A DIVINE PARADOX

 

“a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief . . .” (Isaiah 53:3)

“God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Psalm 45:7)

The Gospels do not record that Jesus laughed. We may assume that he did, but it would be just an assumption. The fact is that God did not inspire the Gospel writers to record moments of laughter or glee on the part of Jesus. Other emotions are recorded. Jesus “marvelled” (or “was amazed”) at the faith of a Roman centurion (Mark 8:10) and at the unbelief of his countrymen in Nazareth (Mark 6:6). Jesus was angry and grieved at the Pharisees’ hardness of heart toward a crippled man (Mark 3:5). Jesus wept with grief over the unbelief in Jerusalem (Luke 19:41) and with compassion at the tomb of his friend Lazarus (John 11:35).

A couple of things come to mind as I ponder the absence of laughter in the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life.

First, the Gospels were not intended to be full biographies of Jesus. John wrote that if all that Jesus said and did were recorded, “I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25) The Gospels have a redemptive purpose. Events and discourses were selected under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to accomplish that purpose. And that purpose left no room for mirth. It was serious business. That’s why Isaiah prophesied that Jesus would be “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.”

The second thing I notice is the important distinction between joy and laughter or mirth. Jesus had joy, as the psalmist said, even in the midst of sorrow and grief. Some Christians confuse these things. They think that if one doesn’t display and “happy” countenance, one lacks joy. That may be an unwarranted judgment. One may have a heavy heart for any number of reasons, including grief on behalf of another, and still have the joy of the Lord abiding in the heart. In fact, the person who can “weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15) is close to the heart of Jesus.

Solomon noted that “a merry heart does good like medicine” (Proverbs 17:22); “But,” he warns, “the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.” For many people, laughter is drug to ease the pain of their empty life. “Even in laughter the heart may sorrow, And the end of mirth may be grief.” (Proverbs 14:13) The “house of mirth” is an attempt to escape reality, which is a vain pursuit. Reality awaits just outside the door of the comedy club!

I have friends who are going through severe trials. And though they may not always display a cheerful countenance, I know they have the joy of the Lord in their hearts. For them, Jesus has encouragement:

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)

 

THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT AS AN AGENT OF CHANGE

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Often the above passage is used as an exhortation (weapon?) to bring about change in another person. If you’re feeling down one day, you might hear, “The fruit of the Spirit is joy!” Unintentional or not, the implication is that you are not “walking in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16). You’re certainly not “filled with the Spirit . . . . . . singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord!” (Ephesians 5:18, 19). So now you can add to your blues the guilt of spiritual failure!

In my sixty-one years of being a Christian, and my nearly forty-seven years in the ministry,  I have not noticed people being changed because they were told they fall short of the fruit of the Spirit. In fact, it seems highly unlikely that any Christian fully manifests every character quality of the fruit of the Spirit at any given time. Paul is simply pointing out that these good things come from the Spirit of God, while the bad things are “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). And the Christian life is always a warfare, “so that you do not do the things that you wish.” (Gal. 5:17) (See also Romans 7:18-21)

Since I have been in the Philippines, however, I have seen how the fruit of the Spirit has worked to change people’s lives—including my own. The Christians here have treated me with love, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, and gentleness, and that has brought out better things in me.

I have seen that “the fruit of the Spirit” can indeed be an agent of change. It is through manifesting those spiritual qualities toward others, especially those most irritating. After all, how can we show “longsuffering (patience)” except to those who try our patience? Christians struggling with stubborn sins, need love and gentleness. They need to see goodness in action.

So the agent of change in others is not the imposing of the fruit of the Spirit on them, but the modeling of the fruit of the Spirit in us.

 

WITH JESUS IN PARADISE

 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43)

What Jesus promised the repentant thief is wonderful in several particulars.

First, the thief, recognizing that Jesus was the King, the promised Messiah, asked to be remembered when Jesus assumed the throne of that kingdom. He could hardly have expected that it would be soon since the King was on a cross! But he must have believed also in the resurrection. Jesus honored the man’s repentance and faith and made him a promise he did not expect: “Today, you shall be with me in paradise.” This very day!

Paradise is a Persian word that means “a walled garden, a place of pleasure.” The word occurs three times in the New Testament, where it always refers to heaven. (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7). The word is also used eleven times in the Greek version of the Old Testament, where it refers to the Garden of Eden.

I’ve seen some lovely gardens in my life, from London, England, to Hanover, Germany, to Baguio City, Philippines. In all their well-tended beauty, they are but faint hints of what God’s Garden is like. Our cursed ground bears thorns and thistles and weeds. Insects destroy our loveliest blossoms. But in “The Garden of God” all is unblemished beauty.

Heaven is a place of pleasure, greater than any we can imagine here. Some writers on heaven have diminished the richness of heavenly pleasures by imposing our limited earthly experiences on the heavenly. If we are to use our imagination, as one popular writer urges, why can’t we imagine that God will so transform and elevate our sense of pleasure to a spiritual level we have never before experienced?

As king, David indulged in earthly pleasures—to his sorrow and disgrace. But the contemplative shepherd David knew that, “in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” (Psalm 16:11) Alister McGrath points out that to see God is the greatest hope of every godly person:

“To speak of heaven is to affirm that the human longing to see God will one day be fulfilled—that we shall finally be able to gaze upon . . . the most wondrous sight anyone can hope to behold.” (A Short History of Heaven, Alister McGrath)

Yet the greatest part of the promise Jesus made to the thief was this: “you will be with Me!” Ponder that thought! In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, “The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side” (a place of comfort). But Jesus, dying on a cross, promises this thief His own glorious presence as they both pass into paradise!

In this life, at home in the body yet absent from the Lord, “we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:6-7). But when God calls us home, surely the greatest joy will His presence:

“Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 5:8)

If you have received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you have Jesus’s promise, “You will be with Me in paradise.” There is a home for us.

“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” (John 14:3)

 

DEPART FROM ME

 

But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." (Luke 5:8)

Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' But he will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!'  (Luke 13:26-27)

In these two passages in the Gospel of Luke, we see two contrasting attitudes: one that leads to salvation and everlasting life, and the other that leads to exclusion and everlasting death.

 The first attitude is demonstrated by Peter. He and his fishing crew had just finished a whole night of fishing and had caught nothing. As they were washing their nets, Jesus came aboard and asked to use their boat as a pulpit to teach the Word of God. After the teaching, Jesus told them to launch out into the deep water and cast the net. In spite of Peter’s misgivings, he obeyed. A miracle occurred! Jesus’ presence brought such a multitude of fish that the net could not bear the load!

 That miracle prompted Peter’s humble confession: “I am a sinful man, O Lord!” His words, “depart from me,” expressed his sense of unworthiness to be in the presence of the Holy One. That attitude is the prime prerequisite for salvation. And with that attitude, we need never fear rejection, for the Lord has said: “whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37)

 But contrast this with the ones who ARE cast out! (Luke 13:26-27) They felt that they had a right to enter the Master’s house! “Hey, we ate and drank with you! You taught in OUR streets!” Note: “our streets,” as though Jesus should have felt privileged to teach in THEIR streets. Well, they will not enter HIS kingdom. Note too: Jesus was speaking to the religious people of His day, the ones who trusted that they were acceptable because of their religious activities. But Jesus says, “Depart from me!” All their self-righteous religion Jesus called “evil.” Compare this passage with Matthew 7:21-13, given on another occasion. Jesus calls the self-righteous "workers of lawlessness."

That expression, "Depart from me," is an allusion to Psalm 6:8 --

Depart from me, all you workers of evil, for the LORD has heard the sound of my weeping. 

David, as God's anointed, foreshadowed His Greater Son, Jesus. As David's enemies oppressed him, Christ's enemies sought to destroy Him. Religious as those enemies were, they were "workers of evil" and "workers of iniquity." 

So it comes down to this: If we feel Peter’s sense of unworthiness to be in the Lord’s presence, if we, as the repentant tax collector, refuse to even lift up our eyes toward heaven, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner,” we will find acceptance with God and will be welcomed into Christ’s kingdom. We will never hear His “Depart from me.”

 

TWO VIEWS OF REVELATION – SIMPLIFIED

 In this short summary, I am trying to present only the most essential features of the two most prominent views of what theologians call the Millennium – the thousand-year reign of Christ. To keep it simple, I have not included all the details of the two views, only the major points.

 Historical Perspective

 From the very first publication of John’s Apocalypse, or The Book of Revelation, there have been two major views[i] of the book among good and godly Christians, focusing particularly on Chapter 20.

 Justin Martyr wrote in about AD 140 that many Christians were expecting a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on the present earth based on Revelation 20:1-5.  But he acknowledged that some equally godly Christians saw the 1,000 year-reign of Christ as figurative of the church age, culminating in the return of Christ to judge the ungodly world and to bring in the new heavens and new Earth.

 Augustine of Hippo, the noted fifth-century theologian, at first held to the pre-millennial view, that is, that Christ would return and set up His millennial kingdom on earth. But the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in AD 410, and Christians’ reaction that this was a “sign” that the second coming of Christ was near and the Millennial Kingdom, with all it’s delights, was about to begin, caused Augustine to reexamine his view of Revelation 20 in a figurative way.

 In the centuries since Augustine’s publication of City of God, widely varying views of the end times and the 1,000 years of Revelation 20 have continued to emerge. The tendency to see “signs of the times” in current events is irresistible to some Christians and prophecy enthusiasts.

 It is regrettable that since the mid-1900's, only one interpretation of Revelation and “end times” doctrine in general has been accepted as “fundamental” truth by evangelical and fundamentalist denominations. Yet it has only been since the 20^th century that the pre-tribulational rapture of the church and other Dispensational details have been included in denominational statements of faith.

Two Views Simplified

 Dispensational Pre-Millennialism (as distinct from historical pre-millennialism)

·        Two distinct peoples of God with distinct destinies: national, ethnic Israel (God’s “earthly people”), and the Church (God’s “heavenly people”).

·        The Church Age as a “parenthesis” in God’s plan for ethnic Israel, the “70 weeks” of Daniel 9.

·        The Rapture of the Church before the seven-year Great Tribulation at which time God will return to dealing with ethnic Israel. Most of the Book of Revelation, according to this view, does not pertain to the church.

·        Two final battles, Armageddon (Revelation 19) and Gog and Magog (Revelation 20:7-10).

·        Physical, earthly reign of Christ from Jerusalem over His earthly people Israel for 1,000 years, during which time all the promises of the land covenant will be fulfilled. Christ’s heavenly people, the Church, will rule with Him. (Revelation 20:4)

·        Two resurrections: the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of unbelievers, separated by 1,000 years. (Rev. 20:4, 5; 1 Cor. 15:23). The “first resurrection” is divided into two events, the rapture of the Church and the resurrection of believers martyred during the Great Tribulation (Rev. 20:4-5).

·        After the Battle of Gog and Magog, God creates a new heaven and new earth, the old heaven and earth having been destroyed. (Rev. 21:1). Then the two peoples of God will be one in the eternal kingdom of the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

 

Basic Amillennialism

·        There is one true people of God, the spiritual Israel, those who worshiped God from the heart in Old Testament times, and were the faithful remnant awaiting the Messiah in the New Testament. Gentile believers are “grafted” into the Abrahamic promise, and thus Jew and Gentile become one people in Christ. (Romans 9:6; 11:17; Galatians 3:7-9)

·        The promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ, who is presented in Scripture are the embodiment and culmination of Israel, God’s Servant. (Isaiah 42:1-3; 52:13-15; chap. 53. Compare also Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15) Those who are “in Christ” by faith are heirs with Him of the promises. (Romans 8:17) The “land” promise will be fulfilled in a greater way on the new earth.

·        The visions in the Book of Revelation give differing views of the church age, focusing on different aspects and details. The end of that age is depicted in the “victory songs” in Rev. 5:9-14; 7:9-12; 11;15-17; 15:3-4; 19:1-6.

·        Revelation 20 again deals with the church age and the final battle is the same as the one at the end of Chapter 19. Chapter 19 and Chapter 20 both have allusions to the same battle in Ezekiel 38-39. (Compare Rev. 19:17-18 with Ezek. 39:17-20 and Rev. 20:8 with Ezek. 38:2) The 1,000 years are figurative of a very long period of time.  (See 2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4)

 

Here are some Scriptures that influenced me to adopt the Amillennial view:

•               The entire book of Hebrews, showing clearly the foreshadowing in the Old    Testament of New Testament truth in types and figures.

·        “But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:13) Peter doesn’t say he was waiting for Christ’s kingdom on this earth.

·    And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.  (Mark 3:26-27) The word for bind it the same as in Rev. 20:2. (See also Matthew 12:29 and Luke 11:21-22)

 

For further study, I recommend:

Four Views on the Book of Revelation, C. Marvin Pate, ed.

Understanding Dispensationalists, Vern S. Poythress

---

[i] A third view, Post-millennialism, also enjoyed a period of popularity in 18^th-century America and is held by some today, but the other two have been dominant.

OUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED

In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD: 'Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.' " Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the LORD, and said, "Remember now, O LORD, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what is good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. And the word of the LORD came to Isaiah, saying, "Go and tell Hezekiah, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years. (Isaiah 38:1-5)

It wasn’t a doctor who gave Hezekiah the prognosis for the illness that had broken out into a painful boil – it was a prophet. And no less of a prophet than Isaiah! Hezekiah’s reaction was quite understandable. I’ve heard preachers criticize the king for his weeping and pleading, but Hezekiah was only thirty-nine years old! It was Moses, in Psalm 90, who said a man’s years were seventy or even eighty. Hezekiah’s ancestor King David lived to be seventy.

So Hezekiah was planning on many more years to serve Yahweh his God as king over Judah. Now he’s told it’s all coming to an end. “Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.”

In light of God’s answer to Hezekiah’s prayer, it might seem that Isaiah’s declaration was just a test. (That’s what I penciled in the margin of my Bible!) It was, indeed, a test for Hezekiah, but it was also literally true. Hezekiah still had a death sentence upon him, but it was postponed for fifteen years. He would still die at age fifty-four!

How much we take for granted in this life! What precious moments we squander! I’m reminded of a poem a heard many years ago:

“Lost, one golden hour,

Set with sixty diamond minutes.

No reward is offered;

It’s lost forever!”

So teach us to number our days,

That we may gain a heart of wisdom.

(Psalm 90:12)

HEAVENLY RELATIONSHIPS ARE BETTER

The Gospel of Luke records some words of Jesus in response to the Sadducees that might seem troubling to those who have lost a beloved spouse:

Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

A close examination of this passage reveals that the relationships of those who have trusted Christ as Savior and Lord will be infinitely better after the resurrection in the heavenly kingdom.

The Sadducees taunted Jesus with the Old Testament law that provided for a widow by requiring the deceased’s brother to marry her (Deuteronomy 25:5), and thus they hoped to discredit the doctrine of bodily resurrection. In answering the Sadducees, Jesus referred to the marriage customs of the time. Arranged marriages were common, young women were “given in marriage.” Though we speak today of the father “giving away” the bride, it is hardly the same as it was then. What’s more, young widows were expected to remarry for practical reasons. Jesus’ answer revealed that the resurrection life in the age to come will be radically different – and better—than life in this fallen world of death and bereavement.

First of all, Jesus says that “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead” will enter into a new relationship with those they love, a relationship infinitely higher than the cultural norms in our fallen world. Marriage was instituted by God to provide companionship (primarily for the man, who seems to have had the greater need) and to propagate the human race (Gen. 2:18; 1:28). The need to propagate the race will no longer exist in the eternal kingdom, and need for companionship will be fulfilled in a greater way than we can imagine. There will be no loneliness in heaven!

Second, that new relationship is a relationship of pure love. As resurrected “sons of God,” we will share God’s character, free of sin, and therefore free of selfishness. “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16), and so we will know and show that pure love toward our departed loved ones, toward others, and most importantly toward God.

Third, that relationship is a permanent relationship: “for they cannot even die anymore: (Luke 20:36). The emphatic words in this statement are striking: “even” and “anymore,” The subordinate conjunction “for” implies that this resurrected, immortal new life is the reason for the new relationship. In this fallen world, the traditional marriage vow is “till death do us part” or “as long as we both shall live.” Death ends that relationship as every widow or widower painfully knows. In this life, death hangs over every relationship. Christ came to free us from that dread by securing eternal life for everyone who trusts in Him:

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

(Hebrews 2:14-15)

 In the age to come, our relationship of pure love will have no end!

So, far from being a disappointing declaration, Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees unveils a new relationship of love in the heavenly kingdom that is pure and everlasting. We will see them again, indeed, and it will be infinitely better than before!

WRITE THIS IN A BOOK

Since the written word was essential in communicating God’s truth, we might wonder when was the first time God commanded someone to write something. What did he command to be written and why? I was surprised to find that the first use of the verb “to write” in the Bible is in Exodus 17:14:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

(Exodus 17:14)

The first command to write was a pronouncement of judgment! It was against a people known as Amalek or the Amalekites. This vicious tribe was the very first enemy of Israel when God’s people left Egypt, and they remained the implacable enemies of God’s people through David’s reign and even into Israel’s captivity in Babylon. The Amalekites are an illustration of the enemy of God’s people today – sin!

When we understand how devastatingly destructive sin is to our lives, we can understand why God’s first command to “write” a book of remembrance has to do with judgment on this enemy of God’s people

There is a profound spiritual lesson in God's dealings with Amalek.  Theodore Epp, long-time director of Back-to-the-Bible ministries, saw Amalek as a type of the sin nature and by extension the Amalekites as specific sins.  Here God says He will "utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."  In verse 16 He states that He will "have war against Amalek from generation to generation."  The typology finds greater clarity in the life of David, especially in 1 Samuel 30.  King Saul had compromised with Amalek, sparing the "King of the Amalekites" (1 Samuel 15:9), but David (as a type of Christ) showed them no quarter (1 Samuel 30:17-19).

Note the following analogies between the Amalekites and sin in our lives:

I.            Amalek is determined to destroy God’s people before they can enter the Promised Land.

A.    The Amalekites were the first to fight against Israel after they had been delivered from Egypt through the blood of the Lamb.  (cf. Dt. 25:17)

B.     The Amalekites were determined to exterminate the people of God. (See Esther  8:3– Haman, the Agagite. “Enemy of Israel.”

II.         Amalekites attack at the weakest points and at the most vulnerable moments. (Deut. 25:18)

            “Sin that closely clings closely to us” (Compare Hebrews. 12:1)

To defeat sin we need help from our brethren – “Aaron and Hur” to come alongside (Exodus 17:12).

           

III.      Amalek must be utterly put to death – show no quarter!

For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:13)

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.  (6)  Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience,  (7)  in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them. (Colossians 3:5-7) 

A.    We do this by the power of the Holy Spirit.

B.     We do this through prayer (Ex. 17:9-12): personal and joint prayer.

IV.      Sin will ultimately be eradicated by the Lord.

“the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation." (Ex. 17:16)

But ultimately, He declares victory:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." (Ex. 17:14)

 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. (Revelation 22:3) 

In this world we will have warfare with sin from generation to generation. But one day, God will "blot out the memory" of sin forever and establish His kingdom!

Christian, we need to ask ourselves: What are we doing with the Amalekites in our lives?

FALSE PROPHETS, THEN AND NOW: THOUGHTS ON EZEKIEL 13

Ezekiel 13 strikes me as very relevant to the condition of American Christianity. The prophet Ezekiel, like his contemporary Jeremiah, had a tough mission. He was commissioned by God to deliver a message of judgment to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, particularly to the leaders, the priests, and the prophets. The latter were false prophets who preached from their own deluded heart (Ezek. 13:2).

"They see falsehood and lying divination who are saying, 'The LORD declares,' when the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope for the fulfillment of their word. (Ezekiel 13:6 NASB) (Literally, “they hope their word will stand up.”)

The false prophets today are just like the false prophets in Ezekiel’s day. First, they preach what people want to hear – peace and prosperity – even though the Lord has warned of judgment for disobedience to His word and worship of “the work of your hands” (Jeremiah 25:6, 7). They build a false wall of promises that give false security to their followers, and they whitewash it to conceal its inherent weakness.

"It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, 'Peace!' when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. "Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, 'Where is the plaster with which you plastered it?'" Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume it in wrath. "So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the LORD. "Thus I will spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I will say to you, 'The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, along with the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace,' declares the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 13:10-16)

                   The Apostle Paul, when falsely accused of desecrating the temple, may have been alluding to Ezekiel’s imagery of the whitewashed wall when the high priest ordered that Paul be struck:

Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" (Acts 23:1-3)

Though Paul offered somewhat of an apology, pleading ignorance of the high priest’s status, the truth of Paul’s accusation stood: the high priest was acting hypocritically. Jesus accused the Scribes and Pharisees of being “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27). They looked clean and pure on the outside, but were full of corruption inside.

The message of the false prophets then and now invariably conflicts with the revealed Word of God – the Bible. Their bold assertions that the Lord spoke to them is nothing short of blasphemy!

Peter warned New Testament believers of this threat:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

John urged believers in Christ to “test the spirits” of those who claim to be speaking for the Lord.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

So how can be “test the spirits”?  There is no simple formula, no quick, easy test. The deceptions of the false prophets are subtle and often seem plausible. The only way to discern the spirit of a false prophet is by immersing oneself in the Word of God. We need to study through the whole Bible, year after year, praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we read. This is God’s way of building a true wall of defense against false prophets.

DO CHURCHES REALLY TRUST THE BIBLE?

Last June, I celebrated 42 years as an ordained minister. “I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service . . .,” and I know that his considering was by grace, not merit. I have stumbled many times during those years, yet the Spirit of Christ always lifted me up and set me back on track. And I have learned a lot!

As a missionary I ministered in many churches across the country, raising support, reporting on our ministry, and participating in conferences. After missionary service, I pastored two churches and supplied the pulpit of churches of various denominations. What I have learned – and it’s a painful lesson – is that while churches staunchly profess their faith in the Bible as the Word of God and pastors preach from that Bible, when problems or difficult challenges come their way, they instinctively turn to other sources for solutions.

For instance, I have ministered in several churches that were seeking a pastor, and I have shared the Bible’s standards for pastoral ministry, even sharing a checklist and system for evaluating a candidate based on those standards. I have yet to see a church call a pastor based on Bible standards. Oh, they listen to a candidate’s testimony of faith and question him about his beliefs, but a systematic consideration of biblical qualifications has not been applied in the churches I have observed. Often the result turned out to be unsatisfactory, to say the least. Sometimes, however, God was gracious in spite of the congregation’s negligence, and the pastor turned out to be what the Bible says he should be.

Why would a church that claims to believe the Bible neglect to meditate every day on First Timothy 3, Titus 1, First Peter 5, Acts 20, and other pertinent passages before considering any candidate for the pastorate?

Then there are those problems that inevitably arise because churches, after all, are made up of people, and where there are people, there are problems. The problems may be interpersonal conflicts, differing views of ministry, or differing priorities. Personal tastes and preferences become sources of conflict.  Time to call for a “church consultant,” right? Why not first see if the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will reveal the root of the problem and God’s solution?

The disturbing fact is that few churches turn to the Scriptures and diligent prayer when faced with a crisis that threatens the unity and future of the congregation. Why is that? Could it be that their view of the Bible is defective, and they harbor the notion that it is an archaic book that doesn’t have a solution to their particular problem? (Of course they would never voice such a view!) Or are they just lazy, unwilling to put in the study to search for principles that apply to the problem? Impatience also drives them to seek quick solutions.

Worst of all, pastors, elders, and members may be unwilling to take the hard steps of obedience that God demands in His Word. I can’t dismiss this reason because I have seen it played out in more than one church over the decades. “If we do that,” I’ve heard, “we’ll lose even more members.” That kind of pragmatism is surely odious to the Lord! His Word is set aside because it might cost us members!

In these last days, Jesus’ words come to mind: “However, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) In the context, Jesus is teaching about persistence in prayer (Luke 18:1), especially prayer for justice. Jesus’ conclusion is that God is not reluctant to answer our prayers; it is our lack of faith in Him and His Word that's the problem.

SIMON . . . DO YOU LOVE ME?

 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.  (John 21:15-17)

The above discourse between Jesus and Simon Peter has stirred a great deal of discussion among Bible commentators for more than a century.  The issue involves two Greek words both translated “love” in nearly all English translations:  agapao and phileo.  The interpretive question is whether Peter, in responding to Jesus’ evocative queries concerning Peter’s love, intentionally used a different word (phileo) than the one Jesus used the first two times (agapao).  Or are the two words used synonymously in this context.[1] Bible expositors have expressed their different interpretations of this text in serious, respectful comments, giving their rationale while respecting opposing views.  In recent decades, however, the discourse has taken a less congenial turn.  A new linguistic approach to Scripture, championed by Dr. James Barr,[2] a liberal scholar who wrote against J. I. Packer’s stance on biblical inerrancy, has changed the paradigm.  The new approach depreciates the importance of individual words in Scripture, minimizing etymology (the study of the origins and development of words) and biblical word studies. This movement led to a new approach to Bible translation that seeks to give readers “the meaning” of Scripture – as the translator sees it – without any obligation to translate the actual words of Scripture.  

This movement has serious implications for the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. That doctrine teaches that the very words of Scripture in their original languages are inspired by God.

In Chapter one of his book Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson states, “How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used.”  Then in the next paragraph he calls this reasoning, along with other alleged fallacies, “linguistic nonsense.”[3]

Carson tries to demonstrate that agape and the verb agapao can even mean sexual lust by citing the Septuagint translation (LXX) of 2 Samuel 13:15, where Amnon’s lust for his half-sister Tamara is called agaph.  Here we need to point out that the LXX is not inspired Scripture but a Greek translation of the Old Testament.[4]  

 J. Gresham Machen made a very pertinent point about the vocabulary of the New Testament:

Moreover, the originality of the New Testament writers should not be ignored.  They had come under the influence of new convictions of a transforming kind, and those new convictions had their effect in the sphere of language.  Common words had to be given new and loftier meanings, and common men were lifted to a higher realm by a new and glorious experience.  It is not surprising, then, that despite linguistic similarities in detail the New Testament books, even in form, are vastly different from letters that have been discovered in Egypt. The New Testament writers have used the common, living language of the day.  But they have used it in the expression of uncommon thoughts, and the language itself, in the process, has been to some extent transformed.[5] 

The question, then, regarding any New Testament word is how it is used in the New Testament.  Of the 144 uses of the verb form in the New Testament, only nine clearly refer to loving something sinful or ungodly.[6]  Carson cites Paul’s use of agapao in 2 Timothy 4:10 which states that Demas had departed “having loved this present world.”  (Carson adds “evil” to the citation to make apagao even less noble.)  The predominant use of agapao in the NT is positive, and the verb is never used in the NT with any sexual connotation.  Nevertheless, those nine references to loving ungodly or worldly things do support Carson’s main point, the one that seems to irk him the most, that agape love is not some sort of higher, nobler, or more godly type of love than the word with which it is often contrasted -- phileo.  Granted.  The words express different kinds of love, not higher or lower kinds of love.  Are those different kinds of love in play in John 21?  Shouldn’t we respectfully consider the possibility?

Carson takes to task William Hendriksen for the latter’s observation that there are semantic differences between agapao and phileo, and that such differences apply in John 21:15-17.  Carson boldly states that “Henriksen’s argument will not stand up, precisely because he mishandles the difficult questions surrounding synonymy.  The heart of his argument is that the total semantic range of each word is slightly different from the other, and therefore that there is a semantic difference in this context.”  Carson is putting words in Hendriksen’s word processor!  Hendriksen made his judgment that there is a difference between the two words in this context on the basis of the historical relationship between Peter and Jesus, and between Peter and the other disciples.  Hendriksen also gave careful attention to a vital aspect of linguistics that Carson totally ignores in this part of Exegetical Fallacies:  The sociolinguistic context of the conversation.  Peter’s emotional state entered into his responses, and Hendriksen took that into account, as well as the fact that the conversation was conducted in Aramaic.  Most importantly, Hendriksen noted the Holy Spirit’s work of inspiration in moving John to record the conversation in Greek:

We simply do not have the Aramaic written text, if there ever was one.  And we do not know enough to be able to affirm categorically that in no possible way could such fine distinctions have been conveyed by means of the Aramaic of that day.  We are compelled to proceed on the basis of the Greek text as it lies before us, in the conviction that it is fully inspired; hence, accurate in every way.”[7]

Hendriksen also gave an extensive list of commentators and translators on each side of the issue, showing his vast research into the matter.  Carson brushes off Hendriksen’s exposition as though the latter were an amateur.  But then Carson also does not hesitate to take on A. T. Robertson, the whole Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (on page 44 speaking of its “bankruptcy”), Richard C. Trench, and other notables.

My concern is that Carson’s scientific linguistic analysis of biblical texts and his iconoclastic bent are leading him and his readers away from the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.  God did inspire (“breathe”) the very words of Scripture, and Jesus placed great importance on the smallest elements of the original text.  (See Matthew 5:18)  Certainly there is room for variety of expression, the use of words that are more or less synonymous, but in light of verbal, plenary inspiration, we owe it to the Word of God to consider whether there is reason in the total context – linguistic, historical, social, political, theological, and interpersonal – to see shades of meaning in the inspired words.

 

---

[1] There is also the question of the meaning of the two words, whether one is a deeper, more noble love than the other, but that is not the issue in this article.  Suffice it to say that they express different kinds of love, though their semantic ranges overlap. 

[2] Barr’s book, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961, laid the groundwork for dynamic equivalency translations, such as the CEV, NIV, NLB, etc. 

[3] Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 28

[4] Where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, we must concede that the Holy Spirit has invested those words with His infallible inspiration, but that does not then carry over to the entire text of the LXX.

[5] Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners.  Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.  6

[6] Mat. 6:24; Lk. 11:43; 16:13; John 3:19; 12:43; 2 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:15; 1 John 2:15 (2X).

[7] Hendriksen, Willam.  New Testament Commentary: John. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.  495.