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.

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.

THE NET BIBLE: SUBTLE DIVERSION FROM ORTHODOXY

As the Preacher declared, “of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12 ). That’s certainly true of the making of Bibles. One suspects that since the Bible is a perennial best seller, a new crop of them is certain to come out in time for Christmas.

But the NET Bible[1] is not just another modern translation like all the others. The NET’s translation of four verses in Paul’s epistles radically alters a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith: the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

Here are the verses, first in the NET Bible and then the NASB. The troublesome phrase is in bold print in the NET and underlined in the NASB.

Romans 3:21-22

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction . . .

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Galatians 2:16

yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Philippians 3:9

and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness--a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness. 

and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith ...

Now the word translated faith in the NASB (and nearly every other version) and faithfulness in the NET is the word pistos. It can mean either faith or faithfulness, but the context in the above verses clearly demands the former.[2] Paul’s whole argument is a contrast between works of the law and faith in Christ for salvation. The actor in each verse is the believer. But the NET translators shift the subject from the individual believer to Christ, saying we are justified by Christ’s faithfulness, rather than our faith in Christ. Paul illustrated the principle of faith in Romans 4 when he referred to Abraham’s faith in God’s promise:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Romans 4:1-3 NASB)

Paul’s argument in Galatians is equally clear. How could anyone miss Paul’s emphasis on individual faith – as opposed to works – in the following verses?

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:2-9 ESV bold print added)

  

In light of Paul’s consistent emphasis on simple faith as the means of receiving salvation, it is difficult to understand the mindset of the translators who changed it. Their translation takes the believer out of the equation. Paul is dealing with the very question the Philippian jailer cried out to Paul and Silas: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And Paul’s answer, of course, was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:30-31) Paul proclaimed that it was and is through faith in Jesus Christ that one receives salvation.

The same Greek phrase used in the verses in question – dia pisteos – is used nine times in the New Testament, all in Paul’s writings, and the NET translators render it “by faith” or “through faith” in six of the nine! There is no justifiable reason to change it in the verses in question.[3]

Galatians 2:20 has rather complex syntax, but there is absolutely no justification for adding “because of” in that verse. William Hendriksen explained that Paul was posing a riddle of personal salvation. I have modified his presentation only slightly:

The Riddle Propounded: In Christ I am crucified.

The Riddle Intensified: But I live.

The Riddle Clarified: Yet not I, but Christ lives in me.

The Riddle Explained: And that (life) which I now live in flesh, I live in faith – the faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.

It’s not hard to see Paul’s logic in this verse. So why didn’t the NET translators see it? Their translation obliterates the central point of this verse and the whole of Galatians! Their “because of” is totally unjustified in the grammatical context. J. B. Lightfoot pointed out that in faith is “the atmosphere, as it were, which he (Paul) breathes in this new spiritual life.”

The NET translators boldly dismiss previous translations as simply carrying on the tradition of previous translators and theologians. In that company of translators who, over the centuries got it wrong (according to the NET translators) were Jerome, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Giovanni Diodati, Giovanni Luzzi, the Hampton Court scholars of the KJV, and countless modern translators throughout the world!

The four verses examined in this article may seem insignificant, but they represent a startling departure from accepted principles of translation and they introduce a bizarre new idea of salvation, one not hinted at in the context.

More problems with the NET Bible are brought to light by Michael Marlow in his excellent review at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html   It should also be mentioned that the International Standard Version, completed in 2011, takes similar liberties with the text, translating the four verses in the same manner as the NET, but substituting “Messiah” for Christ.

---

[1] The name is a play on New English Translation and “NET” as online Bible.

[2] The difference is the same as when we urge someone to “keep the faith,” as opposed to when a lawyer accuses a party of failing to “keep faith” in a contract. The first refers to the object of one’s belief, and the latter to faithfulness in carrying out the terms of an agreement. Context is everything!

[3] The genitive case of the noun used in the three verses under discussion is the objective genitive, properly understood in context as referring to Jesus Christ as the object of faith. A. T. Robertson gives numerous examples of the objective genitive in similar phrases in the NT, e.g. Mark 11:22 (“faith in God” which Robertson compares with Romans 3:22); John 17:2 (“over all flesh”); 1 Corinthians 8:7 (“consciousness about the idol”). These and many others illustrate the vast flexibility of the objective genitive.

CHURCH GROWTH IS GOD'S WORK

But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number . . . (Acts 5:13-14)

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47)

Do you see the irony in the above passages? The people outside the church family who saw the mighty works of God did not dare to associate with the Christians! That fact wouldn’t please today’s church growth experts. According to them, our church services should avoid making unbelievers feel uncomfortable. Our services should be “seeker-friendly,” they say.

Still, while most unbelievers were afraid to associate with those early Christians, those same Christians were “held . . . in high esteem.” Is that true of today’s church members? When the lives of church members in general are scarcely different from the lives of worldly people (note the divorce rate, for instance) one can hardly esteem them more highly than anyone else.

It is clear from the scriptures cited that it was the manifestation of the power of God in the lives of those early believers that produced the phenomenal growth we read about in the Book of Acts. And whenever that power has been manifested throughout church history, the result was always great church growth. It was true in the Great Awakening in England, Wales, and colonial America. It was true in the revival that swept the United States in the late 1850’s, and it was true in the Welsh Revival of 1904-05.

When those who profess to be followers of Jesus focus their hearts and minds on honoring Him, confessing and forsaking their worldly, sinful ways, God will do the work of church growth. Pastors, especially, need to abandon their marketing methods and preach “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

Church growth is God’s work, and He builds the church through new birth:

And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47)

EXPOSITORY PREACHING: LETTING THE BIBLE SPEAK

Expository preaching has declined nearly to the point of extinction. Yet I have found that the few expository preachers who remain, are greatly appreciated by their Bible-loving audiences.

What is expository preaching?  Very simply, it is letting God’s Word speak for itself. The expository preacher (1) reads aloud a passage of Scripture, (2) explains its meaning in its original context, (3) discerns the basic spiritual principle revealed and (4) applies that principle to himself and his hearers. The expository preacher follows the Scriptural pattern of Ezra and his fellow Levites:

They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8)

The word translated “read” is a Hebrew word that suggests an energetic proclamation, not a dry recitation. That dramatic reading was followed by interpretation and application. That is the essence of expository preaching.

Some have limited the term “expository preaching” to preaching through a book of the Bible, but there is no reason to impose such a limit. Charles H. Spurgeon preached on different texts from week to week as he felt the Lord’s leading, but he was always faithful to the biblical context and the applied a valid principle from each text. Spurgeon was an admirer of the Puritans, and he studied their commentaries diligently. Yet the Puritans favored preaching through a book of the Bible systematically. Either approach may be, and should be, preached in an expository manner.

As I have already mentioned, expository preaching let’s God’s Word speak for itself. It is not the preacher’s agenda that is being expounded – it is God’s. When a preacher chooses a topical approach, the temptation is great to impose the preacher’s own agenda, to make the preacher’s point. In expository preaching, the biblical text dictates the agenda and makes God’s point. It should, by the way, bring conviction and edification to the preacher, as well as to his congregation!

May God raise up more expository preachers in these last days!

KEN HAM AND JOHN LENNOX: WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON

Those who follow the creation vs. evolution debate know that Ken Ham, founder and director of Answers in Genesis, and John Lennox, Oxford professor and Christian lecturer, take markedly different views of the creation days recorded in Genesis 1. What they have in common, though, is their view of Christian apologetics, their approach to defending the faith.

Both men seem concerned that science, particularly evolutionary theory, has caused people to think of the Bible as irrelevant, a collection of myths. They also seem to be concerned that the faith of Christians may be shaken by the claims of evolutionary scientists. Yet the ways in which they counter these fears are diametrically opposed.

Ken Ham and his staff of eminently qualified scientists seek to demonstrate that the creation days were normal 24-hour days and that the earth is very young, about 6,000 years old. John Lennox, in his book Seven Days that Divide the World, expresses the concern that Christians might paint themselves into a corner by adopting a too literal interpretation of the creation days that might prove to be scientifically untenable and thereby undermine the faith.

What Ken Ham and John Lennox have in common is their approach to the defense of the faith: Evidential Apologetics. Their view is that if enough evidence is amassed in favor of the truth of the Bible, more people will take the Bible seriously and become Christians. Furthermore, Christians will have more confidence to trust and share the teachings of Scripture. Ham and his associates focus on the scientific side, asserting that the observable evidence is not in conflict with the young-earth view; Lennox approaches the matter from the interpretation of Scripture, proposing that the creation account can be interpreted in various ways that harmonize with scientific data regarding the origin of the universe.

Both are practicing Evidential Apologetics, and though popular, it is misguided.

The more scriptural approach to defending the faith and presenting the gospel is known as Presuppositional Apologetics. The major proponent of this view was Cornelius Van Til, Dutch Reformed theologian and philosopher. Presuppositional Apologetics affirms what Romans 1:18-23 clearly teaches:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

The truth is, God has revealed himself to mankind in creation and conscience, and so “they are without excuse.” The unbeliever knows the truth, but he “suppresses” it in favor of his sins. To try and convince an unbeliever that it’s okay to believe the Bible because it is not, after all, at odds with science is a useless endeavor! He doesn’t want to believe. The Christian’s job is to proclaim the truth, and let God’s Spirit “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8), and open hearts to the gospel (Acts 16:1).

Please understand, I think the educational work these men do in presenting alternative views, particularly on college campuses, is useful in challenging the prevailing evolutionary view. Education should be about the pursuit of truth (though it seldom is on secular campuses!). But we shouldn't suppose that any evidence we might produce is going to change sinful hearts.

Our message, then, is the spiritual truth of the Bible: God’s plan of redemption of fallen mankind. That’s the message of the whole Bible, and the major points are (1) God, (2) Man, (3) Sin, and (4) Salvation.

The question whether the six days of God’s creation were literal days as we know them or fiats of creative activity or long periods of time must never eclipse the central message we need to proclaim: We have sinned against a holy, omniscient, omnipotent God who will hold us accountable, and that same God has provided salvation for all who believe through the sacrifice and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.

MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSULT THE BIBLE

This year marks 42 years that I have been an ordained minister. I have ministered in more churches than I can count, as a missionary on both sides of the Atlantic, as a pastor, as interim pastor, and as pulpit supply. To my recollection, only one church I know of actually followed biblical standards in calling a pastor. (But it was so many years ago that I’m not sure if it really happened or if I just dreamed it!)

As a missionary, I ministered in many churches across the country, raising support, reporting on our ministry, and participating in conferences. After our missionary service, I pastored two churches and preached in churches of various denominations. What I have learned – and it’s a painful lesson – is that while churches I’ve known staunchly professed their faith in the Bible as the Word of God and pastors preached from that Bible, they instinctively turned to other resources when problems arose or major decisions had to be made.

For instance, I have ministered in several churches who were seeking a pastor, and I have shared the Bible’s standards for pastoral ministry, even providing a checklist system for evaluating a candidate based on those standards. Yet time after time churches ignored the biblical standards in favor of psychological profiles and church consultants. Their major concern, hardly concealed, is “compatibility” of the prospective pastor with the congregation. The result of such an approach is often unsatisfactory, and sometimes disastrous. Other times, in spite of the congregation’s worldly, superficial approach, the pastor turns out to be what the Bible says he should be. God is gracious!

Why would a church that claims to believe the Bible neglect to meditate every day on First Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, First Peter 5:1-4, Acts 20:28-35, and other pertinent passages before considering any candidate for the pastorate? Or nominating an elder or deacon?

Then there are those problems that inevitably arise in churches, because they are made up of people. There are interpersonal conflicts. There are differing views of ministry. There are differing priorities in many areas. Personal tastes and preferences become sources of conflict.  Time to call a “church consultant,” right? Why not first see if the Holy Spirit would reveal the root problem through prayerful reading of God's Word?

The root of every conflict is not hard to discern: it’s sin. Ministry involves challenges and decisions, but they do not have to result in conflict. It’s sin that spoils great opportunities for glorifying God and turns them into conflicts that do just the opposite!

So why don’t church members and pastors turn to Bible study and prayer when problems[i] threaten the peace of the church? Why don’t we follow our Lord’s instructions for conflict resolution as given in Matthew 18:15-17?

First, it is time-consuming and requires a great deal of effort. Agonizing in prayerful study of God’s word is not as attractive as getting a quick solution from another source. But if we’re not willing to quiet ourselves before God and listen for His “still, small voice,” we will inevitably lean on our own understanding, an act of pride.

Another reason, I’m convinced, is a lack of confidence that the Bible really has the solution to our problems, that the biblical directives will really work out best when followed. Christians – yes, even pastors – don’t really trust the Holy Spirit to guide the church by means of His Word to a godly resolution of every problem and challenge the church may face.

Admittedly, the Bible is not a problem-solution manual, but the Bible deals with our most fundamental problem – sin – in all its manifestations. Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit it guides us to repentance and restoration. We need not look for specific passages that deal with specific problems. Every book of the Bible gives insight into our nature and how we can deepen our relationship with God and others.

David James-Morse, a missionary to Peru whom I met many years ago, told of a personal crisis during his first term on the field, a crisis that nearly led to his quitting and going home. He decided instead to shut himself up in a small shack on the compound and give himself to Bible reading and prayer until God gave him guidance. And God did give James-Morse guidance. The result was a revival that resulted in several churches being established in the jungles of Peru. Well, how did he go about reading the Bible? He said he started with Genesis and just kept reading and praying until God gave him direction.

We are far too concerned about problem-solving, and far too little concerned about humbling ourselves before God. Yet in the presence of the power and wisdom of God, problems turn to praise and trials turn to triumph. The problems of every church come down to the main problem in every individual who makes up that church – sin. And at the heart of sin is pride.

Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you. (1 Peter 5:6-7 NKJV)

The Apostle Paul told the Colossian church how to have peace with one another:

And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (Colossians 3:15-17 NKJV emphasis added)

---

[i] The word “issue” has become more popular than “problem” in recent decades. The preference for “issue” actually grew out of lawsuits, particularly in the auto industry. If company documents contained the word “problem,” that was used as an admission of guilt! An “issue,” on the other hand, could be anything from a real problem to what color the upholstery should be! Now we all have issues!