Old Testment laws for today?

In the next few posts, we will be discussing the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. We are still covering principles of Bible interpretation, so I have not really started a new series. Consider this Season 2, Episode 1 of Reading the Bible in Context. The Old Testament (OT), for the Christian, is interpreted by the New Testament. Then, again, the New Testament (NT) cannot be understood without the Old. 

When we read from either the Old or New Testament, we must keep the other Testament in mind. And this we generally do without thinking about it. We turn to Isaiah 53 where it says, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities" and we understand this as referring to the cross of Christ. But we should realize that Jewish rabbis, as a whole, reject this interpretation. It seems obvious to us, but that's because we understand the New Testament. On the other hand, we understand a lot about the cross by reading Isaiah 53. We must know that the OT enriches our understanding of the NT. 

What OT laws must the Christian obey today? 

This is one of the most difficult subjects to deal with in regards to understanding the OT in particular. There are 613 laws in the OT of which less than 300 could even possibly be obeyed today. That is because most of the laws have to do with the temple and sacrifices. Since the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, those laws cannot be followed at all. Additionally, the NT teaches that Christ fulfilled those sacrificial laws by sacrificing Himself. By accepting Christ and His sacrifice, we are considered to have fulfilled all of that. 

But let's look at some other OT laws. How about the kosher laws about what can be eaten or not. Leviticus 11:2-3 reads, 

Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat.

 What follows is a list of criteria of what can and cannot be eaten. Must we eat like this today? I know of Christians who say that we do. But what does the NT say? Are Christians ever told to eat kosher? Are they ever rebuked for not doing so, or exhorted to do so.
Not at all. In fact, Jesus tells us that it is irrelevant to us if our hearts are pure. "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” (Matthew 15:11). Later Paul would write to Timothy, "Food [which]  God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:2-4). 

We have made some progress! We have determined that some laws - sacrificial laws and kosher laws - do not apply to the Church. 

Now let's look at some other laws and what some have said about them. We are told by some (so-called?) Christians that since the aforementioned laws, the sacrificial and kosher laws, are in the book of Leviticus, mainly, then we should not have to obey any of the laws in Leviticus which are supposedly "out-of-date". Why do they say this? Well, it just so happens that the prohibitions against homosexuality are in Leviticus 18 and they approve of that. They want it removed from the list of sins. Of course, what they fail to mention is that the prohibitions against incest and bestiality are in that chapter as well. 

So, what can we say to this? Quite simply, we look at the New Testament and see what it says. Paul writing Romans 1:27 condemns homosexuality outright. "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." I could quote other NT passages including statements by Jesus, that condemns that and similar sexual sins that we find were condemned in Leviticus. 

Now we have established a principle that if an OT law is repeated in the NT, the OT law is still to be followed. In fact, sometimes the OT law contains more detail than the NT "version" of it, but we should still apply the parts of that OT law that do not appear in the NT. 

There is one more area that remains: what about the laws that are not specifically done away with in the NT, like the kosher laws, but are not repeated in the NT. The biggest of these are the sabbath laws. Exodus 20:8 says, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work." This is one of the Ten Commandments and, yet, Christians disagree as to whether or not to keep it. Some Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, keep a Saturday sabbath. Many other Christians keep a Sunday sabbath. They say it was changed to the first day of the week. Their reason is that Jesus arose on a Sunday and we now commemorate that day of the week as "the Lord's Day". 

I must say that I find the reasoning behind changing the day of the week as very weak. It "makes sense" in some ways but we find no such reasoning in the NT. Now it does seem that the church met on Sundays, but nowhere is it even implied that it was a new sabbath day. If you want to keep it as a day of rest and do it to honor the Lord, then that is fine. But if not, then that is fine, too. Nowhere in the NT are Christians rebuked for not keeping a sabbath day. Nowhere are Christians specifically enjoined to keep a sabbath day. This is telling. I am convinced that if Christians were to keep a sabbath, it would have been put in the NT somewhere! I cannot believe that no church ever needed to be reminded or exhorted to keep a sabbath day as we find it in the OT if, in fact, Christians were supposed to keep it. They had to be reminded about everything else! 

My conclusion is this: If an OT law is repeated in the NT, then we must keep that law. If not, then we need not do so.

Reading the Bible in Context, part 5 - Patterns

One the most important ways you can tell what a passage means is to compare it to similar passages. Otherwise, we might reach the wrong conclusion about what we may be reading. In this post, we will look at a passage from John’s Gospel that is frequently quoted, but not without controversy. It is John 10:10.

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill and to destroy. I have come that they may have Life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

When the first part of this verse is quoted, the assertion is made that the “thief” is Satan. However, there are many, especially among Christian academics, who say that the “thief” here is not Satan, but the Jewish leadership in Jesus’ day. After all, Jesus had just gotten through saying that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers.” Jesus then asserts that a thief comes to steal, etc. There is certainly logic to this. Yet many still see the “thief” as Satan. Who is right?

Here is where studying patterns in other scriptures becomes very helpful. We will look at the OT prophets to see what we find. Isaiah had prophesied that during the Babylonian Captivity, a ruler named Cyrus would deliver the Jews from captivity. (Isaiah 45:1) While the prophet Daniel was in Babylon, the Persian king, Cyrus, overthrew the Babylonians and eventually ended the captivity.

When the captivity did not end right away, Daniel prayed and interceded to get an answer from God about the seeming delay of the return of the Jews to their homeland. While Daniel fasted and prayed, an angel came to Daniel. He informed Daniel that God had sent him with the answer when Daniel prayed, but “the prince of the Kingdom of Persia” withstood the angel for 21 days. (Daniel 10:13) No man, no king can resist an angel because angels are spirits. Who, then, is this “prince”? It is clearly an evil spirit. It is revealed to be the ‘power behind the throne’, so to speak. In other words, behind the human ruler of Persia, there was an evil spirit who actually ruled that kingdom.

So, there is a dual kingdom – a natural and a spiritual existing side-by-side. Daniel saw that this pagan kingdom was actually ruled by an evil spirit and not men. This idea is confirmed in other scriptures as well.


Ezekiel 38


“Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, ‘Thus says the Lord God:

“Because your heart is lifted^] up,
And you say, ‘I am a god,
I sit in the seat of gods,
In the midst of the seas,’
Yet you are a man, and not a god,
Though you set your heart as the heart of a god …
You shall die the death of the uncircumcised
By the hand of aliens;
For I have spoken,” says the Lord God.’ ”

Notice that above it says that this prince of Tyre is a man who exalted himself and therefore will be judged. Below we have the “king” of Tyre who is not a man, but is Satan himself. He was the true ruler of Tyre.

 Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.

Your heart was ^[b]lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.

You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;

It devoured you.

This king of Tyre is definitely Satan. He was in the garden of Eden. It was he who tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Much later, he ruled over Tyre. (Tyre is north of Israel so it seems that Satan wanted to be close by Israel to keep an eye on it.)

So, we see a simple truth here. Behind evil human rulers and kingdoms, there are Satan and his evil spirits motivating and manipulating them. God has pulled back the veil of the flesh to reveal the unseen realm where angels and demons exist. They have real influence in our world. 

Getting back to John 10:10, we can see the same pattern of evil human rulers (the Jewish leadership of Jesus’ day) and the devil, who is motivating and manipulating those rulers. So, having established a pattern of evil human ruler with evil spirits behind them, it makes sense that the “thief” is, in fact, Satan. Even though Jesus had just called those who came before Him “thieves and robbers”, He indicates who our true enemy is, the devil.

This theme continues throughout the New Testament. Paul almost always called evil spirits some kind of name that indicates that they wish to rule over men. He taught us that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against “rulers and authorities”, indicating that demons and not men are our problem. So, the devil and his demons not only want to put us into bondage to sin, but they seek to rule over us and oppress us. We must learn to resist the devil and keep him from stealing, killing and destroying us.

“The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 4

Reading the Bible in Context, part 4

We are going to discuss two issues regarding the interpretation of a verse of scripture. One we have dealt with somewhat: Interpreting a verse without comparing it to other similar passages. In this case, we will take a careful look at a verse which is both well-known and well-loved, but generally misinterpreted.



The second issue is not interpreting a text according to its ancient context, rather putting a modern interpretation on an ancient text and doing so erroneously. Now errors like this are understandable since the correct interpretation depends on a knowledge of ancient history and culture that not many have. However, we will see that if we had looked at similar passages containing a particular word, then we might have questioned our interpretation. But when something seems crystal clear we tend to assume that we have understood it perfectly.



The passage for study is Psalm 47:1-3. It reads:

Clap your hands, all you peoples; shout to God with the voice of triumph.

For the Lord Most High is awesome, the great King over all the earth.
He subdued nations under us,  peoples under our feet.

 I have put the word “clap” in bold because that word is the key to our study. It seems at first glance to be talking about what we call “applause” or a “clap offering”. The “clapping” is in the middle of a praise to God. So, it basically means “clap offering”, right? Case closed?



No, the case is not closed. First of all, there is uncertainty as to the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “clap”. Is it clapping in rhythm, applause or simply putting one’s hands together? We have assumed it means “applause” and have practiced it that way, but the meaning is uncertain.



Moving on, we now will look at passages that contain that same word and see how it is used. Let’s use several.



Job 27:13-23 (with verses skipped for the sake of brevity)


Here is the fate God allots to the wicked, the heritage a ruthless man receives from the Almighty …
However many his children, their fate is the sword; his offspring will never have enough to eat. The plague will bury those who survive him, and their widows will not weep for them ^…  Terrors overtake him like a flood; a tempest snatches him away in the night. The east wind carries him off, and he is gone; It claps its hands in derision and hisses him out of his place.



Job 34:36-37 [Elihu condemns Job]



Oh, that Job might be tested to the utmost
    for answering like a wicked man!
     To his sin he adds rebellion;
    scornfully he claps his hands among us
    and multiplies his words against God.



Lamentations 2:15


All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?


There is something very strange here, isn’t there? Whatever a “clap” was, it was not like the applause we know today. In fact, we can only trace ‘applause’ back to first century Rome. In the contexts in Job and Lamentations, the term “clap” or “clapped their hands” has nothing to do with praising God. It seems to be a custom that is associated with the defeat or overthrow of an enemy, especially as a result of a judgment of God. Job is (falsely) accused of doing this wickedly, but correctly applied it is often a result of God’s righteous judgment. The people of God then may clap over the enemies that God has defeated. 


The word ‘clap’ is put together with speaking words against someone (Job 34), wagging the head (Lam. 2) and hissing (Job 27 and Lam. 2) It all seems to be a way of expressing the downfall of evil people (clapping) followed by a show of contempt for those who are fallen (hissing and head-wagging).

Now we can return to our original text. I am quoting again Psalm 47:1, 3 (sans verse 2) 


Clap your hands, all you peoples;
    shout to God with voice of triumph …
He subdued nations under us,
    peoples under our feet.


Now there is certainly a “shout to God”, which is praise, but a careful examination of the context reveals that the Israelites were to “clap their hands” to indicate the fall of their enemies, but they were not to show contempt for them by hissing. Rather, they were to praise God for “subduing the nations under us.” 

This is a victory psalm that tells God’s people to declare victory over their enemies and then praise God for it. So, praise is present, but it is the shout that is praise, not the clapping. The clapping is the custom that showed the overthrow of one’s enemies. (In my view, if you want to clap, clap over the devil – Jesus defeated him!)


In fairness, there are other OT scriptures that speak of clapping in a positive manner and even in praise. However, they are clearly metaphors from nature. Isaiah and some psalmists speak of trees and waves “clapping their hands”. When the wind blows, both waters and trees move in such a manner that it resembles people clapping their hands over their heads. But we are neither trees nor waves. All of creation gives praise to God but in different ways than humans do. 


I am fairly certain that the clapping of hands in worship began in the 1970’s. It seems to be unknown in the ancient church or the New Testament. I don’t find that practice in the Bible in light of a thorough study of Psalm 47. 


I trust that I have not lost too many of my readers from this. Whenever a person shows that a verse does not mean what they think it means, they sometimes turn you off. But even if you disagree with me, please do pick up on the fact that we must not interpret passages in isolation. We must study the uses of the same word elsewhere or we might miss the meaning altogether. I used to think that "clap" meant "clap offering", but now I have a fuller and richer understanding of the Bible because I found out differently. 


Even more important, we must be aware of the fact that it is very easy to read our modern culture and meanings and impose them onto the Bible when the ancient world would have had no idea what we are talking about. We do this a lot when we read the Bible and it is hard to do otherwise. But as we study and grow and learn, we can rejoice that our minds are being renewed to the Word of God and that we are thinking biblically and not according to this world's wisdom.

Reading Bible Verses in Context, part 3

I sometimes have issues with the way that certain verses are translated in certain translations in the Bible.  Now I am not suggesting that I know more than translators know. I have a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Greek and even less of Hebrew. But if I opened a mathematics textbook and I see that they have added 2 plus 2 and gotten 5, I can say that it is wrong even though the authors know a thousand times more math than I do. So, I feel free to criticize the translation of a certain verse if I can show that it was not well done.


Before we get to an example that will involve reading in context, I want to explain that there are different theories of translation. I will oversimply it for you here. The two basic theories are called “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence”, at least the last time I checked. (The names and theories may have been altered, but that will not change what I am arguing here.)


The idea behind formal equivalence is something like we might be tempted to call word-for-word translation. Of course, there is no such thing as word-for-word translation since different languages have different words, grammar, syntax, etc. Nevertheless, the translator tries to keep to the words of the biblical text as close to the original as he or she can.


The idea behind dynamic equivalence is that the translation gives us the meaning of the original since the attempt at word-for-word translation can often lead English readers with the wrong impression regarding the meaning of a particular passage. For example, after Jesus healed the woman with the blood flow, he told her, “Your faith has saved you.” (KJV) That is a literal translation. But that might lead us to the conclusion that this woman was just “saved”. A dynamic translation would say, “Your faith has made you whole” or “Your faith has healed you”. That is clearer to us than the word “saved” though in the Greek, it is the same word, “sozo”, which refers most often to eternal salvation. In this case, the dynamic equivalent method seems to be superior to the formal equivalent method, but I don’t think that that is generally the case. Dynamic equivalence is actually more likely to mislead the reader than formal equivalence.


With that said, we are ready to look at an example of poor translation by the method of dynamic equivalence. I will use two translations – the New American Standard, which uses formal equivalence, and the New Living Translation which uses dynamic equivalence. The verse in question is 1 Corinthians 12:8a. The subject is spiritual gifts, or supernatural manifestations of the Spirit of God.


New American Standard:


“For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit.”

New Living Translation:


“To one person the Spirit gives the ability to give wise advice.”


Notice that the NASB simply says “the word of wisdom” and the NLT says that this gift is the “ability to give wise advice”. The NLT is clearly an interpretation. The Greek says, “logos sophias”. Logos is the word for word or utterance, and Sophia is a word for wisdom. We can see that “word of wisdom” is roughly the same as “logos sophias”. It is quite literal.


So, what is a “logos sophias” in this context? It could mean the giving of wise advice. That is one good option. It is the one that the NLT translators chose. But what if it means something else?

Let’s focus on the word, “sophias” or “wisdom”. The NLT translators have interpreted it as “wise advice”. Now I think that giving wise advice is a wonderful thing, but I do not think it is a spiritual gift. I think it is something else. How can we know whether or not “sophias” should be translated as “wise advice”?


Context.


If we look at the context of the whole Bible, we will immediately notice that wisdom can mean “practical advice”. Just read the book of Proverbs. It is full of advice and wise sayings. It’s a very practical book.


Then again, we also know that wisdom is the proper way of looking at the world according to the revelation that God has given us.


So, the context of the whole Bible might not help us here. Instead, we must look at how Paul used the word “sophias” in the rest of 1 Corinthians. After all, it is highly unlikely that he would use such an important word in different ways, especially in the same letter. The context that is critical here is the context is how this author he uses words in this letter he has written to the Corinthians.

Earlier in this letter, Paul spoke of two very different sources of wisdom. One was the wisdom of the world, which is wrong. The other is the wisdom of God, which we need to learn and follow. But in neither case does Paul use the word to indicate “practical advice”. Rather he was talking about two very different ways to view the world.


The wisdom of the world caused the Corinthians to see the world the way the ancient Greeks and Romans did. There world was full of factions, divided between those who followed different philosophical teachers. Hence, the Corinthians were arguing over who they should follow – Paul, Apollos or Peter. They also denied the resurrection of the dead. The reason they did this was because in their philosophy (wisdom), the body was the prison of the soul and the soul needed to be released from its prison never to return.


But that is not the wisdom of God. God’s wisdom is based on Jesus Christ and him crucified – and resurrected. Paul urges the Corinthians to turn away from the wisdom of the world and accept God’s wisdom who is Christ.


1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NLT


When I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten.  No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God]—his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began. But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord.


Notice that I have used the NLT for this passage. Wisdom, from God, is a revealing of His purpose and plan. In this passage, it specifically refers to God’s plan to reconcile humanity to Himself by sending Jesus to die on the cross for us.


This leads me to conclude that when Paul speaks the wisdom of God, he is talking about a revelation of the purpose and plan of God. The word of wisdom, then, is not the giving of practical advice, but God revealing what He is planning to do in the life of an individual, a church or even a nation.

When King Hezekiah was sick, Isaiah had a word of God’s wisdom for him. Hezekiah was told to put his house in order because he was going to die. Hezekiah then prayed and plead his case to God. God then extended his life for 15 more years.


Hezekiah knew that this was not practical advice that Isaiah was giving him, but God was telling him that under the circumstances he was going to die. Hezekiah did not set his house in order; he changed the situation through prayer.


I think that I have shown definitively that the NASB translation is much better than the NLT. And I have also demonstrated that a dynamic translation, being interpretive, can lead us in the wrong direction due to the opinion of the translators. They obviously believed that the verse in question means “giving wise advice”.


The NASB translation could lead to any of several interpretations. With the NASB, you could come to the conclusion, as many have, that “logos sophias” means “giving wise advice”. But any good translation should allow for interpretations other than the one that the translators determine must be correct. The job of a translator is to translate the text freely and faithfully, not to determine the complete meaning for us and translate it accordingly.


But I must return to our main theme of interpreting by context. In my first post on the subject, I showed how the immediate context is the most important. In the second, I showed that the context of the whole Bible is important as well, especially when it comes to application.


Now we can see that how the human author uses certain words also helps us determine what a word means, particularly in the same book. Get into the habit of reading context, the surrounding context and the context of the book of the Bible you are reading as well.

God bless.

Reading Bible Verses in Context, part 2

In the last post, we looked at a passage of Scripture that many have taken too broadly; namely, that Paul in calling himself "the worst of sinners" was not referring to his present state but to his past - before Christ. In this case, Christians have made too much out of what Paul said. We cannot make a doctrine out of it. 

In this post, we will look at a verse that has sometimes been taken too narrowly often by scholars. We will look at Philippians 4:12-13

I (Paul) know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.  I can do all things through him who gives me strength.

I have put in bold letters the part of this which is often quoted. Christians have applied this principle to just about any situation. They declare that God empowers us to go through all kinds of circumstances particularly when we are answering his call. 

Biblical scholars cry foul on this. They say that the context of the latter part of this only applies to the situation of Paul having much or little in terms of material things and does not relate to anything else. In other words, it is said that the time that God gives us strength and ability is in regards to our material circumstances only. Now they would have an excellent point if that was the only biblical passage that spoke of this. It is not. 

We not only need to know the immediate context of a verse, we need to understand it in the context of the whole Bible. To say it a little differently, we have to ask ourselves if this principle is only applicable to this situation, or is it a larger principle that Paul has applied right here and we can apply it to other situations as well. I think it is the latter. 

Isaiah 41:10

So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God.

I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.

This is a promise from the Old Testament that God will strengthen us and uphold us by his right hand. Who is God's right hand? It is Christ. Now the context of this verse is referring to the return of the exiles from the Babylonian Captivity. But notice how similar it is to what Paul said. We can see exactly the same principle applied to very different circumstances. 

And there are many such examples of God strengthening His people to accomplish His will. It is a principle that applies to many more situations that what we find in Philippians. So, it is proper to interpret Philippians 4:13 more broadly than some scholars would allow. 

I hope that you have noticed that we have done something similar in last week's and this week's post. We have looked at the immediate context and we have looked at the larger context of the whole Bible. In last week's post, we showed that the immediate context was of great importance. Paul clearly said that he had been an awful sinner. Things he said elsewhere showed that he considered a born-again Christian to be righteous before God. 

This week we saw that the context of the whole Bible was actually the more important one. So, you might ask the question, "How do we know which one is more important?". Well, that's where we have to keep studying the Scriptures. The more we know, the better we can interpret any verse. 

One thing you can do is word studies. You can take prominent words and study how they are used in the Bible. Better yet, you can study certain subjects in the Bible. That means the whole Bible and not just the New Testament though the New Testament does interpret the Old. 

So, I encourage everyone to keep reading, studying and meditating on the Word of God.

Reading Bible Verses in Context, part 1

Since most of us have more alone time at home and may be having church online, I am hoping that my fellow Christians are spending more time reading the Bible for themselves. In view of that, I want to share some ways to read the Bible with better understanding.

I want to start with the subject of reading the Bible in context. Those of you who are educated in these things might be tempted to nod your head and  stop reading this post because you know all about that. But I encourage you to keep reading because my guess is that you are as guilty of this as anyone else. You take scriptures out of context or simply ignore the context in determining the meaning. We have all done it. 

Before we get into this, though, I want to make sure I am not misunderstood. Even when we get into the various ways we can better understand the Scriptures, I am not saying that we can figure it all out in our heads. We cannot. We have the Holy Spirit to teach us and to lead us into all truth. (John 14:26; 16:13) Always look to Him for understanding, first and foremost, then use the other tools that can aid our minds in grasping the truths of the Bible. 

First, I want to admit that certain verses that we often quote and use are well understood even without a lot of context. Take John 3:16. We quote that verse, we understand it correctly, we use it correctly so we do not have to take too much time talking about the context. 

But even in this instance, if someone knows nothing about Christ, nothing about sin, and nothing about eternal judgement, then he would not have any idea what this verse is actually saying. A uniformed pagan might ask "Which god?", or, "Since God has given His Son to give us everlasting life, how can I find Him?" He might understand nothing of the cross much less about sin or redemption or faith. The context of the whole Bible would have to tell him those things.

So, let's look at an example of a verse that is commonly misunderstood and misapplied because the context is not carefully considered. 1 Timothy 1:15 says, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." So Paul calls himself the "worst of sinners" or, as some translations say, "the chief of sinners". I have heard this many times used to "prove" that we should consider ourselves to be sinners of the worst sort if we want to be humble Christians. After all, if the great Apostle Paul whom we consider to be among the best Christians ever thought of himself as the worst sinner, how should we see ourselves? We should see ourselves as awful sinners as well. Right? 

Wrong. The context has been completely ignored. Let's look at the whole passage. 

"I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.  But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life." 1 Timothy 1:12-16

When you read this in context, Paul is not saying that he was the worst sinner when he wrote this, but before he was saved. Although he uses the present tense to say "worst of sinners", it is clear that he is talking about the time he "was a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man." He used the past tense there because he was no longer that man. That man was saved by the merciful Savior Jesus. Paul is telling Timothy to use him as an example of the mercy that Christ shows to sinners. 

Perhaps you have met, or have been, one of those who think that God will not save them because they have been so bad. Paul uses himself as proof that God will save the worst of sinners. 

So to use this one verse to prove some idea that we are still sinners after salvation is just not tenable. We must consider the context of all that Paul has said along these lines. 

"God exhibits his love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being justified now by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." Romans 5:8-9 Notice that "sinners" is referenced in the past tense. The implication is that we were sinners until we received our justification by the blood of Jesus.

"For if, by the offense of one, death reigned through one, much more so shall those who receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness, reign in life through One - Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17 Righteousness (not just a legal kind of righteousness) is a gift and has nothing to do with works.

"Not having my own righteousness (which is of the Law) but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness which is from God by faith." Philippians 3:9 We obtain righteousness from God by faith.

"For He has made him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we should be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21 The strongest statement in the New Testament regarding our righteousness. The context here reveals that he is talking about us being made new creations in Christ, brand new people with a new nature. 

I could quote more verses, but if you study these things (in context, of course) you will find that Paul consistently says that we were sinners but have received the gift of righteousness and received it by faith. We have been new creations, created in righteousness and true holiness. (2 Cor. 5:17; Ephesians 4:24) Thank God that though we were sinners, we were saved, that is, made righteous, by faith in Christ and His redemptive work on the cross. 

So I encourage everyone to study the context of every passage, both the immediate context of where that verse is, but also the context of what else the Bible says about that subject. Let's not build our theology on verses ripped out of their context to prove our theology. Sometimes our more used verses, taken out of context, have led us into misunderstanding and poor theology.

I hope that this has been enlightening  or, at least, challenging. I encourage comments and questions - even arguments. However, the Comments Section of this blog does not seem to work, so put in the Facebook post or email me at brian.scarborough@aol.com

NEXT TIME (maybe): Using the context to interpret too narrowly. 

The Departure of the Church

I occasionally watch on television a Bible teacher who teaches concerning Bible prophecy. Consistently, he talks about the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. So, I began to wonder why he beat this drum so often. After all, there are many subjects in Bible prophecy to discuss. Why always the pre-trib rapture? Isn't that a fairly settled subject in charismatic circles? I have discovered that it is not.

Before we go further, I need to define some terms. The Tribulation period refers to the seven year period right before the Second Coming of our Lord. You can read about the Second Coming in Revelation chapter 19. That event is followed by the Millennial Reign of Christ when He will rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years. (Some recently have revived the idea that Christ will return after the Millennium, but Revelation chapters 19 and 20 are quite clear: the Millennium will follow the Second Coming, not precede it.)

The prophet Daniel in about 535 B.C. spoke about 70 seven year periods that would precede the reign of the Messiah. 69 of those seven year periods took place before the messiah was "cut off", or crucified. Because the Jews had rejected their messiah, that last seven year period has been put off until Israel is ready to accept Jesus. In the meantime, God formed the Church to preach the gospel to all nations. So that last seven year period has been delayed until the Church finishes its task of preaching the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth. After that, God will again "restart the clock" and the seven year Tribulation period will begin. 

The teaching regarding the pre-tribulation rapture of the church states that before that Tribulation period begins, the church will be resurrected and caught up into heaven thus missing that time of judgement. This has been the teaching especially in Baptist and charismatic circles for a long time. Yet, there have always been those who disagreed with that scenario putting the rapture in the middle or at the end of the Tribulation.

The most recent departure from the teaching of the pre-trib rapture has come from Jewish Christians and others who have a real heart for Israel and the Jewish people. They have brought the church great blessing by showing us things like the meaning of the feasts that God commanded the Israelites to keep. They have noted that some of the church has viewed the church as replacing the Jews in the plan of God. That view regards all prophecies regarding Israel as applying to the church only. They do not believe that God will have any more dealings with the Jews as His own people. He is done with them. Until the nineteenth century, this was the standard view in every church. 

But when God brought the Jews back into Palestine after the world wars, many Christians began to see that God was beginning to restore the Jewish people back to the Promised Land as He said He would in the prophets. So many Christians began to see the Jews and the Christians as two peoples of God each with a distinct place in the overall plan of God. The old idea of Christians replacing the Jews was largely pushed aside. 

Recently, though, another idea arose which rejects the distinction between the church and the Jews as separate peoples of God. After the Six-Day war in 1967, many Jews began to accept Jesus as their Messiah and Lord. Of course, they had a desire to see their Jewish brethren accept the Lord and were big supporters of Israel. 

However, some began teaching that Israel and the church were one. Scriptures like those in Romans chapter 11 were used to "prove" that God "grafted" the church into the Jewish people. Hence, the church and the Jews are really not separate, but belong to the same covenant and have the same purpose. A careful reading of these passages must cause us to draw another conclusion. What the church is grafted into is not Israel or the Covenant (Law) of Moses, but the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul called Christian believers "sons of Abraham" not "sons of Israel". The Abrahamic Covenant created both the Jewish nation (Israel) and the church. 

Regarding the Jewish nation, God promised Abraham, "I will make you a great nation." Regarding the church, God promised "In you all the nations of the earth will be blessed." Gen 12

Paul consistently said that the church is not under the Law of Moses, but confirmed that we are children of Abraham, the father of faith, and that we have the blessing of Abraham. 

So we now have a situation where some are saying that the church will go through the Tribulation and not be raptured beforehand. They view the church and the Jews as one people of God. It would make sense then that the church and the Jews would share the same destiny. The church, though, is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Unbelieving Jews are not part of the church. The unbelievers (Jews and Gentiles alike) will go through the Tribulation. The church, having fulfilled its commission will go to be with the Lord. 

The NT also confirms that the (unbelieving) Jewish nation and the church (believing Jews and Gentiles) are distinct. "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Gentiles or to the church of God." (1 Cor. 10:32) Paul did not teach that the Jews and the church are 'one'. 

Some might counter this argument by noting Ephesians 2:14-16, "He Himself is our peace, who has made both [Jews and Gentiles] one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,  having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,  and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity." 

Doesn't that say that the Jews and believing Gentiles are one in messiah? No. It is saying that believing Jews and believing Gentiles are one. Paul says this several times in his letters. The point that Paul is making is that the divisions created by the Law of Moses between Jews and Gentiles are gone IN CHRIST because no believer, whether Jew or Gentile, is under the Law. It was the Law that brought a separation. Jews would not even eat with Gentiles. In Christ, we are in full fellowship with one another.

Paul teaches the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [of the Lord beginning with the Tribulation] will not come unless the falling away comes first." (2 Thess. 2:3) The Greek word that is here translated as "falling away" would better be translated "departure", meaning the departure or rapture of the church. The word is 'apostasia' and it literally means 'departure'. The reason it has been translated as 'falling away' is that is what it means in 1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith." The assumption has been made that 'departure' must mean 'departure from the faith'. But Thessalonians says nothing about departure from the faith. The context is the place of the church at the end of the age.

I discovered this many years ago in my own studies. Some years later I found one commentator who agreed with me. Now this view, that the word means 'departure' and not 'falling away', is becoming increasingly accepted in Christian academic circles. I expect it to become the standard view in time.

Additionally, we also need to read this passage in view of the Jewish marriage ceremony. In that ceremony, the bride waits for her bridegroom to come to her home and take her to his home. Although legally they are already married, they would not live together until that time. Note John 14:2-3 " In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.  If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also." A bridegroom, in preparation for this event, would build on his father's land and prepare a place for her to live with him. When all preparations were done, he would come to get her. This is precisely the idea in 2 Thessalonians. 

For this, and many other scriptural reasons, we should maintain the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. 

Shalom.

[The comments section of this blog site is not working.]