Category Archives: Interpretation

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!

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.

‘flesh and blood’ & ‘flesh and bones’

Posted on by

Carefully consider these references:

Matt 16:17      And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Heb 2:14        Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

1 Cor 15:50   Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

From the above we see that:
– the term ‘flesh and blood‘ is a clear reference to the human person
(Matt 16:17, Heb 2:14)
– ‘flesh and blood‘ cannot “inherit the kingdom of God”, so has no hope in its natural state of ever seeing heaven

Notice this. The Lord Jesus said to Peter, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”. He was saying in effect: ‘I never told you and neither did anyone else on this planet.’ He was acknowledging He was ‘flesh and blood‘.

Now consider this reference:
Luke 24:39    Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

We understand that this is a reference to the resurrection body of the Lord Jesus. [No doubt similar to what we expect to have one day when we return to earth with Him.]  It was this body which the disciples saw ascend into heaven! So this body of ‘flesh and bones‘ never came under the same constraints physically or spiritually as the ‘flesh and blood‘ body. The ‘flesh and bones‘ body could enter heaven but the ‘flesh and blood‘ body could never.

That’s fine, we can all accept that. But now think about this reference:
Gen 2:23        And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:

Doesn’t this strike you as being a very deliberate choice of words? It says flesh and bones. Why didn’t Adam speak of ‘flesh and blood‘? Does this suggest that Adam and Eve first had ‘flesh and bones‘ bodies when created and not ‘flesh and blood‘ bodies? Remember, this is said of Eve before they sinned.

Does this now explain why God said to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”. In other words, Adam and Eve were initially built for everlasting life, in bodies which could “inherit the kingdom of God”. They had ‘flesh and bones‘ bodies and not ‘flesh and blood‘ bodies.

After Adam and Eve sinned did God’s pronouncement of a curse on the earth and His words to Adam and to Eve bring about changes to their bodies?

As sinners they would not now be fit to enter heaven. But did the “thou shalt surely die” now take on a very real meaning also? Ironically, it was the ‘flesh and blood‘ bodies of Adam and Eve which guaranteed their physical death, yet we associate blood with being the key essential element to give life.

And how significant it is that the Lord Jesus shed His blood in that one eternally efficacious atoning sacrifice for sin. In order to make that possible He took on a ‘flesh and blood‘ body when “God was manifest in the flesh.” Note the words of Romans 8:3:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh…

The Scriptures deliberately record that the Lord Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

I wonder how much has never really been uncovered yet in Scripture regarding the significance of the blood of Christ. I’m convinced there must be more on the subject that we should know about, and that we never hear spoken on.

Reading below the surface

Posted on by

As you have opportunity to read a few books when they hit the market, and Christian magazines, you need to be awake. Not everything is always what it appears on the surface.

Consider this statement from one of the books I read a while back:

[speaking of the man it was written about]…“that he would be enabled to present a balance between the truth of the Word and the ministry of the Holy Spirit”.

Can you see anything in this statement worth commenting on? I imagine many see nothing wrong. This statement above embodies a lie, an outright deception, even though written by someone who would claim to be a Christian.

The “Word” referred to here is clearly meant as the Bible. Who wrote the “Word”? The Holy Spirit inspired the writing (2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Tim 3:16).

What is the ministry of the Holy Spirit? “..he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 16:13). But in the next chapter of John we read, “Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

How is it, then, that the Holy Spirit could ever be at odds with the Word [written]? …unless the writer’s perceived “ministry of the Holy Spirit” was not really of God; but was a fake, a counterfeit, a deception. The writer, possibly without realising it, is perpetuating what is blasphemy.

This nonsense is typical of the kind of thing many Christians are accepting because it is written by people who claim to be believers. We must always remember what Paul wrote to the Galatians when he said, …if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:9)  People need to see that the gospel Paul preached is the same and only gospel of grace by which anyone may be saved today. Writers like the above have accepted a gospel of grace plus something else. If it’s a gospel plus anything, even what they call “Holy Spirit”, they’re inviting the trouble Paul speaks of in Galatians 1:9. Remember that this is included in what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:4 where he speaks of “…another Jesus, …another spirit, …another gospel”.

Observe for yourself how many people who claim to be “Christians” are constantly living under some kind of curse. Is it because they also have accepted a gospel of grace plus something else? We hear from some folk that they no longer see any need to meet to “remember the Lord” as is clearly outlined in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, or they don’t now believe in a “rapture” – no wonder, if they accept any part of another Jesus, another spirit, another gospel.

“But we mustn’t judge anyone” we get told. Well, God’s Scriptures do! [Actually 1 Corinthians 2:15 and its context is clear when it says: But he that is spiritual judgeth all things.] So we just quote God’s Bible where appropriate. Let God be true but every man a liar. (Rom 3:4) It’s what God says that counts. It’s God’s Word as revealed in the Scriptures that we will all be judged against in a coming day. It is the standard.

It’s just everywhere; issues relating to what people refer to as God’s Word. The closer we get to the end, the more intense the battle for the truth, and, unfortunately, the greater the deception. We stand or fall on the Word of God. Instead of handing out trendy “Footrot Flats” look-a-likes we need to realise we have available in the ‘world language’ of English the no compromise, inerrant, pure Word of God, in the Scriptures, for which people in England, even, of all places, were prepared to give their lives [and be burnt at the stake].

Maybe the real problem lies with the belief of so many, who dare to claim the name of Christ, that their Bibles contain mistakes. [Sadly, very often they’re right. It’s often true – their ‘bibles’ do.] It is a joy to fellowship with believers who believe what their Bibles say and unashamedly, assuredly profess that “every word of God is pure”. How could we ever call God a liar?

Other ‘Christian’ books I’ve read in recent years were interesting but I can’t help wondering what God thinks of some of them. There were biographies and autobiographies that hardly give God a look in. Maybe He didn’t really figure in their experiences. Some were about well known missionaries, no less. An assembly magazine which is meant to inspire believers by its articles came across like a travel brochure.

But the thing that really stands out these days is the quotes. It’s trendy to quote all sorts of people or secular literature. We can read an editorial in a “Christian” magazine with its quotes of what godless people have said but nothing of what God says. Did I see that coming when I stopped our subscription to that magazine nearly two decades ago?

Revelation 13:16-17

Posted on by

Several years back there was an e-mail circulating with a Powerpoint presentation about Mondex and their “bio-chip”. It was well meaning but had one huge embarrassing error in it. While the presentation is now probably out of date in terms of its usefulness, this does illustrate an important point: Bible believers need to use truth not error to win others.

Note the underlined word in the verses quoted in the presentation (Revelation 13:16-17):

He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

But in the King James Bible that we are yet to find any errors in it says:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There’s a big difference. You can see which one is right. You might want to do what we did – ditch any Bible that doesn’t tell the truth – they are part of Satan’s conspiracy of lies. There’s one Bible in English that doesn’t lie or leave out bits – use it.

If you have a copy of the Powerpoint presentation about Mondex we suggest you amend your presentations – it’s very easy to do. [You can all copy and paste, and save.]

Meantime, folks, we should remember our chief mission as believers is to reach people for Christ. If they turn to Him now they’ll never see the situation arise where people have to go through a Luciferian initiation [“worship the beast” see Revelation chapters 13 & 14] in order to take that mark. If they don’t turn to Christ now, there’s a high probability that they won’t later [see 2 Thes 2:8-12]

But for those who do turn to Christ after the Rapture has taken place there are 2 specific requirements placed on them according to the Bible:

1. They must NEVER, on any account, accept the “mark of the beast“.

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. (Rev 14:9-10)

2.　They must always help and side with God’s people, the Jews.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40　And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt 25:31-46)

23 March 2011 Calendar Reading

Posted on by

This might be one from last year but I believe it highlights something which many folk don’t get to appreciate until they come to use a King James Bible.

For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you…And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new. And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
Leviticus 26:9, 11

Mr M comments correctly that the word “you” is found 5 times in these two verses, plus there are 7 more in the chapter. He asserts that this highlights the fact that God “deals with us always as individuals” and in doing so Mr M uses the words “intensely personal”. We all agree with Mr M that God has provided a means of sal­vation to the world (John 3:16) but individuals have to appropriate it and we agree that God’s personal interest in us as individuals is amazingly wonderful.

As I was writing this my teenage son entered the room and seeing what I had written up to this point commented that he also had read the calendar. My son then proceeded to tell me in his own words exactly what I am about to say! He had spotted it too.

As well-meaning as Mr M may be, he has based his whole comment on wrong interpretation. When “you” is used in the King James Bible it signifies plural [more than one] hearers. In the same way “ye” is used in the King James Bible to signify the hearers are plural. For singular [just one] hearer the King James uses “thee, thou, thy and thine”. This of course is one of the beauties of the wonderful King James Version. When we read in Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. . . you can see that the Lord was saying that while Satan was wanting to sift all of them (“you”) He [the Lord] had prayed for Peter (“thee”) that he wouldn’t fail . . Read it through again now that you know this and see what a different meaning it all takes on.

Mr M has fallen into the trap of presenting precious truth based on the wrong verses. He is not the only one to do this and have it printed by the calendar publishers. The verses he has chosen, by using the word “you” would actually suggest all those benefits mentioned in the verses to be with a group of people. And of course that is exactly what the truth is – God had established His covenant with a group of people.

So where has this well-meaning man gone wrong?

He has read the Bible verses as if they were written to him in the language of 2011. But they weren’t! This in itself is a trap commonly fallen into by Charismatics and Pentecostals who believe they can apply anything they like from anywhere in Scripture. We all need to remember that when we read the Scriptures it is like when we are reading someone else’s letter.

Firstly, the verses in question were written to the Children of Israel, a group of people, with a specific meaning intended. They were not written with me in 2011 in mind – apart from any secondary implications that the Lord, who knows everything, wanted to attach to the verses.

Secondly, just because we often say “you” today and use it to speak to an individual doesn’t mean that’s what God was intending in His message of Leviticus 26:9 and 11. He has specifically chosen to have it written in a plural form [i.e. intended for a group of hearers] – so I have no right to interpret it otherwise.

It appears Mr M has read the verses and spiritualised them. But why would you? If you’re looking for something to show that God’s dealings are with the individual, then why not choose verses that definitely show that?

Magazine No 188

Posted on by

I write with regard to magazine No 188. The Editorial states:

 . . He who was on equality with God, co-equal, co-eternal, “emptied himself” of his glory (Phil. 2:5-7). . .

The above statement seems to present a contradiction with the Scriptures.
How can someone who had equality with God, “empty” Himself of His glory and yet have it recorded by the disciple who was known for being the most physically close to the Lord Jesus: “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father..” (Jn 1:14)?

 Not only does the quoted verse 14 of John 1 speak of the glory of the man, Christ Jesus, but it states the glory as of the only begotten of the Father which in itself clearly identifies the qualities of that glory.

 In reading the very next chapter of John’s gospel account we get another mention of His glory, observed by men: This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; (Jn 2:11) One would have to ask, “How was He able to manifest glory? Where did He get this glory from?” And especially so, if He had supposedly “emptied” Himself of it.

 Why does Luke 9:32 state: But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

This was, once again, glory manifested by the Son of God, in human form.

 The editor would have us believe that the Son of God, in human form didn’t have any glory because He had emptied Himself of it. I cannot accept that premise on the basis of what I quoted above. But there is a reason why people accept this insidious heresy which in my mind is tantamount to blasphemy.

 It is very noticeable to those of us whom God has graciously opened the eyes of, that many bible versions based on the Revised Texts of Messrs Westcott and Hort have adopted the words “emptied himself”. The King James Bible translators have kept truth in tact by printing “made himself of no reputation”, which is in complete harmony with sound doctrine that “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16). But why are we surprised; when we consider the associations of these two men and their apparent hatred of sound doctrine? Why would anyone trust their manipulation of the Greek texts when their names can be found listed in the Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, as I found myself directed to in a public library when researching the men in question?

 The harmony of the Scriptures, in comparing Scripture with Scripture, demands that in the course of “being made in the likeness of men” the Son of God veiled His glory. He never ceased being what He eternally had been; neither could He. I reject, totally and utterly, any thought that the Son of God ever changed from being anything but God...manifest in the flesh.