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.]

There Is Nothing New Under The Sun

When I first began studying the OT prophets, I looked for prophecies pertaining to Christ, particularly regarding His first coming. That was my main interest. Obviously, I spent much time in Isaiah as he had many prophecies about Christ, especially chapter 53 which tells us about His crucifixion. After that, I began to become interested in the end times and prophecies regarding that. Of course, that has to do with the second coming of Christ which is in our near future.

But I sort of glossed over the other prophecies about how Israel continually disobeyed and fell short of keeping their covenant with God. And I mentally cringed at the awful judgments pronounced, and carried out, against God's people. Over the years, though, I began to see the justice of God's judgments and I saw how patient He had been with them. They were rarely faithful to the covenant they had made with the Lord. They committed idolatry upon idolatry, and oppression and murder and adultery for hundreds of years before God brought the "promised" judgments. I used to wonder about how God could do such "terrible" things to His people and now I wonder how He put up with them so long. Still, I have not spent much time reading about these things. Not many Christians do. It does not seem all that interesting.

Occasionally, though, someone comes up with a new idea that revives interest in a neglected part of the Bible. Recently, some scholars have begun to view the prophets in a new way. They see the prophets not as enforcers of God's covenant, but as visionaries who began to see Israelite society in a new and different way. They cried out against what they saw as social injustices and told them that God was displeased with them as a result. In other words, the prophets were creative and foreward-looking. They wanted a brand new society based upon new principles and new revelations of God's justice.

These same scholars, and their followers, believe that the church should do the same thing. Preachers and believers should have a "prophetic voice" that cries out against various injustices and inequities in our society. Some have begun to do so. Sadly, however, this so-called "prophetic voice" often sounds a lot like the secular progressives raging against things they don't like and for things society has rejected throughout history. They promote things like gay marriage and abortion "rights". They promote activism in areas like climate change. They talk about how capitalism is "oppressing" the poor.

(I am tempted to give a lesson in economics at this point. Criticizing capitalism for poverty is like criticizing a goose because she did not lay enough golden eggs for everyone. One of the leading scholars teaching this stuff is actually a Marxist - talk about ungodly! But I digress.)

I will not read the prophets that way. I must take another approach. And I am doing so. Recently, I began an in-depth study of the prophets, beginning with Isaiah, focusing on the basis on which they condemned Israel for its sins. I have discovered, thanks to some wonderful conservative commentators, that the prophets did nothing "creative". The only real, new revelations they had was of the coming of the messiah and the kingdom of God. Regarding sins, they simply applied the Law to their current situation. The Law of Moses, especially Deuteronomy 28-33 and Leviticus 26, contain curses or punishments that Israel would incur if they violated the covenant stipulations. The prophets proclaimed that Israel would suffer the exact thing that God had told them they would suffer if they violated the Ten Commandments and the other laws in the Torah.

You can go through each prophet and what they said would happen to Israel and then trace it back to an exact curse in the Law. Scholars have numbered each type of curse and often just refer to them by number. You can do this verse by verse. So, there is nothing "creative" about the prophets. They did not discover a new way to order society. They looked back to the Law of Moses and saw that the Israelites were disobedient. They told the people that God was going to punish their disobedience in precisely the way that He said they would. And we have the historical books of the OT to show us that this is what came to pass.

But those who teach that the prophets had a new vision based on some new "revelation" for Israelite society miss this key point. They also miss the point that the canon is closed. There will be no additions to the Bible. God has not changed His mind about homosexuality or anything else. I will not accept any so-called "revelation" or insight that someone gets that is contrary to the Bible even if it seems just and right to modern society. Any prophecy or revelation has to be in line with the Bible. Otherwise, it is to be rejected. God is not giving out new revelations to straighten out the church or society.

Of course, some would point out that God has raised up people like Martin Luther King Jr. to correct injustices in our society. That is true. But if you listen to his speeches and read his writings, you will discover something very interesting. He had a vision of a just society not just for his people but for all. He did it by calling people back to the Bible and to the Declaration of Independence that says that all men are created equal. He pointed out that many whites were hypocritical in proclaiming the Bible and maintaining prejudice and discrimination against blacks. King was, in this sense, a conservative calling us to live by the standards of the Bible and by the ideals of the Declaration. The problem was not that we needed a new vision of what justice is, we simply needed to apply the principles we were supposed to be living by in the first place. No new revelation was necessary.

The prophets should never be read as if they were a manual for us to become social justice warriors. They should be read for what they were: applications of the Word of God given at that point and exhortations to keep that same Word. Therefore, we should do the same thing. We should constantly harken back to what God said in His Word (mainly the New Testament) and apply it in our lives, in our churches, and in our society as we able.

[The comment section does not work. Sorry.]

What is Leviathan?

[I realize that this little study might seem a bit 'nerdish' to some people since it regards the definition of an obscure word in the OT. However, please read through it all and get the real lesson that I finally get to at the end. As before, the comments section is not working. If you have any questions or comments, please email me at brian.scarborough@aol.com Thanks for reading.]

Sometimes I run across a word, especially in the Old Testament, that I do not understand, and since it usually is not that important, I do not bother to study it out. One of those words has been the word "Leviathan".

Though I had been puzzled by what the word means or what/who it refers to, I had never bothered to really study it out - until now. The reason I have done so is that someone who is considered a prophet declared that he had a revelation from God about this "Leviathan". That caught my interest. He said that God showed him that Leviathan was a powerful evil spirit who has "been awakened" and is becoming active and that we must all watch out for him. I was skeptical of this because of the fact that spirits do not sleep or remain dormant for hundreds or thousands of years and then wake up to cause havoc. Evil spirits cause problems whenever they have the opportunity. They do not "wake up" since they do not sleep.

So, I thought I would study it out myself and see what I could come up with. There did not seem too much to work with because the word "Leviathan" is only referenced five times and only in the Old  Testament. It is twice in Job, twice in Psalms and once in Isaiah where it is used prophetically about the End Times.

The one thing that stands out about most of these references is that Leviathan is some kind of sea creature or sea serpent. But that itself does not tell us much. This is where historians of the ancient world come in handy. Scholars say Leviathan may be an actual sea creature (perhaps no longer extant) or a mythological creature of the pagan religions. This sea monster represented the forces of chaos. One commentary on Job indicates that "to awaken Leviathan is to 'annihilate the existing order and plunge into catastrophe'". Some call it "the chaos monster".

Thinking this through we have to understand what things can be like on the sea or ocean. Things can get very chaotic. Winds and waves can toss a ship all around and sink it in minutes. A body of water that is usually calm can become deadly in a short period of time. This represents what life can become for people, families or even a nation. Things go along fine and then the unthinkable happens. A terrorist attack or a natural disaster can throw people into a disorder and chaos.

Let's go back to the scriptures again and see if we can understand better what the biblical writers were telling us.

"In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish Leviathan the piercing serpent, even Leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." Isaiah 27:1 KJV

The expression, "in that day", refers to the Day of the Lord in prophecy which is the Tribulation Period followed by the Millennial Reign of Christ. So, now we must see if there are any parallels in the New Testament to this passage. And we do find a couple.

"Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Revelation 12:7-9

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.  He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; ³ and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished." Revelation 20:1-3

Notice that the dragon of Revelation who is Satan and the Devil is also called a serpent just as Leviathan was in Isaiah 27. To me, this is quite clear. Satan and Leviathan are the same. There is not a separate spirit apart from Satan called Leviathan. 

Leviathan is actually an older concept than Satan is. Or, rather, the force that causes trouble and chaos in this world was called in very ancient times 'Leviathan'. Later, God revealed to Israel as late as the Babylonian Captivity that there was a fallen angel originally called Lucifer who fell and became 'Satan'. (It might seem strange to us, but there are no direct references to Satan before Isaiah 14.) After the Captivity (6th century B.C.), there are no more references to Leviathan but only to Satan. So, the New Testament never uses the term and, in fact, the Greek language had no word for it. 

I have written all the above to say this. If you think that you have a revelation from God regarding some part of the Bible, study it out thoroughly in the Word before you seek more revelation on it and insist that it is all from God. If you don't you are opening yourself up to deception. This person who proclaimed that some ancient spirit was back from who knows where and that we have to watch out for him is, frankly, deceived. Leviathan is an ancient spirit, but we now know him as Satan.

All right, you might say, but why make a big deal about this fellow who thinks that Leviathan is some special evil spirit apart from Satan. Well, there is a tendency among some Christians today to focus too much on Satan and evil spirits. Now I believe in the activity of Satan and his demons and in spiritual warfare. But the Bible does not reveal a whole lot about any evil spirit other than Satan, a fallen angel. We do not have names of these evil spirits. We are sometimes given different classes of demons (principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness) and types of demons (unclean spirits is a general term for evil spirits, but there are spirits of divination and others). 

But some have focused on certain spirits and assigned them names and claiming that it is scriptural. (Jezebel comes to mind.) Then we are warned to watch out for these spirits and given a list of things these spirits do which look remarkably like what Paul calls the works of the flesh - strife, envy, etc. What this does is cause us to focus on evil spirits, real and imagined, instead of the Lord. Books about some so-called evil spirits are multiplied and those who are on the lookout for these spirits are considered spiritual themselves. 

I lived through that era in the charismatic world when we had the so-called "deliverance ministries". It was not pretty. We were told that there were demons in everybody and everything. Thank God, I was delivered from the deliverance ministry. That does not mean that I reject deliverance from demons or for the need for them to be cast out when necessary. But the incessant focus on the devil is unhealthy and unscriptural. The Bible tells us how to deal with the devil in very simple terms. "Resist him, firm in the faith." "Put on the full armor of God … " It says to "be vigilant, because your adversary, the devil … seeks whom he may devour."

But what happens when we start watching out, not just for Satan, but for Leviathan and Jezebel and whatever supposed evil spirit we are told about. Now we have a multitude of evil spirits to be aware of. This can make us demon-minded. We are no longer "seeking those things that are above", but those things on the earth especially evil spirits. You know, it seems like the old errors of the past, like the so-called deliverance ministries, just crop up in a different form later on. Once the church realizes and understands the activity and reality of the spirit realm, especially evil spirits,  Satan is happy to give us a lot of "fake news" regarding what he is up to. He likes attention from the church though he hides himself from the world. 

Therefore, anything that is revealed to us must be tested by the Word. The Word is final authority. Too many times we have gotten a little revelation and then turned it into a big revelation by adding to it and distorting the original revelation we were given. And sometimes we did not really get a revelation at all. We must "test all things, hold fast to what is good". Then discard the rest. 

I am glad that we live in a time when the spiritual gifts are flowing. I want more of them. But if we are not careful we will get drawn off into error and deception. This has happened in the past and God has had to shut down the flow of revelation because immature and "enthusiastic" Spirit-filled believers could not handle it. 

We need, in these last days, more than ever to keep disciplined and focused on Jesus and the Word of God. Yes, we need the Spirit, but we need to put the Word first and the Spirit second. That is the divine order and it will keep our attention on the right things.