My Personal Observations of Israel as a Story
Airport Tel Aviv
I’ve been to Israel in person. My wife and I landed at the Tel Aviv Airport, the second largest city in Israel, even though you wouldn’t know Jerusalem was largest. Tel Aviv has skyscrapers and to an American it looks like a major city. Jerusalem doesn’t. It looks like nothing you’ve ever seen except for Jerusalem, one of a kind. Tel Aviv is in the middle of the country and on the coast. It is near Jaffa, which is Joppa, which you might remember from Jonah. A little further North is Caesarea, built by Herod as the first full fledged port for Romans to arrive in Israel.
Even though it wasn’t as busy when my wife and I went, we stood in a very, very long line to get through customs. Even expecting it some, this necessary extra layer of security to guarantee the safety of Israel and tourists, surprised in its lengthiness. When I turned and looked at the line behind and in front of me, people came from all over the world. An American might think, I did, that Americans hold a vast majority of the interest for God’s promised land.
Before tourists started flying into Israel on Holy Land trips, for centuries convoys of Europeans took pilgrimages there. When Moslems hindered them, they fought crusades for the freedom to continue. The United States media doesn’t cover the interest. The rest of the world claims Israel too, even the Chinese, which made up a large portion of the line in which we waited.
Ben-Gurion
At the front of the line down a long wide welcome corridor in the Ben Gurion airport is an oversized replica of a Torah scroll. Jewish travelers returning to their home country would reach and touch this symbol like Jews might do on the mezuzah as they arrived at the doorway of their own homes. The name Ben Gurion itself hearkens to biblical names in the Old Testament.
“Ben” is a masculine Hebrew noun in the Old Testament meaning “son,” which occurs thousands of times. It shows how important family is in the Bible. It also reminds us of the importance of God as our Father and we as His sons. The term “Son of Man” is ben Adam in the Hebrew, just as an example of the commonality of Ben, as in Benjamin and David Ben-Gurion, the primary national founder of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister. The Hebrew “Gurion” means “young lion” in English.
Train to Jerusalem
From customs, my wife Bridget and I boarded a train that travels with several stops from the airport to Jerusalem. Wilhelm II, the German Kaiser, landed in the Jaffa port by ship on October 28, 1898 and himself took the train to Jerusalem with his wife, Augusta Victoria, the daughter of England’s Queen Victoria. The Kaiser entered the city on horse back through two specially made ceremonial arches, one a gift of the Ottoman Empire. He came to dedicate the German Lutheran church building, the Church of the Redeemer, on Reformation Day, 1898. At the dedication, Wilhelm said:
From Jerusalem came the light in splendor from which the German nation became great and glorious; and what the Germanic peoples have become, they became under the banner of the cross, the emblem of self-sacrificing charity.
It might seem strange, considering Hitler and World War 2, but during his visit to the Ottoman Empire in 1898, Wilhelm met with Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism. This meeting was significant as it was the first public acknowledgment of Herzl as the leader of the Zionist movement by a major European power. Even though Wilhelm II did not offer substantial support for Herzl’s project, the meeting lent some political legitimacy to Herzl and Zionism.
Hotel
Bridget and I disembarked in Jerusalem at the closest station to Apartique, a self serve airbnb style lodging, which was in walking distance to both the Jaffa Gate and the King David Hotel. Instead of walking to Apartique, we caught a taxi, driven by an Arab. This is very common in Jerusalem. When we shortly arrived, I handed him a credit card and he only took cash. I had none. It was close to midnight. My wife got out at the hotel and he drove me to three different ATMs to pay my fare, failing at getting any cash at any of them. I took his business card with hopes of paying him later and never saw him again.
King David Hotel
The plan for my wife and I as we collapsed in bed was to arise in about two and half hours to catch a bus very early the next morning at the King David Hotel to Masada for a sunrise hike up the snake path to the top. We walked from our hotel to the King David and few other people already had arrived in the darkness of Jerusalem. My wife and I struck a conversation with a couple from New Jersey.
The thirty-something couple wasn’t married and she was an American Jew with interest in religion. They had been in Israel for a week and she wanted to talk mainly about the Mehane Yehuda Market in Jerusalem, where they visited three times. We didn’t know yet what she was talking about, but we later would. A large bus already sat on the street David Hamelekh in front of the hotel and another smaller one arrived. A young female guide, named Yael, stepped out and we approached to see if this was our bus. It was.
Maybe Yael sounds familiar, but with a different spelling, Jael, the heroine of the Battle of Mount Tabor in Judges chapter four and five. Yael nailed Sisera with a tent peg through his skull (Judges 4:17-21). It is today one of the most common names for an Israeli female.
Bus to Masada
Upon embarking the bus, the driver went South down from Jerusalem through Hebron. It was quite a desolate route through the darkness and my wife and I drifted off until we stopped after an hour for gas in a very remote location. The station was a destitute place with a rough old gas pump and a hardscrabble convenience store. The items were regional, nothing you would see in the United States. The tour and station owners seemed in cahoots as if they operated with their own quid pro quo. This underlies commerce all over Israel, a form of bartering.
All of the riders and us boarded the bus again and continued our journey through the darkness until we finally arrived at Masada still in the darkness. We drove into the Masada National Park in front of that impressive geological formation. Very few other busses also arrived and we all began our walk upward.
More to Come
The Dovetailing of Biblical Eschatology and United States Foreign Policy
Religious Influence on Government
Virginia Baptists under the leadership of John Leland influenced James Madison and his writing of the Bill of Rights. They wouldn’t vote for ratification of the Constitution in Virginia without freedom of religion in a first amendment. This was a quid pro quo situation for the Baptists and Madison. After the consequences of the Great Awakening, Virginia had so many Baptists that they needed their support to pass legislation.
Religious folk still influence both domestic and foreign policy in the United States. In particular, the eschatology of American evangelicals affects politicians and lawmakers. Overall, Jews are no friend of evangelicals. A large majority of Jews treat evangelicals like trash. They hate and disdain them. Jews most often vote just the opposite as evangelicals and even try to ruin most of what they like. They direct caustic verbiage toward evangelicals, insulting them in a hateful manner. Nevertheless, a large number of evangelicals eagerly continue supporting Israel. Why?
Premillennialism
Many genuine, born-again Christians take the Bible literally. They approach the prophetic portions of scripture grammatically and historically. Even though prophecies contain figurative language, they interpret them according to their plain meaning. They believed like this from the first century until today. In more recent historical times, Christians established a literal method of interpretation of scripture, called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism systematized a belief already held by Christians, titled premillennialism.
Premillennialism is a theological perspective within Christian eschatology that asserts that Jesus Christ will physically return to Earth (the Second Coming) before the establishment of a literal thousand-year reign known as the Millennium. This belief corresponds to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, which describes a period during which Christ reigns on earth following His return. The premillennial view emphasizes a literal reading of biblical texts, particularly those concerning end-time events. This approach maintains that prophecies regarding Christ’s second coming and the ensuing kingdom should be understood in their plain meaning unless context suggests otherwise.
A critical aspect of premillennialism is the belief that Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are distinct entities with separate roles in God’s plan. Promises made to Israel, especially regarding land and kingdom, are viewed as not fulfilled by and in the church. Like Paul confirmed in Romans 11:26, “Israel shall be saved.”
A Voting Bloc of Premillennialists
Sixty-five percent of evangelical leaders identify as premillennial. According to various surveys, a substantial number of evangelicals hold premillennial beliefs, particularly in conservative circles. This aligns with the findings from an evangelical leaders survey, suggesting that premillennialism is indeed the dominant perspective within evangelicalism. Even among non-believers in non-evangelical churches and even non-church goers believe premillennialism.
Many evangelicals don’t identify as Baptist and many truly saved Baptists don’t identify as evangelicals. Many Charismatics do not consider themselves as evangelicals and evangelicals don’t consider themselves Charismatic. Without overlap, all evangelicals, Baptists, and Charismatics come to about 35% of the population of the United States. A higher percentage of Charismatics are premillennial than even evangelicals and Baptists.
65% of 35% is 23%. That would make twenty-three percent of Americans as premillennial. Twenty-tree percent of the 340 million Americans is 78 million premillennialists. That’s a very large and influential voting bloc and their eschatology affects their foreign policy.
Support of Israel and Opposition to Globalism
Premillennialists will support Israel. They also oppose globalism because they think this world will end with a one world government. This affects their position on borders and foreign wars. Part of the support of an American first agenda relates to opposition to the globalist perspective that involves the United States in unending foreign entanglements and wars.
I can see why a 35% voting bloc at least wants the United States to give Israel a free reign to defeat their enemies in the Middle East. Also, I understand why these same voters do not support the war in the Ukraine. This isn’t hatred of the Ukraine, but it is a distrust in an administrative state within the United States that wants globalism. These same characters villainize Russia to undermine the candidate that most champions their causes.
Opposition of the Biblical Views
A particular United States foreign policy dovetails with biblical premillennialism. The premillennial voters have an agenda which they see as within the will of God. That makes the left crazy. It wants to censor and even imprison these people as political enemies. The left sees them as complete kooks. The leftists don’t think anyone should depend on the Bible for any political decisions. I think we would find a fairly large percentage that would prefer the death of premillennialists, whom they see as a scourge of the earth.
The Bible is true. God expects us to know what it means, called the perspicuity of scripture. He wants us to believe it and live according to it. This includes all the prophetic passages. What He says will occur in the future will in fact occur in the future.
AI Friday: On Worship
I asked a different Artificial Intelligence program, Microsoft Copilot, which is a feature of Bing, about what I think about worship. It gave a shorter explanation than what AI Questions has. What I like about it is that it summarizes what I’ve written. It also reports a type of objective assessment of everything I’ve written online. I inform you that AI overuses the passive voice. Perhaps there are better AI writers than these two. Here’s what they say that I have written on worship.
Kent Brandenburg emphasizes a deeply reverent and scripturally grounded approach to worship. He believes that true worship involves two key components:
Recognition of Who God Is: Worship begins with acknowledging God’s nature and attributes. This recognition shapes how we approach and honor Him. Brandenburg stresses that worship must align with God’s character and not fall short of His greatness.
Giving God What He Wants: Worship should be based on what God has revealed in Scripture. Brandenburg supports the regulative principle of worship, which means that the elements of worship should be those explicitly found in the Bible. This principle ensures that worship is not altered by human preferences but remains faithful to God’s instructions.
Brandenburg also highlights that worship is a perpetual, spiritual, and sincere act from the heart, akin to offering spiritual sacrifices to God.
Then I asked Microsoft Copilot what I said about culture and worship, and it said this:
Kent Brandenburg has shared various thoughts on culture and worship, often emphasizing a traditional, Bible-based approach. He believes that worship should be rooted in biblical principles rather than being influenced by contemporary cultural trends. Brandenburg often critiques modern worship practices that he feels stray from scriptural teachings, advocating instead for a return to more traditional forms of worship that he believes are more aligned with biblical instructions.
I decided to ask AI Questions the same two questions to see the difference in answers — first question:
According to what I know, Kent Brandenburg emphasizes that worship should be regulated solely by Scripture. He argues that true worship recognizes who God is and gives Him what He desires, which can only be understood through the Bible. The elements of worship are prescribed in the New Testament, including reading the Word, preaching, singing, prayer, baptism, Lord’s Supper, and collection of offerings. Notably absent from this list is the “altar call” or invitation, which he contends is not a biblical element of worship.
Brandenburg asserts that the act of listening to preaching is part of worship and should be done with a proper attitude—being “swift to hear” and receiving God’s Word with meekness. He believes that any response to preaching must align with biblical principles and that churches may choose various methods for individuals to respond (such as coming forward during an invitation), but these methods are merely circumstances surrounding the element of preaching rather than elements themselves.
He critiques “blended worship,” which combines different musical styles to appeal to various congregational preferences. Brandenburg argues that this approach prioritizes human desires over divine standards and dilutes the sacred nature of worship. He warns against pragmatism in worship practices, stating that it leads to a focus on pleasing people rather than honoring God. Ultimately, he insists that genuine worship must adhere strictly to God’s prescribed ways as outlined in Scripture.
Second Question:
According to the information provided, Kent Brandenburg discusses the relationship between culture and worship by emphasizing that worship should be regulated by Scripture rather than cultural norms. He argues that true worship recognizes who God is and what He desires, which can only be found in the Bible. This means that elements of worship must align with biblical prescriptions, and any additions or deletions to these elements are not acceptable.
Brandenburg critiques the idea that cultural practices should dictate how worship is conducted. He points out that while culture influences many aspects of life, it should not define the core elements of worship. Instead, he advocates for a return to biblical principles as the foundation for worship practices. He highlights that God has specific expectations for how He wants to be worshiped, and these expectations are outlined in Scripture.
Furthermore, he addresses the notion of “the new legalism,” which refers to the pressure some feel to conform to modern standards of non-conformity regarding church practices. Brandenburg asserts that this pressure can lead to a misunderstanding of what constitutes proper worship and can detract from genuine reverence toward God.
In summary, Kent Brandenburg emphasizes that worship should be based solely on biblical instruction rather than cultural influences, ensuring that it remains true to God’s desires as revealed in Scripture.
The Textual Pope Theory of Mark Ward
Hypothetical Manuscript Finds
In his last video, Mark Ward again clarifies his viewpoint of a doctrine of preservation of scripture. He makes up this position out of sheer cloth. As a case study, he imagines an ancient New Testament manuscript discovered at Pompeii that helps swing textual critics’ opinion toward one word in one verse over another. It’s the reality, he says, of willingness to still alter any verse in the New Testament based upon a further archaeological find.
Ward illuminates an important aspect of his view of preservation: every verse of the biblical text is yet to be settled. Any word could still change in the worldview of Mark Ward and others. They reject the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation.
The Argument
How does Ward argue for his position? He doesn’t rely on scripture at all. Ward claims a doctrine of preservation (which he explained in a recent video) and then rests on his experience and circumstances to formulate it. Then when he goes to explain our position, he twists it on purpose. He perverts and misrepresents it. I’m sure this is why he won’t discuss it with any legitimate critics, because it would expose him for his total strawman.
It’s very easy for Mark Ward to sit and eviscerate the biblical and historical position on preservation, when he sits unchallenged. He can much easier caricature it. He takes an utterly moron representation of what we teach, hopeful his adherents will succumb to the deceit. The resulting opposition to his ungodly practice, he labels unchristian and feigns persecution for righteousness. Whatever suffering he experiences is in fact for his own unrighteousness.
Ward speaks into his own bubble of misinformation. It bounces around that echo chamber, returning back to him as true. He can’t allow legitimate challenges because the other guys are too mean, unlike him. He’s fuzzy kind while his constant targets are harsh and injurious in their tone. Ward poses as a teddy bear and they a hard tonka truck making his cute bear into road kill.
“The Text” According to Ward
According to Ward, what is causing changes to the text? Ward says, “the text,” those words. He says, something causes changes to “the text.” What text? “The text.” Is there a “the text” in the universe of Mark Ward. He calls it “the text,” but what is it? He says that the Editio Critico Major, the coherence based genealogical method, the CBGM, causes changes to “the text.”
In the view of Ward on the text of scripture, only a Pope figure could possess the real authority to intervene and stop changes to “the text.” I couldn’t tell what “the text” was, but only a Pope could impede it from continuing to change. On the other hand, besides this fictional Pope person, science is totally free to change “the text,” that is, except for Ward’s one chosen exception: conjectural emendation. He won’t accept CBGM to cause changes to “the text” based on conjectural emendation. He won’t allow for sheer guessing the words, a bridge too far for him, but that’s it.
A Mysterious Pope-Like Figure
Ward mockingly says the following verbatim, which mirrors what he said in the video I last reviewed:
The only real alternative is for some pope-like figure to come to us with Christ’s authority and tell us to stop. A great fiery angel might come and tell Dirk Jongkind: “Your work is at an end. The current edition of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament now perfectly matches the originals — or is close enough.” Then we’d be done. No verses would be permitted to change for any reason at that point.
These statements do not represent what God says He would do with His Words according to scripture. Canonicity did not occur from a pope-like figure uttering the names of the sixty-six books in a state of trance, the channel of God’s revelation. That’s not the story. Ward should get the position right, but he continues to make these kind of representations that straw man the biblical and historical position. He won’t engage anyone in public who can state the actual position.
Ward then continues:
The real difference between me and some of the smartest defenders of the Textus Receptus is that they’ve limited the changes by deciding by fiat, that without God’s authority only printed editions of the Textus Receptus are allowed to be considered. I just have a bigger pool of Greek New Testament readings to draw from than they do, because I want to be aware of all the readings God has preserved for us.
Changes by Fiat?
Ward above flat out again annihilates the biblical and historical position on preservation. What God preserved would be available to every generation of believer. New finds are rejected, because they do not fit that presupposition. Ward will continue accepting new discoveries ad infinitum, because he both doesn’t believe in the perfection of the preservation of the text, nor in a settled text. It’s an ongoing and never ending process for him and others. That is not preservation.
The received manuscripts of the church were printed into editions of the Textus Receptus. This is the settlement or canonicity of the text. The church accepted this. Upon the end of that period in the 16th and early 17th century, they ended their continued updating. The words were available in those printed editions, one facet of the doctrine of preservation.
Inward Testimony of the Holy Spirit and Agreement of Churches
Like the church settled on the Books, evidence of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, confirming the Books, the church did the same with the text of scripture. This reflected a belief in preservation. It was not a never ending process. It was over and settled, not dependent on naturalism, but on the providence of God and the witness of the Spirit.
Believers did not look for a Pope figure. Ward purposefully spins the biblical and historical position into this transmogrification. Only one Holy Spirit works through all the true believers. Their agreement, they saw as the testimony of the Spirit. They also trusted that God would do what He said He would do. The model is there in the canonicity of the Books.
You will never hear Mark Ward represent the biblical and historical position as written by myself and others. Never. He does not represent it properly. I and others have not only written this position, but we have documented from church history, a multiplicity of statements from the historic doctrine of preservation. Churches embracing scripture as final authority believed and wrote this doctrine. This is why the Textus Receptus reigned as the text for the church for centuries.
Ward intimates in a very ambiguous way that supporters of the Textus Receptus should respect the testimony of contemporary believers in the same way they do for those in the past. I hear that from him and consider the veracity of it. Is this a matter of church vote or churches voting? The church already received what the text was. If the vote changes, a greater number support a critical apparatus rather than a settled text, should people consider the updated text as the actual text, the original one?
Problems with a Theory
There are a lot of problems with Ward’s theory concerning the most recent acceptance of professing believers. First, it doesn’t fit biblical presuppositions. It rejects availability and a perfect and settled text. The Holy Spirit won’t suddenly change His testimony. His witness is true. The change would mean it wasn’t.
Second, the recent professing believers, who choose something different than the received text, don’t believe in perfect preservation. They don’t themselves embrace the underlying text in the same manner as those in their historical and biblical doctrinal presentations for centuries.
Third, the embrace of a perfect text means continued tweaking and changing is over. The presuppositions won’t change either. An already confirmed settled text eliminates a future new or different text.
Perhaps Mark Ward finds himself toward the end of this period of his life where a primary emphasis is pushing people toward modern versions of the Bible. His focus shifts from his intelligibility argument to a textual one, explaining what he really thinks about the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Perfect preservation doesn’t require a Pope figure to declare ex cathedra the settled text of scripture. God already through the inward testimony of His Spirit led His church to those Words. I call on Ward and others to receive them by faith.
What Is the Work of the Lord?
New Testament Phrases
The New Testament uses the following phrases these numbers of times:
- work of the Lord — 2 (1 Corinthians 15:58, 16:10)
- work of God — 2 (John 6:29, Romans 14:20)
- works of God — 3 (John 6:28, John 9:3, Acts 2:11)
- work of Christ — 1 (Philippians 2:30)
- work of an evangelist — 1 (2 Timothy 4:5)
- work of the ministry — 1 (Ephesians 4:12)
- thy works — 9 (James 2:18, Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 2, 8, 15)
The “works of God” above are definitely works that God does directly, if you read those in their context. I added those because they aren’t what I’m describing here. They provide a contrast. One could distinguish those from what I’m addressing. On the other hand, the work of an evangelist and the work of the ministry are both in the realm of what I’m covering here. They are works done by believers. What about the other four phrases?
Punishment and Reward
In my last post, I wrote about works and either their punishment or their reward. The evil works of unbelievers God will punish at the Great White Throne Judgment. The good works of believers God will reward at the Bema Seat Judgment. Then I said statements like the following (I will bold pertinent phrases):
In the age in which we live, God wants His work done in, through, and by the church. In the Old Testament, God used Israel. Also within Israel God regulated how He wanted His work done in, through, and by Israel.
The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age. According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work. Living by faith and pleasing God requires accomplishing His work in the way God shows to do it. The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work. Doing it another way than the church is an invention of men and God isn’t pleased when someone does God’s work a different way. It isn’t obeying God, so it isn’t living by faith.
It is not obeying God or loving God to do what He said a different way than what He said. The church is the only way. All of the God’s work can be done through the church. God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said. Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.
What Work Is God’s Work?
Is all the work of a believer God’s work? In one sense it is, but I don’t believe that is how the terminology reads in the New Testament. If I’m at home fixing my toilet, I should do it for God, but this isn’t a work of the ministry, like Paul describes in Ephesians 4:12. Whether you eat or drink or whatsoever you do, you should do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), but fixing the toilet is not in the category of a “work of the Lord” in the New Testament.
The Lord Jesus provided a good clue for the work of the Lord, when He said in Luke 9:60:
Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
The spiritually dead can do certain temporal, earthly works, but only those alive in Christ can do His works. Jesus also said in John 14:12:
He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Unbelievers cannot do those works, said to be “the works that I do” shall the believer do also. I like the idea of having a Christian doctor or lawyer, but it’s possible that an unsaved doctor could do a better job than a saved one. He might have more skill, knowledge, and better training. On the other hand, an unsaved doctor cannot do these works of God that Jesus references. These would include for sure, preaching the kingdom of God, like Jesus mentioned in Luke 9.
Usages through the New Testament
Corinthians
When Paul commands the Corinthian church, be always abounding in the work of the Lord, he speaks of the work done by the church. In the previous post, I was saying that God designated the church for that work and that it was sufficient for it. The New Testament doesn’t show parachurch organizations. Those doing that work are not operating outside the authority of the church anywhere in the New Testament. God uses the church to do it. Paul addresses the church at Corinth about abounding in that work.
Jesus
When Jesus says again and again in Revelation 2 and 3, “I know thy works,” He speaks of the ministry of the church, the work that He gave to the church to do, like that in John 14:12, the works that regenerate, immersed church members do that Jesus did also. In John 20:21, Jesus says, “As my Father hath sent me, so send I you.” What did the Father send His Son to do that His Son sent that group (plural “you”) to do? The work of God or the work of the Lord.
Ephesus
In Ephesians 4:12, pastors perfect or equip church members to do the work of the ministry for the building up of the church. In a technical sense, that is discipleship, which includes evangelism. Jesus designed that work for the church. He gave the church only the means of accomplishing that work. Jesus gave the church the New Testament, which is fulfilled by the church, which includes its offices, ordinances, and discipline. No other institution possesses those tools.
Paul and Epaphroditus
When Paul said about Timothy in 1 Corinthians 16:10, “he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do,” he wasn’t speaking of tent making. Paul made tents, but the work of the Lord was the church work that Paul did. When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, “For meat destroy not the work of God,” he addressed the undermining of evangelism and discipleship of new converts for the sake of eating meat offered unto idols. He differentiated the work of God from eating meat. For the sake of the former, eliminate the latter.
Paul told the Philippians that Epaphroditus “nigh unto death” for the “work of Christ” (Philippians 2:30). What work was Epaphroditus doing? He was near unto death from preaching and teaching the message of Christ in Rome, while Paul was imprisoned there. It was dangerous work to stand for Christ and proclaim His message in the capital of the Roman empire.
When I speak of the work of the Lord, I’m speaking of church work. God gave the work of the ministry to the church to accomplish, no other institution. The Holy Spirit divides severally to each church for the manifestation of Jesus Christ through His body (1 Corinthians 12:11ff). This includes all of the means God gave the church that He uses to do this, including the gathering or assembling of the church as His day approaches. The work of the Lord is the work of His church. That is the sufficient means or instrumentation by which Jesus ordained its accomplishment.
Faith in God and the Sufficiency of the Church
Pleasing God by Faith
In a now very familiar verse, James writes in James 2:19:
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Someone may say that he has faith, but what is the true measure of faith of what God said? It is doing what He said. When God says, this is how He wants something done, that’s how someone should do it and without exception. That is faith in God. And most of you probably already know that “without faith, it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
Pleasing God is the purpose for mankind on earth (Revelation 4:11). Only from God’s Word do men know the standard or basis for pleasing Him. God will judge men based on what He says (John 12:48). The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17) and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Man lives by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).
Since the Bible is the source book, the veritable handbook, for how to live and to please Him, that is what He wants men to follow carefully and diligently. Solomon says at the end of Ecclesiastes that keeping God’s commandments is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Those commandments are in the Bible.
God’s Judgment
In the end, God at the least will judge everyone at two judgment seats: (1) the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) and (2) the Bema Seat Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10). The former is for unbelievers or the unsaved and the latter is for believers or the saved. Both judgments are very important and do relate to obeying God and in particular how to do what God wants men to do.
God will punish unbelievers for their sin. Their works fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God will reward believers for their works, so the Bema Seat Judgment means the gaining or the loss of rewards. Both relate to pleasing God. Romans 8:8 says that the unbeliever cannot please God (Romans 8:8). The believer can please Him and God will reward Him when He does.
Living by faith means living a life regulated by what God said: doing what He says to do and not doing what He says not to do. This means not just doing what God said, but doing it how He said. Scripture is replete with examples of men failing to submit to how God wanted it done and God punishing them for it.
How God Wants His Work Done
How God wants done what He wants done gets short shrift today most often. God cares how what He wants gets done. Not doing it how He wants will effect what He wants. He rejects things done in the wrong way or manner. What to do and how to do it feed off each other.
In the age in which we live, God wants His work done in, through, and by the church. In the Old Testament, God used Israel. Also within Israel God regulated how He wanted His work done in, through, and by Israel.
The Church, the Only Acceptable Means of God’s Work Today
The New Testament reveals God’s work done only through the church in this period, the church age. According to the New Testament, the church is sufficient to accomplish God’s work. Living by faith and pleasing God requires accomplishing His work in the way God shows to do it. The New Testament teaches only the church for doing His work. Doing it another way than the church is an invention of men and God isn’t pleased when someone does God’s work a different way. It isn’t obeying God, so it isn’t living by faith.
People who won’t do God’s will His way are not pleasing Him. Perhaps people will not do it like God said because they’re not saved. Scripture shows this to be the case. On the other hand, saved people will lose rewards for not doing what God said how He said to do it.
It is not obeying God or loving God to do what He said a different way than what He said. The church is the only way. All of the God’s work can be done through the church. God does not approve of doing His work a different way than what He said. Because God’s Word is sufficient, the church is sufficient for all of God’s work.
The Satanic Attack on Taking God’s Word Literally
Early in the Bible, God shows how that Satan attacks what He says. God wants men to anticipate this attack. Satan doesn’t want the audience of God’s Word to receive what God said. He tries to get the hearer to read something of his own opinion into it.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). James admonishes against being swift to speak or argue against what God said (James 1:19). 2 Timothy 2:23 warns against foolish speculation regarding scripture, because that’s what Satan wants men to do, even as seen in his own example in the Garden of Eden and the Wilderness of Temptation.
Jesus and the Apostles took scripture literally. Taken literally, the Bible does not contradict itself. Everything in it fits together in a coherent whole. I say this having preached or taught in great detail through every verse of the Bible in my lifetime and several books multiple times.
The literal approach to interpreting the Bible asserts that the text should be understood according to its plain meaning, taking into account the grammatical structure and historical context in which it was written. God used human authors to convey specific messages that can be understood without allegorizing or spiritualizing them. A literal reading respects the integrity of the text of God’s Word and also agrees with historical theology. It’s not new to do this, that is, take the Bible literally.
A literal interpretation of the Bible gives clarity and certainty to biblical doctrine. Focusing on what scripture explicitly states avoids the confusion that proceeds from a subjective interpretation. Subjective interpretation means changing the meaning of the Bible often to something palatable to the audience. This isn’t hearing it. Instead, a literal interpretation allows an actual hearer to derive with confidence the unambiguous moral and ethical guidelines directly from scripture.
When readers apply the uniform method of literal interpretation—taking words at face value—they will not encounter contradictions between different parts of scripture. This consistency strengthens their faith by presenting a cohesive narrative that aligns with a correct understanding of God’s character and intentions.
No doubt scripture employs figurative language and literary devices. Still, a literal approach does not negate but enhances plain meaning of the Bible. Scripture itself clarifies the meaning of figures of speech and individual words with a multiplicity of usages and definitions. God does not allow history and culture to prevent men from an accurate understanding of what He said.
The world presents shifting views of the world with modern science and moral relativism. Taken literally, the Bible tells the truth about the world and addresses the vacillation of human philosophy. A literal interpretation provides a basis for readers of scripture to maintain their convictions even when faced with contemporary challenges. It brings clarity and consistency in doctrine and resilience against modern criticism of scriptural authority.
What Is To Separate People?
Separation
Most professing Christians ignore the biblical doctrine of separation. Scripture teaches separation, but a vast majority don’t know what the Bible says about it. By far, more people know the Bible teaches unity, but separation and unity go together in God’s Word. Truly, you can’t support unity without supporting separation.
In what I will call, the ultimate will of God, God wants total unity. We know He will get it too in the future. In the meantime, God requires separation.
Faux Separation
As much as people don’t know what God says about separation, they still practice, I would say, more than ever, some form of separation. Many different issues and causes divide the country and the world. Especially young people today are separatists. They practice an insidious form of cancel culture. In the last month or so, I heard someone call it “quiet quitting” when applied in the workplace, where an employee just disappears without notice. I’m guessing employers might be against that (said tongue in cheek).
God separates as an attribute of His nature. This is His holiness. God is holy. Yet, God did not create mankind to separate from him. He wants a relationship with men. God Himself is the perfect example of separation. He separates from men, at the same time seeking a relationship with them.
It’s easy to give up on people and decide to shun or ostracize them. In the recent presidential election, the Democrat Party candidate for Vice President, Tim Walz, and his siblings don’t talk to each other. I understand that people may never get along, but it is God’s will that they try in a particular manner.
What Should Separate People?
Lines in the Sand
What kind of issues, behavior, or problems should separate people? If separation should occur, how should it happen? This is the title of this piece: What is to separate people? Today especially what should separate people does not separate them. What shouldn’t separate people does separate them. Separation happens most often for the wrong reasons. It isn’t a doctrine of separation, but a personal preference of separation.
Showing a concern for what separates people is a recent book by Joel Tetreau, called Three Lines in the Evangelical Sand. Joel expands on a topic he would often address many years ago when he participated on an evangelical forum, SharperIron. He divides what he calls fundamentalism into various types, which he labels first A, B, and C type fundamentalists. However, he breaks those further down into A+, A, A-, B+, and C. I’m guessing there’s also a B-, and C- too. This got on my radar in part because Joel and I speak very friendly with one another, and he put a special footnote in the book about me.
Separating Issues
I haven’t read Joel’s book, but I don’t understand the scriptural basis for how he operates. Maybe he includes it in his book. He himself draws lines in the sand, so he believes in and addresses separation as a doctrine. Helping to summarize his thoughts, Joel recently wrote:
I still see Type A+ as the King James Only crowd coupled with those who have standards that are ….. hard to track in the Scriptures. Type A are still those Fundamentalist who see the world as either Fundamentalist or New Evangelical from Type A’s have a fairly black and white view of much – including authority that often times crosses the line into being Diotrephes-like. . . .
Type A-/B+ guys have almost the same theology as the rest of B’s and C’s but they are petrified of Conservative Evangelicalism because in their mind that represents entrance into New Evangelicalism…. or they know it doesn’t but it would cost them too much personally and so they are afraid to take the steps into that broader world. Type A’s are still movement fundamentalists – militant fundamentalist, cultural fundamentalists.
Case Study: Cultural Issues
Let me take one point that Joel makes and relate scripture to it. He says he sees Type A+ as having standards hard to track in the scriptures. One strong standard held by most evangelicals for most of history was the patriarchy, which scripture teaches. Should churches still be teaching the patriarchy? I believe they should. Someone wrote to show the difference between complementarianism and patriarchy:
The concept of Biblical Patriarchy centers around the principle of “rule by the father,” endorsing the divine mandate for men to lead families, churches, and communities. This belief is firmly anchored in the consistent narratives and directives found in both the Old and New Testaments, particularly the creation narrative in Genesis 1-3. It emphasizes the roles of patriarchs, prophets, priests, and kings as exclusively male in the Old Testament and apostles, scribes, and church elders as male in the New Testament. Unlike the complementarian view, which confines male leadership to the familial and ecclesiastical domains, biblical patriarchy is consistent by extending male authority to all societal aspects, including civil governance and social life.
Cultural issues have become non-separating issues and now we have same sex marriage in the country and world. Churches should preserve these doctrines in teaching and practice. They do that by separating over them. Where does this stop?
The church leader or church that separates over cultural issues could make them A+ extremists on Joel’s taxonomy. They want to preserve the doctrine and practice God gave. These churches want to honor God. They can’t do that when they won’t separate over cultural issues. This is just one example, but it relates to what is to separate people.
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part three)
In the last portion of the Mark Ward video to which I’ve referred in this series, he gives his view of the preservation of scripture. It has similarities to Adam in the Garden of Eden after the Fall in Genesis 3:12:
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
For me to summarize, Ward’s view is that by his observation, God didn’t seem to choose to preserve His Word perfectly. Furthermore, since that’s what he observes God to have done, then that’s also the correct view of preservation of scripture. All those preservation passages in scripture then must conform to the observation and experience. He put it this way (I include this quote again, which was already in part one):
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Ward Continues
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Difficulties and Complexities
Ward sees “difficulties and complexities” and he forms his viewpoint based upon those. It is like a creationist saying, “The carbon dating method and the distance light travels from far away stars are difficult and complex for a young earth view.” What is going to be the basis of your faith? Faith is not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Yet, Ward bases his view on observation and experience. I would surmise that he knows he’s doing this, and that’s what bothers him the most about my and others critique of him.
Mark Ward points to circumstances that are a bridge too far for his faith. This is why I often refer to Abraham and Romans 4:20 on this issue:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.
Uncertainties
Ward does stagger at the promise of God. These circumstances, his lying eyes, cause him to stagger and then not believe. He lists off his reasoning for not believing. It starts with minor uncertainties and difficulties as a generality. Then, he ticks off the detail in staccato-like fashion, essentially blaming this uncertainty and difficulty on God:
- God gave us a world where a perfect translation is impossible.
- God inspired apostles to quote the Greek Septuagint for the New Testament rather than provide a perfect translation from the Hebrew to the Greek.
- Ward here says that the King James Translators in their preface agreed with his assessment that this is what the apostles did in the New Testament.
- God didn’t form and ordain a pope-like supernatural figure that would give a perfect translation of the Bible into everyone’s language.
- God gave the Bible in three different languages, guaranteeing the need of a translation.
- God used several different human authors to write the Bible spanning fifteen hundred years.
- Ward doesn’t explain what barrier this causes, but he seems to infer that this is another reality that implies the impossibility of a perfect Bible.
- God had his human authors use easily deteriorating writing materials like papyrus and sheepskin to certify that the originals and its copies would not last, becoming impossible again to preserve.
- God gave man an excellent but not perfect situation.
Odd Exegesis and Experience
Ward applies 1 Corinthians 13:10 to the above list, saying that the perfect is still to come, not here yet, which fits the imperfect circumstances and situation. I’ve never heard either this interpretation or application of 1 Corinthians 13:10. Ward is saying that this verse upends the idea of a perfect Bible for today. This is more odd exegesis from Ward. He’s saying, that which is perfect, which includes a perfect Bible, won’t come until we see Jesus Christ face to face. Part of seeing through a glass darkly in this Ward exposition is seeing by means of less than perfect scripture until the believer’s glorification.
Mark Ward ends by admitting his view of preservation, that God planned and then performed many imperfect acts. He made it so we would have a somewhat ruined Bible. Yes, that was God’s plan. How do we know that? Observation. Experience. Also, I would add, opinion. It’s a way that seems right to Mark Ward at least, because I haven’t read that explanation from anyone else. I’d be glad for him to point this view out to me from the Bible or from church history. Know the following: I don’t agree with him.
Assessment of God
I think that others are with Mark Ward on his assessment of God. They just might not say it out loud. It’s an inside voice that became Mark Ward’s outside voice. God said He would preserve every Word of scripture. He could have preserved every Word. But He didn’t. Bill Maher says abortion is murder and he’s fine with that. Ward says God didn’t preserve a perfect Bible and he’s fine with that too.
Apparently at least according to Mark Ward’s explanation, it was God’s intent that we don’t have a perfect text of scripture, based on the above list of reasons. Ward doesn’t have to understand why God didn’t actually preserve every Word. God must not have done that, but it’s not going to shake him, because God is his refuge.
The Knowledge of Refuge and Preservation
Neither do I have any doubt that God is my refuge. I believe that from scripture. It isn’t something I take from experience or observation. I believe God is my refuge because He says He is my refuge. A lot goes along with that, but that is why I would say God is my refuge. It’s because God says in HIs Word that He is my refuge.
For Ward, he can’t say God preserves His word perfectly. Scripture says that, but his experience and his observation betray him. He will say God is His refuge. What basis does He have for that though? It’s a good explanation, but how does he know it with certainty? He trusts what God says. May Mark Ward and others like him trust God on the perfect preservation of scripture.
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture (part two)
Modern Textual Criticism
In a recent video, Mark Ward again attacked the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture. He’ll surely have or find people who will support him. They use modern versions and many of them don’t understand the issue. He helps them stay in the dark on this. Ward says that we, who he calls the advocates of his MT/TR story, cause division with true believers. Division comes from a later, novel bibliology that contradicts the already established and believed position. When someone changes a biblical position, the right way is showing how that the former position rests on wrong or no exegesis. This isn’t what occurred.
What did occur was that modern textual criticism arose out of German rationalism. Modern textual criticism in its roots traces back to German rationalism, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. A shift in theological thought characterized this period, where scholars began to apply rationalistic principles to biblical texts, leading to a more critical approach to scripture.
German Rationalism
German rationalism emerged as a philosophical movement that emphasized reason and empirical evidence over biblical exposition and theology. This intellectual climate encouraged scholars to scrutinize manuscripts of scripture with the same critical lens applied to other historical documents. The movement sought to understand the Bible not merely as a sacred text but as a collection of writings subject to human authorship and historical context.
The principles of German rationalism significantly influenced early textual critics such as Johann Griesbach, who is often regarded as one of the pioneers in this field. Griesbach’s work involved analyzing biblical manuscripts using methods that reflected rationalist thinking, which included questioning historical belief about divine inspiration and preservation of scripture. His approach laid the groundwork for subsequent textual critics like B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, who further developed these ideas in their own critical editions of the New Testament.
Continued Assessment of Mark Ward’s Attack
Perfect or Accurate Translation
Ward slants the MT/TR position to attempt to make it look like a joke and it’s advocates a bunch of clowns. Then when he does it, he doesn’t allow anyone to come and correct his statements. He next says that MT/TR supporters believe the King James Version (KJV) translators saved the Bible from Satanic counterfeits by making a “perfect translation” of “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts.” I’ve never called the KJV a “perfect translation.” The only time “perfect translation” occurs in my voluminous writings is when quoting and criticizing Peter Ruckman. Besides that, I wrote this:
God doesn’t ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches.
This is the only usage by me for “perfect translation.” I use the language “accurate translation,” because I believe they could have translated the same Hebrew and Greek texts differently. Most of the other MT/TR men would say the same as I.
Perfect Hebrew and Greek Texts
Ward also gets the “perfect Hebrew and Greek texts” wrong. Mark Ward already knows this. He caricatures our position to try to make it look silly. That is mainly what he is doing. The MT/TR position expresses the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, but doesn’t say that all the preserved words are either in one manuscript (text) or even printed edition. The words are instead preserved and available to every generation of believer. God did perfectly preserve the text of scripture and providentially provided a settled text by means of the same method of canonicity, the inward testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit through the church.
True churches received God’s Words. They agreed on them. This is a position taken from biblical presuppositions. Just like churches agreed on Books, they agreed upon Words. What I’m describing is the historical and biblical way of knowing what are the Words of God. What I just described doesn’t sound as stupid as how Mark Ward characterized this part of his fabrication of a story.
Satanic Corruption
One thing Ward gets right is “spotting” the Satanic corruptions in other Bibles. If you have a settled text based on God’s promises, then whatever differs from it is a corruption. Two different words can’t both be right. The text of scripture isn’t a multiple choice question. If we are to live by every Word, then we must possess every Word. It’s true that I believe that Satan wants to confuse through the offering of all these different “Bibles” and presenting hundreds of variations of text as possible. This doesn’t fit scriptural presuppositions and it affects the authority of scripture.
Story of Ruckmanism
The second story Ward tells is his story of Ruckmanism. Many times Mark Ward has called Ruckmanism more consistent than the MT/TR position. Maybe he believes that, but it seems possible he says it to get under the skin of MT/TR people. Ruckmanism doesn’t operate with scriptural presuppositions unless one considers an allegorical or very subjective interpretation of passages, which read into the Bible, to be scriptural. Ward says that Ruckmanities originated their position as a reaction to lack of manuscript support in the MT/TR.
Peter Ruckman was born in 1921. Ruckmanism came to and from him no earlier than then 1940s. His view of the superiority of the King James Version arose from his presupposition that it was advanced revelation from God. No one held that belief until Ruckman. Peter Ruckman wrote in The Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship:
The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’
Ruckman invented the position and then defended it by spiritualizing or allegorizing certain passages, reading into them his viewpoint on the King James Version. Ruckmanism did not come from his view of the inferiority of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as a further iteration of that.
Ruckman’s Position
Since Ruckman believed God reinspired the King James Version, he rejected all other versions. Even if they had the same textual basis as the King James Version, he would repudiate them. To him, the English words were equal to the original manuscripts of scripture. That view did not proceed from disagreement about underlying textual differences. Ruckman denied the preservation of scripture through original language manuscripts and editions.
Several times, Ward says the Ruckman story is the inspiration of the translator “to recover the right reading.” That’s false. Ruckman did not believe, as Ward says in his Ruckman story, that the textual choices and translation choices of the King James Version were perfect. To Ruckman and his followers, God didn’t inspire the right reading. No, God inspired the English itself. It wasn’t that Ruckman didn’t like the textual choices of Erasmus or that he relied on the Latin Vulgate. Based on his presuppositions, he took a novel double inspiration position.
Support of the Majority of Manuscripts
Unlike the critical text, which has support of either a small minority of manuscripts or none at all, the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts support almost the entirety of the Textus Receptus. Only in very few places does the Textus Receptus have support of few extant Greek manuscripts, even though there is large extant Latin evidence in those few places. In one place, one word has no extant manuscript evidence. However, that does not mean no manuscript support. TR editions are printed copies from sometimes a non extant manuscript. It is preservation of scripture.
Not all the manuscripts relied upon by Theodore Beza survived the religious wars in Europe. In one place where critical text advocates say he did conjectural emendation, he writes in Latin that he had the support of one Greek manuscript too. I believe in preservation in the original languages. However, people like Mark Ward are hypocritical in this, because they themselves support the best texts in many places rely on a translation. His and their Septuagint view says that Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint.
More to Come
Recent Comments