Category Archives: Interpretation

Jacob in Genesis 28:20-22

Posted on by

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

A recent comment: “Jacob’s prayer is a real shocker . . . It’s a selfish prayer.”

Considering prayer in Genesis, first of all, where is it?
Genesis 4:26 then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
– It’s implied that they prayed.
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God. Did he pray? No record.
Genesis 24:12 And he said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, . . . (repeated in vs 42-44.) Not until Genesis 24, hundreds of years since the creation, we read the words of what someone actually prayed. Here is the first recorded prayer in Scripture. After how many hundred years?

Then we have a few others:
Genesis 25:21 Isaac intreated the Lord.
Genesis 25:22 Rebekah enquired of the Lord. – These, too, are prayer events

When we come to 28:20-22 we are told that Jacob ‘vowed a vow’. This does not necessarily constitute a prayer. The text says it was a vow. This may well have been heard by others. To condemn Jacob’s “prayer” on the basis of verses 20 to 22 is unjust; especially when it may not necessarily constitute a prayer at all. It might be like reporting a car accident when in fact someone has reversed into a shopping trolley in the supermarket car park. The two are not the same

If we really must ‘analyse’ how Jacob prayed, for whatever reason, we would be better to look at Genesis 32:9-12. It is without doubt a prayer. O that more people would pray as Jacob did on that occasion.

If we are worried about the number of the words “I”, “me” or “my” in analysing whether a prayer is good or not, as some ill-advisedly accuse of verses 20 to 22, then surely we’d equally have difficulty with what Joshua, Job, Jonah, Hannah, David or many others prayed. And John 17 would, on the same basis, have to be frowned on – yet, that has to be the ultimate example, if prayed by the Saviour, surely. Clearly, there is something far more significant involved in considering someone’s prayer than this type of ill-founded lack of exegesis.

That Jacob vowed a vow actually tells us something about Jacob that is borne out in several places and on several occasions – he was ahead of his time. He had spiritual insights that others are not recorded as having. On this occasion he vowed a vow. When we get to verse 22 we read of him mentioning ‘the tenth’. It was considerably later on that God spoke to His people regarding tithes or vows, for that matter. The only other to have mentioned tithes was Abraham when he gave tithes to Melchizedek, Genesis 14:20.

What Jacob mentioned regarding “the tenth” in his vow is a reflection of the mind of God. Jacob’s heart was already in tune with his God that he loved and lived for. So much so that he spontaneously offers of his substance to the Lord, in a way that God will happen to later on reveal to His people, and require of them. At this time there was no requirement. Here, we have Jacob offering to God, out of his heart.

Does this also reveal the heart and mind of the man, Jacob? As the one who was spiritually-minded, he had been entrusted with carrying the genetic line of the Messiah; his “profane” twin having declared his utter disdain of the things of God. Spiritual elements were an integral part of the birthright, and Genesis 25:34 records, thus Esau despised his birthright.

This brings us to the next point about Jacob: verses 20 and 21 highlight Jacob’s absolute reverence for the purposes of God, as seen in the way Jacob reviews the Abrahamic Covenant that has been entrusted to him, as it was to Isaac, his father. It is fresh in his mind, especially seeing the Lord has just reiterated parts of it as recorded in verses 13 to 15.

In verses 20 & 21 Jacob is not questioning God’s ability to protect or provide – quite the opposite: he is affirming his absolute trust and dependency on God, and what God has just told him in the dream. He recounts several parts of the message from the dream (which is in substance Abrahamic Covenant) and so states it. His ‘vow’ is in essence an echo of what the Lord has just revealed to him, showing his humble acceptance of it and preparedness to be part of it. His attitude is similar to that of Mary when she said, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ (Luke 1:38)

It is unfortunate that there are a few who choose to twist what many see as a clear and widely accepted meaning of verse 20, probably in an effort to substantiate their speculative denigration of Jacob, whom they see as a villain for most of his life. How anyone could ever find reason to come to the defence of a profane Esau (when God says “Esau have I hated”) and denigrate Jacob on every occasion possible (when God says “Jacob have I loved”) seems totally contrary to Scripture. Alas there are a few, even within some conservative evangelical circles, that seem to glory in promulgating this deprecating line of irrational reason, calling evil good and good evil; which so doing is ill-spoken of in Isaiah 5:20; Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. . .

What then did Jacob mean when he said If God will be with me, . . .?

Just because the verse reads “If . . .” it doesn’t necessarily mean that Jacob is doubting or questioning God. ‘If’ can often be used to mean ‘Since’ or ‘Seeing that’. In keeping with all that we know of Jacob and his total dependency on the Lord and his honouring of the Covent entrusted to him, it is most likely that he was meaning Since’ or ‘Seeing that’. .

Here is an example of how we might use ‘If’ in modern times:
A businessman stands looking out of his 2nd storey office window. He comments to his receptionist, “If it’s a blue car, and it’s around midday, and it comes north and turns left at the traffic lights, then the lady that comes to the door will be my wife.”

There is no doubt in the mind of the businessman that the person about to arrive is his wife. He is not questioning whether he wants her to be or not – he is saying that in view of all of those things being as they are, he knows assuredly who will be knocking at the door shortly. He is convinced already.

Jacob is no different. He basically says, “Seeing that You have promised me all of these things (and lists the very things that God has just showed him) then You will be my God . . . as you have promised me . . . what have I to fear?”

How did God think of Jacob? Pretty highly from what we read in verses 13 to 15. How many others in Scripture were afforded the kind of promises that God gave Jacob that day? There are good reasons why He did. This was not unexpected at all. We must remember that Jacob’s mother had been shown the future of Jacob before he was born. The one of whom questions might be asked, if ever one might, is Isaac. Rebekah knew what God’s perspective was for Jacob. She was under no delusion. So what happened to Isaac that he couldn’t go along with God’s pre-revealed plan of action?

God’s plan had always been to use Jacob. He never used profane people (like Esau) to bring about certain pieces of His spiritual plan. God may have chosen to use a heathen king to get His temple built – yet He never allowed His unique servant, Moses, to lead the people into Canaan.

Two other comments in relation to all of this:
1. Did Jacob ever pay his vow? Was that a problem with God? Does God ever say anything about that? There was, actually, no set-up within Jacob’s lifetime for a material payment to be made, so that Jacob never really had any opportunity to do so. Had Jacob lived several hundred years later, there would have been a system that could handle it. Many believe that Jacob did, in fact, fulfil his vow – through his descendants, once the time and set-up allowed for it; probably far more fully than he could ever have done himself.

2. The Abrahamic Covenant which God re-affirmed personally with Jacob, after Isaac had also passed it on, has a very sobering statement as part of it. When God first mentioned it to Abraham He said, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee. . .” (Gen 12:3).

If that isn’t significant enough, we should note that Isaac, as part of his blessing to Jacob said, “Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” (Gen 27:29)

What was said concerning Abraham was also said concerning Jacob. As we see what has transpired in modern history, there is no doubt that God blesses those who bless modern day Israel, even. The converse is equally true; those who curse her are cursed by God.

If those who do not bless Israel as a nation incur the Lord’s displeasure, can the Lord’s people in the Body of Christ expect any different if they do not bless Jacob, the father of Israel, the nation? Those who would denigrate or condemn God’s clearly stated preferences of those in His Godly Messianic genetic line are at risk of being on the wrong side of the ledger. Is it possible that even conservative assemblies of God’s people might not always enjoy the ‘blessing’ of the Lord because of their denigration of Jacob? Can there be blessing where a conscious denigration of Jacob takes place? We cannot have it both ways – those who curse Jacob will suffer for it.

In closing, we should read the Scriptures as they are written and use only Scripture to commentate on Scripture. There is no place among God’s people for the [false] interpretation of verses generated by the puny attempts of some to manipulate wordings in verses so that they fit into a pre-conceived, man-made perception or mould of a particular Bible character. This is especially so when that perception is seen by many to not conform to the widely accepted view of numerous Biblical cross references.

Jacob is referred to in Scripture more frequently than virtually any other person; especially when his God-given name Israel is taken in to account also. God has left nothing on record in which He speaks in a negative way about Jacob. We should be very careful how we present this man of God too.

Here Am I

Posted on by

In response to an article on page 26, of Magazine 219, January 2018.

The very first thing we notice in analysing this article is that the writer of it has deliberately overlooked an earlier event in the life of Jacob, in Genesis 31:11, when it is recorded that he said, “Here am I”.

One has to ask why anyone would ignore such a mention and base a new chapter in this Here Am I series on only the later, 2nd recorded occurrence.

As usual, where error is found, it is sure to manifest itself in multiples rather than in isolation. One has to read only to the 3rd paragraph to find why the writer wants us to focus on this one particular instance of ‘Here am I’. Clearly, the writer subscribes to the fallacious theory, found still in a few conservative circles, which delights in portraying Jacob as an unspiritual scoundrel, out of the will of God until he is transformed at Peniel.

To admit that Genesis 31:11 has Jacob saying to God, “Here am I”, would greatly weaken, if not almost negate, the flimsy foundations of the man-made hypothesis that sadly the writer seemingly adheres to.

How is it that even a ‘conservative’ writer could believe he is permitted to be dishonest – as he conceals vital relevant background references when building the platform for the viewpoint he wishes to present? Worse than it just being poor exegesis, it is actually dishonest.

Haven’t we heard in the past: A text out of context is a pretext? If the context containing Jacob’s first recorded ‘Here am I’ is deliberately ignored, isn’t the following ‘Here am I’ out of context? Then, don’t the subsequent foundational points of view presented become a pretext?

Further to the obvious deliberate omission referred to above, there are 3 statements made in the Here Am I article that beg to be addressed in this short response.

Statement #1
Jacob was the name associated with his… low spiritual state. (3rd paragraph Here Am I)

A look at the evidence does not support Jacob’s alleged ‘low spiritual state’.

In Genesis 25:29-34 Jacob valued the birthright and proposed a valid, legally binding, openly negotiated agreement with his brother Esau, who willingly accepted. In contrast, it is recorded in verse 34 that Esau despised his birthright. In verse 32 Esau has already displayed his carnal disregard toward it. Note that it is recorded that Esau ‘sware’ and ‘sold’ his birthright; a deliberate, legal transaction.

Some try to find support for Esau but in doing so ignore what God says of him: Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13); …profane person (Hebrews 12:16). Esau supporters need to be careful that they do not be seen as those who call evil good, and good evil.

When we come to Genesis 27 many people immediately accuse Jacob of being sly, dishonest and evil. Yet they never offer any supporting comments that God ever made to that effect. There aren’t any.

Note 2 other things relating to chapter 27:
1. You cannot get the blessing unless you have the birthright. For all those who still think Esau should have inherited the blessing – how could he, without the birthright? In allowing for it, such Esau-supporters would all be in breach of the rules! Esau-supporters would commit an offence, in breaching birthright protocols, to support one who God said He ‘hated’!

2. In the record of what took place, Jacob displayed an honourable heart and attitude:
a) He obeyed, honoured his mother (8).
b) He appealed to reason. (11-12)
c) The plan to get the blessing was his mother’s – not Jacob’s. Clearly, she was acting on the basis of prior knowledge through revelation from God as recorded in Genesis 25: 22-23 and mentioned by Paul in Romans 9:11-12.

One wonders why Isaac pursued his plan to back his ‘profane’ son when God had already revealed that His plan and purpose was for the elder to serve the younger (Genesis 25: 22-23). We are told that Esau’s wives were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah (26:34-35). It is not as if Isaac didn’t already know about Esau’s rebellious and profane heart – he (Isaac), too, was suffering the fruits of it, thanks to Esau’s relationships.

Furthermore, when Isaac commented in chapter 27, “The voice is Jacob’s voice” (27:22), was he, in fact, recognising that the reply of “the LORD thy God brought it to me.” (27:20) was made from words that Jacob was known to use – whereas Esau would never use such spiritually-oriented words or make such a reference to God?

Why do the knockers of Jacob never question Isaac and his ‘blindness’ to the purposes of God? Had Isaac been true to the revelation of Genesis 25:22-23, this chapter 27 would surely have happened so differently.

In chapter 28 Isaac is quite happy to pass on to Jacob what was promised to Abraham and himself (28:3-4). Such substance would be of no consequence or value to a man of ‘low spiritual state’. But Jacob was a man who valued the spiritual elements of the birthright (which is why it is recorded in Romans 9:13 ‘Jacob have I loved’) – he would understand the import of what Isaac was passing on to him.

The next 10 paragraphs are from another Paradise Publishing article on Jacob in Genesis 28, with a few alterations:

When we come to verse 13 of chapter 28 we have the LORD speaking to Jacob. He passes on the same message as He had given to Abraham and Isaac. Verse 15 is a promise of His enduring preservation and help. Jacob responds immediately.

Jacob’s response is a spiritual one. It reveals the heart and mind of the man, Jacob. As the one of the twins who was spiritually-minded, he had been entrusted with carrying the genetic line of the Messiah; his “profane” twin having declared his utter disdain of the things of God. Spiritual elements were an integral part of the birthright, and Genesis 25:34 records, thus Esau despised his birthright.

Verses 20 and 21 of chapter 28 highlight Jacob’s absolute reverence for the purposes of God, as seen in the way Jacob reviews the Abrahamic Covenant that has been entrusted to him, as it was to Isaac, his father. It is fresh in his mind, especially seeing the Lord has just reiterated parts of it, as recorded in verses 13 to 15. These are not the words of a man of ‘low spiritual state’.

In verses 20 & 21 Jacob is not questioning God’s ability to protect or provide – quite the opposite: he is affirming his absolute trust and dependency on God, and what God has just told him in the dream. He recounts several parts of the message from the dream (which is in substance Abrahamic Covenant) and so states it. His ‘vow’ is in essence an echo of what the Lord has just revealed to him, showing his humble acceptance of it and preparedness to be part of it. His attitude is similar to that of Mary when she said,” Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” (Like 1:38)

It is unfortunate that there are a few who choose to twist the widely accepted meaning of verse 20, probably in an effort to substantiate their shabby speculative denigration of Jacob, whom they see as a villain for most of his life. How anyone could ever find reason to come to the defence of a profane Esau (when God says “Esau have I hated”) and denigrate Jacob on every occasion possible (when God says “Jacob have I loved”) seems totally contrary to Scripture. Alas there are a few, even within some conservative evangelical circles, that seem to glory in promulgating this deprecating line of irrational reason, calling evil good and good evil; which so doing is ill-spoken of in Isaiah 5:20; Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. . .

What then did Jacob mean when he said “If God will be with me…”?

Just because the verse reads “If…” it doesn’t have to mean that Jacob is doubting or questioning God. ‘If’ can often be used to mean ‘Since’ or ‘Seeing that’. In keeping with all that we know of Jacob and his total dependency on the Lord and his honouring of the Covent entrusted to him, it is most likely that he was meaning Since’ or ‘Seeing that’…

Here is an example of how we might use ‘If’ in modern times:

A businessman stands looking out of his 2nd storey office window. He comments to his receptionist, “If it’s a blue car, and it’s around midday, and it comes north and turns left at the traffic lights, then the lady that comes to the door will be my wife.”

There is no doubt in the mind of the businessman that the person about to arrive is his wife. He is not questioning whether he wants her to be or not – he is saying that in view of all of those things being as they are, he knows assuredly who will be knocking at the door shortly. He is convinced already.

Jacob is no different. He basically says, “Seeing that You have promised me all of these things (and lists the very things that God has just showed him) then You will be my God . . . as you have promised me … so what have I to fear.”

How did God think of Jacob? Pretty highly; from what we read in verses 13 to 15. How many others in Scripture were afforded the kind of promises that God gave Jacob that day? There are good reasons why He did. This was not unexpected at all. We must remember that Jacob’s mother had been shown the future of Jacob before he was born. The one of whom questions might be asked, if ever one might, is Isaac. Rebekah knew what God’s perspective was for Jacob. She was under no delusion. So what happened to Isaac that he couldn’t go along with God’s pre-revealed plan of action?

God’s plan had always been to use Jacob. He never used profane people (like Esau) to bring about particular pieces of His spiritual plan. God may have chosen to use a heathen king to get His temple built – that was just a building. But He chose not to allow even His unique servant, Moses, to lead the people into Canaan due to one event where he did not sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the children of Israel. (Numbers 20:12) No, the impression we get regarding Jacob is not that of a man of ‘low spiritual state’.

In further chapters of Genesis we see Jacob acting in a godly manner:
Genesis 30:2 Am I in God’s stead?
Genesis 30:27 The LORD hath blessed me for thy sake, Laban said.
Genesis 30:30 The LORD hath blessed thee since my coming, said Jacob.

In chapter 31:
The LORD tells Jacob to return home. (3)
Jacob testifies, ‘The God of my father hath been with me’. (5)
Jacob acknowledges God in his life. (9)
God explains how He has helped Jacob and tells him what to do. (11-13)
Rachel and Leah acknowledge God’s part and mind in relation to Jacob. (16)
God warns Laban not to harm Jacob. (24)
Jacob testifies of God’s help and goodness to him. (42)

In Genesis 32:1 Jacob is provided similar protection and revelation of it as afforded other favoured servants of God. e.g. Elisha in 2 Kings 6:17

Verses 9-12 record Jacob’s lovely prayer. O that more would pray as Jacob did in verse 10. These are not the words of a man of ‘low spiritual state’.

Statement #2   At last he is ready to hear God’s voice and to heed his calling.
(7th paragraph Here Am I)

Apparently the Here Am I writer is at liberty to ignore all the instances during Jacob’s life just outlined and discussed above. Even just considering these four occasions on which God spoke and Jacob responded: Gen 28:13-15; 31:3; 31:11-13; 32:29-30, we see that Jacob has been hearing from God and responding for 53 years (see Jacob’s Chronology page[i]).

Statement #3  . . .his only act of faith recorded in the hallway of faith, Hebrews 11, was from this episode in his life. (8th paragraph  Here Am I)

Many of us are increasingly wary of such Pharisaic comments made by people in relation to Hebrews 11. The Holy Spirit has chosen to mention certain things and purposely left out much that could have been said. One can’t help noticing that even David, the man after God’s heart, only gets a mention of his name. Others, like Elijah, are not even named. Does that insinuate something? No, it does not!

The comment made in reference to Hebrews 11 in this Here Am I article actually amounts to a waste of print. It says nothing of any consequence; and offers nothing of edification while possibly implying something quite negative and groundless. It is not the only paragraph, in this article, guilty of a rather weak attempt at application.

An additional point of interest
Joseph shall put his hands upon thine eyes. (2nd to last paragraph)

In addition to the meaning given, that  Joseph would be present at Jacob’s death, it is interesting to note from the writings of historical researchers that Joseph was also famous in his time for a number of things not recorded in Scripture.

One of these was that he was known for having knowledge and remedies in matters of health. One area specifically mentioned is eyesight. Apparently God blessed him with not only prophetic knowledge relating to famine and plenty but Joseph was also credited with the design, and overseeing the construction of, grain storage facilities, pyramids and such like. He was equally renowned for matters relating to health.

Some have suggested that the verse Joseph shall put his hands upon thine eyes may mean that Jacob would have his eyesight restored by visiting Joseph.

To those who will immediately get upset by any ‘outside information’ being considered, let me ask, ‘How do you know that the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 24:2, about the temple being destroyed, were ever fulfilled? It’s not in Scripture! Yet we hear countless preachers telling us that the army of Titus came through in AD70. How do they know that?

In conclusion, it seems incredulous that a believer writing an article could feel at liberty to malign one of God’s key characters in the Bible through concealing or deliberately ignoring strategic verses. Even worse, it appears this is done to enable the writer to conform to a pre-determined man-made view that he wishes to promulgate.

It seems, therefore, that the whole basis of the Jacob article in the Here Am I series is groundless. Sadly, it is based on a false assumption and therefore lacks credibility.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case in this particular magazine, as good as it it, as may be seen by reading some responses that refute and correct other erroneous aspersions, as shown on this website.

 

For a companion article from Paradise Publishing dealing with Jacob please read the Jacob in Genesis 28.20 article on this website.

[i] Jacob’s Chronology page is available for download on this website.

20 August 2013 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

Any contradictions I’ve read on calendars over the years usually seem to come about when writers quote from New Age versions and not the true Bible. Something of this nature happened again on the 20 August 2013 calendar.

The ideas behind what the writer K C U shared were probably fair enough but right in the middle of the comment we read:

The whole world lies in the wicked one.
(1 John 5:19 most New Age ‘versions’)
and in the same breath the writer is quoting from a passage that also says:

and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20)

The present ‘god of this world’ would like to think that we are all in his power, as in the New Age version of verse 19. But this verse is not a discussion about that. What verse 19 really says is: And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. [not in the wicked one as the New Age bibles will say.]

This is quite in keeping with what verse 18 says when it points out: We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The believer is not as the unbeliever who freely does the works of the “wicked one” (v18 not 19). The believer is begotten of God and keepeth himself, and because of this that wicked one toucheth him not. (italics quoted from verse 18) In complete contrast to the believer, those who are not believers, i.e. the whole world, that group lieth in wickedness. (italics quoted from verse 19)

The context of this is the earlier group of verses (16 & 17) that speak about sin. The believer’s new life in Christ is not characterised by sin as is the life of the unbeliever (v18). Then verse 19 says that the believer knows that they are of God, but the whole world (speaking of unbelievers) lieth in wickedness. Now get this: the unbeliever is so busy living in wickedness, as described in the context of verses 16-18 (and what verse 19 puts as lieth in wickedness) that they don’t even know who their master is. Think about it – you know that’s the truth because if they did really know, they would do something about it. And they don’t.

For some thoughts on something similar see 16 August 2012 Calendar Reading.

8 August 2013 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

The opening line of the comment written by VM on the 8 August 2013 calendar is:

Chapters of genealogies with all their names are recorded forever in God’s Word.

While we know what the writer means, we also recall the words of the apostle Paul:

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. (1 Timothy 1:4)

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9)

Sincere believers often fall into the trap of using the ‘worlds’ terms instead of the ones used by the Scriptures. Paul clearly exhorts believers to not give heed to and to avoid genealogies. So what is the correct thing for believers to do when it comes to such a matter?

When the Scriptures speak of such lists of names the term used is generation or generations.
Some examples are found in: Genesis 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12 etc, Matthew 1:1

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was careful to show the dangers that exist when people use man-made records to try to give foundation to teaching in the local church.

Clearly, God put the records of many names in Scripture for a purpose. He refers to them by the term ‘generations’ and so should we. We should never be seen to be in contradiction of the Scriptures.

10 June 2013 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

This relates to the daily reading written by MM on the 10 June 2013 calendar.

The text chosen by the writer was Habakkuk 3:18. The writer chose to use an ESV rendering of ‘I will take joy’. However my Bible says I will joy in the God of my salvation.

“Now that’s pin-pricking; only one word different,” I hear someone say. But is it just that trivial?

Please consider one simple thing that was obviously beyond the writer of the page: Certainly, there is only one word different. Let’s consider that word, ‘take’. It is being used as a verb here. The believer is exhorted in the writer’s comments to ‘take joy’. That word ‘take’ is the verb, is the action. The word ‘joy’ in that statement is a noun. It is what is being taken.

Now consider what the real Bible says: ‘I will joy’. Here the word ‘joy’ is a verb. It is something you could do. Nobody needed the ESV to make the point that MM was trying to make. In fact, the ESV doesn’t technically make it anything like as well as the true Scriptures. Does that surprise me? Not a bit.

Once again we have well-meaning people writing well-intentioned thoughts but in doing so changing the meaning of the Scriptures.

Sorry Mr or Madam MM, but you haven’t convinced me that your ESV is worth being burnt at the stake for. Start using the King James Bible and you’ll soon discover that the real meanings of verses are stated so plainly that you don’t need the work of man to run to. God has already provided a perfect Bible – just use it.

Sin questions – to get people started

Posted on by

Be warned – these questions will shake preconceived ideas and challenge the very foundations of doctrine, causing people to question what they thought they knew. They will divide groups. Hopefully they will cause readers to carefully re-examine the Scriptures in order to judge between truth and Augustine error.

Sin questions – to get people started

Did I need a sinful nature in order to sin?

Are any people found in the Bible who sinned but didn’t have a sinful nature?

Does the “were by nature the children of wrath” of Ephesians 2:3 refer to being born sinners? Or does ‘nature’ as used here refer to something else like the character of the person?

If Ephesians 2:3 means we are all born with a sinful nature, are we prepared to accept that this would mean that any baby or little child that dies would go to hell to face the wrath of God for eternity?

Do I sin because I’m a sinner? Or Am I a sinner because I sin?

Psalm 51:5 says: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Does this really mean David was born a sinner? Could this be a description of his mother’s condition?

If you want to have Psalm 51:5 making us all sinners from conception, then are we also prepared to accept that this would mean that all aborted, stillborn and miscarried babies would therefore go to hell to suffer the wrath of God because they were sinners?

Deuteronomy 1:39 speaks of a time when their “little ones” and their “children” had “in that day had no knowledge between good and evil”. What does this suggest?

Isaiah 7:16                This speaks of a time “before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”. When is that?

Romans 9:11            This was written about Jacob and Esau. “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil. . .” Does God regard a baby as a sinner?

In Acts 17:28-29 where Paul says “. . we are the offspring of God”, was Paul talking to believers or unbelievers?

If unbelievers are created in the image of God can they be created sinners?

Is it right that because Adam sinned, and since we’re all his off-spring, we have inherited his sin?

Is the Lord Jesus Christ a “son of” Adam too according to the generations in Luke 3 comparing verses 23 and 38?

If we can all be made guilty of Adam’s sin because of the reasoning used in Hebrews 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. i.e. that we were all “in the loins of” Adam and are therefore implicated in Adam’s sin. . . doesn’t this, by the same reasoning, implicate the Lord Jesus Christ also [make Him a sinner]? (In connection with this see the previous question.)

Does Romans 5:19 tell us that we are sinners because of Adam?

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:19)

If the first part of the verse [by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners] means that we are all sinners because of Adam, then what would the second part of the verse [by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous] have to mean? Do we accept the heresy of Universalism???

Look again at the consequences of Adam’s [and Eve’s] sin. What “punishments” were given to Adam and Eve as people? What “punishments” were promised to Adam and Eve’s off-spring?

Now consider whether your answers to the previous question are an accurate reflection of the question or relate to the “curse” that God put on the creation, including people, as a consequence of the sin. Is there a difference between implicated guilt and the curse?

What does the Bible teach about the consequences of sin in relation to accountability?

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Does God punish anyone for someone else’s sin?

Why might the enemy be so keen for us to believe we are implicated in Adam’s sin?

If I am born a sinner, am I accountable or someone else [who made me]? Could I then blame someone else?  

If I am born a sinner, how can I then become a sinner by actively exercising my God-designed will and choosing selfishly?

 

Implications / Ramifications

What doctrine of sin do we subscribe to?

What has influenced this doctrine so much over the years?

What groups actively promote the idea that we all are guilty for Adam’s sin? Why would they? What makes it so acceptable to many people?

Can we claim Biblical backing for the idea of “an age of understanding / accountability” and also claim Biblical backing for the idea that we all are guilty for Adam’s sin [being born a sinner]? 

Are the 2 underlying ideas of the previous question mutually exclusive?

Why do so many believers make excuses – “we can’t help sinning”?

Does God expect His people to keep sinning?  

Was it possible to keep the laws God gave?      

Did the people to whom God gave the laws think it was possible to keep them? (Exodus 24:3)

Did anyone ever get close to keeping God’s laws? What did God think of Enoch, Job, Zacharias and Elizabeth?

Is there a link between a cop-out doctrine and believers who claim lives of we-never-can-be-perfect as the norm?

What excuse do many believers use for their carnal and luke-warm spirituality?

Why should we ever accept the word of others over God’s Word? 

Download a PDF copy of these questions:  Sin questions

Some Scriptural teaching on the above will be posted sometime in the future, (D.V.).

11 December 2012 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

There are two things in the comments written by Mr H on the 11 December 2012 calendar that I would like to comment on.

1. The comment that “Looking back usually results in grumbling against God” seems rather narrow and ill-founded when we consider these points:

·         While the people who were around to see all that took place as God brought them out of Egypt remembered what the LORD had done for them they basically followed the LORD. It was those who never had anything to ‘look back’ to who caused the problems that brought in the Judges, for example. See Judges 2:7  And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel. and compare Judges 2:10 And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.

·         It may be true that Moses said to them, “your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD (Ex 16:8)” but the verse from Exodus that Mr H sites here is being used weakly to connect the ideas of ‘looking back’ and murmuring against God. The context of Exodus 16 is rather a different time and less specific group of people to those mentioned in Numbers 11:4-5 which is really the people and time under consideration, according to the text printed on the calendar page. If the verses in Numbers 11 don’t have the goods to make the pre-meditated case dreamed up by the writer, how is it permissible for him to just try to hook it up with another unconnected verse two books earlier in Exodus?

·         The aspect of ‘looking back’ that was at fault is that the people had the wrong focus. Had they thought about the wonderful deliverance brought about by the LORD then they might well have been grateful. It is when people focus on their own temporal preferences at the expense of what God has done for them that a problem exists. But ‘looking back’ itself can hardly be condemned.

·         The one example of ‘looking back’ that really stands out is this: this do in remembrance of me. (1 Cor 11:24) Part of focussing on the Lord Jesus in remembrance of Him involves ‘looking back’ surely.

·         Isaiah 51:1. . . look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Is that ‘looking back’? I think so!

·         Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works . . . Is that ‘looking back’? Rather!

·         What is wrong with ‘looking back’? Nothing.

Once again we have well-meaning people writing well-intentioned thoughts but not doing it in such a way that the Scriptures used can adequately support what the writer would like to get across. There was nothing wrong with them ‘looking back’ but there was everything wrong with them murmuring, especially when it was really against God.

However the writer has tried to make a connection between the mixed multitude [bad company] and murmuring against God. But bad company is not the root-cause of murmuring, although it may help fuel it. My advice – start again [writing the comment].

2. The second thing I notice on the page for 11 December 2012 is the pathetic ‘rendering’ of 1 Corinthians 15:33 [‘bad company ruins good morals’]. This narrow rendition of the verse is used because it suits the writer’s fallacious interpretation outlined on the calendar page. So writers can just choose whatever version they like to back up their ideas? Isn’t that rather hypocritical? What if the real meaning of a verse doesn’t suit the writer? Do they just find a version that does? Well that wouldn’t be too hard – you could even get one that says the opposite, as we have found sometimes!! But doesn’t it make a mockery of the idea that Scriptural verses are meant to be some sort of authority?

Do you know what 1 Corinthians 15:33 really says? Try this: evil communications corrupt good manners. Wow! That is another example of the Bible being light years ahead of history as we know it. Just think – that was written 2000 years ago and how up to date that is. “Evil communications” – they are with us all over the place in this day and age. What do they bring about? Exactly what the verse says – literally and on a broader scale too. Just look around at the younger generation especially. Why would you want to change what it really says?

No, the verse says much more than what Mr H’s version is going to narrow us down to. Just give the verse some thought and you might be surprised to see how much more it is really saying.

Sorry Mr H, but I wouldn’t go back to using either of the versions on your calendar page. They are letting you down. Start using the King James Bible and you’ll soon discover the difference. Maybe comparing Scripture with Scripture might start making sense too.

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