Category Archives: Questions and Answers

All always means “all”, right?

Posted on by
Reply

Question: I understand the following to be a brief summary of Jesus’ words regarding God’s Sovereign purpose in election from John 6:35-45: Unless it is granted, no one will come to Christ. All to whom it is granted will come to Christ, and all of these will be raised up to eternal life on the last day. So, this being the case, can you please explain to me the meaning of John 12:32, where Jesus said: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”?

Answer: What I will say here may surprise you, but the word “all” has a number of different meanings in the Bible. We tend to assume that when Jesus speaks of drawing “all men” that He is referring to every last person on the planet. Well, that may or may not be true, but it is in the CONTEXT where we find the phrase that tells us if this assumption is correct or misplaced.

Even today we use the words “all” or “every” in many different ways. When a school teacher asks the people in his classroom, “Are we all here?” or “is everyone listening?” we understand he is not talking about every one of the 6.5 billion plus folk on the planet, but all the students who have signed up for the class. Context determines the proper interpretation or meaning of words. When the word “all” is used, it is used within a context.

In this illustration, the “all” had a context of the school classroom, which did not include “all” the hockey players in Iceland, “all” the dentists in Denmark, or “all” the carpet layers in Atlanta, Georgia. To rip the word “all” out of its setting and say that the teacher was refering to all people everywhere, would be to totally misunderstand and misinterpret how the word was being used. Again, it is context that determines correct interpretation.

I believe you are correct in your understanding of what John 6:35-45 teaches. So how do we understand the nature of the drawing in John 12:32? Who is being drawn?

We find answers to these questions by refusing to be lazy, doing some serious study, and by consciously allowing our traditions to be exposed to the light of Scripture.

So if understanding the context plays such a major role in getting the correct interpretation, exactly what was the context in John 12? Well it is a very different setting than the one we find in John 6. In John 12, Greeks were coming to Jesus and believing in Him.

John 12:20-22 – Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus.

Dr. James White, in his book the Potter’s Freedom (p. 163), describes the background as follows: “John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus’ public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus’ public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” This then is the context which leads us to Jesus’ words in verse 32:

John 12:27-33 “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour ‘? But for this purpose I came to this hour. “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

I believe that in its context the “all men” refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.

But lets look at this issue from another angle by asking the question, “Is it true that everyone on earth is drawn to the cross?” Is that what the Bible really teaches about the cross?

Continue reading →

The Lord Jesus Christ – One Person, Two Natures

Posted on by
1

Pastor John, when the second Person of the Trinity (identified as “the Word” in John 1:1) became flesh (John 1:14) did this signify a change in the Godhead in some way? I have heard more than one preacher say that in becoming man, He laid aside His divine characteristics such as omnipresence (being everywhere present) and omniscience (knowing all things). Is this true?

Thanks for writing in. The answer is a resounding “no” to both of your questions. The Godhead has not changed one iota and never will. God is both eternal and immutable (unchanging). Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.” I would also say that Christ in no way laid aside His divine attributes at any time (though by becoming a man, those attributes were veiled to us).

Its important to know that these kind of questions are not new to our generation, but Christian scholars throughout the centuries have grappled with them and found biblical answers. To combat the gross heresy that was seeking to gain inroads in the Church, Christian leaders met together at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, to search the Bible and properly define what we call “the hypostatic union” – the union of the two natures of Christ. Here at this Council (based on the revelation of Scripture) Jesus Christ was declared to be one Person with two natures, one that is fully human and one that is fully Divine. These two natures are united in the one Person. These natures can be distinguished from each other but never separated. How exactly this union of the two natures takes place is very much a mystery but it is certainly the case. Colossians 2:9 tells us that Christ is the fullness of Deity in bodily form.

The statement of the council was:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (?? ??? ??????? ?????????, ????????, ??????????, ????????? – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (???????? ????), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The human nature of Jesus is not half human and half divine, but fully human. Likewise, the Divine nature of Christ is not half Divine and half human, but fully Divine. The human nature has the attributes of human-ness; the divine nature has all the attributes of Deity.

John Calvin in addressing this, once wrote:

“[Although] the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be home in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning!” [Institutes, 2:13:4.]

Knowing this helps us enormously as we read the New Testament. Often we see statements that could only be true of the human nature of Christ. We read that He increased in wisdom, He was hungry, tired, and so on. We are even told that He did not know the date of His second coming and only His Father did. Here we have a statament that would not be true of Him as to His Deity, for as God, He knew all things; and therefore it is a reference to His humanity, where the attribute of Deity (in this case omniscience) did not communicate that knowledge to His human nature. Jesus was omniscient with respect to His divine nature but temporal and changeable with respect to his human nature.

Another evidence of the humanity of Jesus is the fact that He died. Preachers often mistakenly say that God died on the cross, and some hymns even say this. I am sure we have all heard the hymn that declares, “Amazing love, how can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me” but were that to happen in reality, the whole Universe would be destroyed. That is because as God, all things are held together in Him. The Universe would not exist for even a second if God died. No, it is totally impossible for God to die. Jesus died as pertaining to His humanity, not His deity.

This is all extremely mysterious of course, but what the Council of Chalcedon did not remove this mystery. However, it did show us the boundaries regarding orthodoxy, as to what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. When we seek to go beyond Chalcedon’s declarations, to use the expression of one scholar, “we simply choose our heresy.” In that sense, Chalcedon was a “terminal” council in the sense that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to state how the two natures function in Christ’s one Person with any more precision that the council has stated.

What adds to the mystery is that we are not aware of anything in this earthly realm that is fully one thing while at the same time fully something else. That’s why all earthly analogies fail.

I did read recently of one attempt though, that probably gets us as close as possible to being a good analogy, though even here, it is flawed. James Anderson from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina wrote:

“An analogy (albeit an imperfect one) may help to clarify this distinction. In the movie Avatar the protagonist, Jake Sully, is enlisted to operate a Na’vi-human hybrid body. Given the close mental connection between Sully and his ‘avatar’—he acts and experiences everything through that body—we might well say that he inhabits the hybrid body and that he now has two bodies. So consider this question: Can Sully run? Well, yes and no. He can’t run with respect to human body (he’s a paraplegic) but he can run with respect to his avatar body. Similarly, we can say that Jesus was resurrected with respect to his human nature but not with respect to his divine nature. Only in his humanity did he undergo change.”

If we can use our imagination for a moment and picture Jesus, shortly after His birth, it would be true to say that humanly speaking, He was fragile as He was being held in the arms of his mother; yet if we could peer for a moment beyond the physical, Jesus as God, was holding not only His mother, but every cell and atom together in this Universe. Talking of Christ, Colossians 1:16, 17 says:

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

He is the Creator of all things and in Him all things hold together. That’s quite a thought isn’t it?

The last point I would make in all this is in reference to the Roman Catholic teaching of the Mass, where the belief is that the bread becomes the literal body, blood and divinity of Christ. This doctrine has many severe problems with it, not the least being that this is a denial of the Chalcedon statement because it would mean that Christ’s literal body is in more than one place at a time. If the mass is celebrated at a Church on 4th street, it cannot also be on 48th Street or 5th Avenue at the same time, and certainly not also in England, Australia and China. The human nature is human, with its many limitations, one of them being that it is always localized in one place.

What is amazing though is that when Christ was walking the streets of Jerusalem as to His humanity, in His Divinity, He was everywhere present, without any limitations. Such is the case today. The body of Jesus is at the right hand of His Father on the throne of the Universe, and yet, He is near to us and everywhere present with us in His Divinity. That is why the Reformers believed that in celebrating the Lord’s Supper Christ is fully present with us spiritually (rather than physically).

Jesus said, “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:20) What a comfort this is. He is present with us even now. Talk to Him and enjoy sweet fellowship with the Master.

For more insight regarding the Incarnation and what it means, here is a very helpful article by Dr. James White entitled, “Beyond the Veil of Eternity.” I recommend it very highly. Dr. White deals especially with the Philippians 2 passages where it states He “emptied Himself,” not by losing anything essential to the divine nature, but (as the text says) by “taking the form of a servant.” This meant an addition, not a subtraction. A short article by Phil Johnson is also noteworthy, found here.

Contradictions?

Posted on by
Reply

Question: Why does the Bible say that Mary Magdalene and another Mary discovered the empty tomb, while another Gospel says that only Mary did, while another says that Simon joined them? This to me seems like inaccuracies in the Bible.

Lee Strobel answers:

It’s important to clarify between a biblical inaccuracy (what others often call a contradiction) and what a Gospel writer simply chose to include or emphasize in his account. A contradiction is to affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect. A contradiction regarding the eyewitness testimony cited would be, for instance, that “only Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb” – something no Gospel writers say – and “Mary and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) went to the empty tomb.

To shed a bit more light on the biblical passage you cited, John mentions only Mary Magdalene explicitly at the tomb in his Gospel (John 20:1). But if we read carefully we see in the next verse (20:2) that Mary tells Peter, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb but we don’t know where they have put him!” This supports the other Gospels when they say that other women went to the tomb with Mary, perhaps following closely behind. As the NIV Study Bible says, the we “indicates that there were others with Mary (see Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10), though John does not identify them.” So when John wrote his Gospel, he only mentions one woman by name but uses the plural pronoun “we” to indicate that others were with her.

Further, if the Gospel writers, two of whom were among the Twelve disciples of Jesus, wanted to fabricate a story about the resurrected Christ, it is unthinkable that they would have put women at the tomb first. It is well established that a woman’s testimony in the ancient world was generally not considered to be credible and that they were for the most part not allowed to testify in a court of law. See, for instance, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig.

Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”

Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.

In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not. Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.