Cain’s Offering; Abel’s Offering; Hunger; Desire; and more!

While I’ve dedicated myself to the continuation of Christianity 201, I have some regrets about letting my other blog, Thinking Out Loud, slide once I got more involved on Twitter. Don’t get me wrong, I like Twitter (or ‘X’ if you prefer) and the people I’ve been able to have conversations with there, but there’s a very limited chronology of posts that are easily visible, and some things I believe simply get lost in the timeline never to surface again. Blog posts on the other hand are easily indexed and searchable.

So when I saw this mid-June post by Ari Lamm — profile description: “…I read the Bible in Hebrew.” — I felt it should be shared with an audience on a different medium. So with some help from the ThreadReaderApp, here it is. Ari is the host of the Good Faith Effort podcast.

Why Read The Bible In Hebrew?

for non-Hebrew readers too!

Let’s talk about the most famous murder in human history—the story of Cain and Abel. In order to understand it, we’ll need to unpack one of the most mysterious words in the entire Bible.

Just a refresher: We have two brothers—Cain, the older, and Abel, the younger. They each bring an offering to God. But while Abel brings his best stuff, Cain does not. And when God favors Abel’s, Cain gets jealous and kills his brother. He tries and fails to hide his crime.

It’s a classic Biblical tragedy. But…what’s the takeaway? Is it just meant to be a bummer? Brother can’t live with brother? Envy and murder is our lot? Life is nasty, brutish and short? That’s it?

I think the answer lies in one Hebrew word from the text: “teshukah”

This word is super rare. It actually only appears three times in the entire Bible (including in our story). In order to understand it—even just to translate it!—we’re going to have to look at all three occurrences.

But before that, let’s back up a bit and talk about Cain.

We remember Cain as one of the primordial villains of Genesis, in contrast to righteous Abel. But if you read the text carefully…it doesn’t quite set things up that way.

Take their names, for example. This is where the Hebrew will help us right away! Cain’s name is given by Eve:

“And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired (kaniti) a man with (et) the Lord” (4:1)

What does this mean? Well, the name Cain (“Kayin” in Hebrew) sounds like the word “acquired” (kaniti).

You can see the profundity right away. This is the first act of creation in history in which a human being participates. You can *feel* Eve’s awe as she brings Cain into the world—wonder at her partnership with God. So Cain’s name is a mark of closeness to God!

And Abel?

Well, in Hebrew, Abel means…nothing.

I mean that literally. Remember that famous refrain from Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanities, all is vanity”? Know what the word for “vanity” (or “something meaningless”) is?

“Hevel”

Know what Abel’s name is in Hebrew?

You guessed it. Abel’s name literally means: “meaningless.”
So the Bible sets up Cain as the noble main character, and Abel as almost an afterthought.

And sure enough, Cain is the one who first comes up with the idea to make an offering to God: “In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering” (4:3)

Abel simply follows!

Ah, but doesn’t Abel bring the best of his flock, while Cain just brings middling produce?

“In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions.” (3-4)

Well…

So the English translations of this verse are pretty misleading. “For his part…” makes it sound like Abel in contrast to Cain brought good stuff.

But the Hebrew behind that translation is “gam hu”. And that phrase DOES NOT set up contrasts. It actually means “similarly”.

So what the verse really says is that Abel was imitating the high quality of Cain’s offering!

…So we’re supposed to be as stunned as Cain when we then read, “And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (4:4-5).

Wait…what?!

But just as importantly, like, okay, so let’s say Cain is right to be stunned. How do we get from there…to murder?

The answer, I believe, lies in God’s enigmatic words to Cain just after rejecting his offering. So let’s take a look.

“The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire (teshukah) is for you, but you must master (m-sh-l) it’.” (4:6-7)

Okay. So.

This sounds pretty cryptic. But it’s also the only thing we hear before Cain kills Abel. So it must be pretty important.

But what does it mean?

Well, the key lies in that word translated here as “desire”. In Hebrew “teshukah”. Where have we heard this word before?

Well, the answer is that this is actually the second time the word appears in Scripture. Where’s the first?

…Like five seconds ago!

Think back to the story of Adam and Eve. When God curses them, here’s what he tells Eve in Gen 3:16…

“Your desire (teshukah) shall be for your husband, and he shall rule (m-sh-l) over you.”

This sentence is nearly identical to what God tells Cain! “Teshuka” plus the root for “rule” (m-sh-l). What does this tell us?

Well, first we need to figure out what “teshukah” means.

Wait, I hear you ask, didn’t you already say it means “desire”?

Okay, so…that’s actually one of the top mistranslations of all time.

So what does “teshukah” mean? Well, that’s the issue. It only appears three times in Scripture (and we’ve already seen two of ’em!). We’ll see the third instance later, but spoiler: it’s not gonna help us any more than the first two. Our only hope is to look for other cases in the Bible where this root (s-w-k) appears.

Now, unfortunately, it’s a very rare root. But fortunately, those cases *do* help! Take a look, for example, at Psalm 107:9

“For he satisfies the thirsty (shokekah), and the hungry he fills with good things”

The root here (and elsewhere in the Bible) always appears in the context of famine and thirst. It means “hungry” more broadly.

Okay, now back to Eve.

The problem with translating teshukah as “desire” in Gen 3 is that it makes the verse seem like one long sentence: childbirth will be difficult, but you’ll still desire your husband so he’ll control you.

But “teshukah” doesn’t mean “desire” in that sense at all! Teshukah means “hunger”. As in literal hunger and thirst. So the verse isn’t referring to Eve’s carnal desire for her husband. It’s actually previewing Adam’s own curse:

Agriculture!

“Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it…” (3:17).

Adam’s curse is that he will need to work the ground for food. And Eve? Her curse is that when she’s hungry, she’ll need to rely on unreliable man.

So how should we translate the verse?

“Your hunger (teshukah) shall be directed at your husband, so he shall rule over you”. 

It’s not a statement about marriage or sexual desire or anything like that. Rather, it’s about the tragedy of “teshukah” — of hunger, of dependency.

The sin of Adam and Eve introduces hierarchy and power into human affairs where before there was none.  Can human beings live in such a world?

This was the question Cain and Abel—the very next generation—were charged with answering.

And now we can understand why God references his words to Eve when he speaks to Cain.

Put yourself in Cain’s shoes. You’ve just approached God with an offering—the first in history to do so!—only to experience rejection. To make things worse, your brother—a nobody, a “hevel”—finds Gods favor!

You think to yourself, “am I not enough for God?”

And that’s when God intervenes. He warns Cain against the dangerous side of dependency—judging yourself by another.

After all, God turning towards Abel’s offering doesn’t mean God values Abel more than Cain. God measures Cain on his own merits, not someone else’s.

In fact, nowhere in the text does God explain why He accepts one offering and rejects the other. It’s intentionally left a mystery.

So, God says to Cain, you have a choice. You can continue to obsess over Abel’s relationship with me. Or you can cultivate your own!

Ah, but in a fallen world—in a world cursed with hierarchy and power relationships—how can a person do that?

Well, says God, by learning that power can be used to protect, not just victimize! After all, it’s not just humans that are dependent upon each other for survival…

You know what else is dependent upon human beings for its survival?

Sin!

Hence God’s words to Cain:

“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its hunger (teshukah) is for you, but you must master it” (4:7)

Sure dependency can be a curse. It taught us the use of power. And that can lead to one person dominating another person.

But we can use that power for good—to rule over sin. After all, sin requires humans to exist. And that gives us the ability to defeat it. That’s the point of the Cain and Abel story. How do we live in a world of “teshukah”? Of dependency and power?

Would Cain try to best his brother, whom he believed had bested him, and on and on?

Or could he, instead, try to repair the sin of Adam and Eve by besting himself?

The tragedy of Cain is that he chooses wrong. He chooses power over his brother instead of power over himself.

So, that’s what the Cain and Abel story is about. But…is that it? We’re all cursed to live in a world of dependency forevermore?

Well, the answer is yes. But that’s when the Bible prompts us to ask ourselves one more question:

…What if that’s a beautiful thing?

Because remember what I told you about “teshukah”? It appears three times in the Bible. We’ve seen two. What about the third one?

It turns, just like the first two instances, the third one also refers to interpersonal relationships. And like the original—Genesis 3:16—the third one, too, is set in the context of the relationship between husband and wife.

The third one is from Song of Songs.

Song of Songs records the relationship between the lover and her beloved——the grandest, most sublime metaphor for Israel’s relationship with God.

In 7:16, we find the lover, Israel, proclaim about her beloved, God, “I am my beloved’s, and His desire (teshukah) is for me”. This is the third occurrence of the word “teshukah”. And it’s absolutely staggering.

The only time we’ve ever seen this word in the Bible, it’s referred to the curse of Eve—the curse of dependency and power—and its repercussions for her son Cain. But here it refers to…God!

In this case, the one who experiences “teshukah”—dependency—is not Eve towards Adam. It’s not sin towards Cain. Or Cain towards Abel.

It’s God towards us.

Song of Songs is telling us that dependency is only a curse if we make it so.

Consider, what makes a good relationship? Is it total self-sufficiency by both parties? Of course not! Two people who don’t need each other aren’t in a relationship. They just happen to be standing next to each other.

No, the best relationships requires vulnerability.

Dependency can become poisonous when it’s one-directional. Down that road leads totalitarianism—the sin of Babel.

But mutual dependency? When two people acknowledge they need each other? That’s not a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of strength.

That’s the secret of “teshukah”. Yes, it can be a curse—hunger, desire, envy, helplessness. Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel.

But that very curse can also become a blessing—it can be sanctified. So much so that in Song of Songs God uses that very word, “teshukah”, to describe Himself!

And the amazing thing about Song of Songs is that you can already see its roots all the way back in Genesis 4!

Just a few verses after Adam and Eve, God already whispered to Cain that “teshukah” needn’t be a curse. It can be the source of his strength! So in the end, Genesis 3 tells us that, unfortunately, we can bring evil into the world.

Genesis 4 shows us that we can transform evil into good, though we might fail in this.

And Song of Songs? Well, Song of Songs reminds us that God Himself is with us as we keep trying.

---

P.S. Thank you so much as always to @zenahitz and the amazing @CatherineProj for the inspiration to do these. And it’s so awesome to see our old Biblical Hebrew reading group continuing to devour chapter after chapter…
P.P.S. If you liked this thread, check out my podcast Good Faith Effort where we do cool stuff like this all the time!

Reading the Bible Without Theological Training

[Jesus:] You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me – John 5:39 NET

These people were more receptive than those in Thessalonica. They were very willing to receive the message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if those things were so. – Acts 17:11 NIV

Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NLT

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. – Luke 24:45 NLT/ESV/NASB

This is our third time with Jamin Bradley, a Free Methodist pastor, writer of eight books, musician, and planter of three alternative churches. His blog features mostly audio posts on a number of interesting topics, and he’s been using AI images since before some of you heard the term. Click the title which follows to read this where it first appeared.

Do You Need Education to Read the Bible?

Question: How can it be beneficial for a non-clergy person to read the Bible at home when it is so easy to misunderstand and so harmful if those misunderstandings are implemented?

---

Answer: Ooo, good question. It’s been noted by many that it may have been a dangerous idea to give everyone a Bible, since throughout history before the printing press, it was taught by scholars and read in communities. In inexperienced hands, it can end up saying the opposite of what it means to say. Without historical and cultural research, it can be taken out of context and its point can be missed completely. And in the hands of power, it can be quoted to enforce whatever the powerful want to say (see the movie “Book of Eli” for a great portrait of this).

But that being said, there are two main ways to read the Bible and I think both are necessary. One way is in a scholarly manner, where we are doing our best to understand the Bible as an ancient book. Such studies bring the Bible to life in ways we would otherwise miss entirely. Our understanding of the Bible has grown immensely over the last century as newly uncovered artifacts and archeological research (like that of the Dead Sea Scrolls) have given us a deeper glimpse into the various worlds of the past that we didn’t know as clearly before. This brings the Bible to life in a whole new way.

However, we must also read the Bible spiritually. After Jesus was resurrected from the dead, he walked to Emmaus with his disciples and explained things in the Scriptures that they never noticed before to show what he did on the cross. To see the Bible this way, they didn’t need a scholar as much as they needed the Holy Spirit. The same goes for us. The New Testament authors quote the Old Testament out-of-context quite a bit, but their out-of-context quotes are now Scripture to us, too. As these writers read the Old Testament, the Spirit made passages light up to them in a way that they hadn’t before, and those new interpretations became biblical canon as well.

I remember trying to read through the prophets really fast in one season of my life and I came away completely devastated. The Bible didn’t build me up—it ripped me apart, and now I felt distant from God, not closer. When I finally sat down to pray about it many weeks later, I felt as though God said, “You read my book just to get through it. You didn’t read it with me.” It occurred to me at that moment that if the Spirit is the one who inspired Scripture, maybe I would do well to read it with the Spirit.

So in the end, read it spiritually, read it scholarly—spirit and science—experience and reason. Let both directions inform and grow you. And in today’s day and age with all of our online resources, everyone has a better chance of reading it in more of a scholarly fashion than they used to. I recommend a few resources for people to read along with:

1. The Faithlife Study Bible. This is filled with tons of notes on nearly every passage in the Bible, written by a bunch of great scholars. You can find a physical copy, or you can just download the Faithlife Study Bible app. https://apps.apple.com/…/faithlife-study-bible/id485998842

2. The Bible Project: Tim Mackie and Jon Collins do a terrific job of making heavy scholarship applicable to people all across the board. Watch their videos or listen to their podcasts every week or two and you’ll be miles ahead of the average Bible reader. https://bibleproject.com

3. Inspired Imperfection by Greg Boyd: If you’re looking for some good rules on how to understand and read your Bible in a better Christ-focused way, check out this book. https://www.amazon.com/Inspired…/dp/150645562X/

4. For some more thoughts on this subject, I’ve written more on my blog here: https://jaminbradley.com/…/incorrectly-correct-bible…/

Bible Interpretation Misfire

Something a little lighter today. In fact, it began as an idle comment in a restaurant yesterday, but it got me thinking about what happens when Bible interpretation goes awry. I know some of you would rather I went deeper into this topic, but I have one more simple point I want to make which overshadows other considerations.

First, some text from Acts 10:9-16. (Each of the verse numbers is also link to see that verse in other versions. Text use throughout today is NIV.)

Peter’s Vision

9  About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10  He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11  He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12  It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13  Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14  “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15  The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16  This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

I think it’s interesting that Peter views the vision and hears the voice three times, that his denial of Jesus on the night Jesus is arrested involved a rooster crowing three times, that his reinstatement – “Do you love me?’ – is repeated three times, but that’s not the focus of this, either. I’ll leave it up to you to ponder that one and give you my wife’s idea at the end.

In yesterday’s discussion someone had heard it as a “net” but in all the translations in BibleHub.com it is described as a “sheet.”

And now for the punchline.

It was suggested that a perfectly botched interpretation of this would be to say that ‘God told Peter he could eat any food which descends on a sheet.’

Do you see the problem? A person given to what’s called a plain reading of the text might take that as the literal meaning. After all, “That’s what it says.” This is often paired with “Don’t you believe the Bible?”

It’s reminiscent of why we sometimes need more than just the text. Jesus could have simply read text to the disciples on the road to Emmaus — and perhaps the lights might have turned on —  but instead, we’re told he explained things to them.

Jesus isn’t saying that formerly unclean animals served on a sheet are now clean, but he is declaring them clean unilaterally.

A parallel passage is Matthew 15.

1  Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3  Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5  But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6  they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7  You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8  “‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

9  They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.’ ”

10  Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11  What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

12  Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13  He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14  Leave them; they are blind guides.   If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

15  Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16  “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17  “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18  But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19  For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20  These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

This is a new teaching. This is an upending of previously held food laws. This is an element of an upside down kingdom Jesus is bringing where law-keeping is replaced by heart-keeping. (The parallel passage is found in Luke.)

The Apostle Paul will repeat this message to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:

1  The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2  Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3  They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4  For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5  because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

…Okay, so I promised you Ruth’s explanation of the “three times” thing. The reversal of Peter’s denial is that God tells Peter, “Feed my sheep.” By tying that in with this vision, it’s making clear that his sheep are going to include people who eat what Peter previously considered unclean foods and people who Peter previously would have considered unclean themselves.

This is consistent with what Jesus is quoted as saying in John 10:16 — “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.“

Don’t Miss the Stories in The Story

Sometimes we are so hungry for theological explanations of things that we can miss the simple story that’s being told. For example, here’s a verse that is often used to support a Calvinist interpretation of scripture:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.  John 15:16

In fact, the verse has nothing to do with either Calvinism or Arminianism. Jesus is speaking to his disciples here about their very specific calling into three years of service with him.

It was common for young men to express their desire to a specific rabbi to be apprenticed to him, not unlike petitioning the admissions department of a graduate school to let you work on your dissertation under a specific professor. I guess you’d hang around when he was teaching and make your intentions known that you’d like to study with him. Finally, he would issue the particular “Come follow me” statement that would let you know you were in.

But Jesus went out seeking his disciples in out of the way places, choosing people some of whom had already been rejected by the predominant rabbinical system. Knowing what is to come, he is affirming the trust he placed in them and is about to place in them.

The preceding verse (15) sets up this context:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Yes, the verse can be given broader applications, but its first interpretation has to be within the context of The Twelve.

The Reformation Study Bible — and note the word Reformation — says this about the verse:

Jesus does not mean that His disciples exercised no will of their own; they did choose to follow Him. Rather, He is indicating that the first initiative, the original and saving choice, was His. Had He not chosen them, they would not have chosen Him.

but then to avoid offending its primary readership, adds:

The immediate reference is to service as apostles, but the principle applies to many other matters including election to salvation

We do get preoccupied with our systems of systematic theology, and we do so sometimes to the detriment of the text, making it try to say things it doesn’t. Consider these words with that in mind.

Eugene Peterson:

Several years ago I was conducting a seminar in the interpretation of Scripture in a theological seminary. It was a graduate seminar. Our topic that day was Jesus’ parables. All the participants were experienced pastors and priests. One of the priests, Tony Byrnne, was a Jesuit missionary on sabbatical from twenty years at his post in Africa. As we discussed the Biblical parables, Father Tony told us of his experiences with his Africans who loved storytelling, who loved parables. His Jesuit order didn’t have enough priests to handle all the conversions that were taking place, and he was put in charge of recruiting lay-persons to carry out the basic teaching and diaconal work.

When he first began the work, where he would find men who were especially bright he would put them in charge of their village and sent them to Rome or Dublin or Boston or New York for training. After a couple of years they would return and take up their tasks.

But the villagers hated them and would have nothing to do with them. They called the returnee a been-to (pronounced bean-to): “He’s bean-to London, he’s bean-to Dublin, he’s bean-to New York, he’s bean-to Boston.” They hated the bean-to because he no longer told stories. He gave explanations. He taught them doctrines. He gave them directions. He drew diagrams on a chalk board. The bean-to left all his stories in the waste-baskets of the libraries and lecture halls of Europe and America. The intimacy and dignifying process of telling a parable had been sold for a mess of academic pottage. So Father Brynne told us, he quit the practice of sending the men to those story-less schools.

Tell It Slant (Eerdman’s, 2008, pp 60-61)

We need to kick back and enjoy the story; enjoy where the Bible’s ride is taking us. We need to read scripture passages like John 15 not for the words or the sentences, but for the paragraphs and chapters. In the case of our verse today, Jesus is giving some final words to his disciples who he now calls friends. We would do well to take a friendly approach to each other in our study of scripture and not approach it with an agenda.

Does God Rescind or Withdraw Gifts or Callings?

^{NIV.Rom.11.29} for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Several years ago we were discussing this verse, and the way that a mutual friend of ours had mis-interpreted or mis-applied it.

Here’s some alternatives from BibleGateway.com

• God doesn’t take back the gifts he has given or forget about the people he has chosen. (CEV)
• God never changes his mind about the people he calls and the things he gives them (Expanded Bible; NCV)
• God never changes his mind when he gives gifts or when he calls someone. (God’s Word)
• For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses. (Good News/TEV)
• For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (KJV)
• For once they are made, God does not withdraw his gifts of his calling. (Phillips)
• For God’s gifts and his call can never be withdrawn; he will never go back on his promises. (Living Bible)
• For God’s gifts and his call can never be withdrawn. (NLT)
• And when God chooses someone and graciously imparts gifts to him, they are never rescinded. (Passion Translation)
• You see, when God gives a grace gift and issues a call to a people, He does not change His mind and take it back. (The Voice)

Even in these translations, we see some variance as to the intent of this verse. Is it about gifts? Calling? Blessing? Election (choosing)? (We’ll come back to the translation challenge at the very end.)

In the meantime, here are four search-engine results answering today’s question, as to the meaning of this verse.

From BibleInOneYear.org :

…In Romans 11 Paul is answering the question, ‘Has God rejected his people?’ His answer is, ‘No, no, no’: ‘God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable’ (v.29). As The Message version puts it, ‘God’s gifts and God’s call are under full warranty – never cancelled, never rescinded’ (v.29, MSG).

Yet Paul still grapples with the apparent reality that most have not accepted Jesus. He speaks about them ‘stumbling’ (v.11) and experiencing a ‘hardening’ (v.25). They are now like olive branches that have been ‘broken off’ (v.17). In this passage he tries to explain how this can fit with the unbreakable promises that God has made to the Jews. He highlights three key points:

• First, this hardening was only partial. There has always been a remnant, chosen by grace (vv.11–16).
• Second, the hardening was fruitful, since it led to riches for the Gentiles: ‘When they walked out, they left the door open and the outsiders walked in’ (v.11, MSG).
• Third, the hardening was temporary. ‘“Are they out of this for good?” And the answer is a clear-cut No’ (v.11, MSG). ‘This hardness on the part of insider Israel toward God is temporary’ (v.25, MSG). ‘Now, if their leaving triggered this worldwide coming of non-Jewish outsiders to God’s kingdom, just imagine the effect of their coming back! What a homecoming!’ (v.12, MSG).

This last point is particularly important to Paul, who cares passionately about his people. He eagerly anticipates the full inclusion of the people of Israel (v.12). He goes on to say that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (v.26). He does not say ‘if’ this happens, but ‘when’ this happens. He uses an olive tree as a picture of the Jewish nation (vv.17,24). Christ came. The nation rejected him. The tree was chopped down but the roots were left. The gardener grafts in the Gentiles (v.17).

The time is coming when the Jewish branches will be grafted back (vv.23–24, MSG). Then the whole tree will be complete…

At the Bible Q&A Forum eBible.com (click the link to see the references as links):

Paul made this statement from Romans as part of a discussion concerning the salvation of the Jewish people.

Ever since God’s calling of Abraham in Genesis 12; God had chosen Abraham’s descendants through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob (also known as Israel) as the people from whom the Messiah — Whom God had promised immediately after mankind first fell into sin (Genesis 3:15) — would be descended.

God provided greater detail concerning this promise over time, indicating that the Messiah would be specifically descended from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10), and then from the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11 and Isaiah 9:7).

Although many centuries elapsed prior to Jesus’ birth, God’s promise was realized when Mary (who was descended from David through his son Nathan (Luke 3:23-38)) gave virgin birth to Jesus. (Although Mary’s husband Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, he was also descended from David through the royal line of Solomon, as recorded in Matthew 1:1-17.)

Although Jesus and His original followers had all been Jewish, the Jewish people, for the most part, had not accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah and Savior. Starting in Acts 10; God opened the Christian church to the Gentiles, and, over time, the Christian church became an institution that was composed predominantly of Gentiles rather than Jews.

However (according to Paul in the passage being asked about), this does not mean that God’s calling of, and promises to, Abraham and his descendants have been nullified or superseded. The covenant that God made with them is, as Paul characterized it, “irrevocable”, or, as the questioner put it, “without repentance” on God’s part. As indicated by Paul in Romans 11:25, after all the Gentiles who will be saved will have come to Christ, God will show mercy on the descendants of Abraham, and they, too, will finally accept Christ and also receive the gift of salvation.

From a longer answer at BelieveTheSign.com (click also for footnotes, etc.)

The “call” of God clearly refers to the election according to which the Jews were God’s chosen race. The “gifts” may then be combined with “call” as one idea — “the benefits of God’s call” — or be taken as a distinct category — “the gifts and the call of God.” The relationship between this passage and Romans 9:1–5 suggests that Paul referred to the “gifts” as a summary of those privileges of Israel that he enumerated in Romans 9:4–5. God’s “call,” then, is probably to be seen as one of the most important of those gifts: “the gifts and especially, among those gifts, the call of God.” The rare word “irrevocable” emphasizes the point that Paul made at the beginning of his argument: “The word of God has not failed” (Romans 9:6a).

“Without repentance” is translated in newer versions as “irrevocable” but the basic meaning is “without regret,” as in 2 Cor. 7:10, the only other use place where this term is used in either the Old or New Testament: “repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret.” The meaning of this term is confirmed in the writings of Aesop (“but his coming was without regret” – τοῦ δὲ ἀμεταμελήτως ἐλθόντος, Fabulae 83.2.6) and Plato (“of a deed done without regret”).

Although God was free to withdraw the privileges extended to Israel (like humans often come to regret and then to renege on their gifts and commitments), God’s faithfulness remains firm. In the end, despite the current rejection of the divinely designated Messiah by a large portion of Israel, the divine gifts and calling will achieve their intended purpose of salvation.

What is very clear is that the passage does not refer to the gifts of the Spirit. It refers only to the nation of Israel.

From AnswersFromTheBook.net :

But what about all those promises the Lord made to the nation of Israel?  Has He now changed Him mind because of their unbelief?  No, He has not!  Romans 11:29 tells us, “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”  This means that the blessings and promises of the Lord are unchangeable.  What He has promised to Israel, He will perform.  There will come a day, when Israel is taken up once again as the chosen people of God.  During the seven-year Tribulation period, the Lord will once again raise up this nation and will bless them according to His promises.  As we read in Romans 9:26-27, “And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.”

There is also a wonderful and practical truth to Romans 11:29.  We can rest assured that when the Lord makes a promise to us, there is nothing that can change that promise.  The Apostle Paul wrote in Titus 1:1-2, “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”  While the world is full of broken promises, we can rest assured that the Lord never breaks a promise that He makes to us.  We read in Hebrews 10:23, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised.)”  (133.4)

…Is it clearer for you now? I thought it was interesting after I previewed today’s article and then did a word search on it, that only one writer spoke in terms of covenant. It would seem that this word most clearly expresses God’s covenant to Israel.

Now then…if you took the time to read all four commentaries on the verse, go back and read the various translations at the beginning of today’s piece. Do you think the rendering of this verse by the various translation teams could have been done differently?

---

…The first time this appeared there were a number of comments. Here’s something which we added at the time:

The wording of the verse, even in some of the various translations listed, could seem to lead us to the idea of “ministry gifts” or “ministry calling.” And personally, I like the idea of reading it that way. The problem is, as the four commentaries above clearly state, the passage, in context, is talking about something else entirely.
The first four alternative translations quoted above take more words to flesh out what apparently needs to be said, the NIV, KJV, NLT, etc. are simply too succinct and taken out of the larger passage, leave us with a different impression as to what’s intended.

Christianity and the Celebration of Holidays and Birthdays

I have a birthday coming up later in this month. Over the years I have had discussions with people who feel very strongly that we’re not to celebrate birthdays or holidays. Much of this is based on a passage in Galatians:

^NLT.Gal.4.8 Before you Gentiles knew God, you were slaves to so-called gods that do not even exist. ⁹ So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world? ¹⁰ You are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years. ¹¹ I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with you was for nothing.

Three things are evident here:

• Paul sees the keeping of special days — and it’s the Old Covenant feast days he has partly in view — as going back or reverting to a series of rituals they had been freed from.
• The Galatians — and it should come as no surprise that the above passage is from his letter to the church in Galatia in view of the situation there — were doing this to try to please God. They were adding to what Christ’s death and resurrection had made no longer necessary. They were wanting the structure of religion with its dos and don’ts.
• Others of Paul’s converts may have come from pagan religions which each had their own feast days. Old habits die hard. Imagine if you had a family tradition that had been practiced for generations that was suddenly stripped away. These pagan feasts day were incompatible with Christian faith and could not be retained in a Christ-following life.

That doesn’t mean we today abandon an awareness of the feasts recorded in the Hebrew Bible altogether. We’ll come back to that. But clearly, Paul is not speaking of wishing someone a happy birthday. In celebrating my birthday over the years, I trust that my family had these aims:

• I’m not being venerated. Their purpose isn’t sacred. Their actions are not sacramental. Some people argue that we can’t separate life into the sacred and the secular, but some things we do are merely perfunctory, like getting dressed, brushing our teeth, checking the mail, etc. A birthday serves no spiritual purpose.
• Recognizing and celebrating the encouragement that someone’s life brings you is scriptural. Over and over we are told to encourage one another, to build one another up. A sincere expression of thanks and appreciation — personal, not what the greeting card writer came up with — should really be an everyday occurrence, not a yearly thing; but we we do need prompting to do this. Go to a greeting card store and you’ll find the majority of the serious birthday cards express thanks and appreciation for the recipient.
• We are reminded of the passing of time. Our lives are “but a breath;” we are “here today and gone tomorrow.” We live sometimes in the “myth of continuity;” believing that things will always be as they are, but in fact, age will eventually catch up with us, it will happen quickly or when we are not looking. It’s good to be reminded of the fragility of life. That may seem to make a birthday bittersweet, but as you get older, it really is.
• It’s not wrong to buy people things. We are to be good stewards of the resources that God gave us. Going to a dollar store (or for my UK readers, a poundshop) to buy something that will be broken a week later is not wise stewardship. (Perhaps the earth’s resources should never have been used to manufacture the item in the first place.) But there are things people both need and desire, and having an excuse at least provides a context to nudge someone to acquire something that might be beneficial to their hobbies and interests, but that they might hesitate to purchase for themselves.
• Children need to identify and celebrate friendships. If you can do a birthday party without excluding anyone, and at the same time not incurring great expense, it’s nice for kids to gather their friends around them. You can also do a party where instead of gifts, people make a contribution to a charity of the child’s choice. (Try Compassion International, Partners International, Christian Blind Mission, etc.)
• The date will be remembered after the person is gone. We’ve talked here before about “stones of remembrance,” and there is value in “calendar notations of remembrance.”

Some of the same people also do not believe in celebrating Christmas or Easter. While this needs to be the subject of a different discussion, my short answer would be that our family does not celebrate Christmas or Easter, we recognize and stand in awe of incarnation and atonement.

I’m going to more or less repeat the sentence but… we’re celebrating the gift and miracle of incarnation; we’re remembering the costly sacrifice and meaning of atonement.

I don’t like birthdays. The thought of another year passing scares me, but only because I realize that there are things I have wanted to accomplish that have not happened, and in fact may not happen. But I don’t want to over-spiritualize this and make it seem that I am being pious or devout by asking my family to skip this year’s birthday observance. We should never let tastes and preferences appear to be deeply spiritual principles.

Let’s pause for a minute and look at secular holidays.

I believe that the modern church is far too wedded to the civic calendar. It intrudes into many of our worship services and other events when we are in fact citizens of heaven, not of earth. But I’m not sure that the way to express that is to refuse to stand for the national anthem or refuse to sing it; to totally ignore Mother’s Day or Father’s Day; or in the case of some people who are extremists on this, to refuse to recognize the beginning of new calendar on New Year’s Day, or even jettisoning Christmas and Easter themselves.

Ironically, while looking for a link to include that would, at the very least, let you see a graphic about being citizens of two worlds, I found this article from last year titled Long Live the King. (I’m posting this on the day of his coronation!)

Before we get back to birthdays, I need to say a word to Christians in the 2020s about the Jewish feast days themselves. While attending a Passover Seder recently, I was reminded that we are woefully ignorant of the Jewish calendar. If you want to take Paul’s words (above) to the Galatians as the last word on this subject, remember that there was a specific context in that letter. Yes, we’re now under The New Covenant, but those holy days and feasts have major prophetic significance for the Christ-follower. We may not observe them in the same sense as our Jewish friends observe them, but we can’t take the posture that they no longer matter at all.

Okay. Back to my birthday. (I hope you’re all thinking about the gift you’re going to give me!) (That wasn’t serious.)

Including birthdays and anniversaries in the “special days” category Paul is referring to here is to miss the intention of the passage, and really amounts to poor Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics).

When your turn rolls around, I do, with all sincerity and with all intention, wish you a Happy Birthday!

Taking a second look a the way the civic calendar (or political cycle; or greeting-card-industry cycle) controls much of our special programs in the church is a different matter, especially where nationalism is proving problematic, especially at a time when we already have so many distractions.

Rejoicing in the Holy Spirit

Yesterday I was conversing with someone about the contrast between the simplicity of the Good News — so simple that a child can understand it — and the complexity of scripture — so intricate that even back in Bible times John was able to write,

Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written. (21:25 NLT)

Imagine what he would say in a post-printing-press world if he saw all the doctrinal and theological commentaries which have been written since.

Each time you read the Bible there is something new waiting for you that you’ve not noticed before. If you migrate between translations this happens more frequently, a word or phrase suddenly strikes you and have to simply stop reading and think about it.

Eight years ago, while reading Michael Card’s book, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (IVP), I was struck by  Lk. 10:21. The NCV is one of many translations that uses the phrasing I chose for today’s post title:

²¹ Then Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the people who are wise and smart. But you have shown them to those who are like little children. Yes, Father, this is what you really wanted.

The NIV uses

 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said…

Although this is not one of the ‘trinitarian’ verses in scripture, the Holy Spirit is mentioned. If like me, the phrasing was unfamiliar to you, perhaps you were raised on the KJV which omits this:

²¹ In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said…

but the phrase hagios pneuma is there.

The occasion is the return of the 70 (or 72) from their mission trip and report that demons were subject to them. Jesus’ full prayer is:

My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people. Yes, Father, that is what pleased you.

My Father has given me everything, and he is the only one who knows the Son. The only one who really knows the Father is the Son. But the Son wants to tell others about the Father, so that they can know him too.  (CEB)

So while the verse isn’t, you can see that this passage actually is expressing all three persons of the Trinity.

Card points out that this missionary report is much different than when The Twelve were sent on a similar journey:

We are not told if the first mission of The Twelve was successful or not, but the failures that surround them before and after their first mission are not cause for hope.

We also know from Luke 9:49 there was confusion when they (the disciples) went out on their own:

“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” (NIV)

So to return to our key verse, Jesus rejoices in the report of the larger group. Matthew Henry takes particular note of the phrase “in that hour;”

It was fit that particular notice should be taken of that hour, because there were so few such, for he was a man of sorrows. In that hour in which he saw Satan fall, and heard of the good success of his ministers, in that hour he rejoiced. Note, nothing rejoices the heart of the Lord Jesus so much as the progress of the gospel, and its getting ground of Satan, by the conversion of souls to Christ. Christ’s joy was a solid substantial joy, an inward joy: he rejoiced in spirit; but his joy, like deep waters, made no noise; it was a joy that a stranger did not intermeddle with. Before he applied himself to thank his Father, he stirred up himself to rejoice; for, as thankful praise is the genuine language of holy joy, so holy joy is the root and spring of thankful praise.

Henry’s phrase in the last sentence, “he stirred up himself” is interesting, because he was working from the KJV, which we’ve noted omits the reference to the Holy Spirit. Still, it is interesting to consider Henry’s wording. What did it mean that Jesus stirred up himself? I would like to spend more time on this phrasing, however…

What is the application to us? The IVP New Testament Commentary notes:

The theme of rejoicing continues as Jesus turns back to the disciples and blesses them. They should feel happy and honored because they are seeing things that the prophets and kings longed to see (1 Pet 1:10-12). This passage emphasizes that what Jesus is doing is what the saints of the Old Testament had hoped to see. Many great saints of the old era did not get to experience the blessing, but Jesus’ disciples are blessed to be a part of this new era. The statement recalls 7:28: the lowest person in the kingdom is higher than the greatest prophet of the old era.

Sometimes we think how great it would have been to see Moses perform miracles before Pharaoh or watch Elijah defeat the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel. Jesus says that the situation is in fact the exact reverse—they long to see what we experience, because to know God and life through Jesus is what they had wished to experience all along. In effect, Jesus says, “Count your blessings, for they are many and have been desired for centuries.”

That ought to make us rejoice in the Holy Spirit.

 

How to Read the Bible (and How Not To)

by Clarke Dixon

The commitment to read the Bible daily may not be the biggest challenge of The OneYear Bible reading challenge I have set before our church family. The bigger challenge may be in understanding what we are reading, especially since we will be reading all of it and not just our favourite verses. We may be surprised to find within the New Testament things like “slaves, obey your masters,” and “women must be silent in the church.” What we find in the Old Testament may be even more surprising.

As we read through the Bible, let us keep in mind what the Bible is and what it is not. It is not one book dropped into our laps, pre-written in heaven. It is a compilation of many writings, written by many people at different times under different circumstances, and using different genres of writing. It is “God-breathed,” but it is not God-dictated.

We do well to understand how the various writings that make up the Scriptures came about. I am going to borrow from N.T. Wright here who in the book, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians points to three words to keep in mind as we read the Bible, these being, not surprisingly, history, literature, and theology. Things happened in history (history). People had beliefs about what happened and what it meant (theology). People wrote about both the history and what it meant (literature).

Keeping in mind history, theology, and literature will help keep us from “adventures in missing the point” to borrow an expression from a book by Tony Campolo and Brian McClaren We can miss the point of the Scriptures when we fail to think through the context of their writing. We miss the point when we treat every word of the Bible as the very words of God for all people and all time rather than thinking of the writings as recording the response of people to what God was doing in their specific time and place, which does of course speak to us about what is true for all people and all times. There is a subtle and important difference there.

Let me give one example of missing the point, or of how not to read the Bible. Here is a quote I came across sometime ago, though I don’t remember the original source:

Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship. Our only assurance of practicing acceptable Christian worship is to disregard man-made creeds and turn to God’s Word as our only authoritative guide to worship. Unless we pattern our worship after the first century church, we can have no assurance that God approves of our assemblies

Source unknown

This makes God out to be a bit of a bully. Such a theology builds upon treating the Bible far too literally, and far too seriously as a bunch of God-dictated rules rather than a collection of God-breathed responses. Such a stringent view of the Bible, and God, messes with peoples heads, making understanding and living out every word of the Bible, neither of which can actually be done, the main goal. If that is our goal, we have missed the point. The key moment in history where God showed up was in Jesus, who took the nails. Bullies don’t get nailed to a cross and then given the chance to get even, offer forgiveness instead. God is not the bully we make him out to be when we don’t read the Bible well.

What does an adventure in getting the point look like instead? Let us consider the writing of someone who spent time with Jesus:

We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life. This one who is life itself was revealed to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and proclaim to you that he is the one who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then he was revealed to us. We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that you may fully share our joy.

1 John 1:1-4 (NLT)

Something, or better, someone happened in history; Jesus. John experienced that and it was life changing, challenging and changing what John thought about God. Based on John’s interaction with Jesus what did John come to believe?

God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love—not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. Dear friends, since God loved us that much, we surely ought to love each other. No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us, and his love is brought to full expression in us… Furthermore, we have seen with our own eyes and now testify that the Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world… God is love…

1 John 4:9-12,14,15 (NLT)

In reading the Bible, let us watch for how people responded to God who moved in history. This is more difficult in the Old Testament which spans a lot of rather complicated history. However, in the New Testament, there is one unique person who enters into history, Jesus. Because of Jesus, people changed what they were thinking about God and people changed. Then they wrote about it and because of it. Through their writings we discover the one who changes us. Reading the Bible well can change the world.

---

Before they appear here, Canadian pastor Clarke Dixon’s condensed sermons appear at his blog, Thinking Through Scripture.

The Opposite of Sola Scriptura

Today’s devotional study is going to be interesting, to say the least. Far more so now than when much of it was posted in March, 2017. And the title I gave today’s thoughts was chosen to be deliberately provocative.

So first let’s deal with that title. In offering the opposite of sola scriptura (the word of God alone) I realize that some, especially if you are from a tradition which holds high “the five solas,” are going to be thinking that anything that opposes this view is heretical.

Years ago, someone challenged me with the question, “Are there things we know about God that we don’t know from the Bible?” I thought about my university philosophy studies and how some of the characteristics of God were intuited or deduced based on other information we have about God. In other words, we could say ‘If God is all-knowing, but he’s also just, then _________.’ (I don’t have a particular answer in mind there, but I wanted you to see the form such reasoning might follow.)

If we were to ask, “Are there things we know about Jesus we don’t know from the Bible?’ then the answer is more clear. Even the most conservative Christians are content to draw from the writings of Josephus and others to get a fuller picture of Christ’s impact, and the life of the Early Church. The Bible tells us even as much itself, The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. John 20:30 NLT and “There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” – John 21:25 NET

Instead, I want to propose that there is a different type of opposite to sola scriptura, one that is not to be condemned, but rather to be considered, and perhaps adopted in your own Biblical studies.

It’s usually referred to today as “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”

This week we visited another church, as Ruth Wilkinson (who you’ve read here regularly) was preaching. The pastor chairing the service mentioned that the week before, he had spoken about this quadrilateral, and I checked and we’d only really mentioned it here once.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. In November, 2012 it briefly was part of a devotional by we ran by Scott Lencke.

Now, while some might loathe the idea of utilizing our experience to understand Scripture, I wouldn’t say it’s completely terrible. I’m an advocate of something like the Wesleyan quadrilateral that recognizes we have more than Scripture alone in helping us understand God’s revelation. Rather this perspective takes a more holistic approach, identifying a) Scripture, b) tradition (there is such things as good tradition), c) reason (not ‘objective rationalism’) and d) experience as important in grasping the revelation of God.

So, my point is that understanding Scripture is not completely devoid of our human experience and encounter with God and his truth.

But we got ahead of ourselves. What is the quadrilateral?

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, or Methodist Quadrilateral, is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler.

This method based its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development. These four sources are scripture, tradition, reason, and Christian experience.

Upon examination of Wesley’s work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. Wesley believed, first of all, that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in “scripture” as the sole foundational source. The centrality of scripture was so important for Wesley that he called himself “a man of one book”. However, doctrine had to be in keeping with Christian orthodox “tradition.” So, tradition became in his view the second aspect of the so-called Quadrilateral. Furthermore, believing, as he did, that faith is more than merely an acknowledgment of ideas, Wesley as a practical theologian, contended that a part of the theological method would involve “experiential” faith. In other words, truth would be vivified in personal experience of Christians (overall, not individually), if it were really truth. And every doctrine must be able to be defended “rationally.” He did not divorce faith from reason. Tradition, experience, and reason, however, are subject always to scripture, which is primary.

Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.

Here are some images from various places online, where people tried to illustrate the concept graphically:

Do an image search for Wesleyan Quadrilateral and you’ll find various attempts to explain it.

I’m not sure the one on the bottom left is what Wesley had in mind. This is how stereotyping leads to divisiveness. And as I said earlier, the headline I chose would immediately cause some readers to think that the opposite to “scripture alone” would be something bad, or fringe, or not Christian at all.

Personally, I think it is another way forward. It gets us past the notion “The Bible says…” and also the resistance that we’re going to meet in the broader world when we start with “The Bible says…” The pastor we spoke with this morning mentioned that one of the people he’s read says our interactions should begin with experience.

Would that make scripture interpretation subjective? Perhaps, but the truth about God and the narratives about Jesus are subjective in the sense they are going to impact lives in a very personal, very individual sense.

Besides, as Michael Simpson informed us in the same article linked above:

This is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. In this method, tradition, experience, and reason are employed, while being subject always to scripture, when forming and applying our theology. Each of the “legs” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority. (italics added)

In an article posted in October, 2020, Matthew Marino reminded us that:

New folk are often struck by how much Anglicans talk about “the tradition.” People sometimes assume we mean, “That’s just how we’ve always done it.” But that is not what we are talking about at all. Refusal to change is not “the tradition,” just stasis. Jaroslav Pelikan, called that, “Traditionalism, the dead faith of the living.” The Great Tradition is the living faith of the dead. What we mean by “tradition” is robust and life-altering. The Apostle Paul commended the Corinthians because they, “maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11:2) and, “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2 Thes. 2:15). So while Jesus criticized the traditions of the elders (Matt 15:3), the traditions of the Christian faith passed along both verbally and in scripture are applauded…

…Why not just go with the Bible? Because heresy after heresy and schism after schism arose in those first five centuries. The early church dealt with them and told us how to deal with them. St. Vincent of Lerins referred to the tradition as, “That which has been taught always, everywhere, and by all.” In our era many claim God giving them new revelation. Yet these “new ideas” are always remarkably similar to ideas resoundingly rejected by the Church as novelty centuries ago. “The Tradition” is Mere Christianity, the core of the faith, that which has been passed from generation to generation.

The verb form of the Greek word for tradition, “paradosis” is “handed off” or “delivered.” When Paul said in 1 Cor 11:2, “maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you.” Paul literally said, “maintain the traditions as I traditioned you.”

He used the same word when he said, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). Jude called it, “the faith once for all delivered.” “The tradition” is nothing less than the core of the faith that is handed from generation to generation. It is the baton that must be passed, the irreducible minimum.

And so, tradition. We could also look in detail at the other two “legs” of the Wesleyan hermeneutical tool in a similar fashion.

Again, the way I framed this may upset the preconditioning of some readers, but I hope you’ll at least file it away and perhaps, a situation will cross your path sometime soon where this interpretive tool is useful.

 

 

 

 

The Case for a Literal Reading of Genesis 1

This is a topic which arises constantly, in fact I referred to it in conversation yesterday. This is our fourth time at Awakened to Grace, and the author of today’s piece is again Joy Bollinger. Clicking the title which follows will take you to where this first appeared.

Were Adam & Eve Real People?

Adam and Eve’s existence has been argued since the beginning of time. A Gallup poll determined that only 24 percent of Americans believe the Bible to be the literal Word of God. The other 76 percent believe the Bible is a book of myths, legends, teachings, and that Adam and Eve were nothing more than an allegorical representation of humanity. However, there is enough proof throughout the Bible to legitimize the reality of Adam and Eve being the first parents of mankind.

We learn in Genesis 1:1-28 that after God spoke all things into existence, God said,

“Let Us (Son and Father) make mankind in Our image, in Our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So, God created mankind in His own image; He created them male and female and blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” “And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Adam’s name means “man from the red earth” and Eve’s name means “living one and source of life.”

The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and he became a living soul (Genesis 2:7). The Lord God then caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and took one of Adam’s ribs, and made a woman, and brought her to the man. Then He gave them all authority over creation (Genesis 2:21-23).

God had lavishly provided for their every need, yet Satan, the great deceiver, would come to tempt and cause doubt to form within their hearts and minds. So it happened that Satan appeared to Eve with his trickery and convinced her that God was a withholder of good things. When Eve saw that the fruit of the forbidden tree was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it (Genesis 3:6).

Adam disobeyed God’s command to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so he followed his wife’s lead, and together they yielded to temptation. Sin filled their hearts, bringing death and destruction to all mankind.

Satan continues to perpetuate that same deceptive lie, causing many people to believe that God withholds good things and that in serving Him, they are prevented from enjoying life. The truth is that those who fully surrender and commit their hearts and minds to the lordship of Jesus Christ, will experience peace, joy, and God’s provision that surpasses all understanding.

Job, a righteous man, referred to Adam when he made his case of innocence to his friends and said, “If I have covered my transgressions as Adam…” (Job 31:33). Adam tried and failed to cover his sin of disobedience when he said, “The woman You put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (Genesis 3:12-13).

Adam blamed God for giving him Eve; therefore, he reasoned that she was the cause for his rebellion and disobedience. He took no responsibility for his sin and failure in preventing them both from making that fatal choice.

We find a reference to Adam in Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He [God] set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.”

The entire genealogy of Adam to Abraham and eventually to David can be found in Chronicles 1 and 2, beginning with Adam and his sons. Again, we see a reference to the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham, whose lineage came from Adam (Matthew 1:1).

A significant account regarding Adam and Eve is found in Paul’s letters to the Roman and Corinthian churches. Paul, who walked with Jesus and sat under His teaching, was educated in the eternal truths regarding Jesus and Adam. He fully understood Adam to have been just as real as Jesus. Had Adam never existed, then Paul’s entire case for the Gospel would have been pointless.

Paul details how sin and death entered the world through Adam and spread by inheritance to the entire human race. He presents Adam and Jesus as the two representative heads of humanity. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way, death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act (Jesus’ death and resurrection) resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Adam) the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one Man (Jesus Christ) the many will be made righteous” (Romans 18:21).

Jesus Christ came in the form of a man, yet fully God, to redeem and bring salvation to those who confess with their mouth that “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9).

The Apostle Paul strongly affirms, “Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man (Adam) came death, by Man (Jesus) also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming (I Corinthians 15:20-23).

It is written that “The first man, Adam, became a living being—the last Adam, (Christ), a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second Man (Christ) is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly Man” (I Corinthians 15:45-49).

Those who discount the authenticity of Adam and Eve, dismiss the whole counsel of God and might as well toss out the entire Bible. For everything rests on the foundation of God’s creation of man and woman, because it was their sin and fall that required Jesus Christ coming to earth to bring restoration and redemption to a fallen world.

PRAYER: LORD, all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God and is valuable for doctrine, admonishment, correction, and instruction in righteousness, so that I may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Help me, by the power of Your Holy Spirit, to believe and accept in faith that Your God-breathed Word is true and accurate. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Musical Instruments in Worship

Psalm 150 NLT

Praise the Lord!

Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heaven!

Praise him for his mighty works;
praise his unequaled greatness!

Praise him with a blast of the ram’s horn;
praise him with the lyre and harp!

Praise him with the tambourine and dancing;
praise him with strings and flutes!

Praise him with a clash of cymbals;
praise him with loud clanging cymbals.

Let everything that breathes sing praises to the Lord!

Praise the Lord!

It’s difficult to read the above and then realize that there are entire denominations within Christianity which do not accept the use of musical instruments in worship. The passage seems not only prescriptive in the literal sense, but seems to represent a pattern where “Praise him with electric guitars;” or “Praise him with keyboard synthesizers” would not be out of line.

And yet…

Ten years ago local church in Texas wound up as a newspaper story over their debate as to whether to go against the denomination and include guitars.

…Churches of Christ have traditionally called for instrument-free worship services, believing New Testament Scriptures and church traditions affirm and require the practice.

Some members, like Hicks, see the inclusion of instruments as a departure not just from tradition, but also from God’s word – and therefore, a matter of salvation.

Others appreciate the denomination’s a capella worship tradition, but question whether it is a Scriptural requirement…

The article pointed to Ephesians 5: 19-20

speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  (NIV)

But there is a principle of hermeneutics — which we’ll get to — that just because something isn’t expressly mentioned, doesn’t necessarily mean it is forbidden.

The article — and this is actually quite commendable for a local newspaper story — goes on to note that this simply wasn’t true for the Old Testament.

Numerous Scriptures, like those in 2 Chronicles 7 and 29, Psalms 33, 92 and 150, affirmed instrumental worship, the leaders decided.

An apologetic from a leader in that same denomination states,

As further proof that we should expressively forbid the use of musical instruments in worship, we know from the first several centuries of church history that singing was unaccompanied in all Christian worship. The Latin phrase “a cappella” comes to us from ancient times with the meaning of singing without instrumental music. Literally translated, “a cappella” means “at chapel.” Clearly, this is evidence that at some time in the past Christians routinely worshiped God with unaccompanied singing. Even as recent as the 19th century, religious leaders of most denominations condemned the use of mechanical instruments during worship.

Since we cannot be absolutely certain that God finds the use of musical instruments an appropriate form of worship, then it seems quite foolish to risk His wrath by adding something which He did not clearly authorize us to do during collective worship. Our only assurance of practicing acceptable Christian worship is to disregard man-made creeds and turn to God’s Word as our only authoritative guide to worship. Unless we pattern our worship after the first century church, we can have no assurance that God approves of our assemblies.

But that statement also reminds us that worship was for many centuries conducted in Latin. This creates two problems. First, Latin would be unknown to the early church members. Did they not worship in their vernacular? Second, if that is and should be the pattern, why have we drifted from Latin today? The logic of the argument pales on close examination.

In the Catholic Bible Dictionary, Scott Hahn’s entry on Psalms states,

the Greek title for the book in the Codex Alexandrinus is psalterion, which is the name of a stringed instrument used to accompany songs of worship.

Scott Smith, the writer who quoted Hahn went on to note:

…This isn’t just the Church of Christ who discourages, if not expressly forbids, the use of musical instruments in worship. These other churches do the same: some Presbyterian churches, Old Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, the Old German Baptist Brethren, and the Amish and Mennonite communities…

In addition, it is said that the practice of using instruments was “opposed vigorously in worship by the majority of Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Alexander Campbell.” Go figure.

These New Testament verses are often cited as a basis for not using instruments in worship: Mathew 26:30; Acts 16:25; Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12, 13:15; James 5:13…

However, they are merely invocations to sing, not denouncements of instruments. In these verses, Christ’s apostles find themselves alone on the Mount of Olives, imprisoned, etc. … Hey! Why didn’t anybody remember to bring a lute to prison?? Yikes.

Responding to the verse in Ephesians, a writer with the opposite viewpoint says,

…Since Paul is giving a command, if he had reference to playing a mechanical instrument of music we would all be obligated to do so. It would not be optional, but mandatory for every Christian. The early church did not understand it this way, as they never worshiped God with a mechanical instrument. Therefore, instrumental music in worship is an addition to the word of God. From passages such as Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19 we learn that God would not have us to add to His word. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “Learn not to go beyond the things which are written” (ASV). In 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul admonishes, “teach no other doctrine”. Remember, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God” (ASV).

He then goes on to list several things wrong with instrumental music, but you’ll need to scan that list of bullet points for yourself and see how your spirit responds to the flow of the argument.

The quotation from 1 Corinthians leads to the final thought on this topic, and for this I am thankful for having two “theologians” in the family, particularly my wife Ruth and my son Aaron, who pointed me this morning to the difference between the “regulative principle” for worship and the “normative principle.”

The most straightforward explanation I saw was this from the Compelling Truth website,

Regulative worship relies upon Scripture to dictate specifically what is allowed in worship. If it isn’t in the Bible, it cannot be in a worship setting. Normative worship looks at the other side of the coin. If it isn’t prohibited in the Bible, then it is allowed in worship.

The site provides a simple comparison:

Churches which choose regulative worship do not use musical instruments, for example, because there is no New Testament command to do so. Normative churches may use drama, music, and other expressions in worship because they are not forbidden in Scripture…

…Both regulative and normative churches claim they are following God’s Word…

The article continues in a direction which may be familiar to longtime readers here when we discussed the differences between rules and principles.* In other words, the goal is to appeal to the highest principle.

In the extreme, the regulative principle would also, in addition to the manner in which sung worship takes place, dictate the content of what is sung, as pointed out in an article in Breakpoint.

…Of course, this raises questions of where to draw the line between elements and circumstances. For example, singing is commanded in Scripture, but what are we to sing? Some denominations that adhere to the Regulative Principle argue that we should only sing Psalms as words mandated by God, perhaps supplemented with biblical texts such as the Song of Simeon. Others argue that the command to address one another in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs allows for a broader range of songs than just the Psalter. The rejoinder is that those terms represent different types of psalms…

The article says that in contrast,

Although the Normative Principle might seem to be less concerned with biblical fidelity than the Regulative Principle, it too looks on the Bible as the final authority on how we should worship God. However, it does not interpret the biblical text as a set of rules for worship but rather as guidelines showing us how to worship in Spirit and truth without mandating every last thing that can be done in worship. It allows for more creativity, including the use of a range of arts.

Each person reading this will decide for themselves if “doing what God commands” means “doing only what God commands.”

---

*I was greatly enlightened on this subject by a booklet published by InterVarsity Press (IVP) in 1981, What’s Right? What’s Wrong by Donald E. DeGraaf (sadly out of print.) In it he talks about the difference between rules and principles. A rule applies to one group of people, or people in one particular place, or at one particular time. A principle applies to all people in all places at all times. Rules derive from principles. If rules appear to be in conflict, appeal to the higher principles which govern them.

 

 

.

 

 

Comparison Verses

On Valentine’s Day, 2011, I asked readers at Thinking Out Loud to name their go-to verses when checking out a new Bible translation. Five of the responses are below. Later that year, the NIV2011 would emerge, but using what I had at the time, NIV1984, I reproduced their lists in full.

At the bottom with references only, are two other lists. One gives the reason for examining each passage, which is closer to the more rigorous Bible scrutiny we see more frequently today.

If nothing else, today you get to read some great scripture selections, so slow down and allow each to speak to you.

---

Joe’s list:

^{John 3:3} Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

^{Romans 1:1} Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. ² Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

^{Gen 1:1} In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Cynthia’s list:

^{I John 5:7} For there are three that testify: ⁸ the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

^{Rom 3:23} for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

^{Col 2:9} For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Cloudwatcher’s List:

^{II Tim 2:16} All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

^{Hebrews 1:1} In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ² but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. ³ The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.   [her list continued through verse 14]

^{Hebrews 10:10} And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.¹¹ Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹² But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³ and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. ¹⁴ For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

David’s list:

^{Deut 33:27} The eternal God is your refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you,
saying, ‘Destroy them!’

^{Psalm 18:30} As for God, his way is perfect:
The LORD’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.

^{Nahum 1:7} The LORD is good,
a refuge in times of trouble.
He cares for those who trust in him

My own list (you’ve seen two of these passages frequently here):

^{Col 1:9} For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives,¹⁰ so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, ¹¹ being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, ¹² and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you^[b] to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light.

^{Phil 2:5} In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

⁶ Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature^[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

^{Titus 3:5(KJV)} Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

The criteria in this question was rather unusual, but I don’t think we’re ever poorer for contemplating the scriptures.  Some of the verses I wanted to choose had already been selected (i.e. Hebrews 10), so I added the Titus verse which had fallen in my radar the previous summer. The Philippians passage is still my go-to when checking out a new translation.

---

Appendix:

Dave’s list with criteria:

1) Philippians 3:8 to see if someone is finally brave enough to translate “skubala” as “dogsh*t”

2)Galatians 5: To see if they scored a win (like the New NIV finally did) and translated “sarx” as flesh, not “sinful nature”

3)The gospels: To see if (like The Voice did) someone translated baptism as “ritual cleansing” or
literally as “dip” or “immersion”

4) 2 Tim 1:7: “sound mind” or “self-discipline”

5)Psalm 2:12, capitalize “Son” or no; also “his son” or “the son”?

Albert’s list with equal weight to OT and NT:

Old testament:

1. Genesis 1
2. Psalm 23
3. Isaiah 7:14 (because everyone seems to care whether it’s “virgin” or “young woman”)

New Testament:

1. Matthew 5-6
2. Ephesians 5-6
3. Philippians 2

---

If you have an idea for an out-of-the-box devotional article here let us know. Also, it’s been awhile since we ran the “Quotations” series, so if you have an author to recommend, we’ll consider it.

---

Go Deeper:

While we’re on the topic of translations, last month Bible Gateway decided to remove The Passion Translation (TPT) from its site. If this type of thing interests you, and you’d like to read more, with links to more detailed articles, click here.

Persons Claiming They Don’t Have Need for Bible Teaching

This is our fifth full-length post from Bill Muehlenberg at the website Culture Watch and it’s only the first part of a longer article. You’ll need to click through to continue reading some of the reactions he had when he posted this. It’s a very timely topic right now, especially as people have used Covid-19 as an excuse to sever themselves from local churches. Click the header which follows.

Difficult Bible Passages: 1 John 2:27

This is another passage that is so often abused and misused. That is the main reason it can be so difficult or problematic. A subtitle to this article might be: “This Is How Cults Arise”. That is because those who mangle this verse are prime candidates for the cults or may well already be in one.

The verse says this:

“As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”

This verse, and John 14:16-17, 26 and John 16:13, are so often wrongly appropriated by some believers. The texts in John’s gospel are a bit different: they refer to the fact that Jesus will soon be leaving his disciples, and he wants to assure them that he is not abandoning them, but he is leaving the Holy Spirit with them to assist and guide them.

These verses are often used by those who claim that they have no need of “human” anything: human learning, human teaching, human counsel, human books, human study, etc. They imply that they have a direct pipeline to God, so are totally self-sufficient in and of themselves. They have no need of anyone else.

I just wrote about these “Holy Spirit-only” believers. At the end of the day what we have are not super-spiritual believers, but usually arrogant and fleshly Christians: billmuehlenberg.com/2019/01/26/holy-spirit-only-christians/

In a moment I will give a concrete example of this sort of twisted thinking. But first, how might we answer this? It is quite easy actually. If we simply run with the two most basic rules of biblical interpretation, we will have no problems here at all:
1) study every text in its context
2) compare scripture with scripture

As to the first, the context shows that John is dealing with some heretical, Gnostic, and/or secessionist teachers who were claiming special spiritual insights and revelations. It is THOSE sorts of false teachers that these Christians have no need of, and need to avoid.

Concerning the second, it is clear from numerous biblical passages that we DO need teachers, counsellors, advisors, overseers, etc. – all of them “mere” humans. The New Testament everywhere speaks of how God has given teachers and others to the Body of Christ to help it grow and develop.

Simply based on all these other texts, there is absolutely NO way anyone could believe that John is saying we should not have teachers. Indeed, the letters of John are ALL ABOUT teaching, instruction and helpful information to believers. Throughout the New Testament human teaching – properly understood – is NOT being downplayed, but extolled and encouraged.

I realize that these hyper-spiritual types especially dislike things like biblical commentaries, but let me quote from just a few of them anyway. While they may despise and look down upon these godly biblical teachers, I am happy to run with their Spirit-directed wisdom and insights.

One of these great Spirit-endowed men of God was John Stott. He said this about the passage in his commentary:

True, in the last resort the Holy Spirit is our absolutely adequate Teacher, and we maintain our right of private judgment by His illumination of the Word of God. But we must see this verse in the context of an Epistle in which John is, in fact, teaching those who, he says, have no need of human teachers! And other passages of the New Testament refer not only to the general ministry of teaching in the Church (e.g. Acts 4:18, 5:28, 42; 2 Tim. 2:24) but also to specially gifted ‘teachers’ (1 Cor. 12:29; Eph 4:11).

Obviously John’s epistles are full of teaching and instruction. As James Montgomery Boice puts it:

When John says that the Christians of his day “do not need anyone to teach” them, the statement must be understood in its context. It does not mean, for instance, that there is no value at all in teaching or that there is no such thing as a teaching ministry in the church. In fact, as Bruce observes, “What is John himself doing in this letter if he is not ‘teaching’ his readers?

Or as Marianne Meye Thompson comments:

While ultimately the Spirit “will teach you all things” (Jn 14:26), the Spirit does so through human beings. Thus, when the Elder writes you do not need anyone to teach you, he does not mean that they have never needed any teachers—for he himself was and continues to be their teacher! But they do not now suddenly need new teaching about Jesus, such as the secessionists are offering.

Let me now turn to some recent remarks that came my way on all this…

[…continue reading here]

The Bible’s Top 6 Verses Used as Random Maxims

In many respects, I’d like to think that regular readers here don’t need today’s post, but for each one of those, there are others I hope find this via a search engine, and do a reset on the misapplication of certain scripture passages. (If you’re in the “been there, done that, bought the t-shirt” category, then skip to today’s bonus article by the same author.

It’s been awhile (not sure why) since we last visited Driving Thought, the long-time blog of Scott McCown. Here’s one quoted article and two linked articles. Click the header below to read direct from the source.

What Does that Verse Say?

Everywhere I go, I hear Christians and Bible-minded people quoting passages of scripture or I see certain passages on signs, bumper stickers, or on personalized car plates (tags). At first glance these passages seem to be encouraging or seem to be full of promise. Yet, often, after a deeper look at the context of the passage, they do not say what the sign, sticker, or tag implies. I have selected three of the more popular of these scriptures from the Old Covenant and three from the New Covenant to share and explore.

Jeremiah 29:11 “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” People quote this verse implying that God has a plan of my welfare for a future for hope, He has a specific plan for my life. I just need to let go and let God take control. But that is not what that verse is about. It is not about you. It is not about me. Unless of course, I want to wait 70 years like the verse before says. Contextually, God is telling the nation of Judah, “You have abandoned me, I am going to send you into captivity for seventy years, then you will come back here and call on My name – returning to Me, Then I will lay out the plans I have for you.” The plan was to restore them so the Messiah – Christ could come.

2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” Many use this verse as if to say that if the United States of America would just pray, God will make America great again. I hate to disappoint you, but The United States is NOT God’s chosen people. The USA is not God’s nation. To be honest, we are not really a Christian nation. We are a democratic-republic who elects leaders. In the context of 2 Chronicles 7, Solomon has finished construction of the temple and God is warning Israel about becoming unfaithful and telling them He will punish their unfaithfulness but will forgive when they repent. Any application today is not to the United States of America but to God’s chosen people today, His kingdom, His body – the CHURCH. If the church wants to grow, we need to be a people of prayer and reliance on God.

Isaiah 43:19 “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” I heard someone on the radio using this verse as a promise. Their statement was along this idea, “You are going through a tough time, but God is taking you through that on purpose. He has a plan. A plan to give you something new and better.” Then they explained how their first marriage broke apart and how devastated they felt, but God lead a new spouse into their life and it is the best that has ever happened to them. All that sounds fantastic. That is until you realize the Lord is making a comparison. He is comparing the Exodus of Israel from Egypt to a new way and a new covenant He will make through the Messiah. The new thing is salvation through Christ and the promise of eternal salvation in Him.

Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Many times, this verse is used when you or I do not want someone saying what we are doing or are about to do is wrong (dangerous, immoral, sinful, etc.) But that is NOT what Jesus is saying. Contextually, Jesus is saying before you tell someone about their sin, know that you will be judged by the same standard. So, make sure you are aware of and admit your own weaknesses before you condemn others for theirs (Matthew 7:1-5). Other passages us teach Christians to watch out for, edify, encourage, and even to judge one another (1 Corinthians 5:12). I want you to help me become more righteous, so please judge what I am doing and offer correction when I am in the wrong. Just realize that you do not have the ability to know my motives. You can judge my actions but only God can judge my heart.

Philippians 4:13 “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.” Many times, we apply this verse to tasks, education, tests, sports and more. We use it to say we are invincible in this life and communicate that we will always come out on top when we rely on the strength of Christ. In Phil 4:10-14, Paul is thanking the Philippians for assisting him in his time of need. He shares that he is able to endure the hardships of persecution, need, hunger, as well as the joy of acclamation, abundance, and feasts. He has learned to take life in stride because his life is about Christ not about himself. If we apply this to sports, then I can win graciously because my life is in Christ and I can also lose graciously because my life is about Christ not about my ability (or lack thereof) on the basketball court.

John 13:7 “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Many use this verse in connection with Isaiah 43:19 (Behold I am doing a new thing) and claim that what hardship we are going through is from God and that although we do not understand it, we will when He gives us a new blessing afterwards. So we say, “God, I don’t know why you caused my house to burn down, but I know you have something new and better planned for me. I don’t understand what you are doing, but I have faith that everything happens for a reason.” That is not what this verse is about. This verse is about Jesus washing the disciples’ feet and coming to Peter who tells Jesus, don’t wash my feet. Jesus replies, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” A few verses later he explains so that Peter and the rest would know what He was doing, “. . . Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (John 13:12-17). Jesus is teaching them about humble service and servant leadership. If He, Jesus the Christ, stooped to wash feet like a lowly house servant, then His followers and the leaders of His people (the Church) are servants not tyrants. That is what Peter and we are to understand from John 13:7.

My challenge to each and every one of us is to not use the Bible as a book of maxims to be randomly applied to make us feel better about life. That we not look at the Word of God as a book of various promises to demand (claim) from God. We need to take time to learn the context of a passage, take time to learn the over-riding message of the Bible – God’s plan for redeeming man back to Himself for eternity.

---

Second Helping:

By the same author, check out Break the Chains and/or Grace is Grace (a scripture medley).

 

If It’s All Greek to You…

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

Today’s article is less devotional and more about Bible study methods. Good and thorough study methods. The page Christ’s Words – The Mysteries of Jesus’s Greek Revealed is probably the most detailed verse-by-verse analysis of the New Testament in the original language that I’ve come across in years of sourcing material online. I searched for an author name, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and credit this to Gary Gagliardi, who describes himself as a “techno-linguist” who started his work studying ancient Chinese.

In the general introduction to the site he says,

Jesus’ words are unique for three reasons.

1. His words were spoken, not written. Spoken language is inherently different than written language.
2. His words changed the meaning of words, determining even how later NT authors’ used the Greek.
3. His words were the basis of a unique historical revolution in the way people think.

What you’re about to see is only about 20% of the entire analysis of the verse in question, just to whet your appetite. And if you know someone who is a seminary student, you need to alert them to this website.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory,

Spoken to:

Apostles

Context:

A parable about the final judgment of the sheep and the goats.

Greek :

Matthew 25:31 Ὅταν δὲ “ἔλθῃ” ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ “πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ,” τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ,

Literal Verse:

When, however, he comes, this son of the man, in that acclaim of his, and all those messengers of his with him, then he will seat himself on a judge’s bench of his acclaim.

My Takeaway:

When it comes to a final judgment, Jesus chairs the meeting.

KJV :

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

NIV :

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

Interesting and Hidden Aspects:

“Glory” is a word that means “recognition” and “reputation”. Translations as “glory” or “splendor” are found primarily in translating the Bible. The word “acclaim” comes closest to capturing the way Jesus uses the word.

“Throne” is from an untranslated Greek word that means “chair” but came to means “throne” (as the Greek source of our word). It also means the “chair” of a teacher, the “chair” of a state official, or the “chair” of a judge. Our English word “chair” is used in all of these ways as well. Jesus almost always uses it in the context of acting as a judge, so “judge’s bench.”. This is certainly its use in this story.

Related Verses:

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me…

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words,

---

The article then continues with an analysis of all the Greek words used, an analysis of the English words used in the KJV, and an analysis of the English words used in the NIV.

Remember that what you just read is done for each verse.

Again, this is the link: Click here.