Category Archives: Questions and Answers

Understanding John 5:39,40 (Repost)

Posted on by
Reply

questionmarkredstandingPastor John, “Look at John 5:39,40. 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 in depth 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 familiar 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.

Understanding 1 Timothy 2:4

Posted on by
Reply

What-Abouts-Cover-High-ResChapter 10 of my book “Twelve What Abouts.”

WHAT ABOUT 1 TIMOTHY 2:4?

How can Sovereign election be true when 1 Timothy 2:4 clearly says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”?

In the previous chapter, in doing so, be lost forever. Once again, much could be said for this interpretation. Yet once again, I believe a close examination of the text itself points us in a different direction, which I will seek to outline here.

Before I do so, let me just say that it is entirely possible to go for many years without asking questions about a text of Scripture because we assume we have already understood it. This is the very hallmark of tradition. Blind to our own assumptions we see no need to look at the text objectively and see if our understanding of the text can be verified by the text itself. However, if we take a deep breath and summon up the courage to ask the simple question, “What does the context tell us about the use of the word “all” here in this text?” I believe we will come away with the correct interpretation. Actually, it is absolutely vital we do this because context tells us how a word is being used.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD “ALL”

The word translated “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4 is the Greek word “pas.” As I also mentioned in the last chapter, sometimes the word “all” refers to all people everywhere. On other occasions it means “all kinds” or “all classes or types” or “all within a certain type or class.”

In the same letter, written obviously by the same author, Paul, we read the very familiar words of chapter 6 and verse 10, “For the love of money is the root of all evil…” (KJV).

More modern scholarship recognizes that the word “pas” sometimes means “all” and sometimes means “all types” or “all kinds,” depending on the context in which it is found. Therefore the ESV translation of 1 Timothy 6:10 is “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.” The NASB says, “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil…” The NIV reads, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Again, the Greek word “pas” can mean “all types” or “all kinds.”

I mention this because when we examine 1 Timothy 2:4, I believe the word “all” is being used in a similar sort of way, referring to “all types” of people. I say this based on the context.

Here is the passage in 1 Timothy 2:1-4: Continue reading →

Whatever the motivation…

Posted on by
Reply

I appreciate the answer given by Dr. James White below:

I just wrote this Twishort response to a tweet by @PoliClark where, tagging Dan Savage as well, he wrote, “hi James- can you give me feedback? My neighbor was working today (sabbath) so I murdered him. This is correct?” So here was my reply:

@PoliClark Dear Clark, thanks for writing. As a good citizen, I’ve turned your admission of the murder of your neighbor over to the authorities, but my response should give you something helpful to do during the booking process. I am so sorry you relied upon Internet Bible “experts” for your information. It is such a common thing today for people who have not even bothered to read and understand the text, even in a modern English translation (let alone consult the original Hebrew!) to pretend that reading what one person quotes from another person who quotes from another person who actually only saw it on West Wing back in the late 90s is sufficient basis for their actions or opinions. Amazing the shallow, surface-level argumentation that some people will use! But in reference to your question (you did ask if what you did was correct), no, it was not.

First, you obviously have no zeal for the Lord or His law, so you would have no basis upon which to be acting as the magistrate of a nation that no longer exists. The Israelite theocracy was brought into existence first and foremost to be the vehicle through which the Messiah would come who, by His self-giving, sacrificial death on the cross, would provide full and perfect redemption for all who would turn in true repentance and faith to Him. That nation ceased to exist as a nation in AD 70, so you were about 1950 years off in your dating there.

Secondly, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that modern Christians are free to pick and choose from among the Mosaic laws what they will obey and what they won’t. The process of examination of the purpose and applicability of the Mosaic laws is a difficult one to be sure. It requires examination of the text in light of the entirety of biblical revelation, a knowledge of the original context, historical backgrounds, etc.

Indeed, while it is not my scholarly focus (I have only taught basic Hebrew and Hebrew exegesis on the graduate level in the past), I have invested a great deal of time recently on the topic, as I am preaching through the very Holiness Code I surmise you are referring to. Assuming you have neglected such a study, and not availed yourself of those who have done so with an eye first and foremost to honoring God and His Word (your imminent incarceration being good evidence of this), I will lay out a basic answer to your question.

1) A Sabbath breaker under the ancient Israelite theocracy would be executed upon examination by the governing authorities, not by individual Israelites. Mistake #1.

2) There is no evidence the NT apostles viewed this law as being applicable outside of national Israel, which no longer exists, and hence it would be inappropriate to seek its institution, let alone its enactment and resultant punishment. Mistake #2.

3) If your neighbor had never entered into covenant with the God of Israel to keep the Sabbath day, well…mistake #3, big time.

4) It might be helpful to consider the abiding moral element of the law as it relates to honoring God with your time and observing a cessation of work and labor so as to focus upon His worship, but your neighbor won’t be able to do that anymore due to your action. Mistake #4.

Now, Clark, after your conviction and incarceration, I would direct you to consider the differences between the laws given in the Bible specifically for national Israel, those that were ceremonial in nature, those that pointed to a coming fulfillment in Christ, and those that by their very nature embodied universal moral principles—those mainly being those that derive from God’s act of creation. So, laws that reflect God creating man male and female would be creation ordinances since they reflect God’s creative purposes; those relating specifically to such things as styles of dress that were connected to the pagan worship practices of the nations around Israel while no longer being specifically applicable would still communicate the need to not engage in the behaviors of those pagans.

For example, the single prohibition against a tattoo (Lev. 19:28—though we are actually not certain whether ????????? means tattoo in the modern sense of permanent, injected pigment) is actually found in a passage about doing things “for the dead.” The Deuteronomistic parallel (14:1) further shows that it is not the actual tattoo that is in view, as the parallel refers to “shaving the forehead” as the parallel to ?????????. The point is that the pagan religions around Israel contained beliefs relating to the dead—either provisions for honoring the dead, or, fear of the curses of the dead. As the people of God, the Israelites were to realize that the dead had no power over them, hence, they were not to alter their appearances to either honor the dead, or (as I think more likely), to hide from their curses. And that principle would continue to this day: as God’s people, we are not to concern ourselves about the activities of the dead: God is in control of our lives, not the dead.

So can a Christian have a tattoo?

That would, as I see if, fall under the over-arching concept of Romans 14: that as a believer I am to please my Lord and do all that I do under His Lordship. As such, if I desire to glorify God with a piece of artwork that reminds me of my duties to Him, and I do not do it to sinfully attract attention to myself, then I see no problem with it at all.

Now, before I close off (I mean, booking only takes so long), let me take a wild guess and assume that your actions were motivated by the general assertion that the Levitical law is no longer relevant primarily in the area of sexual ethics and behavior. You might even suggest that the prohibition against homosexuality found in Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 is only in reference to the pagan practices of the peoples around Israel, an issue I myself raised above. I have much to say on this topic, but will be brief for now, if you don’t mind.

There is no question of the sexual immorality of the Assyrian and Mesopotamian religions of the time period immediately preceding the Exodus. And unless you are ready to proclaim all sexual practices moral, even you would have to admit the truth of this statement. So are we just picking and choosing when we cite Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 regarding homosexuality? No, we are not. Lots of reasons, let me give you two and let you go with the police.

1) When Moses gives the series of sexual sin laws in Lev. 18 there follows a lengthy discussion of how the peoples before Israel had violated these laws *and as a result* the land had vomited them out. Their actions had defiled themselves, and the land. Remember, theses are people to whom the Mosaic law was never given. Hence, these laws are binding outside the national boundaries of Israel, they are creation ordinances that reflect God’s creation order.

2) This is confirmed in Paul’s usage of these laws in Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11, where he even joins two terms from Lev. 20:13, ??????? ??????, into a single term to refer to homosexuals. Clearly, then, the Apostle of Christ understood these laws as continuing in their abiding validity, and that is why Christians have followed in their footsteps. I am so sorry you did not ask for this information before acting as you did, but hopefully now you will be able to be a model inmate!