Monthly Archives: October 2012

O and Oh usage in Scripture

Posted on by

I believe writers of Scripture have made a distinction when it comes to the use of Oh and O. I see a difference in the way they use these two distinct, in my view, words.

And I do not believe it is OK to interchange the two words. I would go as far as saying I am appalled with the apparent ignorance of some writers in allowing such an oversight to creep into their writings. Don’t they think about what they allow on their pages?

There is a pattern to how the King James translators, scholars of English certainly, but commissioned by God to preserve His Holy Scriptures in the then ‘coming’ world language of English, and so clearly ‘helped’ in doing so to produce an error free, better than Elizabethan English text. What they came up with was God’s English. Their usage of Oh and O is consistent.

Consider this usage:

— “O” is used in front of a name to give the effect of sincerity and solemnity or intensity or just real feeling. e.g. Psalm 71:1 In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust:

– “Oh” is really more of an exclamation that people give when in trouble, despair, excitement, hope, anticipation etc. e.g. Psalm 6:4 …oh save me … 

Choice Gleanings Calendar for 14 October 2012 has this text:
I will extol thee, Oh Lord. Psalm 30:1

I would be interested in seeing the Bible that this was copied from. Or is it a ‘typo’? But who doesn’t copy verses these days by doing a copy and paste?

In all fairness, I have seen this type of substandard attention to detail before. I well remember a so-called ‘Christian’ school that had the following verse on its letterheads and promotional pages:

Teach me Thy way, Oh Lord.

Nobody raised an eyebrow for ten years until it was pointed out by some alert teacher, I think, and they changed it. 

I will extol thee, Oh Lord should read I will extol thee, O Lord.

Teach me Thy way, Oh Lord should read I Teach me Thy way, O Lord.

14 October 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

The opening sentence of the comment for the 14 October 2012 page on the calendar reads: 

No being in the universe is more deserving of exaltation and glorification than God our Father.

Well, that is what Mr K wrote and I’m sure he must think the comment is Biblically sound. But is it really scripturally accurate?

There is only one way to know that what you believe is Scripturally sound – that is by comparing Scripture with Scripture. So let’s do that. Does anything come to mind? Consider this:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9-11

Yes, I am suggesting that there is Someone who is at least as deserving, and of whom it might be said ‘is more deserving of exaltation and glorification than God our Father’ – but only on the basis of what Philippians 2:9-11 says, along with other Scriptures.

Note what it does say:
1. The Lord Jesus Christ has been ‘given a name which is above every name’. So who else could be more deserving of ‘exaltation and glorification’ than He? How can I argue with Scripture?
2. ‘to the glory of God the Father’ must mean that it has the approval of God the Father.

But isn’t this ‘splitting hairs’, as some say? For some it may be regarded as such. For some of us there is more at stake here. The measure of a person’s Biblical theology and doctrine in particular may be gauged by considering the importance or place they give to the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘What think ye of Christ?’ has always been the king-pin of the Scriptures.

We can’t but notice the place given to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures and see a huge difference to the place given Him by those who come knocking at our doors in pairs, for example. On one hand the Lord Jesus Christ is presented in Scripture as the eternally existing Son of God, the Creator, Head of the Church, etc. . . but there are those who want to make Him a created being, a god and someone inferior to Jehovah. There’s only one camp for me when I read verses like these:

John 5:23 says: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Revelation 19:13 and 16 say: And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. . .16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

In the Revelation verses we see that the One spoken of is first of all ‘called The Word of God’ in verse13. So this is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. When we get to verse 16 His ‘name written’ is KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. What does that tell us? Is there any being greater?

There would be a difficulty finding anyone greater in light of Colossians 1:17-19:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

and Colossians 2:9-10 says:
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Please show me any verses I’ve missed that show the Lord Jesus Christ to be in any way inferior to God the Father in the Scriptures.

John 17:
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (24) – But why didn’t He ask for these to all be able to behold the Father’s glory?

Yes I know; there are lots of others. Here are some to read:

Jude 25  To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. – A reference to the Lord Jesus. See the comment below about Titus 2:13..

2 Peter 3:18  But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Revelation 4:8, 11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Christ is the creator in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and in Hebrews 1:2 (below).

Revelation 5:13  And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Hebrews 1:1-3  God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. – Christ is ‘the brightness of his (God the Father’s) glory, and the express image of his person‘.  

2 Thessalonians 2:14  Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:5-6  And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

By the way – Who is God’s Father in verse 6? Therefore the ‘God’ referred to is the Lord Jesus, as often also seen in Paul’s writings. e.g. Titus 2:13 the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Also, the two are seen as one. ‘And’ does not always mean there are two separate things involved. It can rightly also mean that the two things spoken of are in fact one. e.g. The lady’s brother and owner of the cat saw the mouse escape could mean that a) there were two people who saw the mouse escape: the lady’s brother and the owner of the cat or there was one person who saw the mouse escape: the lady’s brother who is also the owner of the cat. The ‘who is also’ could be replaced by ‘and’.

Hebrews 13:21  Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Hebrews 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

2 Timothy 4:18  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. The context shows the ‘Lord’ to be the Lord Jesus. Compare verse 8 plus Romans 2:16 and Acts 17:31.

2 Timothy 2:10  Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Colossians 3:4  When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Colossians 1:27  To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

1 Corinthians 2:8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

John 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Luke 24:26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

For further discussion of a similar theme see the posts titled:
Magazine No 188
Word of God – Part 1. 

The Word of God – Part 2

Posted on by

Back to where we set out
Upon a close and honest examination of all the verses in the Bible containing “word”, “thy word”, “the word”, “the word of God” it may surprise you to find how few of these mean the Bible, as we have often been led to believe and have accepted readily enough. Yes, some seem to say things about the Bible but upon closer inspection, maybe they have just been accepted as such for convenience – they support what we want.

So what do these mean then?
Many of the instances where “word”, “thy word”, “the word”, “the word of God” are used they are speaking of the message, the teaching, doctrine or gospel; i.e. the content of what God or the Lord Jesus Christ had to say. Some are a direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. You might be surprised just how many are.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) Clearly, this is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) Again, this is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) This is a clear reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Words are spoken . . . and heard
In Hebrews 1:1-2 we read “God . . . hath in theses last days spoken unto us by his Son . . .” and the Son of God was called the Word (John 1:1). Is that a coincidence?

In Romans 10: 14-18 we read:
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?. . . 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Now what is the “word of God” that we read of in verse 17? We need to keep in mind what it says in verses 14, 17 and 18 that they believe when they have “heard” (14), faith comes by “hearing” (17) and that they had “heard” on the basis of “sound” and “words” (18). Now ask yourself again, what is the “word of God” that we read of in verse 17? It has to be a message that was spoken. This was not a reference to the Bible of the day, The Scriptures, as The Lord Jesus referred to them in John 5:39. It was not a reference to a written message but a spoken one that was heard.

We need to be careful and honest in our handling of The Scriptures. It is not good enough to use verses in a way that suits what we want for them to say. Pretty much every time I have heard Romans 10:17 quoted it has always been used to say that people need to have the Bible in order to get the gospel and be saved. But that is actually not what the verses have really said at all. The “word of God” spoken of here refers to the message of the gospel.

Consider what it says earlier in the chapter, in verse 8:

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

You see, they preached the gospel, the message, they didn’t preach the Bible. There is a subtle difference. Later, as Paul summed up his instructions to Timothy he said, “Preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2).

Paul and Titus
When Paul gave instructions to Titus he told him in Titus 1:2-3 that “God … hath in due times manifested his word through preaching. …” Note, it was His [God’s] word that was made known. It was made known “through preaching”. The “his word” of verse 3 would seem to refer to the message that Paul shared. Now I know that some might think it may have been a veiled allusion to the fact that some of what Paul taught was written down and became part of the Bible, hence it could be taken to mean the Bible. Yes, it sounds good until we remember one thing – all the writings of Paul are letters (epistles). The difference is that letters are a specific message in written form while verse 3 is speaking of something that was manifested “through preaching”. I don’t think verse 3 is an allusion to reported preaching because Paul’s epistles are not records of his preaching – they’re letters.

When we look into chapter 2 of Titus we read that the word of God be not blasphemed (v.5) and that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things (v.10). Both are outcomes of following instructions he has given. They both speak of the same thing. The Bible doesn’t just repeat itself it says the same thing in a different way – the Holy spirit’s way to help us understand. Notice that this comes at end of a paragraph that begins with But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine (v.1). This again links “the word of God” with the word “doctrine” which is the truth or teaching that Paul was seeking to establish.

As Paul sums up his instructions to Timothy he says, “Preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2). Was he meaning preach the Bible? If he was, he surely would have continued to use the term “scriptures” as he had just done in the previous verses (3:15, 16).

Now it’s Peter’s turn

1 Peter 1:23 says: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Some will tell us this is a reference to the Bible. The same people will tell us that modern versions are corrupt Bibles. But can you see a contradiction here? Peter wrote that the seed [God’s Word] was incorruptible. Clearly, there is something different being spoken of here since the modern versions of the Bible are corrupt in their content. “The word of God”, “incorruptible seed” is not a reference to the Bible – but to the message of the Bible – the gospel through which we are saved – and it can’t be corrupted. Anything else is “another gospel”.

A Parable of Jesus
When Jesus spoke about the sower in Luke 8 he said: The seed is the word of God. (v.11). What did He mean by the word of God? He spoke about some people that then cometh the devil, and takethaway the word out of their hearts (12), so what was this “word” that could be taken out of their hearts? Then He spoke of those who heard the word (15) and later, those who hear the word of God, and do it (21).

Quite obviously these are not references to the Bible but to the message, the gospel. It’s what is the content of the Bible, in today’s world.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Heb 12:3) In this case it seems obvious to read it as meaning the spoken word of God. [Yet if someone thought of the word of God as being the Lord Jesus Christ, they would hardly be wrong, would they – for He it was who spoke those words.]

A classic case to consider carefully

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:  But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:23-25)

Some are reading this as if it says “by which the gospel is preached unto you” but in fact is says: “which by the gospel is preached unto you”. That changes things completely back to front. The former implies the “word” is used to preach the gospel, whereas the latter [correctly] implies that the “gospel” is used to preach the “word”.

The passage explains that “the word of God” is “incorruptible”, that it “liveth and abideth for ever”, “endureth for ever” and “by the gospel is preached unto you”. Now we can easily accept these statements about “the word of God”. But if we’re honest, does just any meaning fit? What are the possibilities “the word of God” could mean?

  • The gospel message [from God]
  • The Bible
  • The Lord Jesus Christ

If it means the gospel message, then the verse “And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” hardly makes sense.

If it means the Bible, the part about being “incorruptible” and “endureth for ever” we can accept. But “liveth and abideth for ever” better fits the description of a living being. Also the verse “And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” seems to be strained in meaning if speaking of the Bible.

However when we read the verses realising that they speak of the Lord Jesus Christ, everything in them makes complete sense. It compares with other passages that emphasise “Christ in you the hope of glory”.

But what about . . .

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

Now surely this speaks about the Bible, everyone knows that. .

But does it? Then please explain the “his”, “him” and “whom” in verse 13. To whom do the “his”, “him” and “whom” refer? Now be honest. . . they refer to “the word of God” which “is quick, and powerful,. . ” etc. Haven’t you ever wondered why it said “his”, “him” and “whom” in verse 13? It doesn’t really make sense if it’s referring to a book called the Bible, surely. The letter to the Hebrews doesn’t usually use words like “his”, “him” and “whom” when referring to inanimate objects. However, if “the word of God” in verse 12 is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, then you can understand why the words “his”, “him” and “whom” have been used. Indeed, if you keep in mind the theme of the Hebrew epistle and consider the key points made in each section of it you will agree the Lord Jesus Christ is shown to be better than all else. . . better than the angels, better than Moses, better than the sacrifices of the Old Covenant . . . better than everything. He is the focus, the central theme. The reader was to see that all the answers were found in Him. There was no hope for them if they looked to anything else for help.

Isaiah 55:11

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa 55:11)

Here is another of those verses we’ve heard quoted quite often.

And very often when I’ve ever heard it quoted it was meant to be in support of the written word of God that had been read. Fair enough, too, except that, if we really think about it, the thing that is referred to in the verse – “return unto me void”, “accomplish that which I please”, “shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” – was the “word . . . that goeth forth out of my mouth”. That means the message of the Scriptures, not the Scriptures themselves.

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Now here we have one of the verses that come close to being a clear reference to the Bible. The “word of truth” may well speak of the Scriptures. It may equally refer to the body of truth that Paul calls: “my gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8), “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim 6:3) or “the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:13).

Yes, it’s true it says “study . . . the word of truth” and that would certainly add weight to “the word of truth” being a reference to the Scriptures. But remember 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; which is not necessarily the same meaning as “study” in 2 Timothy 2:15. [We do need to be careful, honest and not dogmatic as we approach these things.]

Notice in the middle of the verse it says “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed”. What would this workman be busily involved in so that he might not be ashamed? Something to do with “rightly dividing the word of truth” – wouldn’t it be? And what exactly did that involve doing? From our perspective, it might easily be knowing exactly what was contained in “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim 6:3). We know this, “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and … the doctrine which is according to godliness”, from what is written in the Bible. We might therefore see this as referring to the Scriptures.

Yes, there’s a good case for accepting “the word of truth” in 2 Timothy 2:15 as referring to the Bible, but for all that the main point may just refer to the way the “workman” handles the “word of truth”, the doctrine and teaching of God. After all, the context deals with a couple of characters who had “erred” “concerning the truth”. They had taught “that the resurrection is past already” (2:18). Paul told Timothy, “their word will eat as doth a canker”. Notice he says “their word”.

PS
There are a number of other verses, not included here, that are worth looking at. In a later edition of this it may be possible to include them. Some references are:

Psalm 33:4-11       Acts 6:4; 12:24; 13:46; 17:13       1 Corinthians 14:36
Ephesians 6:17     Colossians1:25                             1 Thessalonians 2:13
1 Timothy 4:5         Hebrews 7:5                                 2 Peter 3:5

A final lesson to note

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (John 5:39-40)

John 5:39-40 gives a very powerful message that we all need to remember. Christ is the source of eternal life – not the Bible. Sure, the Bible contains the wonderful message of hope and life, but we all have to come to the Lord Jesus Christ to receive eternal life. He told the religious leaders of His day that they had missed the most important point. They looked in the right place to find out about eternal life – but never came to the source of Life – Him, Christ. There are many well-meaning people who are busy trying to defend the Bible. But there is a real danger that any of them could be like the Pharisees, who searched the Scriptures, but miss the most important person – who alone can give life; the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also

Read this interesting article on the web [that you’ll have to make up your own mind on]:
http://www.voicenet.com/~kuenning/fot/WordofGod.html

– Continued in Part 3

The Word of God – Part 1

Posted on by

Terms and words
We are warned in Scripture about the dangers of arguing over words and causing trouble. We often hear people use terms interchangeably and seemingly get away with it. Over the years some expressions become accepted with good reason but upon closer examination are not always as accurate as we might expect.

One such example that has caught my attention is what we read in Scripture as “word”, “thy word”, “the word”, “the word of God”. In their attempts to show that the Bible is the inerrant, pure and true word of God to us, I believe some [well-meaning] folk may have overstepped the mark in places.

Are you sure about that?
Here is the verse that first sounded my alarm bells:

“…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name…” Ps 138:2

Those who make a lot of use of  this verse believe that “thy word” is a reference to the Bible. They then, invariably, in their zeal to uphold the truth, give the impression that God has given the Bible a place of honour that is above His name, even. But does this verse say that? Anyone familiar with Scripture should recall a rock-solid principle that is manifested throughout the Scriptures – that everything, the Scriptures included, must work to the end of bringing glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, just as the Holy Spirit does, for example, as we see in John 15:26, “He shall testify of me”. Can anything ever be higher than the “name that is above every name” (Phil 2:9)? Scripture doesn’t allow for anything to be above Him of whom it is written: “that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col 1:18).

In Hebrews 3:3 it says: For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

This teaches that the builder is worthy of greater honour than the building. In the same way the Writer is worthy of greater honour than the writing.

There has to be a more satisfactory explanation of the verse quoted from Psalm 138:2 “…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name…” There is, and it becomes obvious in its meaning when we recognise that the “thy word” of the Old Testament can easily mean the same as “the Word” which appears in John 1:1 and 1:14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1, 14)

We know that “the word”, in John 1:1 and 14, is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ. Could not “thy word” of Psalm 138 be also referring to the Lord Jesus Christ? With this meaning the verse is in perfect harmony with Philippians 2:9-10. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow …

What’s in a name?
“Now, just wait a bit,” you say, “how can the name of the Lord Jesus be above that of God?” Well, who was being referred to in Psalm 139:2? The LORD was. Who is the LORD? He is the Jehovah of Exodus 3:13-15

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever..

The Bible is inspired of God and gives its own commentary. Notice how verse 15 helps to explain verse 14.

The Name Jehovah
Where did we get this name Jehovah from? Exodus 6:2-3 says: 2And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Jehovah is made from the Hebrew word YHWH, where our J is used to show their Y, and vowels are put in where they leave them out. Nobody is absolutely sure how to pronounce it. Conservative Jews, still today, won’t speak the sacred Name, such is their reverence for it. Early scribes would wash their pens before and after writing the Name.

Psalm 83:18 makes a statement: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 says: . . for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

A Jewish believer told us that the word “salvation” of verse 2 in his Hebrew Bible is the same word as used for Yeshua, Jesus.

Isaiah 26:4 says: Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength

In each of the only 4 places where the word “Jehovah” appears in the Bible we see words that link Jehovah with the LORD, either in a direct reference or in describing some of His attributes.

So what does all this mean?
In the Old Testament the highest name referred to was the LORD, Jehovah, the I AM. When the Psalmist was inspired to write “...thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name…” (Ps 138:2) he was possibly alluding prophetically to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ being exalted to the highest level.
Why was that? Philippians 2:9-11 says: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Notice:

  • the Name is Jesus [Jesus means Jehovah saves. Matt 1:21]
  • the Name is above every name
  • when people bow at the name of Jesus they will have to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
  • to the glory of God the Father means God is pleased with them giving the highest honour to the Lord Jesus Christ

And why did all this come about?

Verses 5-8 tell us why: Christ Jesus. . took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Psalmist is inspired to say prophetically to the LORD; “…thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name…” (Ps 138:2) because the Lord Jesus did something that was greater than even the LORD Jehovah had done in the Old Testament – He gave His life as the atoning sacrifice to save people. Matthew 1:21 says thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. And Acts 4:12 says Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. His, alone, is the Name that saves. Remember how the Lord Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

All of the LORD God’s plans centre in His Son, the Lord Jesus.

– Continued in Part 2 and 3

4 January 2010 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

From the archives is this one that I hope I had previously sent to the calendar publisher. It once again illustrates how all too often we make deficient connections, interpretations and applications from passages of Scripture.

Mr P’s verse and comment on 4th January 2010 appear to be poorly matched.

A department store near us recently held its “Grand Opening”.
Thronging crowds waited 10 to 12 hours to be first inside. Through
His substitutionary death on Calvary, Jesus opened wide the gates
of heaven, yet so many have no interest and stand afar off.
God loves us and is not willing that anyone should perish.
He offers salvation freely to anyone who will receive Jesus
Christ as their Saviour. Will you accept His offer today?
– J P

The comment “yet so many have no interest and stand afar off” comes across as being a reference to those in the verse he used: “And all His acquaintance, and the women that followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.” Luke 23:49

But is that fair? Where would you expect them to be?

It’s true that of some it is recorded that they “stood by the cross” (Jn 19:25). Yet one of them named in John 19:25, Mary Magdalene, is mentioned by Matthew as being part of the group that were “beholding afar off” (Matt 27:55) and by Mark, “looking on afar off” (Mk 15:40). Did she move between the two locations? How many others might have done the same and also been up close at some time?

Is it significant that Matthew and Mark’s comments refer only to women, and Luke’s makes specific mention of women? Where would be the most decent and appropriate place for women to view from in such a scene? Hardly up too close! Definitely not right out in front. Why? Because, contrary to pretty much every scene painted or portrayed by people, the Lord Jesus was naked. Surely, by standing at a distance, those women showed their true devotion and reverential respect, while still allowing for a few of them to discretely visit at the foot of the cross if they chose; whether they be closely related or grateful followers.

The comment by Mr P is fair enough on its own – but not matched up with the Luke 23:49 verse. Surely a more fitting verse could have been used in conjunction with the comment written. Luke 23:49 is hardly a good choice and does certainly not necessarily imply “no interest”.

Some cross-references to consider:

Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Mark 15:40-41
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

John 19:25-26
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

16 August 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

The comments written by Mr K on the 16 August 2012 calendar state “He [Christ] prayed to His Father that they would be kept from the evil one. (Jn 17:15).”

With all due respect, Mr K, the Lord Jesus prayed nothing of the sort. My Bible clearly states: I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. (Jn 17:15)

What does the verse really say? It says that the Lord prayed that they would be kept from the evil. Now notice that it says from the evil – not just evil. And why would it have the word “the”? Because it is a specific reference to something particular that has already been spoken of in the context and continues to be addressed by the following verses – “the world”. The evil being referred to here is the evil associated with “the world” and all that it stands for.

Now of course we are aware that the Scriptures call the mastermind of “the world” system not only the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2) but also the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4).
In his attempts to get his name where it doesn’t belong in the Scriptures, being the imposter that he is and the father of lies (Jn 8:44), he has used some of his servants to deceive, even the elect, by inspiring those servants to manipulate the Greek texts on which so many have put their trust, to their own peril, alas. While the Revised Text of the spiritualists Westcott and Hort might say “evil one” the King James Bible translators never fell for the trap. In the same way those “ungodly men” (Jude 4), Westcott and Hort, twist the text of 1 John 5:19 to say “the whole world lieth in the wicked one” instead of the whole world lieth in wickedness. Once again they try to get their master into a place of prominence at the expense of truth. They divert the focus from “wickedness” to the “wicked one” just as they diverted the reader away from “the evil” to “the evil one”.

Mr K, you need to be more careful. You have allowed the spiritualists Westcott and Hort, haters of evangelicals and sound Biblical doctrine, to influence your interpretation of God’s Holy Word.

But take heart – I was the same about twenty years ago when I was invited to speak about the “Pre-existent Christ”. When I came to speak I found that key verses, one in particular, in the NIV bible I was using didn’t say what it was meant to. I knew what it should say and I needed it. I had to quote it from the King James Bible – the Bible my elderly friend used and claimed had nothing missing from. So I determined  to find out about this. I researched in the local public library and found out about Westcott and Hort – spiritualists involved in necromancy (communication with the dead & spirits) while doing their “translations”. Their names were even listed in the index of a book called ‘Encylopedia of the Paranormal’. They deliberately left out words and ideas because of their hatred of certain doctrines and evangelical believers, it seems. So it was true. It was a deliberate plot; a satanic conspiracy to attack God’s Word. Well, that explains a few things – doesn’t it.

 

Magazine No 182

Posted on by

Some time back I tried to contact the editor of a good little publication. But I never heard anything back. Some people don’t like feedback that challenges their writings in any way. So this blog might provide a way to address a few issues. Maybe the right people might eventually get to read this response to an issue that seems to keep surfacing.

I was a little surprised to read in what I’ll call Magazine No 182 the name Joshua inserted in the quoted verse of Hebrews 4:8: For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Finding it in the Editorial is significant as it makes a statement about what is regarded as acceptable in the magazine. Apparently the writer has superior knowledge to the Scriptures which clearly has printed the word “Jesus” in Hebrews 4:8. I’m sorry, but the believers where I fellowship take exception to “Bible Correctors”. We all will stand before the Lord in a coming day and answer for how we handled the Word of God – that’s a frightening enough thought if you consider the basis for my comments below and parallel the reason for Moses and Aaron being kept out of the Promised Land; “ye believed me not, to sanctify me” (Numbers 20:12, 27:14). As one of the shepherds in a small flock of God’s people I know that our sheep will reject this magazine on the basis of human interference with the Scriptures. They would not be happy that I passed a magazine to them only to find they must take issue with it.

What or who does the verse refer to? Why can’t it just be “Jesus” – as it says? Consider these verses:

Exodus 23:23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

The “Angel” (with capital A – consider that. This alone should be enough.) was going to bring them into Canaan. Who was this Angel? The preceding verses (20-21) give the answer:

Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

The One referred to here had to be more than any ordinary angel. “My name is in him” tells us something. This Angel is to be obeyed, not provoked, and has the ability to “pardon” “transgressions”. The One referred to cannot be any other than the pre-existent Lord Jesus.

Joshua 5:13-15 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?        And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the LORD’S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

Why would Joshua loose his shoe? He knew he was forbidden to do anything denoting worship to anyone other than the LORD. Again, this points to Jesus.

Joshua 24:2, 8 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, . . . . . . . . And I brought you into the land of the Amorites, which dwelt on the other side Jordan; and they fought with you: and I gave them into your hand, that ye might possess their land; and I destroyed them from before you.

The LORD speaks to the people reminding them that He brought them in …just as the New Testament states – if you accept the word “Jesus” as written. And see the next verses below…

Judges 2:1-2 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

The message is parallel with the previous passage in Joshua yet here “an angel of the LORD” is spoken of. It is the “angel of the LORD” that speaks to them. Is He identified in Scripture? The New Testament contains references that don’t try to conceal the fact that it was the pre-existent Lord Jesus:

Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

The Jesus of Hebrews 4:8 is spoken of here too in Acts 7. If we need to try to make out that the text really means Joshua in Hebrews then we would need to do the same In Acts – but there’s no need to because it says ‘Jesus’ and means Jesus. Why would anyone want it to be otherwise? What, after all, is wrong with it being Jesus anyway?

. . for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:4)

Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit of God declares that Christ was present with them.

He had no problem with the idea. Paul never sought to change what God’s Spirit wanted written. Why should we?

This fits perfectly with the thought in the Editorial that the “rest was not fully realised in Canaan in Joshua’s day” and was “still future, in the Psalms, indicat[ing] that the coming of Christ was required before His rest could be fully realised.” All of this statement is quite true when ‘Jesus’ is kept in the verses as shown above. Jesus was with them as they went into Canaan, even if the people never saw Him physically as a person, but we all know that it was “when the fulness of the time was come” that “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman”. And Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 make their point clearly enough regarding the place of the Lord Jesus with regard to the “rest”.

It is our belief that the Scriptures have it all perfectly in order. Why change it? Or will He in a coming day have to say, “ye believed me not, to sanctify me”?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another point of interest in this article is the statement that “The assembly is the final and highest authority.”

May I suggest, with all due respect, that the writer may have overlooked something in making the above statement: Where does the assembly get its authority from?

Remember the words of the centurion in Luke 7:8: For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. Where did he get his authority from so that he could give orders and have them carried out? He had authority only because he was under authority.

If the assembly has any authority, where and who does it get it from? It can only have authority if it is under authority. In line with the “If…then” logic theme, the assembly cannot be the final authority as it has to be under authority. The “final and highest authority” on earth has to be the written Word of God. The incarnate Word of God is the Head of the church, certainly – but He is in heaven presently. So the issue at stake here is the authority of the written word of God.

This reader cannot help but notice how all three points made in this part of the article (and earlier too) are somehow meant to draw their basis from verses quoted from the Old Testament. While there is always Old Testament background and foundation for New Testament truth, surely the reader could expect principles that were being applied to New Testament assemblies to be built on verses found in the New Testament. Why would there be any difficulty in finding a New Testament basis for anything regarding New Testament churches; ‘assemblies’ as we know them? Do we sacrifice superior Scriptural foundations in order to support a man-made pattern of words fashioned to be the backbone of an article’s design?

 Also the verses in question are used to ‘back up’ the point being made, as opposed to presenting a point that clearly comes from the teaching of a passage of verses. Isn’t there some quote about “a text taken out of context is a pretext”? And whatever happened to “rightly dividing the word of truth”?

Alas, the issue is really, once again, and as stated earlier, a case of what authority and place the written word of God is acknowledged by the writer of the article. Apparently there is no problem with asserting that the translators have got it wrong and inserting a convenient “humanized” alternative name to suit a sub-supernatural interpretation of the passage. No problem if you also promote the idea that a group of people can have more authority than the Scriptures. Obviously the two are connected. But doesn’t this echo viewpoints not too different from those who come knocking at our doors in pairs? That’s an alarming perception.

Those I write on behalf of would be totally disappointed with the position described in the paragraph above. A person’s handling of the written Word of God reflects their heart concerning the Incarnate Word. If the Editorial of Magazine No 182 thus denigrates the authority and accuracy of the written Word of God, then won’t there indeed be plenty of foundation for the statement to be made in a coming day: “ye believed me not, to sanctify me”?

The real ‘Christ-mass’

Posted on by

In pagan Rome the 25th December was known for the celebration of the birth of the Sun god. Pope Julius I brought about the substitution of this celebration with a ‘Christ-mass’. This came about due to Constantine’s counterfeit ‘conversion’ after which the leaders thought of the ‘Christ-mass’ celebration as a vital part of the process of converting the pagan world.. [italicized part quoted from the Christianity Today website which was set up by those with Church of Rome connections]

Alas, Constantine and friends and their modern day counterparts missed the most important part. The only true way of “converting the pagan world” comes about through the simple message of the Bible that:

  • Everyone chooses to sin. All are sinners. Isa 53:6, Rom 3:23
  • Sin results in separation from God and spiritual death. Rom 6:23
  • Christ paid the penalty for our sins in a once for all, never to be repeated sacrifice at Calvary. Heb 9:28; 10:12 [1-18]
  • Salvation is a gift, accepted by faith. It cannot be earned. Eph 2:8,9

In attempting to coerce people to become ‘Christians’ through the use of the ‘Christ-mass’ Constantine and friends [and their modern day counterparts] commit the most un-Christian, un-Biblical and blasphemous thing they could do – just as they do any and every time they partake in a “mass”. A mass, in effect, involves the re-crucifying of the Saviour – whereas Hebrews 10:12 says “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever…” Christ was sacrificed once. Satan must rejoice every time sincere, well-meaning people ignorantly carry out a ritual that puts Christ back on a cross but still leaves them guilt-ridden, wondering, hoping they are saved. But they are still lost and without Christ if that is all they are putting their trust in.

The Bible’s message is that because Christ “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” anyone may accept by faith God’s gift of salvation. There is certainly nothing we can add to it.

To think about:

  • The wise men gave gifts to “the young child”; How come people give gifts to each other?
  • Beware of quotes like this from Grapevine magazine, Issue 4, 2006:
    “Soul-search: He who hasn’t got Christmas in his heart will never find it under a tree.”  ≈ Well meaning but missing the mark because of what’s outlined above.
  • May the Spirit of Christmas bless you abundantly.
    ≈ Well meaning, but if it’s the spirit of the discussion above I wouldn’t want it, thanks.
  • We hung God’s Gift on a Tree. Have you received Him yet?
    ≈ Now we’re starting to get a bit closer.

These sayings are clever – but do they convey enough truth?

Last but not least:
It was never the Saviour’s birth that God asked us to remember – but Him (the Lord Jesus Christ) and His death. Note these verses:

Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:24-26)

15 September 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

The calendar for 15 September 2012 began with the following verses:
Let, we beseech thee, our supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the Lord, thy God, even for all this remnant, that the Lord, thy God, may show us the way in wherein may walk, and the thing that we may do.
(Jeremiah 42:2 – 3, as rendered by the calendar)

For starters, it actually says this:
Let, we beseech thee, our supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the Lord thy God, even for all this remnant; (for we are left but a few of many, as thine eyes do behold us:) 3That the Lord thy God may shew us the way wherein we may walk, and the thing that we may do.
(Jeremiah 42:2 – 3)

They skipped the whole section that is in brackets, and didn’t indicate that they did – I thought it was standard practice to use “…” if you’d missed out part of a statement (especially in the middle) when quoting something, but they didn’t do it.

Then they said “show us the way in wherein may walk” which doesn’t even make sense. It actually says “shew us the way wherein we may walk” (which is probably how you read it the first time or two anyway).

Not to mention they used a comma before the section they missed instead of a semicolon, added three commas, and spelt “shew” as “show”.

Then they’re using the wrong verse to support their point. Let’s consider who is asking this, and what they said later on:
Then all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest, came near, 2And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, …
(Jeremiah 42:1 – 2a)

1And it came to pass, that when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking unto all the people all the words of the Lord their God, for which the Lord their God had sent him to them, even all these words,
2Then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men, saying unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsely: the Lord our God hath not sent thee to say, Go not into Egypt to sojourn there:
3But Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on against us, for to deliver us into the hand of the Chaldeans, that they might put us to death, and carry us away captives into Babylon.
4So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, and all the people, obeyed not the voice of the Lord, to dwell in the land of Judah.
5But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah;
6Even men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah.
7So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus came they even to Tahpanhes.
(Jeremiah 43:1 – 7)

Let us also consider the following that Jeremiah told the people:
19The Lord hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day.
20For ye dissembled in your hearts, when ye sent me unto the Lord your God, saying, Pray for us unto the Lord our God; and according unto all that the Lord our God shall say, so declare unto us, and we will do it.
21And now I have this day declared it to you; but ye have not obeyed the voice of the Lord your God, nor any thing for the which he hath sent me unto you.
22Now therefore know certainly that ye shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, in the place whither ye desire to go and to sojourn.
(Jeremiah 42:19 – 22)

He told them this before they had answered a word, and put it in past tense too. How did Jeremiah know? Simply, God must have told him. Why does this matter? Because of the second word in the first sentence of the message on the calendar:
“A faithful remnant of the Jews approached Jeremiah asking that he pray for them so that they might walk a pathway pleasing to God.”

They were most definitely not “a faithful remnant”! This may not take away from the message in any way; however it definitely does not support it. The message is good, but it doesn’t give its own basis. A better verse would have been one of these:
Psalms 5:8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face
17:5 Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not
25:4 Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths
27:11 Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path
119:27 Make me to understand the way of they precepts
139:24 Lead me in the way everlasting

1 October 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

Parts of the comments written by Mr H on the 3 October 2012 calendar make a fair enough point when taken at face value.

It’s amazing what things some unsaved people have said in the past. Even more amazing, maybe, that today people would still quote them.

I have to say though, that I, never the less, cannot fathom why anyone would want to quote from what the unsaved have quoted when they have the Lord to quote or at least His servants whose words the Holy Spirit has chosen to put on record.

Why would any believer put any credence or value on the words of a man who would speak to his nation to motivate them into action and participation in a godless World War that was responsible for the murder of countless believers, let alone a myriad of unsaved who were sent prematurely into a lost eternity?

Please, Mr H, why couldn’t you just have used the quote itself? (The words weren’t those of the King; he quoted them after all.)

“I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, ‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown’. And he said to me, ‘Put your hand in the hand of God and that shall be to thee better than a light and safer than a known way.’”

Would the quoted words on their own have made a point?

What purpose was there in even mentioning the King? As head of the Church of England (which he would have been by definition), with all due respect, how could he possibly have not been sadly lost and misguided, spiritually; acting, as he would have to as head of that church, contrary to the clear teachings of the Scriptures? I am at a loss to know how it would benefit the reader for him to even get a mention on a Choice Gleanings calendar.

Is it a bit ironical that a search using the calendar writer’s name brings up his writings on ‘What is happening in UK assemblies?’ Well, let’s start right here with the matter of sending mixed messages to the flock. If there’s a decline in the condition or state of assemblies, as his writings suggest, there is a reason for it. If the flock are fed truth along with the world’s values then what else would we expect? Maybe writers of the calendar should be leading the way by example not exacerbating the problem.

Any king, of whatever nation, who can implore people to participate in a war, has a nerve to then use any mention of God as some kind of hope to be offered to those same people. This is the kind of humanism that young people get fed in institutions of education. Is it any wonder the UK assemblies, and others worldwide, are in a worrying condition when light and darkness are portrayed together?

Brethren, we need to face it. The only way forward is God’s way and young people need to be presented with a Biblical world-view not a secular one.