The Two Clocks

Posted on by
Reply

According to U.K. law, each Post Office has to have the right time displayed in its clock. Inspectors regularly visit each Post Office to make sure all is in compliance.

An inspector visited a certain Post Office in the south west of England and while everything else on his list seemed to be ok, he determined that the clock was slow.

He went in to see the head Postmaster informing him, “your clock is slow!”

The Postmaster said, “That’s impossible! It can’t be slow. I correct it every day.”

The inspector said, “It’s definitely slow.”

The Postmaster said, “it can’t be” and took him outside the Post office and pointed across the street and said, “now do you see that house there? If you look into the window, there is a ship’s chronometer on the mantel piece, and you know, don’t you, that ship chronometers are never wrong. Now I adjust the Post office clock by that ship chronometer.”

The inspector then knocked on the door of the house and an old Sea Captain answered the door. The inspector introduced himself and said, “Excuse me, but is that a ship’s chronometer I see on the mantel piece?”

The Captain said, “oh yes!”

“May I see it? asked the inspector.

The Captain showed him inside and showed him the clock.

“Oh, its a lovely clock!” said the inspector.

“Yes, it is,” the Sea Captain said, “the only trouble is that it got salt water in it some time ago and its never really kept very good time since then.”

The inspector then asked, “so how do you keep it right?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” the Captain said, “I adjust it by the Post Office clock over the road, because by law, the Post Office has to display the correct time, so I know its right.”

(These two clocks, neither of which was authoritative, were trying to correct one another and because of that, both of them were incorrect.)

Application: Many do this with the Bible. They set themselves up as ‘the’ authority as to what is true or not, or else look to something other than God’s word for truth, they then judge the Bible by that standard, making themselves prone to error and deception. The Bible alone is the word of God and therefore the sole, inerrant, infallible source for truth.

How We Got the Bible

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Dirk Jongkind, academic vice principal and senior research fellow in New Testament text and language at Tyndale House, Cambridge. He is also the author of An Introduction to the Greek New Testament. (source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-we-got-the-bible)

Countless lives are changed by the preaching of the word of God. Since human beings tend to look at the outside and not at the inside, we often attribute the power of this transformative teaching to the preacher. We all know on reflection, though, that the real power does not rest in humans but in God’s word itself.

Reading Scripture is the most immediate exposure to the word of God. In practice, this means picking up a physical book and opening it to a specific page, or opening up an app on our phones and scrolling to a specific location. In either case, we trust that the word has not been corrupted and that the message of the Bible we hold in our hands was not changed or lost altogether. We believe that we are reading the actual words that God spoke.

In what follows, we will think about what has gone before that moment when we open Scripture and read it. What happened to the Bible between the earliest times and the twenty-first century? How did God bring his word to us? The reverse of this question — how he brought us to his word — is part of our individual testimony. But the way in which God brought about the Bible is the story of his providence in history, played out over thousands of years. And by understanding what God had done over the ages, we will see that it is reasonable and justified to trust that the Bible in our hands is a translation of the trustworthy words of Scripture. We could talk about ten reasons why to trust the Bible. But it may be more effective if we understand the larger narrative of the history of the Bible.

From God’s Breath to Israel’s Books

Because the Bible is the word of God, it naturally starts with God speaking, both in practice, as in Genesis 1:3 (“And God said, let there be light”), as well as logically, as in John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word”). And since we are talking about an infinite God, it should not surprise us that he uses an array of ways to communicate with his creatures.

God spoke directly to Moses from a burning bush (Exodus 3:2), and immediately after the exodus to the whole people from a burning mountain (Exodus 19:18). God speaks through the inspired recording of the history of his people, and through his prophets who heard his word — sometimes directly, but also through visions and dreams. We find personal reflections on the futility of life under the sun (Ecclesiastes), which is also part of God speaking to his people. And this in addition to the book of Proverbs, a collection of divinely crafted wisdom. In the New Testament, we have the records of how the apostles taught about Jesus and about what Jesus himself taught (the four Gospels). And we find the responses by the apostles to various situations within the churches, as well as positive teaching about the salvation that Jesus brought about.

There are many ways in which God spoke his word, and there are many ways in which it was written down. God shows his character even in the diverse ways that he used to form the Scriptures. And the Scriptures themselves testify to their formation.

‘Write This in a Book’

Of all the named authors in the Bible, Moses is the first. Immediately after the exodus, and still before the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, God tells Moses to start writing God’s words down (Exodus 17:14). Amalek had come out to fight Israel, and Moses commanded Joshua to lead the army while Moses would lift up the staff of God. It is after this fight that God speaks to Moses (the text does not tell us how) and commands him to write down what God’s ultimate judgment over Amalek will be as a memorial. The first command to record God’s words in a book comes in order that this book would become a memorial, a testimony, to the acts of God and the fulfilment of his promises. An interesting detail is that already this first Scripture is to be recited to Joshua. The future leader is to be formed by the word of God from its very beginning.

Soon after the fight with Amalek, Israel arrives at Mount Sinai. Here God speaks directly from the mountain, but the people cannot bear it (Exodus 20:19–21). Therefore, Moses goes up the mountain alone and receives the two tablets (Exodus 31:18; 32:15–16). The first set is made and written by God himself, but Moses breaks them in anger because of the idolatry of the people (Exodus 32:19). Moses then brings up a second set so that these can be inscribed with the same words of the covenant (Exodus 34:1, 28; Deuteronomy 10:4). It is also at this occasion that Moses is commanded to write down all the words, “for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27).

Numbers 33:2 teaches that Moses did not just write down the laws God gave to the people, but also the historical account of the journey of Israel.

In the book of Deuteronomy, at the end of Israel’s time in the wilderness and just before the entrance into the Promised Land, Moses addresses the people and reminds them of what had happened, what God had told them, and what it meant to be the covenant people of God. As expected, the written basis of the covenant is again mentioned. In Deuteronomy 10:5 we learn that the two tablets are kept in the ark. Deuteronomy 31:9 adds that the whole law is given to the Levites who carry the ark, but that it is also given to the elders of the people. The actual book that Moses wrote is to be kept near the ark “for a witness against you” (Deuteronomy 31:26). This is the beginning of the tabernacle, later replaced by the temple, as the place where the word of God is kept and preserved.

Deuteronomy gives us one unexpected insight into the actual practice of copying the law. We read about the stipulations for the future kings in Deuteronomy 17. Once the king sits on his throne, he has to write for himself a copy of the law “from before” the Levitical priests in order that he may read in it all the days of his life (Deuteronomy 17:18–19). The expression “from before” has been interpreted as meaning “approved by,” which is certainly possible. However, there is a more direct interpretation. It seems likely to me that the king is allowed to make his personal copy from the master scroll that Moses deposited with the Levites. This was a true privilege for the king, but also a serious responsibility. The king is supposed to be a faithful scribe. And as with Joshua, the leader of the people is supposed to be formed by the written word of God.

Authors and Compilers

Many of the books in the Old Testament remain without a named author, which is significant in itself. Apparently, the circumstances of their production are not necessary for their interpretation. We also read about books that were in existence but have not been preserved — for example, the book of the rights and duties of the king, written by Samuel and “laid . . . up before the Lord” (1 Samuel 10:25) — that is, put in the tabernacle together with the Scriptures.

We know David mainly as king, yet he was also the author of many psalms. He is called a “prophet” (Acts 2:30), and he calls himself “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Samuel 23:1). Other authors of Psalms are named too — Moses, Solomon, Asaph, Heman, and Ethan. When considering the book of Psalms as a whole, however, we hit another boundary to our knowledge. Who collected all the individual psalms into their canonical order? Was this a gradual process that happened over time? When did this book gets its final shape?

The same questions are raised by the book of Proverbs. Solomon is presented as the source for the wisdom tradition in the book (Proverbs 1:1), but the final two chapters name two other persons, Agur and Lemuel (Proverbs 30:1 and 31:1). In addition, Proverbs 25:1 adds a fascinating detail, as it says that the men of Hezekiah brought together the content of the following chapters — several hundred years after Solomon! Like the book of Psalms, we do not know who gave the book of Proverbs its final shape. But in this case, Scripture tells us that it was centuries after the oldest parts were produced.

Books such as Proverbs seem to be the exception, though. Most books do not give us explicit information about how they came into being. Scripture tells us, however, that later authors were often very much aware of what had been written before. Psalm 119 assumes the presence of the law, the prophet Hosea refers back to Genesis (Hosea 12:3–5), Zechariah alludes to prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, and Daniel reads the prophet Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2). Throughout most of this period, the tabernacle or the temple would be the central location for the preservation of Scripture. It is not without reason that when Josiah restored the proper worship of the true God, it was the temple where the Book of the Law was rediscovered (2 Kings 22:8–11). But as would be expected, it was not just the temple that was active in the preservation of Scripture, but also faithful kings such as Hezekiah, and possibly the schools of prophets, which were not necessarily connected closely to the central sanctuary, played a role in the transmission of God’s word.

Israel’s Book Culture

If, however, the temple is of such great importance, what happened when the temple was destroyed and the people went into exile? Interestingly, around this time we see more and more signs of the book culture that we know must have existed. Jeremiah writes a letter to the Babylonian exiles (Jeremiah 29), and dictates his prophecies again to Baruch the scribe after the king burnt the first copy (Jeremiah 36:1–4). Only a little later, Daniel had a copy of Jeremiah’s prophecy in exile (Daniel 9:2). The prophet Ezekiel is ordered to eat a scroll (Ezekiel 3:1–3), and just after the exile Zechariah sees a flying scroll (Zechariah 5:1–2). Texts, scrolls, and scribes are part of the religious world and religious imagery.

Perhaps the capstone of this development is found in Ezra and Nehemiah. Here we find the scribe Ezra repeatedly expounding the Law that Moses had written. (See the expression “as it is written” in Ezra 3:2, 4; 6:18; Neh. 8:14; 10:34, 36; 13:1.) Nehemiah 8 especially is a glorious description how the people of Israel have now become a people gathered around the written word of God.

The biblical history is by and large silent about the period between Ezra and the New Testament. But when the New Testament tells us about the birth of Jesus, it mentions faithful believers who were expecting the salvation of Israel (Luke 1–2). The only story about the growing up of Jesus tells us about him questioning and answering the teachers of the law in the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Later, Jesus would say of these teachers that “they sit on the seat of Moses” and that the people were to do what they said, but not do as they do (Matthew 23:2–3). Throughout Jesus’s ministry, not only does he teach from the Scriptures (Luke 4:16–30), which were available in the synagogues, but he also fulfills prophecy by his actions (Matthew 21:4). Even when the evangelists record what Jesus had done, they use language directly derived from the Old Testament (compare, e.g., Luke 2:52 with Proverbs 3:4). Yet now we have arrived at the finale phase in writing God’s word, because all of the New Testament was written after the death and resurrection of Jesus, even though it extensively deals with the ministry of Jesus before the arrival of the new covenant.

Stewards of the Gospel Story

The four Gospels teach us about Jesus: what he said, what he did, what he taught. Each of the Gospels helps us also to see the significance of the One who died and rose again. Matthew does this openly by explaining how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. John teaches the eternal and divine truth about the Word who came down from heaven and returned to the Father. Mark shows the depth of Jesus’s obedience by not even mentioning the name Jesus as he is mocked, stripped, spit upon, and crucified (Mark 15:16–33), until his final moments and last words (Mark 15:34). The Gospels teach us about Jesus, but told from after the resurrection (John 2:22), from after the moment that the witnesses had received the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who enabled the apostles to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8), and who reminded them of everything Jesus had said (John 14:26). The apostles had two powerful impulses at their disposal: the Spirit-sharpened memory of Jesus’s teaching and the Spirit-taught understanding of the existing Scriptures (Luke 24:44–45).

In the time immediately after Pentecost, the apostles started their teaching ministry (see Acts 4:2; 5:21, 42; 11:26; 15:35; 18:11; 28:31). There are some differences but also some similarities with how the old covenant started. At Pentecost, there was a loud sound (Acts 2:2), as in Exodus 19, but this time it did not strike fear into the hearts of the listeners. There were also flames, not on top of the mountain but on the gathered believers. The words of the law, the first covenant, were inscribed on stone tablets. But, just as Jeremiah 31:33 foretold, the new covenant was written directly on the hearts of people. The primary place of God’s word was now internal, written on hearts by the Spirit.

So what was happening to the teachings and events recorded in the Gospels between Pentecost and their writing down? When were the Gospels written? Scripture is not silent about this time, but we have to read carefully. In short, the apostles taught the content of the Gospels, the life and ministry of Jesus. And this teaching was remembered and shared among the churches. Therefore, initially the main source for knowledge of Jesus was found in the oral teaching of the apostles, rather than in a written record of this teaching.

We find a good example of this in 1 Corinthians 11. At the beginning of this chapter, Paul commends the church in Corinth for maintaining “the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). Both the words tradition and to deliver have the same root in Greek, having everything to do with handing down. Paul comes back to this language a little later: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Corinthians 11:23). The words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper are a “tradition” that Paul received and had taught to the Corinthians. Later, these words would be written down almost word for word in Luke’s Gospel.

In fact, Luke at the beginning of his Gospel tells Theophilus that his book is “just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us” (Luke 1:2). The resemblance to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:2 is striking.

There are other references to the teaching of Jesus in 1 Corinthians. That Greeks seek wisdom and Jews seek signs goes at least partly back to Jesus’s words later written down in Mark 8:12. Jesus’s teaching about divorce is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, distinguished from the apostolic teaching in the next verse. That is, there was no explicit teaching of Jesus on the situation described in 1 Corinthians 7:12, and the Corinthians should not think that there was some saying they had missed somehow. And elsewhere in the New Testament, it pays off to read the letter of James side by side with the Sermon on the Mount. The similarities are clear, and it is not difficult to see how James’s teaching has started out from the words of Jesus himself.

Tradition Becomes Scripture

The apostles had a special ministry and authority. The traditions they had taught and the letters they had written, combined with their physical presence, contained all the guidance the churches needed. However, apostles would not be around forever (John 21:22–23), and they were faced with the question of whether the traditions they had taught would be remembered “just as they had delivered them.” In 2 Peter 1:15, Peter shares that this consideration was a real concern. This brings us to the closing stages of the formation of the New Testament, the writing down of the Gospels.

Luke knew about many others who had attempted to write a Gospel (Luke 1:1). Likewise, John wrote his testimony down after having preached its content for a long time. He had the benefit of looking back and being able to select those parts of the story that are sufficient for a saving knowledge of Jesus (John 20:30–31). For each of the four Gospels, the church retained the tradition of how they were linked to apostolic authority, directly (Matthew, John) or indirectly (Mark to Peter, Luke to Paul).

Entry into the new covenant remained an inward work, the word of God written on hearts by the Holy Spirit, yet the written accounts of Jesus’s life and ministry, and the teaching of how his salvation shapes the life of his people, were now entrusted to paper and ink — sometimes almost reluctantly (2 John 12), yet ultimately in the expectation that the apostolic writings were sufficient to make our joy complete (1 John 1:4).

This transition from remembered traditions to written accounts is reflected in Paul’s letters. As we have seen, Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping the traditions as he had delivered them. Later, however, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul introduces a double citation with the phrase “for the Scripture says.” The first of these, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second citation from Scripture is “the laborer deserves his wages.” These exact words are found only in Luke 10:7, with a less exact parallel in Matthew 10:10. Therefore, by the time 1 Timothy was written, the Gospel tradition as written down by Luke was used — and approved — by Paul as being Scripture. (Alternatively, it is possible to read “for the Scripture says” as covering only the first of the two citations. But this reading is somewhat forced; the most natural reading is to apply the phrase to both citations.)

The implications of 1 Timothy 5:18 and its use of Luke are considerable. Just as in 1 Corinthians 11, again we have a link between the preaching of Paul and Luke’s Gospel. Moreover, though Paul must have taught the content of Luke 10:7 as part of the “Jesus tradition,” he decides to appeal to the written form, the Gospel, and by doing so Paul signals that there has been a transition from the remembered tradition to the written form. Scripture now includes the gospel and is part of all Scripture that is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Also, the use of Luke in 1 Timothy seems to indicate that the Gospels were written earlier rather than later, and mostly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Scripture Copied and Translated

When the time of the apostles was over, scriptural revelation was also complete. Because of the wide acknowledgement that the apostles, brothers of Jesus (James, Jude; see also 1 Corinthians 9:4), and those who recorded their teaching were a special gift to the church, their writings were rightly accepted as the word of God, in the same way the Old Testament was. There are some indications that certain memories from the time of the preaching of the first generation lasted well into the second half of the second century, but more and more the writings of the New Testament became the sole authoritative link to the apostles. In the absence of special revelation, our knowledge of what happened in the transmission of the New Testament text after its completion can only be inferred from the surviving manuscript evidence and from what is said by church fathers.

Some things had changed in comparison to the situation under the old covenant. No longer was there a central sanctuary. The apostles may have formed the figurative pillars of the spiritual temple that is the church, yet after their passing away there was no authoritative central location that could function in the way the temple in Jerusalem did. Jerusalem functioned as the center where approved copies of the Scriptures could be obtained (compare Acts 7:27–28). Yet the early church was spread out all over the Roman Empire and beyond, and everywhere the Scripture was copied. It is telling that in these early centuries no church claimed to have an original letter or Gospel in their possession, even though it is clear such originals must have been sent at some point.

Comparing Manuscripts

Printed Bibles have been in existence for a little over five hundred years. For the preceding centuries (1,400 years for the New Testament, and much longer for the Old), the original Hebrew and Greek were copied by hand. For those who are used to a printing culture, the idea that a copy is not necessarily identical to the original is somewhat disturbing. Yet for the early church, this was part of everyday reality. We have examples from every century of church fathers who discussed the difference in wording that existed between manuscripts.

It is important to distinguish between the transmission of the text of the Hebrew Old Testament and that of the Greek New Testament. Quite early on in church history, the main text used for the Old Testament was a Greek or Latin translation (or further translations made from these versions). The transmission of the Hebrew text was carried out in rabbinic circles. The Masoretic text of the Middle Ages reflects the text preserved in the temple in great detail and accurately records not only how the text was pronounced but also differences that existed between the major scrolls kept in the temple before its destruction.

As we have seen, the Greek New Testament does not go back to a temple text or to a single, central location. And manuscripts of the New Testament differ in their wording of the text. Sometimes these are big differences, sometimes small. Already in the late second century, the church father Irenaeus discussed the issue of some manuscripts of Revelation giving the number of the beast as 616 instead of 666. These discussions give us insight into how the problem of differences in wording was dealt with at the time. One important argument for Irenaeus was that 666 was used in the “oldest and approved” manuscripts (even though “oldest” could not mean more than 100–120 years or so). The term “approved” suggests that, already by the end of the second century, some places or some churches were in possession of manuscripts that functioned as normative. But most of these normative manuscripts have perished, either because of age or violent destruction. So what sort of manuscript do we have left?

There are about four hundred manuscripts that come from before the big transition in Greek writing from individual capital letters to a joined-up cursive script in the ninth century (majuscule script and minuscule script, respectively). The majority of these manuscripts are incomplete or even fragmentary. The three manuscripts that are often dated to the second century are all single fragments from a single page from one of the Gospels. We would need hundreds of these to form one complete book. However, we do have manuscripts that are more extensive, and from the fourth and fifth century we even have manuscripts that have a near-complete New Testament in Greek. What we learn from these manuscripts is that in the early centuries the copies were not always made very carefully, to the extent that sometimes one wonders if some of these were written from memory rather than copied from an existing master copy. What we also learn is that the vast majority of differences are easily resolved because they are obvious errors. The more difficult problems require deeper consideration.

Here it helps that we have so many manuscripts, because now we can look for the type of thing that can go wrong (and likewise the type of error that is rarely made). So it is much more common to make the wording of one Gospel similar to that of another, than to do the reverse. For example, Luke tends to abbreviate citations from the Old Testament, while Matthew gives the longer version. As a result, later manuscripts of Luke often have expanded citations that resemble the longer versions found in Matthew. The King James Version is based on such later manuscripts, so its longer wording in Luke 4:4, 5, and 8 (compared to, for example, the ESV) is all due to influence from Matthew.

The discussions of church fathers of some of textual differences shows that most of the important differences have been talked about over the last sixteen or seventeen centuries. It also shows that the existence of such differences was never a reason to give up trust in the Scriptures.

Evaluating Variants

There seems to be a tension between God preserving his word and the existence of differences between manuscripts. How can we trust our English Bibles if they are the result of comparing the manuscripts that have, in places, a different wording of Scripture?

First, the existence of textual variants often makes little or no difference to the wider meaning of the text. For example, in Romans 1:1, there is a question whether Paul wrote “a servant of Jesus Christ” or “a servant of Christ Jesus.” If someone specializes in particular details of Paul’s language, he or she may be very much interested in solving the problem. Yet on a wider scale, say if we look at Romans 1:1–7 as a whole, the issue has no effect on our understanding of what is going on. In general, this is true of all communication. We can cope with noise in the room and still understand perfectly well what our conversation partner is saying.

Second, of all the textual variants in existence, the vast majority can be resolved with relative ease. It is clear how the error came into being and also why it managed to survive in the textual transmission.

Translating the Word of God

The final step in that long journey from the moment that God inspired his word to us reading his word is that of translation. Translation is not easy. One language (English, for example) tends to use grammar and syntax differently than Hebrew or Greek, which are also quite different languages from one another. It is good to realize that any translation has made choices as to which features of the original to represent and which to leave out. For example, it is traditional to represent the Greek name Iakobos (the Greek form of the Old Testament name Jacob) with James, and as a result we lose something of the feel of this name (Iakobos writes his letter “to the 12 tribes” [James 1:1]!).

Also on a sentence level a translator needs to make difficult choices. How we do present the focus of a sentence in Greek into English, which uses different techniques to show which part of the sentence is prominent? How do we represent the repetition of the same word but used in different shades of meaning? To what extent is the translation intended to be understood the first time of hearing, and to what extent do we expect the reader to make considerable effort to dig deeper into the text? And how do we present some of the bigger issues in the different manuscripts? Do we simply ignore them and choose one text to translate, or do we add the occasional footnote? Translations have to make difficult choices, and different translations make different choices.

How can we trust our translations if a single translation cannot give us the full glory of the original? We may fall into the trap of thinking that because we do not have all the knowledge and insight into what God exactly said, we have nothing at all.

Yet we should not be sucked into such a false opposition. It is important to distinguish carefully between two different words: being accurate and being exhaustive. For example, if we look at a map that gives us only the capital cities of each state, we can learn a lot. This map can be of great benefit in learning the lay of the land. It is accurate, but not exhaustive; there is more to tell. We need a map with more information when we are planning a car journey, also accurate but with more information. And think also of the different map we need when preparing for a long hike; a road map will not get us very far. Each of these maps is accurate, but each also gives a different level of detail.

A good translation will render the Scriptures in the original language accurately into English, and will therefore be the word of God, able to teach, to rebuke, to correct, to build the church up. But the level of detail will be different from translation to translation, and will again be different when we read Scripture in the original languages.

For almost all purposes, our translations give us all that we need to study God’s words and to meet him in his word. Yet it is good to know that many of our pastors and other scholars are also reading Scripture in Greek and Hebrew, as it helps them to understand God’s word more precisely. It is as if they are zooming in with a higher magnification and resolution. As we have seen, sometimes the circumstances prevent us from zooming in as far as we would like. This happens when there are some remaining problems in the wording of the Greek and Hebrew originals. We can see the lay of the land, but the fine detail is less clear. But again, these textual problems are mostly small, and none of them influences what Scripture teaches as a whole.

The Word About the Word

The story of how the Bible came into being is largely told in the Bible itself. Perhaps we would like to know things that are not revealed. There are limitations to our knowledge. Yet the Bible is God’s revelation that tells us in great detail about the whole of salvation history, about the coming of the Messiah and his death and resurrection, and about the great hope of glory that is revealed in the Word who became flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. And this word is fully trustworthy.

The Priesthood of All Believers

Posted on by
Reply

Article by J. V. Fesko (original source – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-priesthood-of-all-believers/)

DEFINITION

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers states that all believers in Christ share in his priestly status; therefore, there is no special class of people who mediate the knowledge, presence, and forgiveness of Christ to the rest of believers, and all believers have the right and authority to read, interpret, and apply the teachings of Scripture.

SUMMARY

In contrast to the beliefs of the medieval church, the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers holds that there is no longer a priestly class of people within God’s people, but that all believers share in Christ’s priestly status by virtue of their union with Christ. Although there was a select group of priests in the OT, who mediated the knowledge, presence, and forgiveness of God to the rest of Israel, Christ has come and fulfilled the priestly role through his life, death, and resurrection. Therefore, Christ was the final priestly mediator between God and his people, and Christians share in that role through him. This means that Christians are not dependent upon the priests within the church to interpret Scripture for them or affect God’s blessing of forgiveness for them; all Christians are equally priests through Christ and stand upon the same ground before the cross. This does not mean that we should do away with pastoral or ministerial authorities. While those authorities are a part of the way that God blesses his church with instruction in sound doctrine, those with churchly authority need the rest of the body just as much.

Medieval Views vs. Protestant Understandings

Medieval theologians believed that salvation came from God through the church. In these simple terms, this sounds very similar to the way most Christians understand it. There are, however, significant differences between medieval and Protestant understandings of how God works through the church. The medieval church taught that God works exclusively through a select class of priests as they administered the seven sacraments of the church: baptism, the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper), confirmation, penance, extreme unction, marriage, and holy orders. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that all people in the church are priests, or in the language of the 16th century reformer, Martin Luther, the priesthood of all believers. What are the differences between these two views? In short, the medieval view rests on the teaching of church tradition whereas the Protestant view grows out of Scripture.

Medieval Christians believed that the church was part of a celestial hierarchy where everything in the heavens and earth had its place in a great chain of being. The great chain begins with God, then archangels, and angels; this heavenly hierarchy finds its earthly parallel through the sacraments, those who are inspired by God to comprehend them, and those initiated by them. God passes his knowledge and grace down the chain to the angels, who in turn invest this information in the sacraments, and those who administer the sacraments (priests), who then give them to the laity. Salvation chiefly comes through the sacraments and the priests who administer them, and the priests are a unique class of individual who have been gifted by God to contemplate the things of God. They are of a higher order than ordinary people who have no capacity for such sublime truth. This view of a hierarchy prevailed in the church through the middle ages until the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Luther challenged this prevailing notion because he rejected the church’s claims; he believed the church rested its idea of the unique priestly class on tradition rather than the authority of Scripture. Luther instead believed that offering the sacrifice of the mass did not make one a priest but rather anyone who had faith in Christ, our great high priest, was indeed a priest of God. In Luther’s typical pithy manner, he claimed: “Faith alone is the true priestly office.” Luther’s idea of the priesthood of all believers versus the priesthood of only a select few rests in the priestly office of Christ and in the believer’s blessing to share in all that Christ is through union with him.

Scriptural Teaching

Scripture clearly identifies Jesus Christ as our great high priest: “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession” (Heb. 4:14). The Old Testament whispered and hinted about the priestly office of Christ through types and shadows, such as Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, and the Levites. God instructed Aaron, for example, that he had to cleanse Israel of their sins through the protocols of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Aaron, and Aaron alone, had to sacrifice a bull to cleanse ceremonially himself (Lev. 16:11) and then take some of the blood, enter the holy of holies, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14). God instructed him to take two scapegoats and sacrifice one of them and sprinkle its blood on the altar (Lev. 16:18) and take the second goat, lay his hands on it, confess Israel’s sins over it, and then send it out of the camp into the wilderness (Lev. 16:21). In this act the goat was to “bear all their iniquities” and carry them away (Lev. 16:22).

As the Old Testament progressively unfolded God’s plan of redemption, the prophets revealed that the Messiah was the ultimate sacrifice. No longer would Israel look to the blood of bulls and goats but to the blood of the Messiah, who would be pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows (Isa. 53:4–5). No longer would the scapegoat bear Israel’s sins but rather Jesus would, “And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). The Messiah would be both sacrifice and priest: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11–12).

In his baptism, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to carry out his threefold office of prophet, priest, and king (Luke 3:1–21; Matt. 3:1–17; Mark 1:1–11). Likewise, we who are in union with Christ share in this same anointing through Christ’s outpouring of the Spirit upon the church (Acts 2:1–41, esp. 33, 38; cf. Gal. 3:14). Through Christ’s priestly office, all believers who are united to him share in his anointing. Two chief texts of Scripture teach us this truth. The first is 1 Peter 2:9, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Within the context of Peter’s statement, he rests the church’s identity as a royal priesthood in their union with Christ. They have come to the living stone rejected by men but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and as such, they have become living stones “to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:4–5). Our priestly office finds its fount and source in Christ’s priestly office.

The second text is like this first one, “And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). What is an implication of Christ’s redemptive work? What is one of the things he accomplishes through his shed blood? “You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall rein on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). Believers united to Christ share in all that he is and does, and in this case, they share in his priestly office. Unlike the Old Testament priests, who offered sacrificial animals, New Testament believers rest in the finished work of Christ, the one true sacrifice. Now, as Peter writes, we proclaim the excellencies of the God who called us out of darkness into light and offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Christ, the sacrifices of our bodies as “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1) and praise to God, that is, “The fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (Heb. 13:15). The implications of this scriptural teaching are profound.

The most significant blessing is that there is no hierarchy of beings (archangels, angels, archbishops, bishops, and priests) standing between the believer and God. Rather, we have union, communion, and fellowship with God through our great high priest, Jesus Christ. When Christ uttered his last breath on the cross, he tore in two the temple veil that shrouded the holy of holies. Christ’s priestly work opened the new and living way through the veil of his flesh so that all believers have immediate access to God who is in the heavenly holy of holies. As Christ taught his disciples, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt. 18:20).

Implications

That all believers are priests means that not only ministers but also the person in the pew has the right and authority to read, interpret, and apply the teachings of the Bible. A caste of priests does not have this right. No longer must we place our implicit faith in the teaching of the church magisterium (the official teaching arm of the church), but like the Bereans in the days of the apostle Paul, we can learn immediately from the word of God and the instruction of the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:11).

Every person, therefore, who is united to Christ, shares in his priestly office, but this great blessing does not mean that we should reject the authority, function, and office of minister. We are indeed a holy nation and kingdom of priests. Christ dispenses this holy office to all Christians through the outpouring of the Spirit. But in addition to this blessing, Christ has also given to the church gifts: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11–12). The shepherds and teachers of the church are priests just like the rest of the body of Christ, but the Spirit uniquely gifts them so they can equip the church for their own growth in grace and the proclamation of the gospel. These shepherds and teachers do not belong to a higher order of being, as in the medieval understanding. Rather, they are one part of the body of Christ, not greater than any other part but necessary nonetheless. The shepherd cannot say to the person in the pew, “I have no need of you because the Spirit has gifted me to be a shepherd.” Conversely, the person in the pew cannot say to the shepherd, “I have no need of you because I am a priest in Christ.” God has sovereignly arranged the body of Christ in such a manner that each part, though different in function and gifts, needs every other part (1 Cor. 12:4–26).

Rejoice that because of your union with Christ you share in all who he is and does. In this case, his high priestly office means that you too are a holy and royal priest.

Famous Atheists & Their Last Words

Posted on by
2

1. CAESAR BORGIA—Italian nobleman, politician, and cardinal: “While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die.”

2. THOMAS HOBBS—Political philosopher: “I say again, if I had the whole world at my disposal, I would give it to live one day. I am about to take a leap into the dark.”

3. THOMAS PAYNE—The leading atheistic writer in American colonies: “Stay with me, for God’s sake; I cannot bear to be left alone, O Lord, help me! O God, what have I done to suffer so much? What will become of me hereafter? I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. 0 Lord, help me! Christ, help me! No, don’t leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one.”

4. SIR THOMAS SCOTT—Chancellor of England: “Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty.”

5. VOLTAIRE—famous anti-christian atheist: “I have swallowed nothing but smoke. I have intoxicated myself with the incense that turned my head. I am abandoned by God and man.” He said to his physician, Dr. Fochin: “I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life.” When he was told this was not possible, he said “Then I shall die and go to hell!” His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”

6. ROBERT INGERSOLL—American writer and orator during the Golden Age of Free Thought: “O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!” Some say it was said this way: “Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!

7. DAVID HUME—Atheist philosopher famous for his philosophy of empiricism and skepticism of religion: He cried loud on his death bed “I am in flames!” It is said his desperation was a horrible scene.

8. NAPOLEON BONAPARTE—French emperor who, like Adolf Hitler, brought death to millions to satisfy his greedy, power-mad, selfish ambitions for world conquest: “I die before my time, and my body will be given back to the earth. Such is the fate of him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ!”

9. SIR FRANCIS NEWPORT—Head of an English Atheist club, to those gathered around his deathbed: “You need not tell me there is no God, for I know there is one, and that I am in his presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell! Oh, that I could lie for a thousand years upon the fire that is never quenched, to purchase the favor of God and be united to Him again. But it is a fruitless wish. Millions and millions of years will bring me no nearer the end of my torments than one poor hour. Oh, eternity, eternity forever and forever! Oh, the insufferable pangs of Hell!”

10. CHARLES IX—the French king. Urged on by his mother, he gave the order for the massacre of the French Huguenots, in which 15,000 souls were slaughtered in Paris alone and 100,000 in other sections of France, for no other reason than that they loved Christ. The guilty king suffered miserably for years after that event. He finally died, bathed in blood bursting from his veins. To his physicians, he said in his last hours: “Asleep or awake, I see the mangled forms of the Huguenots passing before me. They drop with blood. They point at their open wounds. Oh! That I had spared at least the little infants at the bosom! What blood! I know not where I am. How will all this end? What shall I do? I am lost forever! I know it. Oh, I have done wrong.”

11. DAVID STRAUSS—Leading representative of German rationalism, after spending a lifetime erasing belief in God from the minds of others: “My philosophy leaves me utterly forlorn! I feel like one caught in the merciless jaws of an automatic machine, not knowing at what time one of its great hammers may crush me!”

12. ANTON LEVEY—Author of the Satanic Bible and high priest of the religion dedicated to the worship of Satan. One of his famous quotes was: “There is a beast in man that needs to be exercised, not exorcised”. His dying words were: “Oh my, oh my, what have I done, there is something very wrong. . . there is something very wrong.”

13. GANDHI—at his death said, “For the first time in 50 years, I find myself in the slough of despond. All about me is darkness… I am praying for light.”

Predestination and the Actions of Men

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Predestination and Human Actions” by Dr. James N. Anderson, who is the Carl W. McMurray Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, N.C., and an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. He is the featured teacher of the Ligonier teaching series Exploring Islam and author of What’s Your Worldview? (original source: https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2020/04/predestination-and-human-actions/)

The legend of Oedipus is often considered the classic example of Greek fatalism. Troubled by doubts about his parentage, the protagonist consults an oracle who declares that he is destined to murder his father and marry his mother. Although Oedipus repudiates the awful prophecy, events cruelly conspire to bring about its fulfillment. All his efforts to evade his fate prove futile.

The Reformed or Calvinistic doctrines of providence and predestination are often charged with being fatalistic. Yet this characterization trades on some deep confusions. Calvinism does indeed affirm that all events in creation are foreordained by God. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1). Nevertheless, the confession immediately adds that this divine foreordination does not render meaningless the wills of God’s creatures. On the contrary, God normally works out His eternal purposes though secondary causes such as human agents and natural processes. Biblical examples of God directing human actions to His own ends include the story of Joseph (Gen. 45:5–8; 50:20), the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel (Isa. 10:5–11), and the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:27–28).

How, then, does Calvinism differ from fatalism? Shouldn’t a Calvinist admit that Judas was fated to betray Jesus (John 17:12; Acts 1:16) just as Oedipus was fated to kill his father? We should note first that “fate” was understood by the ancients to be an impersonal force or principle that applied equally to men and gods. Just as the Greeks failed to acknowledge a transcendent personal Creator, so they lacked any notion of a sovereign God who directs all things “to his own holy ends” (WCF 5.4). For the pagan fatalist, there is no divine hand of providence, no overarching plan of God. There is no rhyme or reason to the fated outcomes; the universe is a theater of absurdity and tragedy. Contrast that with the biblical worldview, according to which God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11) and “all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

A second major difference between Calvinism and fatalism has already been touched on. Calvinism maintains that God determines not only the ends—the final outcomes of events—but also the means to those ends. In other words, in God’s providence the means are coordinated with the ends such that the ends depend on the means. Thus, God did not merely ordain that Joseph would end up second in authority to Pharaoh; He ordained the entire series of events that culminated in that outcome, including the sinful actions of Joseph’s brothers. We shouldn’t imagine that God planned for Joseph to become so significant to Pharaoh regardless of how his brothers treated him.

Fatalism, on the other hand, tends to disconnect the ends from the means, implying that our lives will turn out a certain way no matter what we do. A contemporary illustration is provided by a recent series of movies in which a group of people initially cheat Death, but their escape always turns out to be short-lived. The Grim Reaper eventually catches up with each of them, despite their attempts to avoid his scythe. Fatalism suggests that our actions are truly futile; they make no practical difference to the outcome. Yet that idea is entirely foreign to the Reformed doctrine of providence. Our future outcomes most surely depend on the choices we make in this life. There’s no contradiction in affirming both that future outcomes depend crucially on our choices and that God sovereignly orders all things, including future outcomes and the choices that lead to them. Yes, God foreordains the actions of His creatures, but He also foreordains that their actions have significant consequences.

A sporting illustration may help clarify the point. Imagine you’re playing a round of golf with a friend, Jacob, who has a habit of conflating Calvinism and fatalism. At the fifth tee, you hit a sweet drive down the fairway. The ball lands squarely on the green and rolls triumphantly into the cup for a hole-in-one.

Instead of congratulating you, Jacob has a mischievous grin on his face. “You’re a Calvinist, aren’t you?” “Indeed,” you reply, intrigued to hear where this is going. “So you believe that God has foreordained all things from eternity, including that hole-in-one. Well, if God foreordained it, it didn’t really matter how you hit the ball. It was predestined to end up in the hole regardless.”

Jacob isn’t nearly as clever as he thinks. By his confused reasoning, the ball would have landed in the hole even if you hadn’t hit it at all. But clearly that’s absurd. The hole-in-one depended on your striking the ball—and striking it well. The consistent Calvinist will say that God foreordained not only the hole-in-one but also that it would happen as a result of your hitting the ball accurately. Your well-aimed drive really did matter.

This isn’t philosophical hairsplitting. The distinction between Calvinism and fatalism has enormously significant implications for the Christian life. It means our prayers really make a difference, for God has ordained that future events will take place in answer to our prayers. It means evangelism is essential, for God has decreed that His elect will be saved by hearing and believing the gospel. It means that we must be diligent to confirm our calling and election (2 Peter 1:10), for although the Shepherd will lose none of His sheep, those sheep will be finally saved only if they persevere in faith to the end.

Understanding that God ordains both the means and the ends, Calvinists can truly say, “If we had not prayed, it would not have happened; if we had not shared the gospel, they would not have heard it; if we do not stand firm in the faith, we will not receive the crown of life.” Yet at the same time, Calvinists will give ultimate credit for all this to the sovereign grace of God.

Why Creeds?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Clint Archer (original source here – https://thecripplegate.com/why-creeds/)

“I don’t believe in creeds, I believe in Jesus.” That pithy declaration is an example of a creed. Any statement of a belief or expression of a conviction is a creed, even one that avers a total rejection of creeds, notwithstanding the irony and a comical lack of self-awareness.

The word creed comes from the Latin “credo” meaning “I believe.” Many creeds commence with the formula, “I believe…” or “We believe…” Throughout church history, Christians have articulated their convictions of truth in statements of faith. As the hand of time rolls a creed through the debris of error, its content grows larger and denser until it comes to rest as an immovable mass of solid doctrine.

If you declare that you believe in Jesus, it is only a matter of time before someone may challenge you to clarify which Jesus. The one in the Bible, of course. Yes, but what do you believe about that Jesus? People in the Bible suggested he might be Elijah or some other prophet, but Peter rightly declared that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He thus eliminated some erroneous interpretations and false beliefs. The rest of the New Testament continues the work of expunging error and articulating truth.

To assert that you believe the Bible alone is cute but inadequate. Unless you are prepared to recite the whole Bible every time anyone asks you what you believe on any topic, you will find the convenience of an abridgment invaluable.

Now, you are free to formulate your own statement of faith but be warned, it’s a tricky business. Anytime you say one thing that is true, someone can agree with your statement, while simultaneously embracing something else you would reject. This will lead you to add a phrase or change a word—which in turn will spawn new needs for more nuance and clarification. Let’s just say that getting the wording of an airtight, eternally significant belief system takes more linguistic expertise, theological prowess, biblical knowledge, and time than any individual Christian possesses. Time is a key ingredient. It takes a long while to pressure test the product for leaks. Only when people you disagree with come and say they agree with your creed, can you spot the cracks in your handiwork.

Some theology takes longer to error-proof than can be accomplished in one lifetime.

One example is the Apostles’ Creed. I have recited a version of that confession over a thousand times… as a Roman Catholic. Now, as a born-again, Evangelical, Reformed Baptist, guess what? I can still recite the Apostles’ Creed and agree with every word (though I now have a better understanding of what some of the words mean, like “catholic” and “hell” and “begotten”).

So, if a Catholic and a Baptist can recite the same creed, why can’t we all just get along, ecclesiastically speaking? Because we all also hold to other beliefs that are not included in that ancient creed. As Dr. Al Mohler wrote in his recent book, unambiguously titled The Apostles’ Creed, “All Christians believe more than is contained in the Apostles’ Creed, but none can believe less.”

A framework of doctrine is like a lattice. It might be sturdy enough for you when unchallenged. But when enemies of the truth aim their arrows at your faith, you will want the lattice reinforced with layer upon layer of language until it is impenetrable.

Another example is the Nicene Creed.

If you declare merely that you believe in the Jesus of the Bible and then insist that no other credal paraphernalia is warranted, you will soon find yourself in the doctrinal company of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If you want to edge JWs out of your Committee to Keep Creeds Short, you are going to have to add at least a few more lines to your non-creed. At this point, it might prove helpful to consult with your older brothers in the faith, who met at Nicaea in 325 AD. They already formulated a vaccine for the JW virus when they encountered Patient Zero, a man named Arius. They found a dose of this punchy paragraph to be immensely useful in protecting the Body of Christ against the assertion that Jesus was a created being or less than the Father in some way:

“We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made; of the same essence as the Father.”

And yes, every phrase is there to reinforce a vulnerable spot in the lattice of orthodox Christology.

We Baptists have tended to be creed-averse, largely as a reaction to confessionalism. Baptists are people of the Book, after all. But our library shelves aren’t empty; we are people of books, blogs, and other helpful documents. I think it behooves us to peer over our Presbyterian peers’ shoulders and see what all the fuss is about.

Creeds are not authoritative, of course. (Sola Scriptura forever!) Nor are they sufficient, which is why there are so many of them. But they are not nothing. 

Creeds represent the efforts of the Body of Christ, the Church Universal through the ages, to articulate, clarify, defend, and promote the teachings of the Old and New Testaments. And they do so in a way that can grow stronger with time, and can withstand the onslaught of revenant heresies that were dealt with in the past, to prevent them getting the best of a new generation of believers.

Like a fortress that takes generations to build, the doctrines we uphold today have been preserved for us by our older brothers and sisters, so that we can enjoy safety from old heresies and can have a strong foundation on which to build the fortifications to fend off new heresies.

The Body of Christ is made up of many members, and not all of them are alive at the same time. As Christians, we should know our family history, and we should learn from the battles our forefathers fought. And there is no better place to start than by reading creeds.

At least, that’s what I believe.

Two Encounters

Posted on by
Reply

Article: My Two Very Different Encounters on the Topic of Bible Prophecy by Gary DeMar (original source – https://americanvision.org/22874/my-two-very-different-encounters-on-the-topic-of-bible-prophecy/)

Late Sunday evening, I returned from Idaho after doing two full days of content projects for American Vision. Upon arriving in Atlanta very late that evening I took the shuttle to where my car was parked.

I don’t know how the conversation with the driver started, but she made a comment about how our nation was moving toward socialism. I agreed with her. Then she brought up that we were most likely living in the last days.

I didn’t agree. She asked me why, and I went through a brief explanation. She was a Christian and believed the Bible. She listened and thought about what I said, and was very receptive. I told her I would send her some of my books. (This is important as you will read.)

She wrote down her address. I gave her a generous tip and drove home, arriving just after midnight.

While on my trip, a woman named Wendy posted some comments in response to my article “The Mark of the Beast and Buying and Selling” that has had more than five thousand shares. Here’s how it went:

Wendy: This is not true. I pray the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to the truth. Jesus is literally taking His true bride home soon and some who do not believe will be left behind to face horrific times. I’m praying for you.

Me: Where is the Bible passage that says what you are claiming?

Wendy: You have to be a born-again believer through faith in Jesus to be saved and have your eyes open. Also, you have to read the (whole) Bible. And believe every word of it. See how Bible prophecy has literally come true and will continue to literally unfold before our eyes. I have no fear because I know where I am going when I die or when Jesus takes me home. Which ever happens first.

Me: I am a born-again believer, and I believe every word of the Bible. I want to know how you know “Jesus is literally taking His true bride home soon.” The operative word is “soon.” I’m very familiar with the topic of Bible Prophecy having written ten books on the subject, debated it on radio and in various venues, and have written dozens of articles on the subject.

Wendy: Do you believe in the rapture of the church? All I know is I don’t read man’s books. I read, trust in, God’s word, the Bible. All others are sinking sand. I’m looking forward to a literal resurrection of my body, just like Jesus promised. No one can take this away. Jesus said. So, I have no fear. But I do pray for people who have no hope and are lost in their sins. To put their faith and lives in Jesus’ hands. He is the Way, The Truth, and The Life. Amen

Me: Show me a verse that says the Church will be taken off the Earth before, during, in the middle of, just before the wrath of God is poured out, or at the end of a 7- year period, and it’s all going to happen “soon.” You say you trust God’s Word, as I do, what verse says this? You have never read a single book written by a man about any part of the Bible or listened to a message or sermon about the Bible? I find that hard to believe since you asked me about “the rapture of the church.” Where does the word “rapture” appear in the Bible? You learned about the “rapture of the church” from someone else.

Wendy: I can use the word caught up to meet Him in the sky if that’s better?

Me: You used the word “rapture” after telling me you do not read anything but the Bible. You didn’t get that word from reading the Bible. You learned the doctrine of the rapture from someone else. The rapture refers to the church being taken up to heaven prior to (pre-trib), in the middle of, partially, before the wrath of God is poured out (pre-wrath), or after (post-trib) a seven-year period in which the antichrist makes a covenant with Israel, rebuilds the temple, breaks a covenant with Israel, etc. First Thessalonians 4:13–18 does not mention any of these things. There is no verse that mentions these necessary definitions of what is taught as the “rapture of the church.”

Wendy: And then those who remain will rise to meet Him in the sky. It’s coming soon!!! I am so excited!!!

Me: I see you have avoided answering my question. Here’s the next one: How do you know “it’s coming soon”? The operative word is “soon.” Where is that in the Bible that you know “it’s coming soon”?

Wendy: Jesus said when you see these things come to pass, look up, your redemption draweth nigh.

Me: What things? In Luke 21:28, Jesus was describing what was going to take place before their generation passed away (21:32). Notice that Jesus uses the second person plural throughout the chapter (vv. 8, 9, 12, 13, etc.). This entire prophecy was fulfilled before their generation passed away in the lead up to an including the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in AD 70. It was near for them.

Wendy: You will believe what you want. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. If a bunch of Christians disappear during your lifetime though, just don’t take the mark of the beast. Continue to claim Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That’s all I’m saying. No sense arguing. The Bible says to avoid silly and vain disputes. If you have read the (whole) Bible multiple times and have a daily relationship with Jesus through His word and prayer, then I am confident you will be ok. If you are lying and have not read the whole Bible in daily relationship with Jesus and prayer, then there is nothing more I can say to convince you. Love and prayers coming your way. I wait for the promise of my literal resurrection body to be with my Lord and Savior forever. Amen.

Me: Actually, it’s not all you are saying, and you have not convinced me on the subject of Bible prophecy since you did not make your case using the Bible. You said you only read the Bible and don’t read any other books. You said you believe the Bible. When I asked you to defend your position you didn’t and repeatedly changed the subject.

Too often doctrines are manufactured out of bits and pieces of the Bible that follow the hopscotch approach to hermeneutics. Something is pulled from Daniel 9:24–27 that’s not found there (a gap, an antichrist, making and breaking a covenant with the Jews), that’s linked with prophecies outlined by Jesus in Matthew 24 that were fulfilled before that generation passed away (Matt. 24:34), a rebuilt temple that is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament, the Jews returning to their land as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, something the New Testament does not say, the rapture of the church, and so much more.

There is a connection between what people believe about Bible prophecy and the culture. In both cases, my two encounters linked world conditions to some imminent end-time event. The shuttle driver was willing to hear and consider a different way of looking at the topic and was receptive enough to read more on the subject. The Facebook responder had no desire to engage in a discussion. For her, the end is inevitably near and she is excited about it. What should Christians do until this “rapture” takes place, an event that has been near for nearly 2000 years?