Through Psalm 119:12 certain benefits of God’s Word have been stated. First, those who keep His testimonies are blessed. Second, the one who listens to them does not walk in iniquity, remains undefiled, and is not ashamed. His way is cleansed. Third, the Word hidden in one’s heart (where it is usable) keeps him from sin.
In Psalm 119:13, the writer makes an evangelistic statement: “With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth.” This admission transcends learning, studying, and meditating upon God’s Word. An individual may say that the Scriptures are valuable, but the real evidence of it is declaring it to others. The writer has found the Word of God to be so valuable in the way expressed previously that he wants to share the message with others.
Christians have a better covenant, a better mediator, and a better message than those under the old law had (Heb. 8:6-7). We ought to, therefore, be the more willing to declare the good news of Jesus and the salvation that comes through Him. Are we as Christians too silent? Are we not speaking the truth when we have opportunities? If not, why are we not doing so? Do we lack the conviction of the value of the Word of God that the psalmist had?
The writer rejoices in God’s testimonies as much as in all riches (v. 14). Not many in the world share this attitude to this day—even though Jesus described the futility of storing up this world’s riches (Matt. 6:19-21). Even though Peter assures us all that the earth and the things in it will be burned up, nevertheless people often spend more time devoted to physical things than the spiritual. Even without having heard Jesus speak or seen Peter’s writing, the psalmist knew the value of God’s Word. This second section closes with three more affirmations of meditating and delighting in God’s ways and a promise not to forget His Word (119:15-16).
Divine Illumination?
The third section begins with a plea for God to deal bountifully with the writer—so that he will be encouraged to live and keep God’s Word (v. 17). Then he asks God to open his eyes in order that he might see wondrous things from God’s law (v. 18). One might not read all that much into this request if the doctrine of “Divine illumination”” had not surfaced. Some teach that we are too depraved to understand the Word and that God must therefore show us supernaturally (and directly) what He meant when He wrote it. This doctrine can be shown to be false in a number of ways.
1. Put those who claim Divine illumination in one room and those who do not in another. Give them each three verses of Scriptures and compare the results. How many ways can, “Thou shalt not steal” be explained? No one needs Divine illumination to understand the majority of Scriptures.
2. Give, as one of the texts to explain, 1 Corinthians 15:29. If all of those divinely illuminated do not agree, then somebody’s illumination is off. How can that be explained?
3. It must also be noted that, if people today cannot comprehend what God wrote 2,000 years ago, how would anyone understand our Divinely illuminated explanations in the next generation? The process would be a never-ending cycle.
The writer is asking for hindrances to be removed—perhaps prejudices, biases, false ideas that are all too often common—whatever would keep us from seeing the truth. Even distractions while we are reading and meditating might prevent us from seeing something applicable to our lives. Coupled with the next verse, this forms an antithetic parallelism: “Do not hide your commandments from me” (v. 19).
Would God do such a thing? He gave the commandments that all might be able to see; however, He does allow Satan to blind the eyes of those who do not want to see. This number would include those who do not have a love of the truth in the first place (2 Thess. 2:10). Some have always allowed their minds to be blinded (2 Cor. 4:3-4). The psalmist asks that he not have that kind of attitude. The reason is that he is a stranger on earth, implying that life here is short but eternity is everlasting. Thus, this life is the only time we have to get things right.
The Will To Do Right—Even Under Persecution
Verse 20 says that the psalmist’s soul breaks (is crushed or overwhelmed) with the longing for God’s judgments at all times. Thus, the intensity of the desire to know what is right and to do what is right is forcefully expressed. The writer well knows that God rebukes the proud—those who are cursed—the ones who know God’s commandments but stray from them (v. 21). The way in which God rebukes the proud would include: 1) the Word itself; 2) providential circumstances. God affords the wayward the opportunity to repent, but if they do not return to the ways they departed from, they will end up in ruin. God has not hidden His commandments from them, but they have hidden themselves from God’s commandments.
One can easily understand why the psalmist wants to be far from the contempt and reproach that the proud will receive. He is not worthy of such condemnation because he has kept God’s testimonies; thus he should be spared from all such wrath (v. 22). Even those as lofty as princes may speak against him, but accusations will not drive him away from meditating on His statutes. God’s testimonies are his delight and his counselors (vs. 23-24).
Persecution makes life difficult. Those in positions of power (whether in school, the work place, or even some brethren in the church) trouble someone so badly that it feels his soul is clinging to the dust, meaning that he is just hanging on from being consumed by death (v. 25). The soul melts (drops or falls) because of heaviness (grief) (v. 28). The Word has great ability to revive one who is so depressed (v. 25), and God can also work providentially to lift up those who are weighted down. God hears His faithful when they pour forth their hearts before Him (v. 26).
The faithful servant will continue to meditate on God’s wondrous works (v. 27) and asks that God remove him from the way of lying (error, apostasy). He desires the way of truth—to the point of clinging to God’s testimonies (vs. 29-31). Most of the time we read about walking in the path of righteousness, but this fourth section closes out with God’s servant declaring that he “will run in the way” of God’s commandments. When one is running, he is certain no obstacles will trip him; it is a safe course to pursue. God has provided this way, and to run the course is joyous; the heart is bursting to do so (v. 32).
Verses 33-35 summarize much of what has been said, but a new thought is introduced in verse 36: “Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to covetousness.” What is wrong with coveting? All things pertaining to the flesh and this world are “worthless things” (vs. 36-37). They have no value in eternity. As strangers, we have need of earthly things, but they cannot be allowed to blind us to what is really important—the Word of God.
God’s servant is devoted to fearing Him, which means he knows that if he sins, he will be reproached for it. God chastens those who love Him (Pr. 3:11-12). He pleads for God to take away the reproach that he dreads (and deserves). It may be that he temporarily was overcome by some worthless thing in the world and now knows how foolish that action was. God‘s Word (represents by “judgments” here) is always good; he prays to be revived in God’s righteousness (vs. 38-40).
The Word Supplies Answers
God’s salvation is extended toward everyone as the result of His mercies (v. 41). If it were not for these, we would all be lost. Which of us has not felt discouraged at times? Which of us has not desired worthless things on occasion? If we are honest with ourselves, we know how vulnerable to sin we are. For this reason we must continually read, study, and meditate upon godly precepts—that they may keep us from sin.
But those who follow God are always being persecuted by their fellow human beings—in this instance, fellow Israelites, but today those in the world or even fellow Christians. The Word of God, which God’s servant trusts in, provides answers on those occasions. The New Testament speaks often about Christians being reproached and persecuted (Matt. 5:10-12). Jesus said that, if the world hated Him, they would hate His followers, also (John 15:18-20). Peter said that, when people decide to leave a life of sin, the world would then speak evil of them, wondering why they have changed (1 Peter 4:1-4). He also told them to be ready to give an answer to those who ask a reason of the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15). God’s Word provides answers for us (v. 42).
For that reason the Word of Truth needs to remain constantly within us. The writer pleads for God not to remove it from his mouth, since it is his only line of defense. In fact, God’s ordinances form the basis of our hope (v. 43). What else do we have to live by? Where else can we go to justify our philosophy of life or to justify our actions? We walk at liberty; we are free to be servants of God. Servants of God, through His Word, can speak before kings and not be ashamed (as Paul did in Acts 24 and 26) (vs. 44-46). No system devised by man can deliver this kind of freedom (John 8:31-32). Only knowing that we are abiding in His love and in His law provides the confidence and assurance that He is with us. His commandments are not burdensome; we embrace and love them (vs. 47-48).
TRUST NOT IN LYING WORDS
Marvin L. Weir
One can learn from the things that were written in the Old Testament (Rom. 15:4). Some of our brethren today shun Old Testament examples as if they were a plague. I think I know why! The examples and the principles from Old Testament incidents are too clear to miss God’s point. The lesson learned from Nadab and Abihu is that God will not accept acts of worship He has not authorized (Lev. 10:1-2). True worshippers will seek to please God—not man.
Uzzah thought the ark of the covenant might fall and took hold of it with his hand, WHICH CAUSED God to strike Him dead immediately (2 Sam. 6:6-7). The lesson learned from Uzzah is that the situation or circumstances do not negate God’s commandments. Naaman did not believe dipping in the Jordan River seven times was necessary to cure his leprosy. He thought that his cure would surely come about in a way that he imagined, but he was wrong (2 Kings 5:1-14)! The people of Noah’s day did not believe it was necessary to enter into the ark to be saved. Except for eight people, the entire world drowned in the universal flood (Gen. 7:23).
To side with the majority who refuse to comply with God’s will is disastrous! Jeremiah said to his people,
Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, are these (Jer. 7:4).
These were God’s people in God’s house, and thus they concluded that all was well with their souls. Not so! They had trusted in “lying words” and they were lost.
A true parallel today can be seen in members of the Lord’s church (God’s people) who assemble together (as is commanded) on the Lord’s Day and then conclude that God is pleased with their worship. The truth is that far too many brethren today are listening to “lying words” from the classroom and the pulpit.
Let us learn from Jeremiah that sin must be repent-ed of and attitudes must be corrected before one can please God. The prophet said to the people:
For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute justice between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your own hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, from of old even for evermore. Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods that ye have not known, and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered; that ye may do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith Jehovah (Jer. 7:5-11).
First, in order to please God, one’s “ways” and “doings” must be “thoroughly” amended. Not many today want to change or improve the way they have chosen to live! Brethren want to wallow in worldliness and be told that they are on their way to Heaven. There is an abundant supply of those who call themselves “gospel preachers” who will strive to coddle brethren with “lying words.” Souls will be lost, but the building will be full!
Second, to please God one must understand that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. Justice, not oppressing your fellowman, protecting (instead of murdering) innocent blood, and refraining from serving false gods is always good. Lying words, stealing, murder, adultery, and worshipping something other than the true and living God is always wrong. What a pity that so many believe “right” to be whatever society chooses it to be! The passage of time or the approval of society will never make a wrong thing right. Brethren, do not be deceived and trust in lying words that cannot profit (Jer. 7:8).
Third, to please God one cannot mix innovations and entertainment in with prayer and the Lord’s Sup-per and then sing that all is well with his soul. Many brethren today are no different than the people of Jeremiah’s day. So many today pervert the true gospel by proclaiming another gospel (Gal. 1:6-7) and by incorporating denominational gimmicks into the worship. They then scream long and loud that they “have been delivered” by the Lord (cf. Jer. 7:10). Not so!
Fourth, whatever God has not authorized in worship is an abomination (cf. Jer. 7:10). If God were speaking today to faithful gospel preachers as He did the prophets, He would surely say about many congregations:
Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith Jehovah (Jer. 7:11).
Brethren, in view of the value of your soul (Matt. 16:26), why choose to trust in men’s “lying words”? One who proves and tests what he believes by the Bible (1 John 4:1) will heed the warning and “trust not in lying words.”
—from Bonham St. Beacon (Paris, Texas) October 3. 2010
The writer of Psalm 119 is not known; some believe that it was David; others think the great scribe Ezra penned these marvelous words. In either case, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as all Scriptures are (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It is by far the longest psalm (176 verses). The Hebrew alphabet contains 22 letters, the number of sections into which the psalm is divided. Many translations put the Hebrew character and the name of the letter at the beginning of each section, and every verse contained within it starts with the same letter. Imagine trying to write eight consecutive verses in English beginning with x!
The psalm begins, “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord” (v.1). God has always had a way (or path) to walk in. The righteous man does not stand in the path of sinners (Ps. 1:1); he follows God who leads him “in the path of righteousness” (Ps. 23:3). Christianity is called “the way of righteousness” (1 Peter 2:21) and “the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10). Jesus Himself is the Way (John 14: 6). God has always had a way in which His children are to walk. That way is revealed in the Scriptures.
Sometimes it is referred to as the law of the Lord. The Law of Moses was designed to be temporary; it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Today we have a better law and a better covenant (Heb. 8:6-7)—it is “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). Regardless of which covenant we live under, God has always designed the law to keep us undefiled. James writes about pure and undefiled religion (1:27). But God made it known under the Law of Moses that the people were to be holy, as God is holy (Lev. 19:18), a precept that is repeated in the New Testament (1 Peter 1:15-16). In a world where laws and cultures are continually changing, only the Word of God (which because of its source is objective in nature) can be trusted. The Word teaches us to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1).
The result of walking in His ways and being undefiled (holy) is that we are blessed. No one ever regrets not having chosen defilement. Aren’t we blessed when we wake up each morning without a hangover and nausea? Aren’t we grateful that we do not need to make a trip to the doctor because of an STD that we contracted because of lascivious behavior? Aren’t we thankful that we can start out each day with prayer instead of a guilty conscience? The child of God who walks in His ways is genuinely blessed.
Also blessed are those who seek God with a whole heart. This expression appears thirteen times in the Bible, and six of those are in Psalm 119 (2, 10, 34, 58, 69, and 145). The first four of these are similar; the last two express a different idea. Verse 69 contains a contrast: “The proud have forged a lie against me, but I will keep your precepts with a whole heart.” This means that, despite what others do—even to the forging of a lie to cause trouble—nevertheless, the evil actions of others will not cause the writer to engage in their tactics or to become discouraged to the point giving up or even allowing his faith to be diminished at all. What others choose to do cannot affect our faith.
Verse 145 shifts the emphasis a little bit; the writer says, “I cry out with my whole heart; hear me, O Lord! The significance of the whole heart is that one’s purpose of will is not divided—part of it leaning in one direction, and part in the other. The commitment is thorough and directed to a specific goal. Usually the aim of the whole heart is to keep the Word of God, but in the last passage cited, the focus pertains to crying out to God (perhaps because of being in dire need or anguish). However, the promise is still made “I will keep Your statutes.”
God’s people must not be half-hearted or double–minded (James 1:8). All of those who seek God with the whole heart also do no iniquity (Ps. 119:3).
The Command
How often have people remarked, “God did not give The Ten Suggestions”? This is a humorous way of calling attention to the fact that they are The Ten Commandments, but the application of that principle may be broader than most people realize. Psalm 119:4 expands the idea: “You have commanded us to keep Your precepts diligently.” Notice that the writer is not just talking about ten statutes.
How many precepts, therefore, were his fellow Israelites to keep? The word all is not used. Neither was the word every used in, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). It would be difficult to imagine, however, an Israelite (after keeping seven consecutive Sabbaths) saying, “I don’t believe He meant for us to keep this next one.” Those who are seeking God with a whole heart cannot delete precepts they do not like. Likewise, when Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord. Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven,” did He only mean 30% of His Father’s will? 50%? 95%? To ask the question is to answer it.
Not only are we commanded to keep the precepts, but we are to keep them diligently. Actually, God made this point several times when He gave the law to Moses, as the following verses indicate (all of the emphasis is added):
and said, “If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the Lord who heals you” (Ex. 15:26).
“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deut. 6:6-7).
“You shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, His testimonies, and His statutes which He has commanded you. And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land of which the Lord swore to your fathers” (Deut. 6:17-18).
Oftentimes a promise is attached to keeping God’s Word with diligence, such as not having the diseases of the Egyptians or conquering the land. So it is in Hebrews 11:6. The Lord is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Christians today cannot afford to be slothful or haphazard in keeping God’s precepts, either. Our reward is nothing so immediate as a physical territory or freedom from diseases, but we do anticipate eternal life. Let us also not fail to teach our children (Eph. 5:4).
Sin Prevention
Translations of Psalm 119:5 vary, but if there is a better word than directed here (such as establish), the same thought is found in verse 36: “Incline my heart to Your testimonies….” This plea suggests at least two ideas. The implicit one is that God would prevent the writer from doing that which is contrary to His will, similar to: “And do not lead us into temptation but deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13). The positive side of this expression is a plea for God to help him to want to do what is right. God neither prevents nor directs us by overriding our free wills—even if that were our desire. He does these things through His Word and through His providence.
The psalmist recognized the role of the Word of God in fighting against sin: “Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You” (Ps. 119:11). This verse suggests more than memorization—it is rather what we call internalization. The Word of God is not just tucked away somewhere in the recesses of our mind; it is readily available and the basis of what we live by. Should temptation unexpectedly confront us, we have a ready answer because the Scriptures are in our heart. We have often noted how Jesus resisted the devil easily by quoting and applying correctly the Word that was in His heart.
Another plea for God’s providence immediately follows: “Blessed are You, O Lord! Teach me Your stattutes” (v. 12). Obviously, the psalmist knows of his own obligation to learn. But God can assist with a conversation with a friend or an incident that illustrates the lesson we need to learn. Those who lived under the old covenant, who were spiritually-minded, knew that God was working providentially on their behalf. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 3:5-6:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
Many translations, instead of direct your paths, have make your paths straight, but the idea is the same—that God is acting in a positive way for our spiritual growth and well-being. He aids us and, again, is asked to prevent us from wandering from His commandments (Ps. 119:10).
The purpose for abiding in the Word this way is so that we will not be ashamed when we look at the commandments (Ps. 119:6). James said that the perfect law of liberty allows us to see ourselves as we are (1: 25)—and we have an obligation to make the appropriate changes. Seeing room for improvement is a good thing, surely we do not want to evaluate ourselves and feel ashamed. As we learn and grow we want to praise God for His righteous judgments (Ps. 119:7). When we apply them properly our ways are cleansed (Ps. 119:9). Keeping the statutes God has revealed will keep Him from forsaking us utterly (Ps. 119:8).
I NEVER INTENDED TO QUIT
Gus Nichols
A man who had not attended one service of the church in four years told me he had never thought of “quitting” the church. I reminded him that he had:
1. Withdrawn his presence from the services.
2. Refused to give his moral support to the activities of the congregation.
3. Withdrawn his financial support, for he had not given one dime to help carry on the Lord’s work.
Then I asked, “What else would you have to do in order to ‘quit’ the church? In case you ever decide that you no longer desire to be a member, what other steps will be necessary to ‘quit’ the church?”
As the true status dawned upon him, his expression reflected his sober thought. He replied, “Why, brother Nichols, I’ve already quit, haven’t I? Well, I surely didn’t mean to! And I don’t know when I quit. I’m coming back.” He did too. At the next service, he was restored and three years later he [was] still faithful.
Dear reader, how about you? Have you “quit” the Lord and His church without resolving to do so? Perhaps no one deliberately decides to quit, but many carelessly drift into backsliding.
If you quit attending services, quit boosting the program of activities planned by the elders, and quit giving as God has prospered you to enable the congregation to meet its budget, you need to be restored.
ARE YOU FORGIVEN?
By Don Boyd
God offered the opportunity for all of mankind to be forgiven (John 3:16), but we know that most will die outside of God’s forgiveness (Matt. 7:13-14). Now ask yourself this question, “Has God forgiven me of my sins?” If I am not forgiven, I am not going to heaven. How can I be sure that I am forgiven?
God did His part in offering forgiveness to mankind by allowing Jesus to suffer and die the cruel death of the cross (Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:1-7). God has done His part; now we must do our part to obtain forgiveness. There are stipulations that God has set forth.
The first thing we must do to have forgiveness is obey God’s plan for our salvation. Jesus, the One that died for us, gave plain instructions about what man must do to be saved. We must believe that He is the Son of God (John 8:24). Jesus is part of the Godhead, and we must acknowledge that fact (Col. 2:9). Next we must repent of our sins, which means having a change in thought that leads to a change in lifestyle (Luke 13:3). We will then make the good confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:37) and be baptized for the remission of our sins (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:38; 22:16).
Some say, “My preacher says I do not have to be baptized to be saved.” Did your preacher die for your sins? Did he suffer for you on the cross? The One that did these things commands baptism. If your preacher says that you do not have to be baptized to have salvation, he is a liar and does not believe Jesus. Forgiveness is a spiritual blessing that is found only in Christ (Eph. 1:3), and the only way to get into Christ is through baptism (Gal. 3:27). Baptism is the only way we contact the saving blood of Christ (Rom. 6:3-7). If you will believe and obey what God says instead of what man says, then you will be like those on the day of Pentecost that were baptized because they gladly received the word spoken by the apostles (Acts 2:38, 41).
Once we become a Christian, which can only be done through obeying the commands of God (as listed above), there are other stipulations that God has set forth for us to continue to have forgiveness. We must walk in the light to have Jesus’ blood continue to cleanse us (1 John 1:7). Walking in the light refers to being obedient to God’s commands and consists of many different things. We must have a forgiving attitude toward others if we want to be forgiven. Jesus said that our forgiveness was based on the way we forgave others (Matt. 6: 14-15). We must be willing to forgive every time someone that has wronged us repents. Jesus also said to forgive a brother—even if he trespassed against you seven times in a day—if he repented (Luke 17:3-4).
It is our obligation to rebuke with love the person who sins against us so that he will be willing to repent and we can forgive him. Holding grudges against others is a sin that is not Christ-like and will cause us to miss heaven. Our old man of sin was destroyed in the act of baptism (Rom. 6:6), and we are not to resurrect it. We are to live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4) which includes: “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy [which is a heart of compassion, db], kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye” (Col. 3:12-13). We must do these things to walk in the light (obey God’s commands) and have our sins washed away.
We will continue to sin, and we must confess those sins to God and repent (1 John 1:8-10). Obedience to God is a must if we want to continue to be forgiven of our sins. Once-saved-always-saved is just another lie of the denominational world (1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Peter 2:20-22).
We must obey all of God’s commands (walk in the light) to remain forgiven, such as: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together (a willful sin with eternal consequences) (Heb. 10:25-31); teaching others (Mark 16:15-16); dressing modestly (1 Tim. 2:9-10); worshipping God in His authorized way (John 4:24; 1 Tim. 2:8, 12; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16-17); and many other commands that we find in the New Testament. We can study God’s Word to see what God requires (2 Tim. 2:15; 3:16-17). To be forgiven we must obey God’s commands for our salvation and then continue to live faithfully unto death (Rev. 2:10). Look honestly at your life. Are you forgiven? Blue Springs Bulletin (September 26, 2010)
According to Wikipedia, Bill Hybels is “the founding and senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois,” which has more than 15,000 members. Besides this achievement, he is also the author of some best-selling books. Like Rick Warren (The Purpose-Driven Life), Hybels was trained in Baptist theology, but neither of them has opted to use the name Baptist. Both men have been highly successful, as the religious world defines success. Both men are Calvinists and teach the “faith only” error.
Hybels has a new best-seller, The Power of a Whisper: Hearing God, Having the Guts to Respond. Does he really advocate that God whispers to people today? Unfortunately, he does, citing the first time God spoke to him as a child. Thanks, Bill, all that the religious community needs is more nuts who think that God is speaking to them personally (regardless of the amount of volume that He uses).
This congregation was visited two months ago on a Sunday evening by a woman who claimed that God spoke to her all the time. She thought she was full of the Spirit, but the rest of us determined that it was only malarkey. She spewed forth like a broken water pipe, and people had to interrupt just to get a word in edgewise. She affirmed that God had spoken to her just that evening during worship. When asked what He said, she responded, “I’d better not say. You’d think it was silly.” Certainly, that response was a possibility.
The question was put to her: “If God is speaking to you, how is that different than Him speaking to the apostles and prophets?” She admitted that there was no difference. “Then don’t you owe it to everyone to write all of those words down so that the whole world could have them?” She said that maybe she should. Eventually (after an hour or so) she ran out of steam but vowed to be back the following Wednesday evening for Bible study. We never saw her again.
How God Speaks
There is not a verse in the King James Version in which God is said to whisper to anyone. The only passage that comes close to it is the one in 1 Kings 19:11-12. Verse 13 is also included below.
Then He said, “Go out, and stand on the mountain before the LORD.” And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.
So it was, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. Suddenly a voice came to him, and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
The Pulpit Commentary says of the phrase in question that the Hebrew expression literally means “a voice of gentle silence” and that it is the equivalent of our word dumb (5:1:461). Concerning the meaning of the verse, they add:
What was the object and meaning of this succession of signs? First, let us remember that Elijah was a prophet of deeds. He taught his contemporaries not by word but by act. He is here taught in turn by signs. There passes before him in the mountain hollow, in the black and dark night, a procession of natural terrors—of storm, earthquake, and fire. But none of these things move him; none speak to his soul and tell of a present God. It is the hushed voice, the awful stillness [that] overpowers and enchains him.
What words Elijah may have heard are not recorded, but when he went out and stood at the entrance to the cave, a more audible voice that spoke to him—not one of “gentle silence.” This one apparently spoke in normal fashion, as if God and Elijah were having a regular conversation. So 1 Kings 19:11-12 reveals the only time (unless something else is being overlooked) in the history of the world that God came close to whispering to someone. Yet Hybels would have people believe that He whispers to people all the time.
God has chosen a variety of ways to communicate in the past. As the Lord was rebuking Aaron and Miriam for their complaint against their brother, He told them:
“Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make Myself known to him in a vision, and I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings…” (Num. 12:6-8a).
Actually, God spoke in some peculiar ways in the Old Testament—not only in dreams and visions, but through the mouth of a donkey. Even with the establishment of the church, God used visions, dreams, prophecy (Acts 2:17-18), the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:8-10). All of these methods of communication, however, were to be done away when that which was perfect (the complete revelation of God’s Word) was come (1 Cor. 13).
In other words, God used some means of revelation prior to the Christian era that He no longer uses, such as the Urim and Thummim. The writer of Hebrews noted these differences at the very beginning of his epistle:
God, who in various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son… (Heb. 1:1-2a, emph. added).
In the New Testament God continued to speak by inspiration in various ways—but only until He had given “us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Once the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and recorded in written form, the spiritual gifts, through which the revelation came, ceased. The church, in its infancy, had the Word of God proclaimed through inspiration—through the various gifts. They did not have the completed Word. We have the Word and need not the gifts which confirmed that the message was of God. The Word is both authoritative and sufficient, however, whether it is in spoken or written form. Paul charged Christians: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15, emph. added). Whether the Word was spoken orally or written down, it was inspired and valid.
What Are the Whispers?
If we have the complete revelation of God, as the Scriptures insist, then God has nothing new to say to us. In other words, if He gave us “all things,” then what did he omit? “Oops, I left some things out. I will give them to Joseph Smith in 1830.” “Oh, yes, and I have other things that I’ll give to Mary Baker Eddy.” “Oh, and for Bill Hybels I will have to whisper.” How absurd are all of these claims in light of the truth! In order to believe that God still speaks to man today, one must believe that He was not a careful planner and forgot to include certain critical information, which would be, in effect, to say that God is not omniscient.
Some advocate that today’s “whispers” are only informational and directional. By that they mean that God may “speak” to them in order to give them directions, as an angel of the Lord did to Philip (Acts 8:26). Occasionally, someone with these beliefs will approach another person about the gospel because the “Spirit” told them to, which actually happened to G. K. Wallace on one occasion. He was asked by a total strang-er: “Are you a Christian?” He inquired why the person questioned him in this manner and was told that the Holy Spirit had laid it upon his heart to do so. Wallace replied that his sins had been removed by the blood of Christ when he was baptized many years previously, and that the Holy Spirit knew that he was a Christian. He concluded by telling the deluded soul: “Some other spirit must be talking to you.”
Others say that the Holy Spirit brings to their remembrance His teaching (a verse of Scripture, perhaps) to keep them from sinning. How are these whispers, recollections, and nudges to be explained? They are not difficult to comprehend. We are the product of what we have been taught. Therefore, if we are about to do something wrong, it is not unusual that a Scripture we have learned should come to mind. An individual on the verge of committing adultery, for example, might think of the pain and sorrow that David experienced when he gave into that temptation. Or he might recall 1 Corinthians 6:18 or Hebrews 13:4. It is not the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to him but the surfacing of principles that he has been taught.
As a youth, a denominational preacher was taught by his mother to despise cigarettes. She would throw one on the ground and make him stomp on it, saying, “No, no, no. Bad, bad, bad.” Years late, as a teenager, he was out with his “friends”; one of them gave him a cigarette and invited him to join them in a smoke. He immediately threw the cigarette on the ground and stomped on it, repeating, “No, no, no. Bad, bad, bad!” Needless to say, his friends looked at him in astonishment. It was not the Holy Spirit, however, who caused him to pulverize the cigarette while denouncing it. It was the training he had received. We teach children Bible verses with the idea that they will remember them in times of temptation, as Jesus did (Matt. 4:1-11). If they should give in to the temptation, we pray that their conscience will afterward smite them.
Speaking of conscience, it is that voice that speaks to each of us, saying, “You shouldn’t have done that.” We all have thoughts floating around in our minds (although in a few cases it is debatable); many of these are random and in search of coherence. How many millions of bits of memory are also stored there? How often do we find ourselves humming or singing a song that we haven’t thought of in years? Some things we have seen or heard we try to dismiss and would be happy if they never entered our consciousness again. Other things we repeat so that they will remain.
Those who have read the Bible and hear Christian principles taught regularly certainly know that God has moral principles that He expects us to abide by. If a child steals a candy bar from a store, he at first may be delighted, but then he hears that voice, saying, “You should not have done that; stealing is wrong.” God has not spoken to him directly—his conscience has spoken to him, which God gave him. On the other hand, we know that we ought to reach the lost with the gospel; so on occasion we may hear that conscientious voice telling us that we really ought to take advantage of a situation and speak to someone about his soul.
The Dangers of this Doctrine
These thoughts must not be attributed to God. In the first place, few, in the final analysis, believe that God has continued to speak since the final covenant was revealed by God in the first century. Where is the book that is accepted by everyone as inspired of God since that time? Does anyone have the volume, Second-Third Century Scriptures? How about God’s Holy Word in the Middle Ages? How about a cheap paperback, Inspired Epistles of the Twenty-First Century? Few, if any, have dared to publish anything because they know it would be scrutinized and found to be a pale imitation of the truly inspired Word of God.
Most people do not take Mormonism seriously because Doctrines and Covenants contradicts The Book of Mormon on the subject of polygamy. It was initially denounced but later widely practiced (before being condemned again when Utah wanted to become a state). The problem with man-originated “revelation” is that it eventually contradicts itself or the Bible and can be seen for what it is—a manmade invention.
To illustrate the great danger of this “whispering,” let us grant for a few moments that He is. In a gathering arranged for all who believe this doctrine, each group has an opportunity to speak. A Catholic bishop would insist that the pope is the head of the church and that God speaks through him. He would affirm that the pope’s word is on a par with the Scriptures and that he is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Bill Hybels is not going to accept the Catholic doctrine that the bread is literally the body of Christ or that the fruit of the vine is His actual blood. But Catholicism claims to be able to do miracles, which claim, they say, proves they are the true church—pope and all. How disturbing is this? We have only had one individual address the convention so far, and already we doubt his inspiration.
Next a Mormon apostle speaks and advocates that Joseph Smith was a true apostle of the Lord and that everyone must accept Mormon—not Catholic—doctrine. He reminds the audience that Mormons do miracles, too. A Pentecostal, moved by the “Spirit,” jumps up to deny that neither of the first two speakers is right. He can feel the Holy Spirit throughout his entire body, and knows that both groups are in error. Furthermore, he asserts that he has worked miracles himself.
Now, if you’re a poor, spiritually-uneducated schmo observing these antics, what are you supposed to believe? The reason that God gave us His objective Word is precisely to avoid all such nonsense. If God were inspiring all of these people, why is there no unity? The “evidence” for each is subjective. Truth could only depend on the last person who received a revelation. The chaos we see in the religious world currently, with all its division, would be even worse without the New Testament that God has once for all delivered. Those who know that God’s Word is authoritative need not be bothered by the latest claim of inspiration on the part of a self-appointed prophet.
If God Actually Whispered to Bill
If God had actually spoken to Bill Hybels, it would probably be more of a shout than a whisper. Here are some things He might have told him:
1. Salvation comes through My Holy Word (an objective standard)—not your subjective thoughts and feelings.
2. Salvation is not by “faith only.” Do you observe Peter telling the thousands on the Day of Pentecost to “just believe”? Read it again, Bill. He told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38). Remember Saul of Tarsus, who after three days of praying and fasting, was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? He was not saved by his faith and his praying. His sins were washed away in baptism after he repented.
3. Jesus is the head of the church; its only members are those who have been baptized in order to get forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:41, 47). Is that your basis of membership, Bill?
4. About those elaborate musical programs you have there at Willow Creek, have you ever thought that nothing even similar was done like that in the New Testament? Christians just sang. They never used instrumental accompaniment. And the worship was directed at Me, Bill, not those in attendance.
5. By the way, you are not a pastor, as I defined it in the New Testament. Why don’t you study Acts 20:17ff and 1 Peter 5:1-4 to see who a pastor actually is?
Of course, God will not speak to Bill about these matters today because He already has—in the Bible. It is not up to God to tell us again what He already revealed; the responsibility is ours to study and learn the truth. Bill, do you have the guts to respond properly?
What does the text of Luke 16:19-31 actually teach? Many have set forth fanciful theories that no one could honestly derive from the text. Such strained interpretations arise from the theology of certain religious groups or individuals that feel a need to defend a doctrine, such as “soul-sleeping” (referred to as psychopannychy). As we look at the text, let us put aside the various explanations available and just consider the text.
The rich man is described as simply a rich man. He was clothed in purple and fine linen—items that would be available to the rich. Lydia, later on, would be “a seller of purple; there was a demand for the color among the well-to-do.” He fared sumptuously every day. This is the only time the adverb appears, and it probably carries with it the idea of eating a good amount of food. What Luke has communicated is that the man under discussion is rich: he dresses well and he eats well.
A man called Lazarus is contrasted with him. He is not rich; in fact, he is a beggar. He is not a healthy person; he is full of sores. The word translated “sores” in verse 21 [1668] is used only two other times in the New Testament—Revelation 16:2 and 11. In that passage God had brought “a foul and loathsome sore” upon those “who had the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.” Their response was to blaspheme “the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores.” Needless to say, they did not repent of their sins.
The humble Lazarus, however, remained faithful to God. Someone laid him at the rich man’s gate (someone who did not want the responsibility of taking care of him). Apparently, the rich man did not want to burden himself with such a responsibility, either. He paid no special attention to Lazarus, who received only crumbs from the table (if that). The dogs came and licked his sores.
If this were a parable, Jesus now might have explained what each man represented. The Lord, however, does not say that the rich man indicated the ruling class, the Jews, or anyone else. Neither did Lazarus refer to a class of people such as the common person, the Gentiles, or anyone else. They are just what they seem, and no hidden meaning presents itself.
Actually, we see others who are like this rich man in the New Testament. One of these Jesus had already described in Luke 12:16-20. This is called a parable, although the account is told in a straight-forward manner. Even here the rich man does not signify anyone else, such as the Pharisees or the Gentiles. He is an illustration of the covetous man. Jesus was making the point that a man’s “life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (v. 15). The covetous person does not see this truth. He spends his life amassing things, all of which he must leave behind when he dies. When his life ended, God did not require his things but his soul. The conclusion the Lord draws after speaking these words is: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” (v. 21). The reason this account of a sad, wasted life may be called a parable is that it was not a true story but served only to illustrate the point.
On the other hand, what occurs with the rich man and Lazarus is true. Another rich man (also a true, literal account) came to Jesus, asking Him what he lacked to be made perfect. Perceiving his love of money, Jesus told him to sell all he had, distribute it to the poor, and to follow Him. The man went away sorrowfully because he was very rich. Jesus then lamented how hard it would be for the rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Luke 16:18-25). Paul told Timothy to command the rich “not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches,” but rather “in the living God” (1 Tim. 6:17). James issued a few choice words toward the rich, also (5:1-6).
One other example occurs in the New Testament—with Christians! Blinded by their material comforts, the Laodiceans were saying, “I am rich” (with respect to this world’s goods; they did not realize that they were poor (spiritually) (Rev. 3:17). The point of all these passages is that wealth can blind us if we are not careful. Riches choke the Word and make us unfruitful.
The purpose for looking at all of these passages is to observe that nothing is taught in Luke 16:19-21 that is remotely unusual. The rich man is typical of many others about whom we read in the New Testament. He does not represent a class of people; nothing mysterious surrounds this text. It may safely be taken at face value.
Phase Two
When the reader arrives at verse 22, he begins to read about the afterlife. Parables always deal with what is familiar in people’s experience and then make an important application from it. But neither the people of Jesus’ day nor we have observed the afterlife firsthand. We do not see with fleshly eyes beyond the physical world we live in. What Jesus speaks of in verses 22-31 is beyond anything with which we are familiar. We do know some details concerning these matters, but they come by revelation—not observation.
When Lazarus died, he was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom (22). We are not given the details of what happened to his body; the implication of the word also is that it was buried. Is there another passage that mentions the angels coming for the spirit of the righteous? Certainly, this is the only reference to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man was in torments in Hades, and we have heard of that name for the realm of the dead (their souls or spirits, not their bodies).
Solomon wrote that, at death, the Spirit goes back to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7), but he did not include the fact that God assigns the spirit a place in the Hadean realm. Other passages confirm this idea. Perhaps the most important of these is found in Acts 2. David understood that a human being consists of the flesh and the spirit. He spoke concerning himself that his own flesh would rest in hope (in other words, that his body would be resurrected) and that God would not leave his soul in Hades. David wrote these words through inspiration, and Peter quoted them on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:26-27.
David also proclaimed, through inspiration, that Jesus’ body would not see corruption (Acts 2:28) and that His soul would not be left in Hades (Acts 2:31). People seem to have commonly understood the existence of the Hadean realm. Later, John records that Death and Hades deliver up the dead in them into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:13-14). Only the ungodly will be left in the Hadean realm because Jesus is bringing with Him those who have already fallen asleep in Him (1 Thess. 4:14). Jesus also referred to Abraham’s bosom as Paradise (Luke 23:43).
What did Jesus promise the thief? “Today, you will start snoozin’ with Me, and you won’t wake up until the Day of Judgment.” Is that Paradise—a long nap? No, Jesus meant that they would be together in the Hadean realm, although Jesus would be departing from there before long, as prophesied.
Luke 16:22-23 has already demonstrated that Hades possesses two sides. The righteous are refreshed, and the wicked are in torments. Abraham teaches that there is a great gulf fixed between the two compartments and that people cannot pass between the two (26). Furthermore, it is clear that the portion of torment is not unlike Gehenna in that they both possess fire (v. 25). So, the mistreated, poor, and ill Lazarus now received comfort; and the rich man now realized the true extent of his poverty.
None of these descriptions are symbolic or representative of something else. They coincide with details presented in other texts. What Jesus is doing is providing a glimpse into what will be that we cannot possibly see until we die and are sent to one of these two places. Many are complacent, such as the rich man or the Laodiceans, thinking they will just naturally be rewarded hereafter. This warning Jesus gives to all who abide in this category.
His lesson is not that the rich are punished while the poor and sick are rewarded. It is that prosperity does not indicate salvation, and poverty does not imply that one is lost. Those who are wealthy, powerful, royal, among the elite, or highly educated do not automatically get invitations into heaven. Many of those are proud, and Jesus is looking for the humble (Matt. 5:1). Paul wrote that “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Cor. 1:26). Likewise, just because someone is covered with sores is no guarantee. Those in Revelation blasphemed their condition. Lazarus, by implication, was still faithful and dependent on God. “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).
Another lesson taught by Jesus is that, after this life is over, it is too late to change one’s position—or anyone else’s. The rich man could not leave where he was; no one could come and comfort him. He wanted his brothers, who were living by the same philosophy he had observed, to be warned. He thought if Lazarus appeared to them, they would listen, but Abraham affirmed that, if they would not heed the Word of God, they would not be persuaded even though one arose from the dead (Luke 16:27-31).
How true! Jesus did arise from the dead—yet many still do not believe! Jesus provided this peek into the future so that we could guard against complacency. It is not a parable; nothing stands for anything else. It is just what it appears to be—a Divine warning to be careful that we live right, walking humbly before God and loving our fellow man. May we profit from this look into our future.
INVOLVEMENT IN WORSHIP
Dub McClish (Denton, Texas)
In recent years there has been considerable discussion among brethren about getting more people “involved” in worship. No one will question that every Christian must involve himself in worship. I do question, however, what some mean by “involvement.” Some equate involvement with having a leading part of some kind as if the leaders were the only participants. Others have erroneously argued that true involvement is impossible except in a small group situation. Such concepts have led to various attempts to artificially create spirituality and worship “involvement” through responsive readings, serving the Lord’s supper in Bible classes, replacing Gospel sermons with panel discussions, and such like. Some are using the excuse of “involvement” (among others) to advocate giving leading roles to women in our mixed worship assemblies.
My understanding of worship involvement is a bit simpler, and, I think, much more Scriptural and practical. If one sincerely wants to “get involved” in worship, I suggest the following:
• When a brother leads a prayer, we should do our best to shut everything else out. Closing our eyes will help, concentrating with all of our power on the words of the leader (1 Cor. 14:16). This involvement makes it our prayer, also.
• During the singing, we should pay attention to the leader and follow his direction. Even if he is leading the song at the wrong tempo, in our opinion, we should not try to “take over” the song. Think about the words of the song. Sing with understanding, enthusiasm, and joy (1 Cor. 14:15). Of course, we cannot be involved in singing if we do not sing.
• Involvement in the contribution should begin before we get to the assembly. We should purpose and determine in advance what our financial offering will be (2 Cor. 9: 7), on the basis of our level of prosperity (1 Cor. 16:2). We do not fully involve ourselves in giving unless we give regularly (every Lord’s day), bountifully, cheerfully, and gratefully.
• We have a straightforward command of Scripture to be involved in the Lord’s supper: “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24–25). Moreover, if we fail, we bring judgment upon ourselves (v. 29). Some people close their eyes in quiet meditation as they reflect on the cross. I have for years found it helpful to read and meditate upon one of the Scriptural records of the Lord’s suffering and death or upon some other appropriate passage (e.g., Isa. 53; 1 Cor. 11:23–34; et al.).
• As the preacher delivers the sermon, many find it helpful to turn to the Scriptures and read them as he cites or quotes them. Those who take notes generally retain far more than those who do not. These suggestions are surely some of the most basic ways to be “involved” in worship. Participation is the key to involvement.
—The Northpoint Lighthouse (Sept. 12, 2010)
MODESTY
Dub McClish
Modest can apply to one’s salary, house, or any number of things in the sense of that which is moderate, appropriate, humble, or unostentatious. However, there is another important implication of the word having to do with one’s moral convictions and the respect one has for his or her own body. In this sense, Paul commanded women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). The Arndt-Gingrich lexicon says that modest here means “honorable,” “respectable.” We understand Paul to be talking about wearing clothing that indicates the moral chastity, purity, and sense of decency that Christians must have.
While both men and women ought to dress modestly, it is noteworthy that Paul addressed this instruction peculiarly to women. He did not do so accidentally. Biologically and psychologically, men and women differ greatly. While admitting to some exceptions, men are more easily aroused and aggressive sexually than women. The Lord understood this and thus especially warned men against looking at and lusting after a wom-an (Mat. 5:28). Dressing (or undressing) in such a manner as to invite sexual stimulation is a problem pertaining primarily to women and the way they dress. Only a lack of modesty will cause a physically mature female to be more undressed than dressed in public places. Women (young or old) who wear scanty swimming attire, shorts and halter tops, mid-thigh length skirts, low cut and see-through blouses, skin-tight pants, and such like in public places are advertising their immodesty.
It is baffling and heartbreaking to see the shameless display of skin exhibited at public functions (the super market, public beaches/pools, school activities, etc.) by so many women. It is especially perplexing and disheartening to see Christian women and girls so behave. It is even sadder to see such things as “spaghetti strap” sun dresses, see through blouses, and very short skirts worn to worship assemblies.
I fail to comprehend how otherwise right-thinking girls and women can think that it is in keeping with Christian purity to so expose their bodies. Neither can I understand how Christian fathers and/or husbands can permit or encourage it. A wife’s physical charms must be reserved for her husband alone. Something is wrong with the husband who wants his wife to share even visually her charms with any other man. Further, how can a Christian father or mother allow a teen-aged daughter to dress in such a way as to invite the wrong kind of attention? Christian parents could stop such immodesty at once if they would.
Immodesty is expected in people of the world, but for the sake of Christ, ought not His people to be modest and decent in the way that they dress (Rom. 12:1–2)?
Via www.scripturecache.com
What does it mean to have a vested interest in a particular interpretation of the Scriptures? It means simply this: that certain people hold to a specific doctrine so strongly that they cannot look objectively at what the Bible actually teaches on a subject. Many so strongly believe that sinners are saved by “faith only” that they must reject all of the passages that teach that salvation comes through faith—but not faith only. The same thing is true with various ones regarding the rich man and Lazarus.
Those who do not believe that souls are punished with everlasting destruction (2 Thess. 1:7-9) cannot have the rich man and Lazarus be anything but a parable because those suffering in the Hadean realm for 2,000 or more years is almost as hard to explain as eternal torment itself. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists likewise reject the plain meaning of Luke 16:19-31 because it conflicts with their views of the afterlife. Of course, those who advocate the soul-sleeping doctrine cannot have the rich man awake and even speaking to Abraham!
Because of these vested interests, then, many insist that the passage is a parable. The problem is that in a parable certain objects or people stand for something else. In the parable of the sower, for example, the seed is the Word of God (Luke 8:11), and each of the kind of soils represents different kinds of hearts that individuals have. Jesus explains that even the thorns that choke the Word represent the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches. As Dungan writes in his well-known book on Hermeneutics, “…hence a placing beside or together, a comparing comparison, a story by which something real in life is used as a means of presenting a moral thought” (227). The problem with trying to turn the straightforward account of the rich man and Lazarus into a parable is that, not only did Jesus offer no explanation of what each man represented, no man has ever produced a coherent one.
Various Explanations
Borrowing a poor explanation from Buford (see Sept. 5, 2010), “The point of the parable was that even though Jesus would rise from the dead many would deny it.” How someone could read Jesus rising from the dead and many denying that fact into this text defies rational thought. As poor as this attempt to explain the parable is, others are no better.
The Seventh-Day Adventists put forth a simple view in the book, Answers to Objections, written by Francis D. Nichol and published in 1952: Christ drove home the one primary lesson, that the reward awaiting the covetous rich, who have naught but crumbs for the poor, was the very opposite of what the Jews believed” (358). No doubt this is a principle that is taught, but does it require all of the details that are provided to teach this doctrine?
If the account of these two men were a parable, then it could conclude as the one did involving the rich farmer, whose soul was required that night. Is there any doubt that the farmer was selfish and lacked compassion? Everything was about him—not God or his fellow man. Without any reference to the Hadean realm in Luke 2:15-20, Jesus effectively showed that such an individual is lost. If the rich man and Lazarus were a parable, the point could have been similarly made.
But Jesus added an entire section about what happens after death, and He used the Hadean realm to do so. This is the part that the vested interest people have a problem with because those details do not represent something else; they are exactly as they are described. We are provided a glimpse into what happens at death. These are the facts of the matter; they do not represent something else. Yet people contort the Scriptures trying to explain them away.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses provide a strange view of the passage. They do not believe that Jesus’ body was raised from the dead. Consider their teaching.
In this illustration the rich man stood for the class of religious leaders who rejected and later killed Jesus. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted God’s Son. The Bible shows that death can be used as a symbol, representing a great change in one’s life or course of action. (Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6.) A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually. And they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham, Jehovah God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell (The Truth That Leads to Eternal life 43).
Anyone who knows the Scriptures, after reading that goobledegook, is saying, “What???” Only Jehovah’s Witnesses could insist that the 144,000 in Revelation is a literal number rather than symbolic and at the same time advocate that what is obvious literal death is merely a symbol. Their explanation is not even worthy of being called amateurish.
In the first place, nothing in the text suggests that the rich man and Lazarus represent two classes of people. If they did, however, it would be the rich versus the poor, as in James 5:1-6. The rich man is in no way like the religious leaders of the Jews. He was not opposed to Jesus or anyone else. He just enjoyed all of the physical blessings he had been given and was indifferent to the suffering of his fellow human being. Nothing suggests that Lazarus represented the common people that believed Jesus to be the Son of God. Jesus does not insert Himself into this illustration anywhere. It is not about Him.
Although death is used in more ways than one, it is never used the way the JWs define it. The Bible defines physical death as occurring when the spirit departs from the body. The second death refers to the reality of the spirit being separated from God eternally. John recorded that death and Hades (all who remained in this realm) were cast into the lake of fire along with those who had been judged, which is the second death. Anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:13-15).
Figurative usages of the word death include dying to sin (Rom. 6:37) and being dead in sin (1 Tim. 5:6). It does not signify merely a change in one’s life. The verses in Romans 6 that were cited deal with being dead to sin (2, 11-13). The verses in Romans 7:4-6 are discussing being dead to the Law of Moses when we become Christians. They cited no examples of death merely being a change in someone’s life.
Jesus was not talking about a rich man-Pharisaical class versus a Lazarus-common people class, and not a thing in the text indicates that the rich man class was dying with respect to God’s favor. A seven-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar could make up a story that would sound more convincing. Whoever wrote this explanation had evidently forgotten that Jesus exposed the Pharisees Himself; it did not fall on His disciples to do so after His resurrection. At the very outset of His ministry, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus advised the people not to be like the hypocrites with respect to giving, fasting, and prayer (Matt. 6:1-18). Furthermore, He exposed them completely in Matthew 23.
If the rich man was not in torment in the flames, why did he ask for water to cool his tongue? Why is there a great gulf between the two groups, which cannot be bridged? How could any of the Pharisees ever have been converted if no one could travel back and forth? If the rich man group could not approach Lazarus, how can we account for the persecution of the saints? Trying to find an explanation for Luke 16:19-31 other than what it obviously means just created more difficulties. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in eternal torment, and this was the best explanation they could come up with to try to get around it!
Counter Arguments
It so happens that a brother read my chapter for the 2000 Lectureship book on The Parables of Jesus, dealing with the non-parable of the rich man and Lazarus. He made several comments on a copy of the manuscript, which will now be dealt with. He shall be referred to as Dan (not his real name).
Dan claims that there is nothing in the text that indicates that it is an actual event. Is there anything that indicates it is not? It is told as though it is. The burden of proof must be upon the one who denies what is obvious to others and to provide a compelling reason for thinking otherwise. Causal assertions are no substitute for evidence. Then Dan slides into even more dangerous territory.
The body goes back to the dust of the earth. We will not receive a new body till Christ comes back (1 Cor. 15:51-59). The only way this could be an actual event is if they received a spiritual body at death. True or False!
Dan has overlooked an important point concerning the nature of human beings. As James explains, we have a body and a spirit. When the spirit leaves the physical body, it dies (James 2:26). Solomon understood this principle 1,000 years earlier when he wrote: “Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7). The body and the spirit reside in two different locations upon death, as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 also teaches. Paul writes about those who have fallen asleep—already died. Jesus will bring them back with Him. That is, He will bring the spirits of the saints with Him.
However, their bodies will rise up out of the dust of the ground. The fleshly body always remains on earth. Only the spiritual part of man lives in a spiritual place—the Hadean realm. Paul is not writing in 1 Corinthians 15 with respect to Jesus descending from heaven with the spirits of the saints, as he does in 1 Thessalonians 4. Some in Corinth had been teaching that there is no resurrection at all. Therefore, Paul’s emphasis is on the physical body being raised up. Those who are alive and those who are raised from the grave (to be reunited with their spirits) shall all be changed in order to enter into Heaven.
Peter presented this same dichotomy with the spirit and the body as he spoke from prophecy about Jesus. First of all David knew the difference between his own soul (or spirit) and his body. He wrote that his flesh would rest in hope and that his soul would not be left in Hades (Acts 2:26-27). The body (the outward man) is the physical part of each human being; the spirit or soul is the inward man. David knew, as is obvious to all, that the body decays and returns to the dust. But he also knew what Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to accept—that the spirit abides in the Hadean realm—just as Jesus taught concerning the rich man and Lazarus.
David also prophesied that the physical body of Jesus (God’s Holy One) would not see corruption (v. 27). Jesus’ soul went to the Hadean realm while His body was in the grave, since His human existence was like ours. Peter affirms “that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption (v. 31). Dan does not seem to have grasped this concept, but, perhaps, upon further reflection, he may see it. The answer to his question is false. Man does not receive a spiritual body at death. His already-existing spirit is sent to the Hadean realm.
Soul Sleeping
Dan also advocates the soul sleeping doctrine associated with the same cults already discussed. Citing Hebrews 9:27, he erroneously draws the conclusion that after death, “judgment is next—not reward—not punishment. Man’s next consciousness is judgment. This harmonizes with the Scriptures.” No, this is an example of misunderstanding one verse and ignoring all the others that relate to the subject. Consider Hebrews 9:27-28:
And as it is appointed for man to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many….”
The writer is comparing things that happen only once. Jesus died for the sins of mankind once. He does not need to keep being offered. Similarly, men die once, and after this comes the judgment. The writ-er, however, did not say that the judgment comes immediately after death, nor did he say that those who have died are not conscious. He lists two events in the proper sequence but indicates nothing further. Likewise, if we said that after the resurrection of Jesus came the Day of Pentecost, we would not be implying that nothing happened during that intervening time period. Particularly, we would not be denying the Lord’s ascension which occurred in between. To conclude that souls are asleep during this time period is to assume what the text does not say.
It also denies much more than the events of the rich man and Lazarus. If all souls are unconscious from the time of their death until the time of the resurrection, then Jesus was unconscious from the time of His death until He was raised up on Pentecost. This is a variation of the same argument Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15. Does anyone really want to affirm that the Lord was unconscious during that time?
Furthermore, Jesus illustrated the consciousness of the dead to the Sadducees, who like their modern counterparts, did not believe it. The whole point of citing Exodus 3:6 was that Jesus was saying that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive—not unconscious—but alive. “I am their God,” He said. Is God the God of the dormant? No, He is the God of the living, Jesus taught (Matt. 22:32).
Sometimes, in an effort to prove unconsciousness after death, some will resort to Ecclesiastes 9:5, which reads: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing.” This text is not a thesis that explores theologically what happens after death. It is simply comparing the living to the dead—and a pessimistic one at that. Notice the living know one thing in particular—that they will die. Probably, this verse will not be included in the Positive Thoughts for each day of the year calendar.
However, knowing that death will come is one more thing than the dead know about what is occurring on the earth, for they have already departed from it. So, they know nothing. While on this earth, the living had goals, work to do, rewards, but in the Hadean world, their labors are over. They no longer have a share in anything that is done under the sun (v. 6). Solomon is not trying to convince anyone that souls sleep after death. In 12:7 he says that the spirit returns to God who gave it.
If all souls sleep until the Day of Judgment, then there is no way that Moses and Elijah could have appeared and talked to Jesus (Matt. 17:1-5). Yet they did. And how can we explain the souls under the altar, crying out, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Rev. 6:10)? They were given a white robe and told they should rest—not snooze (v. 11).
The rich man and Lazarus do not represent Jew and Gentile or any other fanciful explanation. They are two men who do not represent more than the obvious—the callous, compassionless, self-absorbed—and the spiritual strong but earthly poor. It is not materialistic wealth that saves but spiritual riches (Luke 12:21). At death, souls enter Hades; they are alive—not unconscious. Our goal is clear—to join those with Abraham.
Thus far, Buford has been disrespectful to those in the Lord’s church and proceeded on the assumption that he is correct in his conclusions—but that faithful and scholarly brethren are just taking someone’s word for what they believe, having never studied the doctrine of eternal torment for themselves. He calls the majority view “Good Old Boy” Theology and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of using “spin.” Furthermore, he is prone to rambling and failing to respond to the point at hand. Most of Part 2 consisted of his “arguments. The correspondence continued with this writer answering his last e-mail.
Gary to Buford;
The discussion does not center on who God is; the discussion centers on what the Bible says about Him—the truth He has revealed about Himself. Since He does not measure up to your image of Him, then the Bible must be wrong. It is no use denying this is your position; you have already made that clear too often. As long as you have this approach, you have already made up your mind and are not genuinely seeking what the Bible reveals.
Most people do not have trouble understanding figurative language. Being tormented forever is eternal death. Naturally one would have to have consciousness to experience it, but God does not call it life. If you cannot understand the parallelism, I cannot help you. The next comment you made concerned the rich man and Lazarus is incredible. You wrote:
Gary, are you serious about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? You write as if this is the final judgment. Come on Gary. The rich man had 5 brothers still alive on earth. They were in HADES and you know it. Come on. The point of the parable was that even though Jesus would rise from the dead many would deny it.
I did not write as if the rich man had already received the final judgment, but the text says he was in torments. It started upon his death. When does it end? He was conscious—not annihilated. Has he been in torments for 2,000 years? If so, is not God still a monster to torment someone for so long a time? After all, 2,000 years of burning is a good start on eternity. He is surely accustomed to his suffering by now, wouldn’t you think? Is it fair that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah have been suffering (present tense) for 4,000 years while those who die just before the Lord returns may only have a few days before annihilation? How do you reconcile all these people being tortured for so long?
You twice called the rich man and Lazarus a parable; where is your proof? It does not have the characteristics of a parable in which one thing represents something else. What do Hades, torments, and all of the other things mentioned represent? You called it the Hadean realm, which indicates you take the punishment and the reward as literal, which means you do not consider it a parable, either, although you call it one.
There is too much to discuss to go on with the rest of your e-mail. I will not comment any further until you respond to my last response and this one.
Buford to Gary:
Afternoon, Gary,
We need to understand something. Even if you change your mind about the fate of the ungodly, I don’t expect you to admit it to me either in print or in conversation, and that’s OK. Back in the early 80’s two “big preachers” in the brotherhood stopped by for a visit when we lived in Throckmorton, TX. I attended ACC with one of them shortly after becoming a Christian in ’55. After asking them about God preserving most of humanity burning in fire forever, what happened was quite a surprise. They looked at one another, and one of them said that if I would give them my word that I would never tell, one of them would send me a book to read.
I had no idea what they had in mind, but I gave them my word. As of today one of the preachers is dead, but still, so long as I live, I will keep my word, never to tell even though I had no idea about the book I was to receive. The reason they asked me not to tell was because “if I told, they would be written up and written off” in some of the opinionated papers.
The book they sent me was written by Edward Fudge. I read it over several times, challenging every point he raised, especially about the fire and worm. This is my nature. This is why I visited and questioned every preacher in my hometown prior to being baptized into Christ. My uncle that taught me about forgiveness through Jesus had given me a list of questions to ask these preachers. I was at the point of getting serious or forgetting about this “God stuff.”
So I began attending worship where my uncle did—the one with “CHURCH OF CHRIST” fastened to a building with metal letters and a sign near the street that said about the same thing. I realized the building was NOT the church but said nothing about it. Neither did I fall for a lot of the people’s church vocabulary. I won’t go into everything that was being taught in ’55 that was changed later, but one was that the Holy Spirit was simply the Bible (the Bible is a “he”???). It was out of “fear of the tongue speakers.” It’s a shame how biblically ignorant most elders are, swallowing whatever the preachers preach.
I go over to the lectureships at ACU for one reason. I stop people and ask them if they are preachers. I tell them I don’t want to know their names or where they preach, but I have a question or two about the fate of the ungodly. It is never surprising that most tell me they know the soul is not inherently immortal, but they can’t preach it lest they would lose their jobs. Al Maxey has the courage to preach that the ungodly end up as ashes. No, I don’t agree with everything Al preaches, but then do I have to?? Don’t think so and don’t worry about it or care about it. I do know that he doesn’t believe God is a sadist.
What I hear at lectureships is no big surprise! I have an elder friend that teaches the biblical truth about the fate of the ungodly. His preacher came to him and said something like, “(his name), I’m so glad you are teaching this in your classes. Try to teach the other elders about this, and maybe someday it will become accepted here, at least by most. You know I can’t preach it now, or I’d be fired because most here are so legalistic they don’t believe they can be wrong about anything and go to heaven.”
Oh, yes, the truth about God is gaining ground. Maybe one day the 59% figure of the people that don’t believe hell is real will change for the better instead of increasing as it has over the past 50 years. Thankfully, preachers and leaders of other religious groups are learning not to support the Greeks and popes’ stand on the matter.
SO, Gary, I’m not looking for you to admit anything—just hoping you can preach somewhere someday that the ungodly will burn UP, ending up as ashes.
Considering “proof” about the rich man and Lazarus, there is no proof either way just as there is no proof there is a God. Proof is a matter of attitude within one’s mind—faith something is so or not so. Was Solomon right when he wrote that?
The people in Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to ashes according to scripture (2 Peter). Any other assumption is spin to defend an unbiblical position people choose to defend.
Do the ungodly receive torment in Hades? If God chooses for them to, they do. Is this where the “few blows” and “many blows” (punishment understood by His audience) take place? If God chooses so. Will God’s “punishment fit the crime” so to speak? I believe it will because God is a righteous judge (2 Tim). Can one’s wickedness on earth be so bad as to bring torment in fire forever for the ungodly? The Bible reveals they will burn up, end up as ashes.
To deny these plainly written verses takes a lot of spin, mostly found in revised translation of Greek to read “forever,” in English due to the previous mindset of translators. Thankfully it was corrected in Philemon to read “for good” in the case of Onesimus!!
Did you know that aion in Matt 13:39 is translated showing an end of something, not forever? Do your homework on aion and you might find that it can mean other than “forever.” Always take into consideration those doing the translating—their past programming on the meanings of Greek words they translate into English.
Relax, Gary. You don’t have to admit anything to me. I just want you to think about where your ideas about the fate of the ungodly really came from past years. Was it from “preacher talk” or from your personal research? Be honest enough with yourself to think about what it is that you are you defending, and why.
[Editor’s note: Once again, he wandered everywhere and did not stick to the topic. Again, he assumed that no one has ever done any research except him and his uncle. Most anyone who has studied very much knows how the Greek word aion is used. (Actually, in Philemon 15 the word is a related word—aionios [166]. Furthermore, although Buford may have forgotten it, I had told him previously that I had written an evaluation of Fudge’s book. Perhaps he thought such could be done without doing research! In my next e-mail I tried to get him to focus on two huge points and used a little sarcasm in the process. For reasons best known to him, he never responded.]
Gary to Buford:
Don’t worry. You have not come close to saying anything that would persuade me to change my mind and have to “fess up” that you are right. You really are egotistical—so much so, in fact, that you can’t imagine anyone just reading and studying the Bible (as I have) possibly disagreeing with you! If you perused the articles on our Web Site (www.spiritualperspectives.org), you would see that I have challenged anyone (no matter how lofty he is) who has departed from the truth and used unsound reasoning (including those at Abilene). Truth is not determined by popularity, which (by the way) you claim favors your view. You are probably right. The denominations gave up the Biblical view of hell more than 30 years ago, and (as usual) brethren are limping along behind them.
I have never, in the course of 45 years, ever heard anyone say that the Holy Spirit IS the Bible, which is absurd. I don’t suppose you could find PROOF that anyone ever so taught—something in writing, perhaps? Are you trying to establish a straw man here?
When you finally get to the rich man and Lazarus, you really botch it badly. We can’t tell if it’s a parable? We don’t know if God exists? I don’t know where you were when brother Warren was debating atheists (probably taking worthless surveys at ACU), but I was paying attention. If you are an agnostic, you don’t have any business trying to teach anyone anything. Is there anything you KNOW? Or are you just admitting to be ignorant on every subject? Peter said for people to be able to give a defense of their faith (apologeia) (1 Peter 3:15), but you’re out there telling people they can’t know. This is truly pathetic.
If you can define what a parable (from para and ballo) is, then you know that one thing is thrown or cast alongside another, for purposes of comparison. You are surprisingly lacking in knowledge on this subject. Every parable can be explained; Jesus actually did so for the disciples with two difficult ones. He was not telling a parable concerning the rich man. If so, what is the explanation or meaning of it? It is a literal, straight-forward narrative. Was Solomon right when he wrote what? Your sentence appears to be unfinished.
Jude says the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are still suffering (7). You have not touched even the hem of the garment on that verse. Furthermore, do you honestly think their spirits were reduced to ashes, or are you a Sadducean materialist? Or is that something else we just can’t know?
I’m the one who believes God is just and that whatever penalty He gives will be just. You’re the one who keeps calling Him a sadist. Therefore, the question is relevant. When does God become a sadist: after 2,000 years of punishment? 4,000? When?
Most people, contrary to your thinking, know the ways in which aion is used. It can mean less than eternal (age-lasting), but it can also mean eternal.
You keep telling me to relax; if I were any more relaxed, I’d be asleep. Let me know if you say anything worth waking up for.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
REPORT ON HAITI MISSION TRIP
Let me start by greeting you with the word of the apostle when he says: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose.”
January 12th happened in Haiti for a variety of reasons. Although it put tears in the eyes of people all over the world for those who lost their limbs, houses, cars, businesses, and loved ones, fortunately many are still alive. Their pain and their suffering were visible and still touchable. However, there is a good side to all this; most of those who are alive realize that they need to look for truth, and that is inevitable. Some of them are thirsty for that truth. Due to your prayers, support, and donations, my vision has become a reality. No one knows the price of a soul. Jesus says that joy shall be in heaven over one sinner who repented, over ninety-nine persons, which need no repentance. He added there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth (Luke 15: 7-10).
My mission to Haiti was successful by the grace of God and through your support. I flew to Haiti on July 29, 2010. On the 30th I went with brother Reno Bauvais, Adolphus Gilbert Jr., and Edouard Jean-Pierre, to join brother Manius Vixamar. We met about 400 people at a place named “Des Chappelles.” After service, 41 people were baptized—including 4 denominational preachers. On the 30th, we went to Miredalais, and 21 were baptized. On the 31st we took the road to Port-de-Paix; after 12 hours of rough terrain we arrived. It was around 9 P.M. on Sunday, August 1. There were services, and 27 people were baptized including the preacher and his assistant.
We left Port-de-Paix just after the worship service on Sunday. On Monday, August 2, we went to Lascaobas, and 11 people were baptized. On August 5th, we went to La Chappelle where 14 more were baptized. On August 6th, we went to Bainet, which was another 10-hour drive on an unpractical road. Four people were baptized, and a congregation was planted there.
To conclude, all of our accomplishments were just the beginning of the vision and your giving and donating products. Your help and support to those in need achieved the results we had in Port-de-Paix. I thank each one of you for this great accomplishment. However, as you can imagine, this is a job that has just started. Those brothers and sisters need to be taught and assisted in all kinds of ways. You can call, go see, and experience for yourself—or send others or send what is necessary to assist. Remember the great commission Matthew 28:18-20 must be fulfilled; this is the Word of God. Once again, thank you for everything. May God bless you all.
Junot Joseph
Content to let the previous discussion end where it did, I was surprised that Buford suddenly resumed correspondence six weeks later. This one lasted from March 24 to April 1st. Below are its crucial portions.
Buford to Gary:
I was reviewing your emails and have a question about something you wrote: Concerning those whose names are in the Book of Life from Revelation 20:11-15, you will note that they have LIFE. Now if people remain alive in the lake of fire, don’t they have life also?? Why shouldn’t everyone’s name be in the book of LIFE if everyone is going to be alive SOMEWHERE??? Evidently the ones destined for the lake of fire won’t have life because according to Luke they burn UP. Peter wrote they become ashes, but maybe you don’t understand???
These verses you cited reveal that the result of the lake of fire is DEATH. Nowhere does it speak of how long this fire burns. You ADD to the Word?? Are you aware that you are adding to the Word?? Your position on the true nature of God MUST contain some wresting of scripture. Now then, which of us has “a problem with the English language”??
Thank God He is not as you picture Him to be in your mind. Are you among the old “Church of Christ-ified” that don’t believe you can be wrong about anything?? Evidently you haven’t read Homer Hailey’s last book he wrote prior to his death on the judgment of the nations and the individual. He had the courage to admit that he and that most of the church’s position on this has been wrong. Are you capable of admitting your point of faith in this matter is wrong, or is your pride and ego too large to eat crow in front of others that have a distorted view of God?? I hope you learn better in time and have the guts to admit your view of God was from what you heard and not what you read in the Book.
Gary to Buford:
You are reading the words but missing the significance. Eternal death is an ongoing process, and it is not LIVING by God’s definition. The Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:14), which burns forever, is attended by the smoke of their torment ascending forever (Rev. 14:10-11). The Lake of Fire has no reason to burn forever, if everything placed within it had already burned up. Notice: “The smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever.” I did not ADD to the Word; this is what the Word says.
The first death is the separation of the spirit from the body (James 2:26); the second death is the separation of the spirit from God (2 Thess. 1:6-9). In neither case does the spirit cease to exist.
Peter says that the earth and all things in it shall be burned up and dissolved, but he is not speaking of the spirit but of things fleshly.
Although you scrupulously avoided the word spin (which is commendable), you could not avoid making your usual insulting comments. How odd that you have read Hailey’s book but feign complete ignorance of Fudge’s book, The Fire That Consumes, which is recognized as the definitive work on the subject by those outside the body of Christ (denominationalists)! Anyway, if Hailey wrote what you think he did in a book (unnamed by you), then he was as wrong as he was on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. And he contradicted what he wrote in his marvelous commentary on Revelation in 1992: “As the day of the righteous is a glorious, eternal day, the night of the wicked is a dreadful, eternal night; the two abide side by side, continuing simultaneously” (310, emphasis mine).
Are you still as confident in your error as when you began reading this e-mail?
Buford to Gary:
Read some more of what Peter wrote. In 2 Pet 2:6 he said that God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ASHES, and made them an EXAMPLE of what is going to happen to the ungodly….
True, in 2 Thess 1 the destruction is everlasting, completely destroyed. There’s no coming back from ashes. No purgatory. No reincarnation like some of the Greeks taught.
Would you read Homer’s book? Do you want the title and source where you can order one? I will give you both if you will read the last 160-something pages. I order many of them and give them away locally. They help people escape the “Church of Christ-ified” support of the teachings of the popes, Gary. If you wish you can check this out on the web. Catholicism is the main source of the teachings that God is a sadistic torturing monster. Here is a part of the column I wrote for the local paper and received only two negative responses—both from atheists!
“Various philosophies claiming soul immortality were taught by Greek philosophers before, during, and after Jesus’ coming. Two highly recognized were Socrates and Plato. Unfortunately this philosophy was later reinforced in the 16th century at the 5th Lateran Council (1512-1517) held in Rome. Pope Leo X stated in Session 8 on December 19, 1513:
For the soul not only truly exists of itself and essentially as the form of the human body, as is said in the canon of our predecessor of happy memory, pope Clement V, promulgated in the general council of Vienne (1311-1312), but IT IS ALSO IMMORTAL; and further, for the enormous number of bodies into which it is infused individually, it can and ought to be and is multiplied.
Are you among those with such an ego that you think you know how to properly interpret Revelation with all of its figurative language? Surely not! Yet you choose to believe all the spin that’s been attributed to that letter? Your writings to me do not harmonize with what Jesus taught, Peter taught, or what Luke wrote that John the Baptist said. Don’t you care? Why do all the speculators on Revelation disagree so much?? The answer is simple. They were not in Asia. They don’t get it! Instead they sit around and speculate, write books, and make money off the ignorant people that think the authors “have the God-given right answers” while the answers are pure speculation. Of all the garbage I have heard from pulpits Revelation takes the cake. Such arrogance!
I have read Fudge’s book, given to me by two preachers. BUT I didn’t agree with all he wrote. That’s why I wrote you that whatever he wrote or whatever you wrote about what he wrote carries little weight with me. I have gone PAST the stuff that Fudge wrote. Neither Fudge, Hailey, Al Maxey, tracts about God not being a sadistic torturer, or ANYTHING ELSE man writes carries more weight than scripture.
You seem to be defending an old point you accepted years ago, prior to your own personal research into the matter and you must defend that notion!
NONE of those above mentioned the declarations of the popes. I found it on the Internet doing research. Thank God He is not the monster many make Him out to be. He can burn up in a nano-second or as long as the blows or stripes last mentioned in Luke 12:48. NO MENTION OF FIRE HERE!!! Who besides Judas would it be better for to have not been born? It is my opinion that Judas is in for a BAD destruction process.
Believe it, Gary, God is not a monster. He created man and He can uncreate man. OTHERWISE His power is limited to the false reasoning of mortals—that Jesus is wrong, the soul and body cannot be destroyed. Do you believe all ungodly will be thrown into the garbage dump in Jerusalem? No, but this made the point to His listeners what He meant by “destroyed”—both SOUL and BODY. What the worms didn’t eat burned UP in geenna. Think about it. So those that insist that death is separation from God (not biblical), would have God at point “A” and a stack of ashes at point “B,” separated by a billion miles I suppose.
Relax and think about what you read. Forget most of what you’ve been told that you may feel necessary to defend. You will be amazed. There was a time I had a mistaken understanding of God’s nature, but it was not a biblical understanding. It was a “preacher presented” idea. In an effort to scare people I have heard many times, “Save your immoral soul from the everlasting pain of burning in the fires of hell.” I heard that for years. Nobody ever said anything about “burn UP” that Luke wrote about.
Oh, and what verse do you find the phrase eternal death, or is that what my uncle that taught me the gospel called “preacher talk”? And what verse do you find the phrase eternal soul. I can’t find that either. Is that, too, “preacher talk,” part of “church of Christ-ified” vocabulary? I’m not too proud to learn, but I have discovered, since becoming a Christian, that different religious groups have a vocabulary that contains a lot of “preacher talk,” and as my old aunt said, “chimney corner scripture.” Now I have found “eternal punishment,” death, the wages of sin.
Gary to Buford:
You make a few points concerning ashes, Luke, and Fudge, but you overlooked what I wrote, choosing to say that people view Revelation differently. Is there anyone who does not know that? You also overlooked the quote from Hailey that you were supposed to provide. This is non-responsive.
You seem hung up on “ashes.” The physical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, along with all who lived there were burned up with fire and brimstone—reduced to ashes. Peter is not talking about their spirits, or are you a materialist? Jude, commenting on the same event, says that “they are set forth as an example, suffering (present tense) the vengeance of eternal fire. The fire is eternal, and so is the suffering. Jude did not get this doctrine from the Catholic Church.
If what men write is irrelevant, then why are you promoting Hailey? I would read his book, but I cannot say when; it depends on other things in my schedule.
Since you are so keen on Luke, you may recall that the rich man woke up in torments—not extinction. That too was an ongoing punishment. Luke 20:34-36 is a fine passage; Jesus is talking about the resurrection of the righteous there, which is obvious to all. In John 5:29, however, Jesus taught that there will be a resurrection of life (which He discussed in the Luke passage) and a resurrection of damnation (which He did not discuss in the Luke passage to which you constantly refer).
Notice that in my answers to your questions, I have only mentioned what the Bible teaches, but you keep talking about being “church of Christ-ified,” along with other derogatory expressions. Ad hominem attacks do not advance your cause. Neither does the fallacy of Guilt By Association. “Oh, popes ate roast, and Gary eats roast; therefore, he got the idea of eating roast from the Catholic Church.” The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary; I could probably find some quote to that effect. So are you getting your teachings from them? This is foolishness. What the Catholic Church teaches is irrelevant to this issue.
You have chosen to sit in judgment on God. Be sure to tell Him on the Day of Judgment that He is a monster for assigning the devil, his angels, and his earthly servants a place in the Lake of Fire.
Buford to Gary:
Thank you for your responding. What does all of this exchange boil down to? It boils down to a person’s view of who God is, one that destroys both soul and body or one that leaves many (that do not find LIFE) burning alive {with life?} during the age of the resurrection? Huh?? Have life without their names written in the book of life?
I have an atheist friend, Ph.D. very high (IQ 186), two masters from ACU, a Ph.D. from TCU. He baptized over 400 men in 3 different prisons while getting two masters at the same time. I kidded him about being “so smart for so long and not thinking he needed God.” He is now 47 years old. When in his 20s, he lived 2 years on the streets of Las Vegas on what he calls “wino-fajitas,” leaving Nevada so he wouldn’t have to go to prison for figuring out how to cheat slot machines.
Five or so years ago he studied the fate of the ungodly with me, hadn’t been a Christian all that long. He is brilliant and open-minded and had studied the world’s major religions for comparison. When it came to God’s biblical nature and the fate of the ungodly, he was surprised at what he read. At TCU he wrote about the most accepted lies relative to Christianity. One was the ego trip people have to think they are so precious that their souls are immortal and can’t be destroyed. I didn’t say this, but he said, “Anyone that believes God is going to burn anyone forever is stupid.” I told him, “No, they’ve been brainwashed by others, innocently ignorant, having believed preachers and seminary professors just like others believe their cult gurus, no questions asked.”
Gary, are you serious about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? You write as if this is the final judgment. Come on, Gary. The rich man had 5 brothers still alive on earth. They were in HADES, and you know it. Come on. The point of the parable was that even though Jesus would rise from the dead many would deny it.
Gary, did you miss reading verse 28? Look at it. This one resurrection is for ALL. John 5:28: Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice. Then Jesus describes the results of that resurrection for all. Be sure your opinions about Revelation figurative language harmonizes with the plainer language of the other writings. Things like the book of LIFE are plain, written about in Psalm 69:28. Are names BLOTTED OUT AND STILL LIVE SOMEWHERE? NO!
About Homer’s ’92 commentary. What he wrote in ’92 shows his mindset, taking for granted what he had been told about hell before he did his personal study on the subject. He approached the subject with an open mind— not one bound on defending what he had been told in the past.
Jude wrote about ungodly men who will meet the same fate Sodom and Gomorrah met. It was Sodom and Gomorrah that underwent the suffering of eternal fire from God. Sodom and Gomorrah are gone; there is no more smoke coming up. These ungodly men will undergo the same kind of suffering following judgment. They are NOT undergoing this suffering now, but will, just as Sodom and Gomorrah did. Surely you know this. In Jude this is about what is coming to the ungodly characters who “crept in privily,” etc. This type is still doing such, BUT they are not burning up YET, but they will. One can write about someone having undergone suffering, but it doesn’t have to be going on presently. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent such suffering.
This would all come easy for you IF you would simply believe what you read, forget your previous programming on this subject, and stop looking for loopholes to defend your position in the matter that, thankfully, is becoming obsolete in Christendom except for Catholicism. Relax and think about it.
[Editor’s note: My response and the conclusion of the discussion follows next week.]
Back in February and March of this year a person who shall be referred to as Buford (not his real name) initiated contact via e-mail. He initially took issue with an article concerning alcohol that was on our website. Several are posted, and he did not specify which one he was responding to. His message was brief: “Why drink grape juice? Don’t you know their [sic] is a diffence [sic] in wine and grape juice.” Not all of his sentences had this many mistakes in them. Also the sentence should end with a question mark. Henceforth all the communication will be corrected so that the reader will not need to wade through the errors. He continued by commenting: “Is there a difference? The grape juice resulted from the Puritan influence. Well, wine and grape juice are different.” After quoting Numbers 6:3, he concluded with these flattering comments:
Read your Bible and quit throwing flowers at yourself for your “DO NOTS.” Does such a ridiculous quibble make you feel better about yourself?? Coming from denominationalism to Christianity, I have learned to spot and avoid you traditionalists—thank God……and his Word.
Buford
One would think that this conversation was going to be about the consumption of alcohol, but it shifted not too long after I wrote these comments:
Well, you’re long on indignation but short on argumentation, which is evidenced by the fact that you offer no proof whatsoever, nor did you answer even one point in the article.
Your e-mail cannot be considered a serious attempt at presenting a case, since it is full of assumptions. “They drank wine at the Passover.” The Greek word oinos can mean either fresh from the grapes or intoxicating. Who told you it was intoxicating wine? Where is your proof? Do you think you are the only one who came from denominationalism? So did I, but it has nothing to do with the point at hand. You wrote out of emotion —not sound reasoning. Has it ever occurred to you that the use of fermented wine in the Lord’s Supper came from Roman Catholicism instead of the New Testament?
Where is your evidence for Puritan influence?
Did you look up the Hebrew word for wine in Numbers 6:3? There are several different words translated “wine” in the OT. Try again.
More exchanges swiftly occurred. He wrote: “I’ve been through this argument many times. You are the one that needs proof. Do your homework.” I responded with: “I already have. You’re the one without any evidence or coherent reasoning.” Then he said he was sending me another message and would I please read it. All of these messages, including the next one were from February 5th of this year. He then wrote to say that the first topic of discussion was just a door opener. He now switched gears entirely. He wrote:
One time in the early 80s I asked two “big preachers” in the brotherhood about a God that would create mankind knowing most would burn forever in hell. They promised me that if I wouldn’t tell who, they would send me a book to read. I had no idea what they were talking about, but I gave them my word, challenged everything in the book, but couldn’t refute the principles it contained. After paying my own way to Russia a couple of times in the 90s for several months and 12 years of volunteering as a prison chaplain I have encountered questions I hadn’t expected, especially from the prison population. Please note the two attachments….
Buford
The two attachments were things that have been expressed from time to time by others and were certainly nothing earth-shattering. I was not too kind in my evaluation, but he did not seem to mind. The following exchanges occurred February, 8-10. Only the significant portions of each e-mail are included.
Gary to Buford:
I hate to deflate your ego, but you have said nothing new or different—or even interesting. I have a 37-page evaluation of Fudge’s tome that will be published in the book, Profiles in Apostasy, and distributed later this month for the Spring lectures (just north of Houston). It is a very careful and thorough refutation of Fudge’s (and your) position. You might want to read it.
Buford to Gary:
Thanks for your response. What, in a few words, can you give me a Bible verse that shows that those that do not do God’s will, will live forever. No spin, please—just the verse or verses. I can send you a dozen that claim they will be destroyed. Gary, I do have an open mind, one that led me out of denominationalism and kept me from becoming “church-of-christ-ified.” Did you read my article printed in the paper here? Is the God you serve a sadistic torturer of people throughout eternity or did Jesus say the soul and body would be destroyed in hell? Try believing what you read and you will arrive being with a God that gives perfect punishment and is over rewarding. Get off that c of c horse you have been riding and try believing what you read. You don’t deflate anything. If you choose to support Greek philosophers and the popes, that’s your choice. I choose not to. I don’t worry about what the “church-of-christ-ified” mind sets rant about. If you will keep up your ranting you will be among those that cause the percentage of disbelievers in hell to continue going down…or you could choose to believe what you read in the Word. There is still hope for you.
Gary to Buford:
You sit in judgment of the justice of God and call Him a sadistic torturer—something man should have more humility than to do, but you are big on arrogance, charging that I do not believe what I read, which is foolishness. Do you think your article said more than Fudge’s 500 pages? I analyzed all of those claims in my review. FYI, when I left the Methodist Church, I was not interested in any other religion. It was the emphasis in the Lord’s church upon truth that drew my attention. That is the reason I am still here, although many, like you, Fudge, Rubel Shelly, and others have departed. I examined the word destruction and many others.
Buford to Gary:
Over the past 15 our so years I have come to pity people that serve what they believe to be a sadistic, torturing, monster of a God. Why don’t you read the 48th chapter of Jeremiah and see how broken hearted God was, weeping and wailing because most of the Moabites deserved losing their lives due to their wickedness. Doesn’t read like He is as angry with people as you seem to picture Him does it? You cannot scare people into fearing burning in fire forever. That’s why the belief in the false hell you believe in is turning more and more people away from God. Even some teachers in the denominations are realizing the false presentation of God’s Biblical nature has brought on the good old boy theology. You and your fear merchants are to be pitied.
Gary to Buford:
Your arrogance continues! It may come as a shock to you that I have read Jeremiah 48 over 30 times. The compassion of God is not the issue; 2 Peter 3:9 and many other verses explain that.
Apparently, the fact of denominational ministers turning away from the Biblical doctrine of hell is news to you. They rejected it first—as far back as the ’60s. Where do you think some of our “brethren” got the idea from? Some are always adopting denominational trends.
The reason they and you reject it is that you don’t like the idea; thus, you sit in judgment on the Scriptures and on God. At any rate you made a slip and departed from Fudge. You said we cannot scare people into fearing God. Fudge said annihilation is even more fearful. Hmm. Wouldn’t that be trying to scare them, also?
Modernists quit believing in the virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection of Christ decades, even centuries, ago. Are we going to start taking votes to see what doctrine is popular so we will know what to preach?
Whatever good old boy theology refers to, you apparently know, but the rest of us go by what the Scriptures teach. I was tempted to extend to you my pity in return for your gracious offer, but on further reflection, you do not appear to be worthy of it. It might be better reserved for sincere folks who have not willingly entered the land of theological gobbledegook.
Buford to Gary:
Your accusations of arrogance and “ego” are not becoming of a Christian. Is this a reflection of yourself or is it your judgment of anyone that doesn’t agree with you? Relax, Gary, and believe what you read in the Word. I’m still waiting on that verse that reveals that the ungodly will live forever. Now SURELY you can find it for me among the numerous pages you have written—unless you have written a lot of shallow ‘spin’??? Good hunting, bro. I assume you know what is revealed in 1 Jn 2:17 and 2 Peter 2:6. Go read them again and believe them without any “spin”. “The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” “if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an EXAMPLE of what is going to happen to the ungodly….”
What is your fascination with Fudge? I haven’t mentioned anyone by the name of Fudge. All I have mentioned is verses from the Word. I don’t need to read any of your “spin.” I’m simply asking for Bible verses. Do you have a good search program? Try blueletterbible if you don’t. It’s free, but I use a couple more as well. This free program will also point you to the 12 verses that speak of “destruction.” Oh, and I used to be of the Methodist persuasion, but just a bit. It really shakes “church-of-christ-ified” folks up once in awhile when I tell them the group I was associated with had some real Christians, in the Methodist church, (repentant baptized {immersed} believers). I left them mainly because I couldn’t support their church government and communion procedures. I was immersed when 18 even though I had been ‘sprinkled’ as a youth with water from the Jordan River no less!! Live forever?
You might want to check what Jesus had to say in John 6:51 and 58. Now this isn’t spin, Gary, it’s right out of the gospel of John. I’ll be waiting for the verses. Oh, have you considered John 3:16? If everyone is going to live forever (some burning in hell forever), why is it necessary to believe in Jesus to have life that is everlasting? According to you, everyone already had life everlasting prior to that being written. Gary, the verse doesn’t say anything about going to heaven, does it? It just refers to either having life or perishing, or am I missing something??
Gary to Buford:
You really seem to have a problem with English. I have told you now three times that I have already dealt with the Scriptures and the words you keep bringing up. Do I need to type it in larger letters?
Referring to your arrogance is not just name-calling. You demonstrate it by assuming that no one knows what you think you know, no one has ever understood a few verses of Scripture as you have, or could possibly have an answer to your marvelous interpretations. That is why I refer to your ego and arrogance. If you knew more, you would know there is a lot you do not know. Perhaps I have not been as kind as I should be, but I have been truthful.
Although you did not mention Fudge, you did say you had studied from certain brethren who are not in the mainstream. Wherever you purchased your theology, it was not from the Scriptures. The lake of fire burns forever. Fires do not burn unless there is something to consume. Satan is there–and so will be his followers (Rev. 20:11-15; 21:8).
Buford to Gary,
Right! These burn up…death…the wages of sin. But you are “spinning.” You say, “Fires do not burn unless there is something to consume.” Like the bush Moses saw??? Your spin has spun in reverse! I’m still waiting for the verses that tell of the ungodly living forever…no spin…just Scriptures…and your self-justification about accusing others of arrogance is pitiful conduct for a Christian. AND what I wrote you is not quotes from anyone but myself. Still have a fixation on Fudge? Relax and send me the verses…not spin.
Evidently you don’t understand ‘good old boy’ theology. GOB theology is the thinking of many that just believing there is a God is enough…no need for Jesus…just be a good old boy (or girl)…which really makes a person their own God. The verses, Gary, I’m waiting on the verses.
Gary to Buford:
This is the way you handle the Scriptures? You obviously have no respect for them.
You’re like a child. “Spin! Spin! Wah, wah! He’s using spin against me! It’s good old boy theology. Spin! Spin!”
You do not know how to engage in a discussion. The bush burned but was not consumed in order to catch Moses’ attention and reveal His power to him. Whose attention is God trying to catch with everyone annihilated?! To whom is He trying to prove something to? No one, least of all, God, would maintain a lake of fire for eternity when there is nothing left to burn and no reason to burn it.
The lake of fire burns forever because its inhabitants cannot escape, they continually die, perish, and are destroyed there, which is the reason it is called the second death. It is an “everlasting destruction” away from the presence of the Lord.
Now permit me to write your response for you. “It’s the annihilation that’s everlasting. Spin! Spin! Wah, wah! He’s using spin against me! It’s good old boy theology. Spin! Spin!”
And my reply after that is: Proverbs 26:4.
Buford’s next response was more of the same; the discussion was getting nowhere, and I wrote a one word reply: Stat, meaning, “It stands.” There is no sense answering a fool according to his folly. The conversation ended. Suddenly, 6 weeks later he resumed it.
The Israelites had great expectations at the time Jesus arrived, although they did not know how everything would fit together. They anticipated a king (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Ps. 110:1), but few (if any) anticipated that the kingdom would be spiritual. They expected “that prophet” like unto Moses (Deut. 18:15-19). The seed of woman was still going to bruise the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). And the third promise that God made to Abraham had yet to be fulfilled.
God stated this third promise in two different ways on various occasions. Its first pronouncement was: “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). In Genesis 22:18 God said: “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed….” To Isaac and Jacob were those words repeated (Gen. 26:4; 28:14). After Jesus died on the cross, was buried, arose again, and ascended into heaven, Paul referenced this verse:
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gal. 3:8).
Notice that Paul continues to explain this promise made to Abraham and that it is the promise referred to by Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:39) and the promise Paul mentioned in Acts 13:32. Consider Galatians 3:13-14:
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
The promise is not that of receiving the Holy Spirit (a subject left behind after verses 1-5); rather it refers to what the Spirit had promised—salvation to the heirs of Abraham—whether Jew or Gentile! Paul examines this subject further, concluding with the great text in Galatians 3:26-29.
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This is the promise to which Peter refers in Acts 2:39, which dovetails perfectly with the text of Galatians 3. It is also the promise of salvation to which Paul refers in Acts 13:32 and 38. Therefore, when Peter says that if they repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, they shall receive, in fact, salvation—the gift of the Holy Spirit—for that promise is to them, their children, and those who are far off—even as many as the Lord God should call.
Brother Warren used to teach that, in interpreting Scripture, we not only consider a verse but both the immediate and remote texts of the Bible. We have done so in examining Acts 2:38. The promise of salvation (and all the spiritual blessings that come through Christ) fit the text and harmonize with all remote texts. Certainly, it carries fewer problems than Peter allegedly telling the people they would receive a spiritual gift, and it is miles ahead of Deaver’s explanation that the apostle was promising them a gift “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.” Remember that Mac did not think the salvation explanation was even worthy of consideration since he had advanced the only four possibilities that could possibly explain “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Leave it to Deaver to over-rate his own thoroughness.
Objections to the Meaning of Salvation
We will consider his second objection first. He says that if the gift of the Holy Spirit is salvation, then it must either be salvation from past sins or salvation in heaven. But it cannot be salvation in heaven, he avers, because “neither Peter nor any other preacher could guarantee heaven to any obedient believer unless the obedient believer died immediately following his baptism” (35). While this observation is true, it does not mean that heaven was excluded from their thinking. Being saved from one’s past sins is necessary to go to heaven—and probably the motive for obedience to the gospel. Surely, the 3,000 knew that more was necessary then being baptized, since “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine…” (Acts 2:42).
If Deaver were entirely right about his second objection against Peter referring to heaven, then what could possibly be his criticism of “the gift of the Holy Spirit” referring to salvation from past sins? He claims that it would be “needless repetition.” He writes:
Does anyone still in control of his mental powers think that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to say, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the remission of your sins” (35)?
This writer will have to plead guilty. Has Mac read Joshua 13:1 lately?
Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And the Lord said to him: “You are old, advanced in years….”
To paraphrase Mac: “Does anyone still in control of his mental powers think that the Holy Spirit inspired Joshua to write that he was old, advanced in years and then have the Lord repeat the same thing to him?” Leave it to Deaver to think he knows God so well that he knows how God would or would not write.
Parallelisms
In all of his years of study, has Mac never noticed the Holy Spirit’s use of parallelisms, which amounts to saying the same thing in different words? One has only to read as far as Genesis 4:23-24:
Then Lamech said to his wives:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
O wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-seven fold.”
Notice that Adah and Zillah are the wives of Lamech and that hear my voice is equivalent to listen to my speech. Wounding and hurting are equivalent; young man amplifies man.
Parallelisms are generally found in the poetic books but obviously may be found in any book of the Bible. The type under discussion here is called Synonymous Parallelism. Despite Mac’s protest of “needless repetition,” the Holy Spirit chose to use many parallelisms to communicate the same idea in different words. A few are provided below.
“God has delivered me to the ungodly,
And turned me over to the hands of the wicked”
(Job 16:11).
Oh, praise the Lord, all you Gentiles!
Laud Him, all you people! (Ps. 117:1).
A fool’s lips enter into contention,
and his mouth calls for blows (Pr. 18:6).
’Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by injustice” (Jer. 22:13).
The earth is violently broken,
The earth is split open,
The earth is shaken exceedingly (Isa. 24:19).
“Does anyone still in control of his mental powers think that the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to say the same thing three times in a row?” These parallelisms could be multiplied several times over from the poetic and prophetic books, but someone might point out, “All these examples are from the Old Testament, and maybe the Hebrews wrote that way, but what about the New Testament?”
One of the standard works on Bible interpretation is D. R. Dungan’s Hermeneutics, published originally in the second half of the 19th century, although many editions have followed. He was cited earlier with respect to “metonymy of the subject.” He lists Genesis 4:23-24 and many other parallelisms from the Old Testament, but he also mentions Mary’s praise of God from Luke 1:46-55, after which he makes the following comment:
A careful reading of this address will cause any one to see the parallel lines and rhythm in the heart wrought to the highest tension with love for and praise for God (334).
Would that “anyone” include Mac Deaver? Even in non-poetic passages the New Testament includes parallelisms also. What about 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20? “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies.” The second sentence is at least one way the Spirit could be quenched, although there could be other ways. The next two verses comprise an antithetical parallelism: “Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22).
One might anticipate Mac saying, “While all of this is true, it is irrelevant. It does not prove that the gift of the Holy Spirit is salvation.” This statement is true; this information does not prove the case, but it certainly allows for it to be the case.
Luke and Acts 2
It would be appropriate to ask if Luke had ever used parallelisms when recording the facts of history. The answer is that he did—and not far from Acts 2:38-39. Although separated by six verses, Luke writes that “the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. They were all amazed and marveled…” (2:6). Later he records: “So they were all amazed and perplexed, “What could this mean?” (2:12). Although these bits of information are not in the style of a parallelism, they do repeat the same information that had already been provided. Was Luke unnecessarily redundant?
But consider Acts 3:14-15:
“But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.”
The people had denied Jesus, to whom Luke refers as the Holy and Just One. Antithetical to that the people embraced someone else, whose character was the opposite of holy and just; he was a murderer. Peter puts in one more antithetical twist and contrasts a taker of life with the Prince of Life. They killed the latter but asked for the former. The first and third descriptions are parallel with an opposite in between. But why use three descriptions to refer to Jesus—two in the same sentence? Jesus is the Holy One and the Just, as well as the Prince of Life. All three are accurate and refer to the same Person, but they bring out different aspects of His character.
Likewise, when Peter says, “for the forgiveness of sins,” and also identifies it as “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” he is merely emphasizing different truths about that salvation. Using different descriptions to refer to the same entity is not uncommon but frequent in writing. For that reason we find such expressions in poetry, prophecy, and everyday speech. The use of synonyms or equivalent expressions simply keeps our speaking and writing from becoming boringly repetitious. Peter refers to salvation and its attendant blessings as “the forgiveness of sins,” “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and “the promise.”
Speaking of Acts 3, Peter arrives at a point in his sermon where he feels compelled to tell those listening how they ought to respond to the truth that they had killed the Prince of Life.
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come upon you from the presence of the Lord” (3:19).
The word translated “repent” is the same word that is used in Acts 2:38. Many are surprised to see “be converted” for “be baptized.” The two words are not the same or even related. To be converted is to turn from one side to the other. Jesus said that He spoke in parables so that certain Jews would hear but not understand, “lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them” (Mark 4:12). This is the way Peter also uses the word. The Jews needed to give up their hardness of heart and turn fully to Jesus. In doing so, they would be baptized, since the apostle had already preached it that way. The fact that 3,000 people were baptized in the city of Jerusalem could hardly have gone unnoticed.
Those who were scattered in the persecution after the death of Stephen went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts 8:4). “And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:21). This description of conversion is also found in Acts 15:19. Again turning to the Lord or being converted, of necessity includes baptism—especially since the purpose for being converted is “that your sins may be blotted out.” Probably, we are all in agreement on this point. But one more example is instructive. As Jesus told Saul of Tarsus what He expected of him before his sins were washed away, He included that Saul was to go the Gentiles—
to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me (Acts 26:18).
The word translated “turn” is the same word as “be converted” in Acts 3:19 [1994]. When people turn from darkness to light, they receive forgiveness of sins, which comes through baptism. Paul says that he preached that message—that all should “repent, turn [1994] to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20).
The purpose of bringing these facts to light is to note that in Acts 3:19, the people needed to repent (as on Pentecost), and being converted corresponds to being baptized (not that they are identical but the former includes the latter). So, what corresponds to receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit”? The answer is—“times of refreshing” that come “from the presence of the Lord.” As has been our thesis all along, these times of refreshing (the gift of the Holy Spirit) refers to salvation and all that comes with it, such as the inheritance mentioned in Acts 26:18 (cf. Gal. 3:29).
Unlike the Day of Pentecost, no emphasis on the Holy Spirit is present to confuse the reader. No one on this day would confuse “times of refreshing” with a gift “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.” Mac’s objection to “the gift of the Spirit” being salvation does not hold. In fact, his analysis is little more than a quibble. He could not have thought through what he was writing very thoroughly, or he would not have mocked the fact that the Spirit can indeed use similar expressions to communicate the same thought. He will need to make a more serious effort to undermine this view when the entirety of the New Testament corroborates it. He undoubtedly will make a reply. Leave it to Deaver.
The observation has often been made that, when people go overboard on the Holy Spirit, they begin to see every passage through the prism of their newfound theology. They enthusiastically embrace new and even bizarre interpretations in an effort to substantiate their views and export them to others. One example of such unchecked exuberance was that of Todd Deaver at the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman in 2003. The following is an excerpt from him (as recorded in an article from Spiritual Perspectives (May 11, 2003):
I just wanted to address the comment about the question, whether or not we should worship the Holy Spirit. I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers concerning that, but let me just offer one observation. Possibly, one of the reasons that you don’t ever find, in the New Testament, worship being directed specifically to the Holy Spirit is that the Spirit is viewed in the New Testament as being within the Christian and helping him to offer it—his worship. For example, in Jude, verse 20, you have a reference to praying in the Holy Spirit. There are several other passages that talk about the same thing.
John 4:24 refers to worshiping in the Spirit. I believe that’s the Holy Spirit there. He is in the Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), helping us in our worship. He is interceding for us within our hearts (Romans, chapter 8). And so, possibly, how that’s supposed to be looked at in the New Testament is that the Holy Spirit is not in heaven receiving our worship but is in our hearts helping us to offer the worship.
In the history of Christianity, probably no one had ever alleged that worshipping God in spirit and in truth (think of all the sermons preached on this passage) referred to worshipping God in the Holy Spirit. Does even one commentary suggest such an interpretation?
Ralph Gilmore, hosting the forum, should have explained the fallacy of the statement (along with the other errors), but instead he said, “Todd, that’s a great point.” He ought to have said, “Todd, the idea that Jesus was teaching that the Holy Spirit helps us in our worship is totally foreign to the context of the conversation with the woman at the well.” As brethren have pointed out over the centuries, Jesus is talking about truth and sincerity of attitude (from the heart).
Once one begins to take an unscriptural position, however, everything becomes skewed, and all passages must be re-interpreted to fit the false theory. What Dan Billingsly has done in making all the Scriptures fit his error is precisely what Mac Deaver does with respect to the Holy Spirit. Objectivity in understanding passages of Scripture evaporates.
Promises, Promises
When Mac Deaver reads Acts 2, all he can see is the Holy Spirit. As already noted, the Holy Spirit had been promised and received on the Day of Pentecost. Certainly, the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled that day, along with the promise made by John and Jesus to the disciples. But that is not the only promise that is in play; Mac however, cannot see the other two. The first, as already mentioned, was the prophecy about Jesus being raised up to sit on David’s throne. The second is the promise made to all mankind of salvation and its attendant blessings. Others readily understand these promises as being present in the text.
After Jesus ascended into Heaven, He was exalted to the right hand of God, where He received the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Leave it to Deaver to, with a wave of the hand, dismiss any interpretation but his. He writes: “The only promise explicitly mentioned as a promise in the whole context is the promise of the Holy Spirit” (28).
The very wording of this sentence indicates that Deaver is aware that other promises are implicitly included, such as the one about Jesus receiving a kingdom when He ascended to the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13-14). Peter mentions that God had sworn to David that He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (Acts 2:30). This promise is in the context about as strongly as anything could be—without being explicit. When Peter proclaims that the Jesus they crucified is now both Lord and Christ, he is also affirming that Jesus has taken His place at the right hand of God and has begun His reign on David’s throne! Thus, the apostle has brought them to the point of discussing—not the Holy Spirit—but salvation.
Deaver wants us to believe that, when Jesus received the promise of the Holy Spirit, He received the Holy Spirit Himself—and then in turn poured Him out upon the apostles so they might speak in tongues. Where was it ever promised that Jesus would be given the Holy Spirit when He returned to Heaven? What He was promised (in the Old Testament Scriptures) was that He would receive a kingdom, which He had. Having received that promise, it was time to declare that fact; thus the Holy Spirit was poured out (metaphorically, not literally) upon the apostles in order to gather the multitude together to hear that salvation was now available.
Deaver acts as though the Holy Spirit is more important than salvation being available to all mankind. When the Jewish men were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, they did not ask, “How can we get the Holy Spirit?” They asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Their question is not, “What shall we do to get the Holy Spirit?” Their question is, “What shall we do about the fact that we have crucified the Son of God, whom God has raised up to sit on the throne of David?”
The Gift of the Holy Spirit
Peter’s answer is familiar: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The two conditions listed in order to receive salvation are easily understood—repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But what is meant by that promise that Peter gave—of receiving the Holy Spirit? Brethren have generally adopted three views to attempt to explain the phrase. Some have argued that the gift is the Spirit while others contend that the gift is something that the Spirit gives.
An important question to ask is, “What would the multitude have thought when hearing this phrase?” Two basic ideas come to mind: 1) That they would, if baptized, receive the ability to speak in tongues, as they had witnessed earlier (Peter had identified the occurrence as pouring out the Spirit on all flesh); or 2) That they would, if baptized, indeed receive salvation, concerning which the Holy Spirit had prophesied through the writers of the Old Testament.
Mac Deaver, however, specifies four possibilities (all on page 29). The first of these is that the multitude believed they would “receive the Spirit with all nine miraculous endowments that characterized the apostles.” Although he rejects this view as what Peter meant, it certainly was not something anyone would have thought. They had only seen one manifestation of the Holy Spirit at that time and did not know how many gifts the apostles might have possessed.
The second meaning that Deaver suggests is that they could receive the Spirit Himself with miraculous power, a la Cornelius. He rejects this option, but the people might have thought this to be a possibility, since they had observed it happen. The third option is the same except that the spiritual gift would come by the laying on of the hands of an apostle. Those on Pentecost could hardly have imagined that possibility since they were as yet not familiar with the way it would later be done.
The fourth choice is that Peter meant that the people would receive the Spirit Himself but “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.” What? “This would be supernatural non-miraculous power.” If anyone on the Day of Pentecost would have so understood Peter to mean what Deaver alleges here, he would outrank Einstein. Why would anyone observe a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit (i. e., speaking in tongues) and conclude that Peter referred to a non-miraculous manifestation of the Spirit? Actually, with the knowledge that the people had at that point and their brief, limited experience, the only option that makes sense is number 2—that they would receive the same thing they had seen in the apostles (and without the laying on of hands).
Mac Deaver rejects this view though, if the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit Himself, it would surely be the one that crowd would have envisioned. He rightly points out that only Cornelius and his family receive what he describes as position #2 and that it was the exception. Of course, students of the Word do not learn that fact until the book of Acts unfolds itself.
Because many brethren hold to position #3, Mac spends four pages refuting that position, after which he affirms that the fourth position is the correct one—the one concerning the non-miraculous indwelling. Up until this point he has not dealt with the possibility of the gift of the Holy Spirit referring to salvation. In fact, he made it clear that there were no other choices. After listing the four options, he asks, “Are there any other possibilities? I think not” (29). Leave it to Deaver to suggest that the four possibilities he sets forth are the only ones that can possibly exist—and then reverse himself. “Before concluding this section, let me mention one other alleged meaning of the expression ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’ which some preachers have advocated” (34). Well, which is it? Are there four and only four possibilities, or is there another? There is another, and it is one that the crowd would have had in their minds, thus giving it credibility.
Salvation
Mac hates to stoop to discuss this non-existent option (in his mind). After all, he has already proved his case; why bother to mess up his perfect construct? Concerning the idea that the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to salvation, he writes: “Given the foregoing explanation, this is false. But let me offer a few comments anyway” (35). He does not seriously examine this view. Why does he not quote someone who has actually written on the subject or comment on a few related Scriptures? Does he not know how to do research? It is much easier to define another’s position in one’s own terms and then discredit it than to let someone who holds that position speak for himself.
Therefore, the position shall be set forth before we look at Mac’s refutation of it. First, a summary is in order.
1. The apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in various languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance (2:4).
2. Many were appropriately amazed at what they saw and heard, but some mocked, accusing the apostles of being full of new wine (2:12-13).
3. Peter refuted the charge and claimed that what they had observed was what Joel had prophesied (2:15-16). The passage mentions such spiritual gifts as prophecy. Nothing in Joel’s words suggests a gift “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.”
4. Then Peter begins to preach Jesus, who was attested by God to them “by miracles, wonders, and signs,” which they had seen (2:22).
5. They had put Him to death, but He was resurrected (2:23-24).
6. David had spoken of the resurrection (2:24-31).
7. God had sworn to David “with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Acts 2:30).
8. Jesus had been raised up; the apostles were witnesses. Jesus had been highly exalted at the right hand of God (given David’s throne), and the Holy Spirit had poured out the miraculous gift they had observed (2:32-33).
9. Peter quotes Psalm 110:1, a Messianic kingship passage (2:34-35).
10. Peter reaffirms that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, after which the men ask what they should do (2:36-37).
Neither the question nor the answer revolves around the Holy Spirit. The answer is devoted to salvation. God used the Holy Spirit to do something miraculous to gain people’s attention. The purpose, however, was to teach a spiritual message—that of salvation. Jesus had fed 5,000 on one occasion, and they wanted to make him a king, mistaking the sign for what the sign pointed to. The Holy Spirit is prominent in Acts 2—but only as a means to preach the gospel to the people. In answer to their question, Peter mentions repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Does he mention the gift of the Holy Spirit to reintroduce the subject of the Holy Spirit?
Such is unlikely for two reasons. First, everything in verses 38-42 centers on salvation. Second, in another passage, one without the prominence of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, the parallel response is also entirely on salvation. However, Acts 2 deserves further examination. Notice verse 39: “For the promise is to you and your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” To what does the promise refer in this verse? Certainly it was not the promise made to David of Christ ruling on his throne. Is it the promise of the Holy Spirit Jesus made to the apostles? No. Does it refer to what Peter just promised about the gift of the Holy Spirit? After having told them how to be saved, did Peter then think it was important to tell them about a gift “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power”? Having broached being saved, would he take an excursion into another subject area, which would possibly only confuse them?
No, it is our contention that the gift of the Holy Spirit here is the same thing as the gift of God in John 4:10—the salvation that comes through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and the blessings that accompany it. Why it is phrased that way may relate to the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who prophesied of the salvation to come all through the ages. Furthermore, salvation (resulting in eternal life) is a gift of God (Rom. 6:23).
Notice too that the promise of salvation is made to all (2:39). Peter said many other things to the people, exhorting them, “Be saved from this perverse generation” (2:40). The emphasis is clearly upon salvation. Acts 2:41 does not say, “They that gladly received his word were baptized, and they all received a gift ‘without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.’” It speaks only of salvation and being added to the body of Christ. Among the things in which brethren continued steadfastly in Acts 2:42, there is no mention made of a non-miraculous gift—but rather things that pertain to salvation.
In Acts 13 the references to the Holy Spirit that had to be made on Pentecost are absent. Paul arrives at the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead and His post-resurrection appearances (Acts 13:30-31). Then he says: “And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers” (13:32). After recounting the resurrection further in light of prophecies, Paul says that “through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins…” (13:38). The promise (the glad tidings) is clearly salvation, the forgiveness of sins.
