Discover us
The EL-Bethel Christian network is a Prophetic and Apostolic Mandate, A New Creation Institution and a Non-denominational Christian Organization created to engendering a kingdom army of spirit-filled, thoroughly trained believers with a Passion to see God's kingdom come as agents of Transformation taking the value system and culture of the kingdom to every strata and sector of Human existence;
Through: -
Influence and Impact
Convergences and Platforms that equip the saints
Fellowship
One direct source of unbelief is the false promotion of Christianity (cf. Job 13:7). It is surely a great tragedy that many people have rejected the Christian religion as the true portrait of reality on the basis of the misconduct that so many who claim to be Christians have displayed. In fact, some who purport to be faithful Christians are nothing more than crackpots and religious wackos.
It is especially intriguing to take note of the so-called “miracle workers,” “tongue-speakers,” and “faith healers” moving about the religious world today. Where fifty to one hundred years ago, to witness their theatrical presentations, one would have to go to the “revival tent” set up outside of town, now one can see these pseudo-wonder workers on several television channels. Willing participants, whose emotional state has been carefully manipulated, swoon at the mere touch of the “healer’s” hand on their forehead or cheek. Prominent religious leaders who have built financial empires on the funds they have methodically extracted from misguided followers through threats, pleadings, and cajoling continue to have a heyday, supposing “godliness is a means of financial gain” (1 Timothy 6:5).
But notice that the “miracles” performed involve highly questionable diseases and illnesses nebulous aches and pains that defy medical substantiation. Even the professed “tongue-speaking” is highly subjective, and in no way parallels the New Testament practice of speaking known human languages without prior learning.
Scripture presents a very different picture. Jesus went about “healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matthew 9:35, emp. added). He gave the apostles these same powers “to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease” (Matthew 10:1, emp. added).
Included right along with these powers was the ability to “raise the dead” (Matthew 10:8; 11:5), restore shriveled or missing body parts (Luke 6:6-10; 22:49-51), and even give sight to a person born blind (John 9:1-7)! When was the last time one of these “faith healers” raised a dead person? Does God now place a limit on certain powers? Why will the tongue-speaker not come out in the open and convince unbelievers that their action conforms to the genuine New Testament gift especially in light of the fact that tongue-speaking was for the purpose of convincing unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)?
But then, if John knew what he was talking about, no need for miracles exists today (John 20:30-31). The Bible declares itself to be all sufficient and capable of providing man with every spiritual need (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The divine purpose for which miracles existed (i.e., to authenticate the divine origin of the spoken Word Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:4) has long since been served. All of which leads to this conclusion: the “wonders” being offered today are nothing more than “lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, emp. added), i.e., counterfeit, false, and deceptive (pseudous—Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 900).
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation (Extended Version.
In the Garden of Eden, God spoke directly to Adam, commanding him to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17). Centuries later, “the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision” while he dwelt in the land of Canaan (Genesis 15:1). The patriarch Jacob received a message from Jehovah via the “Angel of God,” Who spoke to him in a dream (Genesis 31:11). The Lord spoke directly to Moses at the burning bush on Mount Horeb (Exodus 3-4). The angel Gabriel brought messages from God to Zacharias, who was dwelling in Jerusalem (Luke 1:11-21), and to Mary, the mother of Jesus, who lived in Nazareth (Luke 1:26-33). Even Saul, who was on his way to Damascus to imprison any Jewish Christians he might find, received a “heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19; cf. Acts 9). A list of God’s appearances and messages to men seems almost endless. No Bible believer can dispute the fact that God has revealed messages to men countless times, either directly or through avenues other than written revelation.
The question often asked today is, “How do we hear God now?” Does He still communicate to people through dreams and visions like He did in biblical times? Should we expect Him to call upon us directly at any moment to do some great work, like Saul was called to do? Will God send an angel to me to disclose more revelation than what is given in the Bible? Or, similar to how Eli instructed Samuel, should I “go lie down” and wait on Jehovah to reveal some message to me (1 Samuel 3:9-10). In view of the fact that for millennia God communicated to people either directly or through avenues other than written revelation, why do some today claim that God communicates to man only via the Bible? Just how is it that we “hear God” today?
According to Hebrews 1:1-2, “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2, emp. added). In another contrast between the prophets of old (namely, Moses and Elijah) and Jesus, God instructed Peter, James, and John, saying, “This [Jesus] is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matthew 17:5, emp. added). Jesus informed His listeners on one occasion of the reason we must “listen” to Him: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48, emp. added). For one to be pleasing to God, he must learn and obey the words of Jesus.
But how do we “hear” Jesus? According to the New Testament, people come to know Jesus and His words by way of the of the apostles’ teachings. Consider the following line of reasoning from the Scriptures.
The night of Jesus’ betrayal, He prayed to the Father, saying, “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20-21, emp. added). The “their” of verse 20 refers to those for whom Jesus was praying in the preceding verses (17:6-19)—the apostles. Jesus prayed for the unity of future believers, which He stated would be based upon the apostles’ “word.”
On that same night, Jesus told the apostles: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (John 13:20, emp. added). After Jesus’ resurrection, and before His ascension into heaven, Jesus told these same disciples: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21). To receive the apostles’ teachings, then, was to receive Jesus.
But how do we receive the apostles’ doctrine today? Since all of the apostles are dead, via what method do the apostles speak to us in the twenty-first century? Paul answered this question in Ephesians 3:1-5.
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets (emp. added).
Today, a person can understand “the mystery of Christ” through the written revelation of men like the apostle Paul, who received the Truth “through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12).
Still, some ask: “Haven’t other men who have lived through the centuries, even into the twenty-first century, been inspired by God to reveal His message?” Actually, the Bible indicates that all Truth necessary for salvation was revealed during the lifetime of the apostles. The night before Jesus’ crucifixion, He promised His apostles that after His departure from them, the Spirit would come and guide them “into all truth” (John 16:13), teaching them “all things,” and bringing to their remembrance “all things” that Jesus taught them (John 14:26). After His crucifixion and resurrection (but before He ascended into heaven), Jesus then commanded these same disciples to “make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20, emp. added). The “faith…was once for all delivered to the saints” in the first century (Jude 3), so that since that time Christians have had “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).
Hearing God’s will in the twenty-first century is as easy as picking up the providentially preserved Bible and reading what Jesus’ “apostles and prophets” recorded for our benefit. God’s revelation thoroughly equips us for every good work (cf. 2 Timothy 3:17), so that no modern-day messages, dreams, or visions are needed. Nearly two thousand years ago, God revealed “all truth” to the apostles and prophets, who recorded it “by inspiration.” This “truth” is the standard by which all people are to live. And anyone teaching a contrary message will suffer eternally (cf. Galatians 1:8-9).
The question frequently is asked by those who are contemplating becoming a child of God, “How much do I have to know in order to become a Christian?” Some feel like they have to know virtually every detail in the Bible before submitting to the Savior to get rid of sin in their lives. Others believe they need every question under the Sun answered before becoming a Christian. Some want to know about the origin of the races. Others want to know whether or not there is life on other planets. The Bible, however, never indicates that for one to become a Christian, he has to know every detail about every book in the Bible, or that a person has to be able to answer every question that arises. But what, if anything, is necessary for a person to know before becoming a disciple of Christ?
First, an individual contemplating his spiritual life must understand that the reason there is even something for him to do is because he has sinned. Everyone who has reached the level of mental maturity (sometimes referred to as “the age of accountability”) so that he or she understands what sin is (cf. 1 John 3:4; 5:17), has sinned (Romans 3:10,23; 1 John 1:8). (The one exception, of course, was Jesus—1 Peter 2:22.) Sin is that which separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). For a person to be saved, he first must have knowledge that he is a sinner, and as such stands in a lost condition. One of the reasons Jesus condemned certain Jewish priests, elders, and sects was because they did not admit their sinfulness after hearing the preaching of John the baptizer (Matthew 21:31-32) though the tax collectors and harlots (i.e., sinners) did acknowledge their sin, and believed.
Second, the one who aspires to become a Christian must know something about Jesus—the One Who came to save us from our sins (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-8). A person does not have to know every one of Jesus’ parables, or be able to quote the Sermon on the Mount, but he must know that Jesus is the Son of God Who died and was raised so that all men might have their sins forgiven and live eternally with Him in heaven (Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9). In other words, before becoming a Christian, a person must have heard the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Finally, the individual who aspires to become a child of God must realize there is something for him to do (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:30; 8:36). If one understands that the Bible says he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24), repent of his sins (Luke 13:3,5), confess that Jesus is God’s Son (Romans 10:10), and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38), he or she then possesses enough knowledge to put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27) and become a Christian, being added by God to the church that Christ established (Acts 2:47; Matthew 16:18; Romans 16:16).
Contrary to the belief of some, a person who desires to become a Christian does not have to know the whole Bible thoroughly before he takes action. Nor is there a need to have every question imaginable answered. The Ethiopian eunuch heard one Christ-centered lesson from Philip before asking, “What hinders me from being baptized” (Acts 8:35-36)? The three thousand on Pentecost heard only one Gospel sermon before accepting the grace of God and obeying the plan of salvation (Acts 2:41). They did not wait around for years, thinking they were not knowledgeable enough to be followers of Christ. Rather, they were convinced of their sins (Acts 2:37), heard the Gospel, believed it, and obeyed it. It is after one becomes a Christian that God commands us a person to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18), and to continue to study the Word in order to teach others (Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 3:15).
As the apostle Paul was making his way toward Jerusalem near the end of his third missionary journey, he met with several disciples in the coastal city of Troas.
Although he was “hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16), he tarried in Troas for seven days with several other disciples (20:4-6). According to Acts 20:7, “On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Since Luke indicates that Paul did not break bread until after his lengthy lesson and the resurrection of Eutychus (20:11), many have questioned whether Paul and the disciples ate of the Lord’s Supper on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday? Others have wondered whether “to break bread” in Acts 20 even has anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. What can be said about such matters?
Paul admitting the to “break bread” in Bible times often referred to the eating of common meals. God once warned His prophet Jeremiah not to “break bread for the mourner” (Jeremiah 16:7, RSV). Jesus “took bread…and broke it” with the disciples to whom He appeared on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30,35).
The early Christians are said to have continued daily “breaking bread from house to house” eating “food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46). Paul once “took bread and…broke it” and instructed his 275 companions on board a ship to Italy to eat it for their “preservation” (Acts 27:34-35, NASB). In ancient times, to “break bread” was a figure of speech known as synecdoche where a part (to break bread) was put for the whole (to eat a common meal, regardless of the kind of food and drink consumed).
In New Testament times, however, the phrase “to break bread” was also used to describe the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted this special supper while celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread with His disciples shortly before His death.
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:26-29, emp. added).
In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the Lord’s Supper with these words: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (emp. added).
Paul later reminded the Corinthians of the night in which Jesus first instituted this memorial feast, saying, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, emp. added). Because part of this memorial supper that Christians are commanded to keep involves the actual breaking of bread, the expression “to break bread” was used in reference to the Lord’s Supper in the early church (cf. Behm, 1965, 3:730). Similar to how this phrase was used as a synecdoche in regard to common meals, it was also used to represent the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the bread and the fruit of the vine is referred to as simply “the breaking of bread”).
Because the phrase “to break bread” refers both to common meals and the Lord’s Supper, one must examine the context of passages in order to understand which one is being discussed.
For example, since in Acts 2:42 “breaking bread” is listed with other religious activities carried out by the church such as teaching, praying, and fellowshipping (from the Greek koinonia, which may include several aspects of “joint participation,” including free-will offerings on the first day of the week cf. Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; see Jackson, 2005, p. 31), one may logically conclude that “the breaking of bread” is a reference to the early Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
The use of the article in this verse also leaves the impression that a particular event is under consideration, rather than a common meal where “food” (Greek trophe, a word never used of the Lord’s Supper—Barnes, 1956, p. 59) is served for the purpose of gaining nourishment (e.g., Acts 2:46; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34).
But what about the use of the phrase “to break bread” in Acts 20:7? What textual indicators are present that warrant the phrase in this passage to be understood as the Lord’s Supper? First, the term “to break bread” is a first aorist active infinitive (Robertson, 1997).
Since infinitives in Greek and English denote the objective or purpose of action for the principal verb one can know that Paul, Luke, and the disciples at Troas “gathered together” for the primary purpose of “breaking bread.” When this information is processed in light of the fact that Paul earlier had written to the church at Corinth and implied that the purpose for them coming together was to partake of the Lord’s Supper (in an orderly manner 1 Corinthians 11:20,33), then the passage in Acts 20 makes much better sense: “to break bread” was (or at least included) the eating of the Lord’s Supper.
What’s more, Paul remained in Troas for seven days despite being in a hurry to get to Jerusalem before Pentecost (which was about 31 days, 10 stops, and 1,000 miles away cf. Acts 20:6,13-16; 21:1,3,7,8,15).
Why tarry in Troas for seven days? It was not simply to eat a common meal with the saints.
Rather, Paul desired to worship with the church in Troas “on the first day of the week,” which included observing “communion” with them (1 Corinthians 10:16).
But did Paul and the church at Troas really observe the Lord’s Supper on Sunday? First, it is possible that the bread Paul broke after spending all night preaching and talking was part of a common meal that he would have gladly received before beginning his extended journey to Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, when Luke’s terminology in Acts 20:11 is carefully examined, it appears that Paul ate two separate meals with the disciples: the Lord’s Supper first (“had broken bread”), followed by a common meal (“and eaten”).
This latter expression (“and eaten,” Greek geusamenos) “is nowhere used of the celebration of the Supper, whereas in Acts 10:10 it is applied to taking a common meal” (Jamieson, 1997).
The former expression (“had broken bread”) has the Greek article before “bread” (lit., “had broken the bread,” and “seems plainly to denote the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; their intention to do so being expressed in Acts 20:7, but their actually doing it nowhere if not here” (Jamieson, 1997; cf. Robertson, 1997; Woods, 1976, pp. 67-70; Wycliffe, 1985).
If Paul, then, waited to “break bread” until after midnight (20:7,11), would this not have been a Monday-morning observance of the Lord’s Supper? Regardless of whether the memorial feast was observed before or after midnight, one can be assured that it took place on Sunday, because it was “on the first day of the week” that the disciples met “to break bread.” The reason that eating the Lord’s Supper after midnight would have been acceptable conduct for many Christians is because the Jewish method of counting time was still widely acknowledged.
The Jews and the Romans used different standards for calculating the hours of the day, and although both systems split the day into two periods of twelve hours, a new day for the Romans began at midnight (cf. 2:79), whereas a new day for the Jews began in the evening at sundown and lasted until sundown the following day. Luke, like Matthew and Mark, used the Jewish method of reckoning time in both his gospel account and in the book of Acts (cf. Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 23:23; cf. also John 19:14; 20:1,19).
Thus, Paul’s pre-midnight preaching corresponded to our Saturday evening, but was the beginning of their “first day.” Regardless of whether they observed the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first day or the morning of the first day, it was observed on the proper day, the day on which Jesus rose from the grave (Luke 24:1) the first day of the week.
Christians should count it a privilege and honor to observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:22), and commune with the Lord and His people (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
Sadly, some in the twenty-first century may attempt to justify observing this sacred supper on some occasion other than the first day by alleging that the early Christians observed it on Saturday night or Monday morning. The important thing to remember in this discussion, however, is that the early disciples came together on the first day of the week to observe this memorial feast.
In the first century, when the Jewish method of reckoning time was still widely accepted, the first day began on what we call Saturday evening and ended Sunday evening. In the twenty-first century, most (if not all) people count time from midnight to midnight. Since God did not specify which method of time to use, but did specify the numerical day of the week in which the supper of the Lord is to be kept, Christians should abide by the standards of time wherever they reside.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1956), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Behm, Johannes (1965), “klao, klasis, klasma,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jackson, Wayne (2005), TheActs of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Following Israel’s exodus from Egypt, God instructed them to make a small wooden ark (box) overlaid with gold. The ark was 2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and 1.5 cubits high (or about 3.75 x 2.25 x 2.25 feet) and was called the “Ark of the Testimony” or the “Ark of the Covenant” because it contained the tablets of stone whereon the Ten Commandments were written (Exodus 25:16). According to 1 Kings 8:9, “Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone” (emp. added; cf. 2 Chronicles 5:10). The writer of Hebrews, however, indicated that the ark contained “the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant” (9:4). How can both of these passages be correct?
First, it may be that the Hebrews writer was indicating that the pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets were in close proximity to the ark, but not necessarily that all three were “in” the ark. Although most English translations refer to what was “in” (NKJV; Greek en) the ark or what the ark “contained” (NIV, RSV), the uses of the Greek preposition en “are so many and various, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible. Greek lexicographers give numerous definitions for this word, including: among, within the range of, near, before, in the presence of, etc. (Danker, pp. 326-330). Perhaps the writer of Hebrews only intended to communicate that Aaron’s rod, the container of manna, and the tablets of stone were all in close proximity to the ark in the Most Holy Place (the tablets being in the ark, while the manna and rod were “before” the ark; cf. Exodus 16:33-34; Numbers 17:10).
Second, it is also very possible that all three items were literally inside of the ark at one time, but not all of the time. Whenever comparing two or more Bible passages that might initially appear contradictory, one must be sure that the same time frame is under discussion. Such is not the case with Hebrews 9:4 and 1 Kings 8:9. In Hebrews 9, the inspired writer refers to the time of Moses, when “a tabernacle was prepared” (vs. 2; cf. Exodus 25-40). The statement in 1 Kings 8:9 (as well as 2 Chronicles 5:10) is from the time of Solomon, when he built the Temple, approximately 500 years after the tabernacle was constructed. Is it possible that the Ark of the Covenant once contained the tablets of stone, the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, while at another time (i.e., five centuries later) the ark contained only the tablets of stone? Most certainly (cf. 1 Samuel 4-5).
What about the allegation that “Aaron’s staff could hardly have fit anyway, since the ark was a box only 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits” (Wells, 2009)? The fact is, no one knows the length of Aaron’s rod. Rods served many purposes (e.g., for support, for administering punishment, as a symbol of authority, etc.; see Allen, 1996, p. 1022) and came in various sizes. In Aaron’s case, it appears that his rod was more of a symbol of his God-given authority than just a mere walking stick. What’s more, even if Aaron had used his rod for support, he may have only been five feet tall and needed a walking stick that was just 3½ feet long. Considering that an average walking cane today is only about three feet long, it should not be surprising that Aaron’s rod could have fit into a box that was nearly four feet long.
Indeed, the wording of 1 Kings 8:9 and Hebrews 9:4 are different. But reasonable explanations exist for the variation. There is no doubt that two different time periods are under discussion. Furthermore, as with many Hebrew and Greek words, it may be that the Greek en (in Hebrews 9:4) should be understood in a broader sense. Whatever the precise contents of the Ark of the Covenant at any given time in history, rest assured, 1 Kings 8:9 and Hebrews 9:4 are not contradictory.
REFERENCES
Allen, L.C. (1996), “Rod,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Danker, Frederick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition.
Wells, Steve (2009), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/.
Published February 17
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
We live in a pluralistic society where differing, even conflicting, viewpoints are seen as equally valid. This attitude has become very prevalent in our culture since the 60s. Television and radio talk shows continually stress that no absolutes exist.
Many consider truth to be subjective and relative. They insist that there are very few, if any, definites very little black and white, but a lot of gray. The matter is further muddled by the fact that on any religious or moral question, there are knowledgeable, sincere authorities on both sides of the issue. The general mindset is that since truth is so elusive, no one should judge anyone else. No one should be so arrogant or dogmatic as to insist that a certain viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint. Truth to one person is not truth to another.
But without even examining God’s Word, we ought to be able to see that such thinking is self-contradictory and unacceptable. Why? Because those who espouse it insist that they are correct. They are dogmatic in their insistence that “no one should be dogmatic.” They hold as absolute and certain truth the fact that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, they have to deny their viewpoint in order to hold it!
Especially in religion, people tend to take the foolish position that truth is elusive and unattainable. Only in the task of interpreting the Bible do people take the position that truth is relative, always changing, and something of which we can never be sure. We reason in religion in a way that differs from the way we reason in every other facet of our lives.
For example, when we visit the doctor, we communicate to him our symptoms and expect him to understand us. We expect him to gather all the relevant evidence (the verbal information we give as well as the signs our bodies manifest) and then properly interpret that evidence to draw the right conclusions concerning our ailment and proper treatment. He then writes down a prescription that we take to the pharmacist and, once again, we expect the pharmacist to interpret properly the doctor’s instructions. We take the prescription home and read the label, fully expecting to understand the directions. The fact that doctors and pharmacists may sometimes make mistakes by drawing unwarranted conclusions from the evidence they gather about our physical condition does not change the fact that if they gather sufficient evidence and reason properly about the information, they can arrive at truth regarding our medical condition.
Everyday we interpret thousands of messages accurately. We read the newspaper, fully expecting to understand what we are reading. We read novels with the same expectation. We watch the news on television, we go to the mailbox and get our mail and browse through it, fully expecting to interpret properly the messages being conveyed to us. The fact that misunderstanding sometimes occurs, does not negate the fact that more information can be examined in order to draw the right conclusions and arrive at correct interpretations.
We go through this process constantly—every waking hour of the day, day in and day out, year after year. We give ourselves credit for having the ability to operate sensibly and communicate with one another intelligibly. Yet we turn right around and imply that the God of heaven, the One Who created our minds and our thinking capacity, the One Who is infinitely wiser and more capable than humans, is incapable of making His will known to humanity in a clear and understandable fashion! When we come to the Bible, we do a sudden about-face and insist that we can’t be sure what God’s will is, we must not be dogmatic on doctrine, and we must allow for differing opinions on what is spiritually right and wrong!
Did God author the Bible through inspired men with the purpose of making known His will for us? Did God have the Bible written in such a way that we can grasp the meanings that He intended to convey? The Bible declares, “yes.” God has given man written revelation with the understanding that it can be comprehended correctly. This means that for every teaching, for every passage, for every verse, for every word in the Bible, there is a meaning that God intended to convey. That’s what Peter meant when he wrote: “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).
He meant that men did not decide what information to include in inspired material God did. God has given every responsible human being the task of ascertaining that one correct interpretation. There is only one correct interpretation to any given passage—the right one: God’s view!
Let us return to the New Testament and Jesus Christ Himself. Let us examine the very approach that Jesus took in interpreting Scripture. Let us discover Jesus’ attitude toward truth and revelation. Let us consider how He employed Scripture to face the assaults of those who would deter Him from conformity to the will of God. Then let us “go and do likewise.” Jesus’ own approach to interpretation may be viewed in terms of His attitude toward Scripture and His actual use of Scripture.
Jesus’ Attitude Toward Scripture
Concerning His attitude toward Scripture, several elements emerge from His life on Earth.
1. Jesus clearly considered Scripture to be divinely inspired through human instrumentality. He attributed David’s words in Psalm 110:1 to the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36). He treated Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:27 as an inspired prediction that most certainly would come true (Matthew 24:15). On the very day He visited the synagogue in Nazareth and read aloud from Isaiah 61, He declared the passage fulfilled in their hearing (Luke 4:21). He maintained that Scripture’s affirmation that Elijah was to precede the Messiah’s appearance (Malachi 4:5) was exactly what transpired (Mark 9:11-13).
At His arrest, He asked Peter two questions, the second of which further confirmed His belief in the inspiration of Scripture: “How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matthew 26:54). He attributed His selection of Judas to the inevitable fulfillment of Psalm 41:9 (John 13:18). Indeed, He was so sure of the inspiration of the Old Testament that even at His death, He quoted Psalm 22:1 (Matthew 27:46). Clearly, Jesus recognized Scripture as originating in the mind of God, thus imparting a controlling unity to the whole of Scripture. To Jesus, the Old Testament from beginning to end is inspired of God.
Jesus consistently approved the idea that Scripture has been preserved from error and is the Word of God in all of its parts. Not only did He receive the predictive elements of Old Testament Scripture, but also He acknowledged the credibility of the didactic and historical portions as well. Daniel’s historicity (Mark 13:14), Jonah’s fish experience (Matthew 12:40), the divine creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4), the reality of Noah and the Flood (Luke 17:26-27), Lot and the destruction of Sodom as well as the fate of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29,32), the widow, famine, and drought of Elijah’s day (Luke 4:25-26), and the leprous Syrian commander, Naaman (Luke 4:27) all attest to His conviction that Scripture is inspired fully “in all of its parts.” The credibility of the inspired writers was unquestioned and their literary productions contained no mistakes.
For Jesus, Old Testament inspiration extended to the verbal expression of the thoughts of the sacred writers. Jesus clearly embraced this understanding of the matter. He based His powerful, penetrating defense of the reality of the resurrection of the dead upon the tense of the grammar of Exodus 3:6. If God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the very moment He was speaking to Moses, though the three had already died, then they must still exist beyond the grave (Matthew 22:32).
The claim that Jesus made an argument based upon the “tense” of Old Testament language needs clarification. Actually, Hebrew has no past, present, or future tenses. Rather, action is regarded as being either completed or incomplete, and so verbs occur in the Hebrew Perfect or Imperfect. No verb occurs in God’s statement in Exodus 3:6. Consequently, tense is implied rather than expressed. In this case, the Hebrew grammar would allow any tense of the verb “to be.” Of course, Jesus clarified the ambiguity inherent in the passage by affirming what God had in mind. Matthew preserves Jesus’ use of the Greekpresenttense: “Ego eimi.” The argumentdependson God having worded His statement to convey contemporaneity.
When Jesus challenged the Pharisees to clarify the identity of the Messiah, He focused upon David’s use of the single term “Lord” in Psalm 110:1 “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” (Matthew 22:45). His whole point depends upon verbal inspiration. On yet another occasion, Jesus was on the verge of being stoned by angry Jews because He identified Himself with deity. His defense was based upon a single word from Psalm 82:6 “gods” (John 10:34-35). His whole point depends upon verbal inspiration.
Jesus’ allusion to the “jot and tittle” constituted a tacit declaration of belief in verbal inspiration (Matthew 5:18). Not only the thought of Scripture, but also the words themselves and the letters that formed those words, were viewed as inspired. The same may be said of Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 2:24 in His discourse on divorce. Notice the wording: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said…” (Matthew 19:4-5).
The verse to which Jesus alludes occurs immediately after a statement made by Adam. No indication is given in the text that the words are a direct quote of God. In fact, the words seem to be more authorial, narratorial comment by Moses, the author of the Pentateuch. Yet Jesus attributed the words to God. In other words, God was the author. The Genesis passage is not a record of what God said; it is what God said.
2. On the basis of this divine origin, Jesus also clearly demonstrated His attitude that Scripture is authoritative and that men are obligated to follow its precepts. When He described Abraham’s chat with the rich man in Hades, He quoted Abraham’s remark, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16:29). In so doing, He manifested His high regard for the authority of the Old Testament as the ultimate voice and guide for Israel.
To Jesus, Scripture is the foundation of belief. He declared, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25). He told the Jews, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life…. Had you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:39,46-47). Jesus asserted that the Old Testament bore authoritative divine witness to Himself and, in so doing, bore witness to the authority of the Old Testament itself.
Many instances demonstrate Jesus’ recognition of the authority of Scripture. In Matthew 12:39-40, Jonah’s experience (Jonah 1:17) foreshadowed Jesus’ own burial: “For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation” (Luke 11:30). In Matthew 4:17. Jesus opposed Jewish traditions and scribal commentary for making void the Word of God.
In Mark 12:10, to confirm the point of His parable, Jesus introduced an authoritative Scripture with the rhetorical query, “Have you not read this Scripture?” In Luke 4:21, Jesus declared Isaiah 61:1-2 to be applicable to those who were in His presence on that occasion. In Luke 24:27,44, Jesus expounded the Old Testament Scriptures and declared the necessity of their fulfillment a superfluous, futile exercise unless they were authoritative for His listeners. In John 15:25, words from a Psalm are described as “law.”
Perhaps the most striking proof that Jesus viewed Scripture as authoritative is the occasion when He ascribed legal authority to the entirety of Scripture a view also held by the Jews (John 12:34). By maintaining that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), Jesus asserted that its authority could not be annulled, denied, or withstood. Scripture’s authority is final and irrevocable.
It governs all of life and will be fulfilled, come what may. Clearly, Jesus’ uniform attitude toward Scripture was one of complete trust and confidence in its authority.
3. Jesus also viewed Scripture as propositional, absolute, and objective. Phrases such as “it is written,” “God said,” “through the prophets,” and “Scripture says” show that Jesus and His apostles esteemed the Old Testament as divine and regarded its precepts as absolute truth. Its objective and absolute quality is seen in His frequent allusion to the Jewish writings as a unit a well-defined, sacred totality (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:44; cf. Matthew 24:35). The apostles and gospel writers agreed with Jesus’ view that Scripture must be fulfilled (cf. Matthew 26:26; Luke 3:4; 22:37; John 12:38).
Even as a boy of 12, Jesus’ handling of Scripture as an objective body of truth was evident as He dazzled the doctors of the law with “His understanding and answers” (Luke 2:47). This characteristic continued throughout His earthly habitation. He contradicted His antagonists (e.g., the chief priests, scribes, and Sadducees) by pinpointing ignorance of the Scriptures as the cause of their religious error (Matthew 21:16; 22:29). He as much as said: “If you knew Scripture, you would not be in error” (cf. Mark 12:24). He prodded the Pharisees to consult Hosea 6:6“ go and learn what this means” (Matthew 9:13). On the other hand, Jesus knew Scripture (He ought to, He wrote it!), and used it as the basis of objective perception.
The propositional nature of Scripture is particularly apparent in Christ’s frequent use of isolated Old Testament statements (i.e., propositions) to prove various contentions. He used Psalm 110:1 to prove His lordship (Mark 12:36). He proved His Messianic identity and impending resurrection by alluding to an apparent conflation of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 (Mark 14:62). He proved His death and resurrection were imminent by referring to Psalm 118:22 (Mark 12:10-22; cf. Acts 4:11).
Jesus’ Use of Scripture
Not only does the New Testament enlighten us as to Christ’s attitude toward Scripture, it also gives us many striking samples of Jesus’ pragmatic use of Scripture in day-to-day life. At least three observations emerge from an examination of Jesus’ actual handling of Scripture.
1. He relied very heavily upon Scripture. He quoted from the Old Testament frequently. He constantly reiterated to His disciples how the written Word of God should permeate life (e.g., Luke 24:27). He consistently affirmed the certainty of Scripture’s fulfillment in the world (e.g., Luke 24:44-46). He possessed a sense of the unity of history and a grasp of its wide sweep (e.g., Luke 11:50-51).
Preachers were once distinguished by their “book, chapter, and verse” approach to preaching. This very quality was typical of Jesus’ own approach to life. Yet preachers and members today are far more impressed by the theologians and latest popular authors than with the words of John, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Moses. We have abandoned the primary sources in exchange for secondary, inferior, and in many cases, erroneous sources. We are now the most academically educated generation the church has ever known—yet we are the most ignorant when it comes to plain Bible knowledge. It is time to abandon the heart-warming anecdotes and reacquaint ourselves with the divine text. It is time to emulate Jesus’ own extensive reliance upon and allusion to Scripture.
2. In addition to a heavy reliance upon scriptural quotation, Jesus repeatedly demonstrated incredible proclivity for rationality in His sharp, potent, penetrating use of logic and sound argumentation. His first recorded responsible activity consisted of logical dialogue between Himself and the Jewish theologians at the age of 12. His logical prowess was evident not only to the doctors of the law, but to His parents as well (Luke 2:45-51). On the occasion of His baptism, He reasoned with John in order to convince John to immerse Him (Matthew 3:13-15). He advanced a logical reason to justify the action.
Immediately after this incident, Jesus faced Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11). Satan posed three arguments, urging Christ to act on the basis of erroneous reasoning. The sequence of the disputation between the two demonstrates Christ’s superior (i.e., accurate) use of logic to defeat His opponent. Jesus used direct statement, account of action, and implication. His allusion to the behavior of the Israelites, His use of direct statements from Deuteronomy, and His implied applications to the situation He was facing, all demonstrate a hermeneutic analogous to the traditional one that calls for “command, example, or necessary inference” as authority for belief and practice.
This incident also provides a marvelous demonstration of Christ’s mastery of debate and logical disputation.
The example is not an isolated instance. Jesus employed logic and reason throughout His earthly sojourn. He responded to His contemporaries with piercing, devastating logic. He continually was besieged with questions and verbal tests to which He consistently displayed rational, reasoned response (Luke 11:53-54). Consider these few examples:
The exchange with the Pharisees over eating grain (Matthew 12:1-9);
The dialogue with chief priests and elders over authority (Matthew 21:23-27);
The interaction with the Pharisees over taxes (Matthew 22:15-22);
The response to the Sadducees concerning marriage and the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33);
The argument posed to the Pharisees over the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 22:41-46);
The demonstrations of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:14-16; 14:1-6);
The response to the lawyers concerning the source of His miraculous power (Luke 11:14);
The answer to the scribes and Pharisees concerning fasting (Luke 5:33-39);
The handling of Simon’s disgruntled view of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50);
The exchange with the Pharisees concerning His triumphal entry (Luke 19:39-40);
The comments upon the occasion of His arrest (Luke 22:47-53).
Jesus was so sensible and rational in His discourse that when hard-hearted Jews declared Him to be mad or demon-possessed, others countered: “These are not the words of one who has a demon” (John 10:21). Indeed, Jesus consistently provided evidence, even empirical evidence, to substantiate His claims (John 10:24-26,36-38). How could anyone possibly question the fact of Jesus’ uniform use of logic and correct reasoning? He was and is the Master Logician who created the human mind to function rationally as well! His inspired followers were no different.
3. Closely related to Jesus’ emphasis upon logic is His virtually constant use of implication. Modern scholars are surely uncomfortable with Jesus’ use of what many have called “necessary inference.” Indeed, cries that call for an abandonment of implication in interpreting the Scriptures have grown louder. Not only is such thinking self-contradictory, it is patently foolish in light of Jesus’ own frequent and accurate use of implication.
Over and over, Jesus used implication. In Matthew 4:1-11, every case of Jesus’ use of Old Testament Scripture to counter Satan’s arguments requires proper reasoning and drawing of correct conclusions implied by the explicit statements. In Matthew 12:1-9, Jesus implied that if the Pharisees accepted David, who clearly violated Old Testament law, they should have no problem accepting the disciples, who did not violate Old Testament law.
In Matthew 21:23-27, Jesus implied that if the chief priests and elders believed John’s baptism to be from Heaven, they should have submitted to John’s teaching and to Jesus’ teaching as well. He further implied that if they believed John’s baptism to be from men, they ought to have been willing to face the peoples’ displeasure. The chief priests and elders had enough sense to infer precisely what Jesus implied and so refused to answer.
In Matthew 22:23-32, Jesus implied that if God declared Himself to be presently the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then they were still in existence. He also implied that if they were still in existence after their physical deaths, then resurrection of the dead is factual. Further, in context, Exodus 3:6, 13-16 are intended to identify the One who sent Moses to Egypt. However, in making this point, God implied that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still in existence. Jesus, in fact, was basing His point on a minor side point of the Exodus passage, but a point that is nevertheless clearly and divinely implied.
In Matthew 22:41-45, in response to Jesus’ question, the Pharisees identified the Christ as David’s son, no doubt alluding to 2 Samuel 7:11-17. Jesus cited Psalm 110:1 in order to encourage the Pharisees to fit two distinct concepts together by reasoning correctly about them and inferring what they clearly implied.
Notice also that in its original context, Psalm 110:1 referred to the supremacy and conquest of the Messiah over the world. But Jesus focused upon an implication of the passage that the Messiah would be both physically descended from David and yet Lord over David.
CONCLUSION
The Bible presents itself in terms of principles by which its truth may be ascertained. We can transcend our prejudices and presuppositions sufficiently to arrive at God’s truth if we genuinely wish to do so. There is simply no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your interpretation.”
There is only God’s interpretation. There is only God’s meaning and with diligent, rational study, we can arrive at the truth on any subject that is vital to our spiritual well-being.
Rather than shrugging off the conflicting views and positions on various subjects (such as baptism, music in worship, miracles, how many churches may exist with God’s approval, etc.), rather than dismissing religious differences as hopeless, irresolvable, and irrelevant—we must study and search God’s book, cautiously refraining from misinterpreting and misusing Scripture. If we give diligent and careful attention to the task with an honest heart that is receptive to the truth, we will know God’s will. We will be prepared, as Jesus said in John 12:48, to stand before God at the Judgment and be judged by His words.
It is evident that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, demonstrated several significant hermeneutical principles in His own attitude toward and use of Scripture. He approached Scripture with the abiding conviction that the Old Testament is the authoritative, absolute, propositional, plenary, verbally inspired Word of God. In His handling of Scripture, He relied heavily upon extensive Scripture quotation, proper logical reasoning, and implication.
so many in the church are participating in the culture-wide devaluation of God’s Word. May God bless us in our efforts to conform ourselves to the hermeneutical principles of Jesus.
Published Feb
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
