptism there is no salvation. Now, what is the truth that Peter is proclaiming when he says, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [or, with a view to] the remission of sins?
6 cont.) [Acts 2:36-38 cont.]:
(v. 37) "Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?'
(v. 38) And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Peter exhorts his audience of fellow Jews, (v. 14, 22, 29, 36, 37), to repent = "metanoesate" = 2nd person plural aorist imperative = a command to change their minds from not believing to believing in the Messiah Jesus Christ in order to receive forgiveness of their sins. And Peter says that they are to be water baptized representing to the world their new born condition of having received forgiveness of their sins as a result of their faith in the Messiah. The word which is translated "Repent", ("metanoesate"), is PLURAL and therefore goes with the plural phrase "eis .aphesin .....ton hamartion hymon
"for forgiveness the sins ............your[plural] [Nestle & the oldest manuscripts]
"ton" = the = genitive PLURAL feminine article "hymon" = your = genitive PLURAL 2PERS pers pron
AND THEN THE LAST PART OF THIS SENTENCE: "Baptistheto ekastos ...umon"
"Be baptized each one of you" IS SINGULAR AND STANDS BY ITSELF:
"ekastos ...umon" =
"each one of you" =
"ekastos" = nom. SINGULAR masc. adj. = "each one"
"umon" = gen PLURAL 2pers pers pron = "of you"
So the following phrase in Acts 2:38 stands out as a SINGULAR one:
"Baptistheto ekastos umon" = "let each one of you commence to be baptized" = 3rd person SINGULAR aorist passive imperfect.
So the phrase "let each one of you commence to be baptized" is a parenthetical statement - an action which is to be taken after the fact of receiving forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. It is in the third person aorist passive imperative expressing a strong wish on the part of Peter that each individual Jew (SINGULAR) should commence having water baptism done to him, (passive voice), once the entire lot of them (PLURAL) have come to repentance, i.e., have trusted in Christ as Savior and Messiah. So the phrase about water baptism is SINGULAR emphasizing that after all the Jews (PLURAL) in Peter's audience have repented of their (PLURAL) disbelief and trusted in their Messiah and all (PLURAL) have thereby been forgiven of their sins and all (PLURAL) have received the gift of the Spirit then next in the order of things comes the parenthetical 3rd person imperative statement of letting each one (SINGULAR) be water baptized - individually identified with his personal Savior and Messiah Whom he has trusted for eternal life]
[Pentecost, cont.]
Remember, our Lord and John had demanded of the nation Israel repentance (a change of mind) toward sin, toward righteousness, and toward judgment [and thereby toward trusting in the Messiah Jesus Christ for eternal life in the kingdom, Acts 19:4]. The nation Israel refused to repent and the nation Israel came under judgment from the hand of God. No less than the Son of God had predicted the judgment that would come upon Jerusalem and upon the citizens of the land of Israel. [Just as God's wrath had fallen on Israel and unbelieving nations in the past, so His wrath would again fall on unbelieving Israel in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, millions killed and the remaining people dispersed worldwide]. When Peter convinced the men that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, and they cried 'What must we do?' Peter said, 'Repent; that is, change your mind. Change your mind about Christ. Change your mind about the Person Who invited you to repent, but Whose invitation you rejected.' Peter was not asking for sorrow for sin - it was too late for that. He was asking them to change their minds concerning the truth that he had just presented - that Jesus is Lord and Messiah...
This exhortation to repent and be baptized, although applicable throughout the [church] age, had its peculiar and particular application to that nation [Israel], to that generation [of Jews] under divine judgment, so that [eternal and temporal] judgment might be escaped by individuals who heeded the truth Peter presented and who turned unbelief in the Person of Christ to belief, witnessing that faith, that change of mind, by separating themselves from the nation that was under judgment.
.....We find much the same truth presented in Acts 3:19 where Peter once again declared the glorious truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, [so] that times of refreshing may come from the Lord."
[Notice that water baptism is not even mentioned here. If it were essential to salvation, it's absence makes this verse critically in error]
[Pentecost, cont.]
[This verse is saying] "...repent and be converted; or change
your mind and be turned around. You can visualize this very graphically if
you put the Law on one side and Jesus Christ on the other. The nation
Israel had turned their backs on the invitation of Jesus Christ and were
marching toward the Law, trusting it for their salvation. When they stood
convinced that Jesus was actually the Messiah, Peter said, 'You must
change your mind and be converted, turned around, and you must begin your
walk toward the Lord Jesus Christ, away from that to which you were going
a moment ago.' Repent and be converted, or change your mind and be turned
around, so that the seasons of refreshing may come from the Lord. Thus we
find that the call to repentance was addressed to a guilty nation in
covenant relationship with God, but whose responsibilities under those
covenants were not being fulfilled. John and Christ invited the nation to
Himself so that they might receive righteousness from Him; but before they
turned to Him they must change their mind about their own righteousness,
about Pharisaic righteousness, about Law righteousness, about their need
for salvation. After the rejection of Israel brought Christ to the cross,
He still offered that nation repentance, a change of mind, as the basis of
forgiveness for sins."
E) REPENTANCE IN THE LIFE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE BELIEVER
[Pentecost, op. cit., pp. 69-72]:
We find that repentance has its place in the life and experience of the child of God. I would like to take you into the familiar passage in 1 John 1:9, a passage to which we come again and again: 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' You may be quick to say, 'But I don't see the word '''repentance''' there.' No, I grant you, it is not there, and yet its concept is, for the Greek word translated '''confess''' is the word which means '''to say the same thing.''' And confession is saying the same thing about our sins that God says about them. Repentance is involved in this act, for one must turn from his own evaluation of his conduct to accept God's evaluation of his conduct before he ever acknowledges that what he did was sin. And so, in the believer's experience, there is a place for repentance, a place for a change of mind, if we are to know the blessed experience of restoration to fellowship through confession of sin.
It is in 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 that the Apostle speaks at some length concerning repentance in relationship to the believer. You will recall the background. Paul had written earlier, in a very strong tone, concerning sin in the life of the assembly. He had been somewhat distressed as to what reception his strong language would receive. He wrote,
(v. 8) " '...Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it [Gk = metamelomai = feel sorry about, a different verb from metanoia = repent = change the mind] - I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while -
(v. 9) yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. [metanoian = repent = changed the mind]
(v. 10) Godly sorrow brings repentance [metanoian = repentance = change of the mind] that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."
Here the Apostle is showing the relationship between sorrow and repentance, and he says that a godly sorrow - that is, a sorrow that is produced because the child of God views his sin as God views it - will lead to a change of mind toward that sin. What he loved, he now hates; what he grasped after, he now repudiates; what governed and controlled his life and became the goal of his life, he now abandons, so that as he confesses his sin he receives forgiveness from God.........................................
[Paul shows that sorrow in this particular circumstance in the life of a number of believers in Corinth led to repentance - to a change of mind about certain specific sins in their lives.]
[And thereby]...Paul shows.......that sorrow is not identical with repentance.
F) REPENTANCE RELATIVE TO SALVATION DOES NOT INCLUDE SORROW/REMORSE FOR ONE'S SINS
There is a Greek word which is translated into the English word "repent", this word means to feel sorry: "metamelomai" = signifies to regret, to feel sorry, (ref. Heb 7:21; II Cor 7:8).
The word is comprised of "meta" meaning after, implying change and "melo" meaning to care for - to change from not caring to caring about whatever is relative to the subject in context.
For example:
"Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He [Jesus] had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
The text in English is more literally rendered from the Greek:
"Then having seen Judas who delivered up Him [Jesus] [seeing] that He [Jesus] was condemned, having regretted [it] returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders"
"having regretted" [it] = "metameletheis"
The same word for regretting is used in Mt 21:30:
(v. 28) "But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in the vineyard.'
(v. 29) "And he answered and said, 'I will, sir; and he did not go.
(v. 30) And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, 'I will not'; yet he afterward regretted it and went.
"regretted" = "metameletheis"
This word repent = feel sorry is not ever the word which is used in salvation passages.
So repent in the Bible relative to salvation means to change one's mind about trusting in Christ to provide the remedy for one's sins. It does not mean to feel sorry or regretful. The other repent which means a feeling of sorrow or regret may or may not accompany one's decision to repent - change the mind and trust in Christ as Savior, but this feeling however is not part of the Biblical repenting for eternal life and the word for such in the Greek does not appear in salvation passages as a requirement for receiving eternal life.
[Pentecost, op. cit., pp. 62-72]:
"The doctrine [of repentamce] has suffered tremendously from an erroneous concept held by most men, for when the word 'repent' is used it brings to the mind of the average individual the thought of sorrow for sin. He pictures one down whose face course tears of remorse, and from whose lips come promises of change and a vow never to fall into the same sins again. And this sorrow for sins is usually called 'repentance.' But there could be nothing further from the concept of the Word of God than the idea that repentance means sorrow for sins. From the Word of God we discover that the word translated 'repent' means 'a change of mind.' It means, literally, 'a turning about'; not so much a physical turning about as a mental turning around, a change of course, a change of direction, a change of attitude. This is the concept in the word. Now, such a change of mind as the Scripture enjoins when it speaks of repentance may produce a sorrow for sin, but it will be the result after one has seen his sin in the light of the holiness of God and has changed his attitude toward it.
If we were to be honest with ourselves we would have to confess that most so-called repentance is not sorrow for sin at all, but sorrow for getting caught in our sin. Such a sorrow is not repentance, and we will miss the important teaching of the Word of God, repentance is a change of mind.
It is in II Corinthians 7:8-10 that the Apostle speaks at some length concerning repentance in relationship to the believer. You will recall the background. Paul had written earlier, in a very strong tone, concerning sin in the life of the assembly. He had been somewhat distressed as to what reception his strong language would receive. He wrote,
(v. 8) " '...Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it [Gk = metamelomai = feel sorry about, a different verb from metanoia = repent = change the mind] - I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while -
(v. 9) yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. [metanoian = repent = changed the mind]
(v. 10) Godly sorrow brings repentance [metanoian = repentance = change of the mind] that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."
Here the Apostle is showing the relationship between sorrow and repentance, and he says that a godly sorrow - that is, a sorrow that is produced because the child of God views his sin as God views it - will lead to a change of mind toward that sin. What he loved, he now hates; what he grasped after, he now repudiates; what governed and controlled his life and became the goal of his life, he now abandons, so that as he confesses his sin he receives forgiveness from God.........................................
[Paul shows that sorrow in this particular circumstance in the life of a number of believers in Corinth led to repentance - to a change of mind about certain specific sins in their lives.]
[And thereby]...Paul shows.......that sorrow is not identical with repentance.
[Note that repentance does not require any emotional reaction in order for it to occur. For example, one may simply change one's mind about a particular truth from God's Word and believe it without any accompanying emotions at all. Consider the little child who comes to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. How much sorrow can a 6 or 7 year old have for his or her sins? On the other hand, one may have another kind of emotional reaction which also leads to repentance such as outright fear of God's wrath unto condemnation in the Lake of Fire for an eternity:
(v. 29) "The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling [in terror] before Paul and Silas [having faced the prospect of dying before being saved. For the Roman officer would have killed the jailer had his prisoners escaped after the earthquake opened up the jail door permitting Paul and Silas to escape].
(v. 30) He [the jailer] then brought them [the prisoners who remained in the jail instead of escaping] out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'
(v. 31) They [Paul and Silas] replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and [if they believe] your household."
[Pentecost, cont.]:
"We want to consider now something of the relationship of repentance to salvation. It is here that the great doctrinal battle has been fought as to whether salvation is by faith alone, or whether salvation is by faith plus something. There are approximately 150 passages in the New Testament that tell us that salvation is by faith alone; that salvation is the gift of God to one who will accept Jesus Christ as His Personal Saviour. The Apostle writes and shows us that 'to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.'(Romans 4:5). And over against that great body of revealed truth there are still some who insist that apart from sorrow for sins, there is no such thing as salvation for the individual. I am certain you have been in meetings when an evangelist, or pastor, invited people to come to the altar and weep their way through to God - suggesting that apart from tears, crying, supplication, tarrying, and begging, there could be no forgiveness for sin; Sincere they are, but misguided, because they do not understand the teaching of the Word of God on this subject. Repentance [meaning sorrow] is not a prerequisite to salvation; for if repentance is required, salvation is based, at least in part, upon works. The sorrow is the product of the human emotions, and it is the responsibility of individual so to stir up his emotions that he can lay the foundations, or the groundwork, on which salvation will be built.
This interpretation is erroneous because it suggests to us the false concept that God is basically unwilling to receive sinners, that God is adamant and unapproachable in His attitude toward sinners, and that unless one softens the heart of God by tears, God is unwilling to accept him and grant forgiveness for sin. The common saying that 'Tears are a woman's mighty weapon' becomes a basis for teaching that tears are the sinner's mightiest weapon to soften the heart of God and get an unwilling God to grant a gift that He is not disposed to impart. This denies, of course, the doctrine that God is propitious, that God is gracious, that God has extended His mercy to sinners, and that whosoever will may come.
Or again, this interpretation is wrong because it suggests that the death of Christ is not a sufficient basis for the forgiveness of sins; that God bases salvation upon the death of Christ plus sorrow, the death of Christ plus tears, the death of Christ plus praying and pleading; and that apart from those additions there can be no real forgiveness for sins. The word of God makes it very clear that salvation is based upon the value of the death of Christ apart from anything that the individual might add to it.
On many occasions it has been my privilege to open up the Word of God to men and women to show them that they were lost and under God's condemnation because of their unrighteousness, and to show them that God offers salvation to men through Christ. I have had the joy of hearing them say, 'I accept Jesus Christ as my Personal Saviour.' Almost invariably emotion so chokes the individual and he is so overcome that he cannot restrain tears with the wonder of the fact that he has been born into the family of God. I sat, just a few days ago, with a man who in desperation asked if I could give him some hope. In simple faith he turned to the Lord Jesus and he had no sooner accepted Christ as his Saviour than tears began to flow down his face. They had no part in obtaining the salvation, but they flowed from the salvation which God had provided.
Salvation is by faith. Salvation does not depend upon sorrow for sin; salvation depends upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Who offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. If you are without Christ as your Saviour, salvation does not depend upon some emotional experience in which you work up sorrow for your sins; it depends on a changed mind. You have rejected Him; you have repudiated Him; you have trusted in your own righteousness, your own works, your own way, your own wisdom. Apart from a change of mind toward the truth of the Word of God, there is no salvation for you. Salvation must be preceded by that change of mind, but salvation is not based upon that change of mind. Salvation depends on your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."
AIONIOS:
Consider another critical word in the Bible which a number of cults claim cannot mean everlasting because it is used to refer to everlasting condemnation and everlasting life:
The secular Greek-English lexicon by Bauer, p.28, defines "aionios" to most commonly mean "without beginning or end" and "eternal".
This meaning is based on the most frequent usages of the word by the people to whom the ancient koine Greek language was native. Plato, Phocylides, Philo, Clement, Diodorus Siculus, Arrianus, Josephus, Maximus Tyrius, Ignatius, Homer are among those who used this meaning of the word "aionios".
A) [Ezek 37:26]:
"I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them...
........[Heb] olam = [Grk] aionios[Septuagint];
and I will give blessings to them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore"
[Heb] olam = [Grk] aionios [Septuagint]
God's covenant was unilateral - so it would not be broken - therefore it was for all time: "forevermore". None of His unilateral covenants were for a season or an age. All of His unilateral covenants were for an eternity and God does not renege on His promises.
Therefore the Hebrew word "olam" in the Hebrew bible and the Greek word "aionios" in the Septuagint are indeed translated "forevermore" correctly.
B) [2 Cor 4:18]:
"Since we consider and look not to the things that are seen[temporal - temporary] but to things that are unseen [spiritual - eternal]; for the things that are visible are temporal (brief and fleeting), but the things that are invisible are deathless and everlasting
[Grk] "aionios"
Here in this passage the contrast is between the temporal and the eternal - the material and the spiritual. Surely the Greek word "aionios" could not be translated to mean "age" which would force the passage to provide a meaning of comparing the difference between spiritual things which then, because of the mistranslation of "aionios", portray spiritual things lasting just for a finite age as opposed to temporal things which do not last for an age. We know that spiritual things prove out to last longer. Furthermore, this meaning makes no sense in the context which Paul is establishing which is a permanence of spiritual things over the temporary nature of the material world.
Therefore the Greek word "aionios" must mean eternal or everlasting.
C) [Ro 16:26]:
"But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of
the....everlasting..........God,
tou ...aioniou ...............Theou
the ...everlasting ..........God
made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."
An adjective, when used to modify a noun, must agree with its noun in gender, number and case in the Greek. Is the above word aioniou an adjective which then describes God?
Answer: YES and it does agree in gender, number and case! =
tou .............aion- iou .........The - ou
def article..stem .ending....stem .ending
article .......adjective .........noun
masculine .singular ...........genitive
If this verse was supposed to say "...according to the commandment of the God of the ages." then the Greek transliteration would have to look like this: "ton Theou ton aion" but it does not.
Adjectives may be used in three distinct ways in Greek: attributively, predicatively and substantively. The attributive use of the adjective is that use in which the adjective attributes a quality to the noun modified. In the attributive construction there are two possible positions of the adjective in relation to the noun:
either before the noun as in the passage on the previous page:
tou aioniou Theou
or
after the noun which would then look like this:
tou Theou tou aioniou
Note that the adjective aioniou is immediately preceded by the definite article tou in this second possibility of the attributive case.
In the attributive case therefore the adjective aioniou strongly modifies Theou in whichever position the adjective is placed. Since God is an eternal God the adjective aioniou must be translated eternal or everlasting in the above two examples. The second case for adjectives is the predicative case. The above phrase in the predicative case would look like -
1) this: "tou Theou aioniou"
(Notice: no definite article before "aioniou".
This indicates the predicative case)
2) or this:"aioniou tou Theou"
The third and final case for adjectives is the substantive case in which the adjective itself is used as the noun in order to be the subject of the sentence. The Greek word for God, Theou, is the noun and the subject in this passage in Ro 16:26. Since there already is a subject in the passage, then there is no need for an adjective to act as a noun. Therefore in this particular passage in Romans 16:26 the Greek word aioniou is in the attributive case and it therefore modifies the Greek word for God: Theou and must be translated everlasting or eternal God and not 'God of the ages' or an 'agelasting', (not eternal), god because the grammar and the context just does not support those interpretations. An 'agelasting' god makes no sense in this passage.
Other examples: Subject Adjective Definite Article:
D) [1 Tim 1:17 - predicative case]:
"Now to the King of the ages "
...tps ..de Basilei ...ton ...aionon "
E) [2 Cor 13:11 - predicative case]:
"the God ....of .Love."
"ton Theou tes agapes "
[not in the Bible - predicative case]:
The god ...of the ages
tou .theou tou ....aioniou
F) [Ro 16:26 - the attributive case]:
The everlasting God
tou .aioniou ......Theou
If the New World Translation of the Bible and the Concordant Bible translations, (Jehovah's Witnesses), are correct in their insistence upon aioniou having one meaning and one meaning only in Scripture no matter what the grammar or context; and that meaning is 'eonian', meaning 'for an age', 'for an eon'. And that's it, no other meaning.....................
G) [Mt 25:46]:
"kolasin aionio " =
punishment 'eonian' = for an eon, age. Punishment not eternal but limited to an age.
H) [Mt 25:26]:
"Zoen aionio "
Life 'eonian' = for an eon, age.
Life not eternal but limited to an age.
.........Then the following must be considered true and God is merely mortal not eternal, he is just a god with a limited finite existence:
I) [Ro 16:26]:
"aionio theou"
'eonian' god.
God therefore must simply be a god who is not eternal and limited to an 'eonian' - an eon, an age.
However, the God of the Bible has no beginning and has no end. The god of the New World Translation and the Concordant 'Bibles' is therefore not the same as the God of the Bible.
"For perhaps He [Jesus Christ] therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive Him forever."
............................................"aionion"
The word "aionion" must mean forever here in order for the verse to make any sense. Would Jesus depart for a season - for a while - so that we will then be enabled to receive Him for a while? Then what? Do we unreceive Him?
J) [Heb 9:12]:
"Nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, entered once for all into the holies, having obtained eternal.....redemption for us."
........................................................................"aionian"
Would God redeem us for just a few ages? (Then what?)
"aionian" here must mean "eternal" to make sense because Christ entered, (sacrificed Himself), once for all and for all time! Why would His sacrifice be for anything less than for eternity - all time? Is He not God?
K) [Compare 1 Ti 6:16]:
"Who [God] only hath immortality dwelling in the
....................................."athanasia"
light which no man can approach unto; Whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to Whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
..................................................................."aionio "
In order for this passage to make sense and be admissible as the word of God the words "athanasia", and "aionio " must not contradict one another in this passage so as to provide a nonsensical or no meaning. "Athanasia" is translated even by the New World translators and the Concordant Bible translators as "immortality". Therefore the word "aionio " must be translated "everlasting" in order to make any sense. If only God has, as a part of His essence, immortality, then how could the word "aionio " mean just for an age:
"Who God only hath immortality.........to Whom be ......honour and power for an age - or for everlasting?"
If God is immortal then His honour and power is likewise immortal - everlasting.
L) [Jn 3:15-16]:
"That whosoever believeth in Him [Jesus Christ] .....................................should not perish but have eternal life."
..."me apoletai"........................Zoen aionion."
..(lit.)"not should perish"......(lit.) life eternal"
The phrase should not perish would make no sense if "aionion" only meant for an age: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have life 'eonian' - for an age?
So God so loved the world that He went through the agony of giving up His one and only Son so that whosoever believes in Him..... He'll only let you live for just an age??? And then what - annihilation??? What kind of god is that? Certainly not the God of the Bible.
M) [Compare 1 Cor 15:53]:
"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on "immortality"
............."athanasia"
If the body of a believer becomes immortal according to the first phrase, i.e. eternal, then in the following phrase the word "aionion" which describes the same subject - the believer in Christ - must also mean eternal.
N) [Compare 2 Cor 5:1]:
"For we know that if our [believers'] earthly house [physical bodies] of this tabernacle were dissolved [destroyed] we have a building of God, an house not made with hands [not made so that it won't last] [but] eternal in the heavens."
"aionion"
If the body of a believer becomes immortal, (1 Cor 15:53), then it becomes eternal ("aionion", 2 Cor 5:1).
Therefore "aionion" = "eternal.
O) [Compare Heb 9:14]:
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the
eternal Spirit ..........offered Himself without
aionion pneumatos
spot to God."
The context here demands "aionion" = "eternal". There would be absolutely no reason to translate "Pneumatos aionion" to mean 'Spirit of the age.'
Grammar indicates that aionion is an adjective which modifies "Pneumatos". There is no genitive case and/or no preposition 'of' included in the grammar, so that "aionion" could be translated 'of the age' in the above verse. Since "aionion" also carries NO definite article in this passage nor satisfies grammatical rules which would then make it a noun, it therefore cannot be translated 'the age' or 'the ages'. Since God the Holy Spirit is not limited to just one age in His existence, the word "aionion" must be translated eternal because God is eternal and not temporal or temporary. Note that this is legitimate because the word "aionion" has a legitimate and most common usage and translation of "eternal" from ancient times when the Bible was written. In other words, if the word "aionios" has always been used to mean 'eternal' by the people that used the language when the Bible was written on up to even today, then it is legitimate to conclude that that is the correct meaning when found in Scripture providing it does not violate the context which it certainly does not.
P) [Lk 1:33]:
"And He shall reign over the House of Jacob
forever......
eis tous aionas
(lit.) into the ages = idiomatic expression = "forever"
....and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
.................................................ouk estai telos"
........................................(lit.) not shall be [an] end"
In order to make sense in this passage the word "aionas" must again be translated to the most common usage of "forever" or for eternity" in order to coincide with the parallel phrase which immediately follows which states "there shall be no end". It makes no sense to insist that "aionas" is always limited to the translation - usage - of 'of the ages':
'And He shall reign over the House of Jacob for ages and of His kingdom there shall be no end?
Either our Lord's kingdom is for ages or it is forever.
Q) [Compare 2 Pet 1:11]:
"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom."
................................................................................."aionion"
"Aionion" is an adjective here! It modifies kingdom. So if the kingdom of Jesus Christ shall have no end, (Lk 1:33), then it must be everlasting.
"aionion" = "everlasting"
If "ton aionios Theos" means "God of the Ages" , (and it does not), then the word "aionios" must be a noun. It is not! The word "aionios" is an adjective, the word "aion" which is not in the above passages is a noun. Examples of the Biblical use of the noun are as follows:
R) [Eph 2:6-7]:
(v. 6) "And God raised us up with the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
(v. 7) "in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus."
"in the coming ages" =
"en tois aiosin tois eperchomeois"
"in the ages that [are] coming"
"aiosin" = ages
to Catholic Church: 'Infallible Interpreter'