Home » Posts tagged 'Old Testament' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Old Testament
Does the KJV Translate Hebrew and Greek Words Too Many Ways?
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only (KJV) debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Is this true? In part 10 of my review of the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of Scripture I point out the severe flaws in this argument by Dr. James R. White against the King James Version, and the KJVO position.
In our debate James White argued in the same way that he did in his book: “[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word … the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289). The numbers White cites are inaccurate, and White fails to point out that in the examples he supplies where the Authorized Version (allegedly) translates words in too many different ways in English modern versions such as the ESV, ASV, NRSV, and NET actually have more, not fewer, different translations than does the KJV. James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly. Learn more by watching debate review video #10 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
The Knotty Subject of Free Will: Do We Have It Or Is It an Illusion? (Part One)
If someone says man doesn’t have “free will,” he contradicts what scripture says. The Bible uses the terminology, “freewill,” and mainly in the freewill offerings of animals in the Old Testament sacrificial system. However, the Old Testament uses that same Hebrew word on occasion for free motivation of an act.
Old Testament Usage of Free Will
Judges 5:2, “Praise ye the LORD for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.”
Psalm 54:6, “I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O LORD; for it is good.”
Psalm 110:3,, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.”
Psalm 119:108, “Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments.”
That’s four and I stopped looking for more.
New Testament Usage of Free Will
The Greek word that translates the Hebrew word for free will is in the New Testament:
Philemon 1:14, “But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.”
Hebrews 10:26, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”
1 Peter 5:2, “Feed the flock of God which is among you,, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.”
Those are some varied examples of free will in the Bible. If one were to believe or think in no free will, based on scripture, it would seem there would be no examples of free will in the Bible, yet there are.
Because I see free will in verses in the Bible, and I think there is greater proof than the actual mentions of terms for free will, I believe in free will. That comports with my experience. It also aligns with how all of scripture reads. At the same time, some who think they have free will, I’m saying, it is illusory. These people say they want free will. They want others to allow or give them free will. And yet, what they think is free will really is not.
In the next post, I will continue this one, Lord-willing.
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
The Destructive Future of Vengeance
Vengeance in the Old Testament
The end of First Samuel and the beginning of Second recounts the transition between the reigns of Saul and David. The reign of Saul did not go well. It started disintegrating early for the simple reason that Saul wouldn’t listen to God.
The anointing of David as the new king happened in 1 Samuel 16. A few chapters later, female David fans chant, Saul slew his thousands and David his ten thousands. As that song went viral, Saul chucked a javelin toward David in his palace, wanting him as his own pin cushion. Saul quickly developed maybe the worst case of paranoia of anyone in all history. He obsessed over the violent demise of David.
The narrative contrasts the vengeance of Saul versus the clemency of David. David was an opposite of Saul in this matter. Saul put more into killing David than the larger threat, Israel’s national enemy, the Philistines. With his very large army, he chased David everywhere and with murderous intent.
The Contrast Between Saul and David
On the other hand, David performed harp music for Saul to soothe his bubbling psyche. With all his capabilities for revenge, in his generation David stood out in his non-vengeance. David had two point-blank chances to kill Saul and didn’t. He also thwarted the aggressions of his own men against Saul. Rather than cheer the death of Saul, David ordered the execution of an Amalekite who assisted Saul’s suicide.
David’s man Asahel died at the hand of Saul’s general Abner because he refused to stop chasing him down to kill him. With vengeance, David’s general Joab murdered Abner. David though for an entire day mourned the death of Abner. He protected Saul’s remaining living son, Ishbosheth, from the vengeance of enemies.
The story of Israel in the historical books of the Old Testament brings with it a tale of much vengeance. This vengeance affected the history of the nation in a very detrimental way. The history of the world recounts violence attending the transfer of power from one regime to another. The stain of vengeance colored the future for Israel. It diminished the trajectory of the nation.
God’s Will on Vengeance
Far back in Leviticus 19:18 God establishes through Moses:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
God says in Deuteronomy 32:15, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense.” Many might answer, “It’s easier said than done.” I understand. Even when someone “steals” our spot in traffic, we might decide to do something about it. The Apostle Paul repeats the Old Testament affection in Romans 12:19 as indicative of church submission to the Holy Spirit:
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Two verses later, Paul explains vengeance to “be overcome with evil” instead of overcoming evil with good.
Hedging against Destructive Vengeance
It really isn’t that vengeance itself is wrong. Vengeance is God’s. God isn’t doing wrong when He takes vengeance. God knows that (1) people cannot handle vengeance and (2) they will go astray trying to get it. Vengeance diverts people from their true purpose in life. Love for God and neighbor does not abide in a vengeful heart. Everyone must remain an audience of gospel preaching, as God seeks the redemption of men’s souls.
Vengeance rips apart institutions: family, government, and church. At the same time, in general men won’t heed warnings against vengeance without true conversion. Desire for vengeance holds them in a path of ruin.
When Jesus said the truth will set you free, that includes freedom from vengeful wrath. When God captures a man’s heart, He gives it strength to endure. One who possesses “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” can embrace this fullness as a hedge against revenge in his mind and heart. Rather than vengeance, the ambassador of Christ seeks mediation and reconciliation. “As much as possible, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View
According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–TDR
Tethered to Truth: A Podcast for Christian Ladies
My wife, Heather Ross, has put up recordings on YouTube entitled “Tethered to Truth: A Podcast for Christian Ladies.” If you are a godly Christian woman, you may find the material a blessing, and if you do, please feel free to share it with other women. I would encourage ladies to check this material out.
Click here to listen to Tethered to Truth:
A Podcast for Christian Ladies
–TDR
God and the Bible Are Dispensational (Part Two)
I’m not the first person to call a literal approach to the Bible, a “desert island” approach. Stuck on an island alone, you have only a Bible. Except for a plain reading, you have nothing to tell you what it means. You could only take a literal approach. You would read a dispensational reading, which is a literal or grammatical-historical reading.
Literal does not mean ignoring poetic language or figures of speech. If after watching you eat, I said to you, “you’re a hog,” I wouldn’t mean that you were a literal hog. That is a metaphor. I am comparing you to a hog. The use of metaphors and other such figures of speech does not require a different interpretation than a literal one.
Rightly Dividing
Context
The literal interpretation sees dispensations. That is clear in the desert island reading of the Bible. This is a reason why literal interpretation stipulates division. Paul calls it “rightly dividing” (2 Tim 2:15). Parts necessitate a division of a whole. To make up the whole, each part fits into it.
Properly understood, parts of the Bible fit into the whole cohesive story of the Bible. Those parts conform to their “context.” You won’t get the parts right if you don’t understand the context. Right understanding of words requires context. Words have a root meaning, but their full meaning demands context.
Literary, Grammatical, Historical, or Syntactical
Context does convey division. One context differs from another. It might be either a literary or historical context or both. The same word in one context will very often mean something different in a different one. Reading a literal interpretation requires right dividing, which requires understanding words in their context.
One must also consider the grammatical or syntactical reading of a word within that context, which we call usage. In a similar context, we see words used in similar ways. We know the meaning of a word by the way biblical authors use it. Very often, we also witness the same or similar wording around a word that informs its meaning.
Divisions in the Bible
How do divisions appear in the Bible? Divisions appear in the Bible like they would a telling of history or within the narrative of a true story. At its very start, God creates everything. No other time compares to that time. God’s creation of man then separates the first five days from what follows. A little later, when man sins, everything changes. Before sin, man is innocent; afterwards, he’s not. This alters everything, including and most of all man’s relationship with God.
A child for Adam and Eve separates a new age. Cain’s murder of Abel marks another. Noah’s flood changes life and history in a most extraordinary way. The Tower of Babel brings something entirely new, incomparable to the former time. God’s call of and the obedience of Abraham launches another age. The deliverance from Egypt, the Exodus, divides one era from another. So does Moses receiving God’s law on Mt. Sinai.
The Conquest of the Promised Land marks something entirely different. Reign of Hebrew Kings brought significant change. Assyria dispersed ten northern tribes into near oblivion. The forces of Babylon destroyed Solomon’s Temple and deported Israel into captivity.
Malachi ended God’s revelation to and through the prophets. Emmanuel was born. The church started. Jesus died, arose, ascended into heaven, and poured out the Holy Spirit from heaven, who indwelt believers. The New Testament was complete. The Lord will return.
Discontinuity and Continuity
Discontinuity
Every division brings a new, different normal. Scripture is replete with discontinuity. I’m representing the Bible as a reader. With a literal reading, distinct breaks occur in the narrative. The above list is not complete, but it also does not represent the major divisions of biblical history. Certain divisions are more important or vital than others to the extent that they rise to a greater level of dissection between one period and another.
A primary division occurs between the Old and New Testaments. You see the comings of Jesus, first and second, and what’s in between, the church. Before that, Israel takes a prominent place. Much in the Bible points to a future kingdom, beginning with the Messiah.
Continuity
The central figure of scripture, the One and Only God, holy and immutable, however, brings continuity. One God wrote one Bible that is one story. Many major themes cross over or through the points of distinction. God provides one way of salvation all the way through. Nothing contradicts.
Characters in the Bible speak of the story of the Bible. They acknowledge continuity and discontinuity. A few prime examples really mark this reality. One, godly believers recognize Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. Two, the disciples or apostles expected a real future kingdom earth inaugurated by the promised King. The resurrection meant Jesus could mark a new era as Savior and much later distinguish another as Judge and King.
If you just picked up a Bible with suitable reading comprehension, it all fits together in one cohesive message with a literal meaning. You don’t need allegorization or spiritualization to make everything harmonize. Everything harmonizes with a literal reading. You don’t have to read anything into the text so that it won’t contradict something else.
More to Come
Recent Comments