Category Archives: Questions and Answers

Biblical Grounds for Divorce

Posted on by
Reply

A transcript from a Question and Answer Session at the Ligonier Ministries National Conference, Bought with a Price, tadalafil Orlando, 2006

Question: If we understand marriage correctly, what are the biblical grounds for divorce?

R.C. Sproul – One of the things that I think is very destructive in the Church are those Churches (and those people within the Church) who prohibit divorce on any grounds whatsoever because that just completely denies the clear and unambiguous exceptive clause that Jesus gave in the Gospel of Matthew when he dealt with the traditonal issue among the Rabbis (the Hillel School and the Shimei School) developing the controversy over the divorce laws of Deuteronomy.

Jesus made it very, very clear that Moses, because of the hardness of their heart, gave them the right for divorce on the basis of the “unclean thing,” which is not specifically adultery but its “unclean” and so the whole debate amongst the Jewish Rabbis was, “What constitutes the unclean thing?”

The Liberal (interpretation) says, “If she breaks a dish that he likes, that’s justification for divorce.”

No, Jesus said, unless its for porneia, which is sexual immorality, there is no basis. And now we have all kinds of examples where a husband or wife gets invovled in an immoral sexual relationship and then the Church says to the partner, “That’s not grounds for divorce. You can’t get out of that relationship.” That’s devastating. That’s not what the Bible teaches.

Also, the second grounds are given by the Apostle Paul – “separation from the non-believer” – if the non-believer chooses to leave the marriage, the believer’s free at that point.

Then, of course, where it really gets sticky is “What are the boundaries of sexual immorality?’ There I think the Church has to be very wise in dealing with those questions.

Ken Jones – Yes and in those cases, the person is not commanded to get a divorce.

R.C. – Right!

Ken Jones – That option is available to them but they are not commanded to get a divorce. In fact, Paul says, as it relates to those who are married to an unbeliever who has abandoned them, he admonishes them to, if at all possible, seek reconciliation. And if that person agrees to live with you in their state of unbelief, then by all means, do not pursue the divorce. But I agree with R C that I think sometimes we have seen in the Church, things that I believe are very clear by Christ, we have made those areas more grey than they actually are…

R C – What you hear all the time though is (people say), “Well yes, you may have biblical grounds but the “higher road” is to stay married – and you tell this poor woman who has been violated that now she is supposed to go back in there and be naked and unashamed? ITS NOT SAFE! You know, her soul’s been absolutely devastated, and God in His grace has given her the right to leave that situation.

Someone says, “but what if the guy repents?” You hear that all the time.. this can happen the other way of course, women and men – but most of the time its the man.. so I say, “Well suppose a guy really repents. What is the woman’s obligation now?

Her obligation is to forgive him and to regard him as a brother but she does not have to stay married to him.

(If a guy embezzles $50,000 from Ligonier Ministries in our accounting office and repents of it and even gives the $50,000 back, I don’t have to keep him on staff as our accounting guy. He can still be forgiven, but the context of that has changed, mightily, by that action.)

The covenant of marriage has been so radically violated that Jesus gives people that option.”

Ken Jones – “I want to throw in there something that combine those two reasons that are given in Scripture that has become more of an issue in our day and that is physical violence. I think that is a grounds for a Church, a pastor, an elder, to allow a woman in the Church (if she is under physical abuse from her husband) to be removed from that situation…

R.C. – I think that is an application of the “immorality” principle and the violation of the covenant. I agree with you. But again, that becomes an issue of prudence. It should be done with great care and never in a flippant manner.

The Husband of One Wife

Posted on by
Reply

Question: How do you interpret Paul’s qualification of “the husband of one wife” for a local church elder? (1 Timothy 3:2)

Answer: “Well, there’s a lot of controversy about that. A lot of churches won’t allow men who have been divorced to hold the office of elder, saying that they have violated that qualification if they have been divorced and have then re-married. That would also apply to someone who is a widower and remarried, because they have had two wives.

I think it is clear as can be, that what the issue there that Paul is addressing is polygamy. And in the Early Church in its formation, it took a while for the principle of monogamy to be firmly established within the Christian community because there were guys who had two or three or four wives (concubines) and that was opposed to biblical marriage, and if you have two wives, that’s one too many (at the same time, obviously).

– Dr. R. C. Sproul, transcript from a Question and Answer Session at the Ligonier Ministries National Conference, Bought with a Price, Orlando, 2006

Understanding John 5:39,40

Posted on by
4

Pastor John,40. The Pharisees loved the Bible but were not even saved. Don’t become like them.” I still believe I should study the Bible but his words ring in my ears as a constant dampener on the joy I feel when I look into God’s word. Is he right?

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” – John 5:39, 40

Many thanks for writing and sharing. I have heard similar things myself spoken by people who have a very surface level understanding of Scripture.

It does not require much indepth study of the Scripture to find out what our attitude should be towards it. Jesus made it clear that when we read Scripture, we were reading what was spoken to us by God (Matt. 22:31). Paul told Timothy that “all Scripture is God breathed” (2 Tim 3:16) and this alone reveals, by its very nature, its supreme authority as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church as well as our individual consciences.

Job said he loved God’s law more than his necessary food (23:12). In other words, he would rather starve than neglect the rightful place of the word of God in his life.

Psalm 119 is the lengthiest chapter in the Bible and is entirely devoted to show us what our attitude should be to the word of God. Just reading and applying that chapter alone would mean that your friend’s argument is totally undermined.

But what of the Scripture he quotes? Well, it is fairly easy to see how he has misunderstood the text.

In John 5:39, 40 Jesus says, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me [literally, “you do not want to come to me,” Greek ou thelete elthein pros me] that you may have life.”

“The Scriptures” is a reference to what we would call the Old Testament (as the New Testament was not yet written). So here Jesus is saying to the Pharisees, that they search (read/study) the Old Testament, which points everywhere to Himself as the fulfillment, but they don’t see this at all, because they don’t want to.

Jesus was in no way condeming them for studying the Scriptures. That needs to be sounded loud and clear. Jesus was saying that they searched out the Scriptures and in doing this, the truth about Him was staring them clearly in the face but they refused to see it.

It is possible to read the Bible with a closed heart, refusing to acknowledge what is obvious. Jesus is saying that the Scripture is a revelation of Himself. He is not hidden in the pages of the Bible; He is clearly revealed. To read it and not see Him there in the Scripture is the evidence of a closed heart towards God. It shows a willful blindness.

I am sure you remember that Jesus, after His resurrection, walked with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, who were very sad and downcast. Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-27) Later on, the disciples remarked to each other, “”Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

Jesus did much more for them than give them a supernatural experience. He could have just said “Hey guys, I am Jesus and I am raised from the dead.” That would have been amazing and He would later open their hearts to recognize that He was present with them. But Jesus did not do that FIRST. He did something even more valuable. He rooted and grounded their joy about seeing Him raised from the dead in the revelation of Himself found in the Scriptures. He showed them Himself in the familar pages of the Old Testament.

Later, in appearing to His disciples, we are told, “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures…” Luke 24:44,45

Your friend has given you some very unhelpful and may I say, unscriptural counsel. The Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture, gives His people the desire to study it, and to help us interpret it correctly. When I see someone who has no desire to study the Bible, it causes me concern as to their true heart condition before God. Peter tells us “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” – the milk being a reference to God’s word (1 Peter 2:2,3). In other words, whatever our stage of growth as Christians we are to mimic newborn babies in terms of our desire for the word of God. That’s plain isn’t it?

There is never anything wrong with searching out and studying the Scriptures. What is wrong is refusing to see Christ as we do so.

As we open up the pages of the Bible to read, study and meditate, we should pray, “Oh God, open up to me the treasures of Your word; and by Your Holy Spirit, show me more of Jesus.”

Its a prayer God loves to answer.

A Dozen Objections to Divine Election

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps you can relate to this – Divine election does indeed seem to be clearly taught in the Bible. Passages such as Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1 and 2, John 3, John 6, John 10, John 17, and many others, make a convincing case. However, certain verses, at least at first glance, seem to present a different picture.

Over time I have sought to deal with some of the most frequently cited verses that are raised as objections to Divine election (the “what about?” verses, as I call them) trusting that this can be a helpful resource.

“WHAT ABOUT?” VERSES:

John 3:16

2 Peter 3:9

1 Tim 2:4

Matt 23:37

1 Tim 4:10

1 John 2:2

John 12:32

2 Peter 2:1

“WHAT ABOUT” CONCEPTS:

How can divine election be true if God is not a respecter of persons?

Does God create people knowing they will end up in hell?

If Divine election is true, why should we even bother to evangelize?

The ten different uses of the word “world” in John’s Gospel

Another question that often arises is “how can God be just in requiring man to do what he is unable to do?” John Piper answers that question here in this short video:

and the word was God

Posted on by
5

Pastor John, I am told that members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s) are trained for upwards of five hours every week just to reach Christians. That is a whole lot of time, I am sure you would agree.

Dr. James White once told me of an encounter he had where a JW recited a 2-3 minute speech about John 1:1 that he had memorized concerning Greek words and constructions. At the end of the speech Dr White, a noted New Testament Greek scholar, pulled out his Greek New Testament from the shelf and handed it to the man and asked him to show him what he (the JW) was saying from the text.

“What’s that?” the JW asked.

“Dr. White said, “it’s the Greek of John chapter one that you are so busy telling me about.”

The man then admitted that he did not know how to read Greek. He had memorized a very lengthy speech (no doubt, provided by the Watchtower group) but could not read a single Greek word.
Continue reading →

Among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander

Posted on by
7

Pastor John, but now have shipwrecked it, we must conclude that one can lose true faith in Christ.

How would you respond to this claim? Is there more that can be said about these two men, besides, “Since other Scriptures teach perseverance, then we must assume that the faith of Hymenaeus and Alexander must have been a mere profession”?

I think the last sentence in your question does indeed go a long way towards answering your own question, though I believe much more could and should be said.

The 1 Timothy 1:18-20 passage reads:

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

To fully exegete the passage would take far more space than a short blog article would allow for, but I would like to draw out a number of points from the biblical text.
Continue reading →

The Kingdom of God v. The Kingdom of Heaven

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor John, what is the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven?

The short and simple answer is “nothing at all.”

To answer this question properly, I need to provide some background. Matthew, being a Jew and writing to a primarily Jewish audience (with the purpose of showing how Jesus is the long awaited Messiah) was very reticent to use the name of God. That is because of its hallowed name in Hebrew society and religion.

This dates back all the way to the time of Moses and to the sacred name of God revealed in the Pentateuch. Most scholars believe that this name probably sounded like “Yahweh” but this is merely the best educated guess.

Why is this only a guess?

Well, being very mindful of the blasphemy of taking the sacred name of God and using it in vain (one of the Ten Commandments) when writing the name, they removed the vowels. They did this in hope that this might cause people to not speak the sacred name at all (rather than speak it in a vain way). God was so holy and His name was to be revered as no other name and so to treat it lightly would provoke God’s anger and wrath towards them as a people. Therefore in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, all we are left with, when transliterated into English is “YHWH.”

Many centuries on, we have to only guess what those vowels might be because there is nothing to show us exactly what they were, and as I say, “Yahweh” is the best estimate of a guess by scholars.

Some say that the way this would have sounded would be “Jehovah,” but more careful scholarship dismisses that claim, and the vast majority would say the original sound of the name would be as close as possible to “Yahweh.” Most Jewish scholars are naturally reluctant to even look into this debate, because of what the issue means historically in Jewish society and how easy it would be to blaspheme God’s holy (set apart) name.

For us as Gentles, growing up in a culture where the name of God is not hallowed in the same way, this appears to be an over reaction on the part of the Jewish people to treat God’s name in this way. However, to the Jews, this made perfect sense and someone writing to Jews would need to take this into account if he wished to be read at all. This Jewish reluctance to use the name of God is seen even in today’s society in Israel where, for example, the Jerusalem Post (a secular newspaper) will spell the divine name as G-D, (putting in a dash rather than the “O” vowel), so as not to offend their orthodox Jewish readers (who can be very vocal).

I find it very interesting to note that in what we call “the Lord’s Prayer” Jesus instructed His disciples to make the very first petition a request that God’s name would be given its due reverence. When we say “Hallowed be Thy Name” we are actually asking God that His Name would be revered and set apart as holy. It is as if we are saying “May Your Name be hallowed.” Yet how wonderful it is that before we come to this request, we can, as His children, speak to Him as “Father.” Jesus, in teaching His people to pray, establishes both the transcendent majesty of God as well as the deep personal intimacy we have as His children. How wonderful this is.

I say all this to point out that while other gospel writers use the phrase “the Kingdom of God” when they are writing primarily to non Jews, Matthew prefers to use “the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew will use the word “God” of course, but it was rare for him to do so, and where there was the chance to use a different term, he did so.

This becomes immediately apparent when we compare Matthew and the other synoptic Gospel writers (Mark and Luke) when they are recalling either the exact same words of Jesus. Quoting the KJV, here are some examples:

Matthew 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, {15} And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Matthew 8:11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 13:28-29 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. {29} And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
Continue reading →

Understanding Hebrews 2:9

Posted on by
10

Pastor John, I am studying the Doctrines of Grace, but am struggling with the concept of the “L” in the TULIP, namely “Limited Atonement” because Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus tasted death for everyone. Does this not refute the idea or you able to explain this verse?

Thanks for your question. I can understand your struggle as I also found the “L” doctrine the most difficult one to grasp. That is not because the Bible is unclear. I don’t believe that is the case at all. My problem was that I was reading the Bible with a traditional lens, so to speak. Thankfully, what was once fuzzy to me is now extremely clear. Christ is a powerful and perfect Savior!

The whole issue revolves around what exactly was in the mind of God from all eternity in the cross of Christ. In sending His Son to die on the cross, what was God’s intention? Was He merely trying to save as many people as He could, hoping that somone would take Him up on the offer, or was He actually securing salvation for those He chose to redeem?

The answer, I believe, is that God intended to save all His elect people and achieved this through the death of Christ. Rather than being sad for all eternity that so many refused Him, God accomplished everything He set out to do. It is a mistaken idea to think that those who will make up the numbers in hell were every bit redeemed as the occupants of heaven, but their sin of unbelief prevented them from enjoying eternity with God. Such would make Christ a dejected Savior for all eternity, for if His blood truly purchased their redemption, and He removed God’s wrath from them (propitiation) it is indeed scandalous that wrath be poured out on these same people again in hell. That would be double jeopardy, a double payment for sin.

When we look at what Scripture says that Jesus actually achieved by His death, Revelation 5:9 tells us that the heavenly host sing to the Lamb, “by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

This gives us great insight. Notice that the text does not say that He ransomed everyone IN every tribe and language and people and nation but specific people in each tribe, tongue, people group and nation. This speaks of an actual atonement; one without distinction rather than one without exception.

Christ died not merely to make a potential or hypotethical atonement that would only be made effective by man’s response, but He actually removed God’s wrath forever (full propitiation) and provided an actual or definite atonement for the people of God. In doing this He fulfilled the prophecy that He would “save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

When someone describes themselves as a four point Calvinist it is almost always “Limited Atonement” where they have an issue. Reformed people often refer to these folk as “Christmas Calvinists.” Why?

No “L.” (Noel, Noel!! – ha ha)

Well, much more could be said but to answer your question, we can isolate the phrase “taste death for everyone,” taking it out of its setting (which many do without even realising it, which is of course, the very essence of tradition), OR we can allow the greater context to explain the meaning.

Actually, as I have explained elsewhere, whenever we find words such as “all” “every” or “everyone” in Scripture, the correct meaning is understood by the context. Sometimes it means each and everyone on earth, all in human history, past, present and future, but actually that is an extremely rare use of these terms.

This is true in all language use. In English, for example, when a teacher in a classroom asks “are we all here?” he/she is not asking if everyone on planet earth is in the room, but the students signed up for the class. Similarly, if a mother with seven kids gets in the car and before setting off for the grocery store looks behind her drivers’ seat at her children and asks “is everyone in?” we immediately understand she is enquiring about the location of all her children (asking to make sure none of them are missing) rather than everyone in this world.

So regarding Hebrews 2:9, the very next verses (v. 10, 11) explain who the “everyone” is. Here’s the text:

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing MANY SONS TO GLORY, should make the founder of THEIR SALVATION perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and THOSE WHO ARE SANCTIFIED all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call THEM BROTHERS.

The “everyone” are ‘everyone’ of the many sons Christ brings to glory (notice He does not merely try to bring them to glory, He actually does so), whom He sanctifies by tasting death for them and whom He calls brothers. He is the founder of their salvation. His death for everyone of these many sons, brought them all the way to glory, He sanctified them (set them apart as holy) by this death and rather than merely calling them potential brothers, He actually secured their membership in the family of God. Because of His death on their behalf, He is not ashamed to call these many sanctified sons, brothers.

This once again illustrates the value of context in determining the correct meaning of a verse or passage. Whenever we come across words such as “all,” “every” or “everyone,” we should make it a rule to carefully examine the immediate context where these phrases are found. When we take time to do so, the meaning will become clear.

Are Arminians Saved?

Posted on by
5

I was asked this question earlier today. Its obviously an important one and something that needs to be addressed.

Let me start by saying that doctrinal precision is important; far more important than many people realize. Yet having correct doctrine by itself saves no one.

The first individuals to recognize Christ were demons. Mark, in his Gospel tells us of a man with an unclean spirit who cried out “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are — the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”” (Mark 1:24, 25)

Jesus did not wish for His identity to be established by the testimony of demons and so dealt with the situation accordingly, but it must be said, the demons possessed accurate knowledge concerning Christ, though they hated all that they knew about Him.

Clearly, such intellectual knowledge is not enough to save, which is the very point James is making when with sacrcasm literally dripping from his pen he writes, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:19) Our ancient foe could pass the most rigorous theological exam, yet he hates everything he knows about God. Knowledge is not enough.

Having said that, knowledge is vital. Some issues are indeed so vital to the soul that to get it wrong means no salvation. Jesus said, “.. unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) That’s clear isn’t it?

The Lord never gives us a free pass in false doctrine. We are called to search the Scriptures diligently and to love Him with our minds as well as our hearts. Yet some theological errors are worse than others and some are less important.

For instance, I am a Credo Baptist. That means I believe water baptism is something to be administered when a baptismal candidate professes faith in Christ and not before. I have very good friends who do not see the issue the same way as myself who have no problem baptizing babies. One of us is wrong. We cannot both be right. One of us is actually sinning – grieving God by maintaining a false belief and practice. Yet we believe the best of each other and are certain that if either of us could convince the other of the truth from the Scripture, the other person would change their view instantly.

Even though the issue is a very important one, I do not believe it is enough of an issue to mean that while disagreement remains, one of us is saved and the other is not. While we do not see eye to eye on this doctrine, we embrace each other as precious brothers in Christ, and join together in the unity of faith in the gospel.

Baptism is an important issue but secondary to that which is primary. The Gospel is primary, as are doctrines such as the Trinity, the virgin birth and sinless life of Christ, His full deity and humanity, His atoning death for sinners on the cross and His physical resurrection from the dead and His future second coming in power and glory. These are the BIG issue doctrines we must adhere to.

I cannot have Christian fellowship with someone who denies the Trinity or justification by faith alone. These doctrines, as well as many others like them, are central to the Christian faith. There is no unity of faith in Christ outside of the gospel. According to Galatians chapter 1, a false gospel, whether championed by an apostle or even an angel, brings the eternal curse of God (anathema). There are such things as “damnable heresies.” (2 Peter 2:1).

So where is Arminianism in all this?

Being convinced that the Scriptures teach Calvinistic or Reformed soteriology (the study of salvation) the question is sometimes asked, “just how grave an error is Arminianism?” Continue reading →

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 →