Home » Posts tagged 'salvation' (Page 5)

Tag Archives: salvation

Leading an Evangelistic Bible Study–How To Videos

Regular readers of What is Truth? are likely aware of the series of evangelistic Bible studies here which can be downloaded and personalized for use in your Baptist church here.  People who are not willing to sit down or meet over Zoom with a church member can be directed to view the series itself taught here on YouTube.

I have had the privilege of doing a series at Bethel Baptist Church on how to lead one of these studies with a seeking unconverted person.  We are almost done going through teaching study #3, “What Does God Want From Me?”  There are currently twenty-four videos in the series (and counting) as I write this blog post. Church members who watch this series will be well equipped to lead an evangelistic Bible study.  If you would like to watch the series on leading an evangelistic Bible study yourself, or recommend it for others in your church, you can access it here:

Watch the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study by clicking here

Please check back regularly as new videos are added to the series and we move through studies #4-7, Lord willing, and put what you are learning into practice by being Christ’s instrument for making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to observe everything Christ has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20).  You can subscribe to the KJB1611 channel to be notified whenever new videos are posted.

TDR

John 20:28 and the Watchtower Society

John 20:28 is  a very difficult passage for the Watchtower Society or so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to explain away.  The Watchtower, in its New World “Translation” that was made by seven “translators” who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and only one of which had ever taken a single course in New Testament Greek in his life, egregiously mistranslates John 1:1 to affirm that the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, was “a god,” supporting a form of polytheism in the Watchtower, where their god Jehovah, who is different than the true Jehovah God of the Bible, is allegedly the Almighty God while Christ is a secondary true god, a “mighty god.”  The Watchtower Society claims that their deity is “the God,” and only the true God is called “the God,” while Christ is merely “a god,” a secondary true god.  Their mistranslation of John 1:1 is awful, but, in my opinion, is not the first place to go to in order to show members of the cult their error.  While the facts are not at all on their side in John 1:1, it is too complicated in Greek for them to believe you; they will believe their cult over what you say.

 

However, their misinterpretation of John 1:1 leaves them with a huge problem in John 20:28.  In John 20:28–the climax of John’s Gospel–we read the following. Notice John 20:28:

 

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

In Greek, the Apostle Thomas calls Christ “the Lord of me and the God of me”–so Christ is called “the God” in the climactic section of the gospel of John!  Christ then says that Thomas is “blessed” for having confessed the Lord Jesus as “the God” (v. 29), and then the Apostle John explains that this confession is involved in believing on Christ to receive life in His name (vv. 30-31).

Here are pictures of John 20:28 from an interlinear Greek New Testament.  I recommend that you download or take a picture of these pics and keep them on your phone or  other electronic device.  Then, when you run into a member of the Watchtower Society, you can tell him that you noticed this in the Bible and would like to get his explanation.

John 20:28 2028 interlinear my Lord and my God the Lord of me and the God of me Thomas Jesus Greek literal translation

 

John 20;28 interlinear pic the Lord of me the God of me Jesus Christ Jehovah

 

John 20 Jesus is Jehovah literal Greek John 2028 20:28 the God the Lord my Lord and my God

The interlinear here is J. P. Green’s Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 4 vol. ed., the volume on the New Testament.  I believe Green’s interlinear, based on the Textus Receptus, is the best interlinear that is out there.  I personally do not need to use an interlinear because my Greek has passed that stage, but on whatever occasions I would need to use one, I use Green’s (I have a leather-bound version of the NT portion of his interlinear and a big one-volume work that has the OT and NT. I am not sure if the leather-bound version is still in print.)  If you want an interlinear, here are (affiliate) links to where you can get it on Amazon:

New Testament:

 

 

One volume edition Old and New Testament (bigger book and smaller print):

 

Four volume set:

Usually people in the Watchtower will refuse to talk to you if they are aware that you know what you are talking about–they seek to prey on the Biblically ignorant, not show their (alleged) truth to those who know God’s Word, because once you know the Bible well you are not going to get sucked into their cult.  So it is wise to ask questions of members of the Watchtower when you seek to evangelize them, because as soon as they know you understand Scripture, they probably will not want to talk to you any more.

 

So what can you ask a member of the Watchtower? Something like the following (which also includes their very feeble attempts to explain the text away):

 

In John 20:28, at the climax of John’s Gospel, the point to which the whole Gospel has been building after the prologue of 1:1-18 and before the epilogue of chapter 21, Thomas answers and says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me” O Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (John 20:28), addressing Jesus Christ as “the” God.  Christ commends Thomas for this statement, saying he was blessed, and that those who similarly confess and believe that Jesus is “the God of me” are blessed (20:29).  Why do you think Thomas calls Christ “the God of me”?

 

The only explanations from members of the Watchtower that I have heard are the following:

 

1.) Thomas was taking God’s name in vain, like people who say “Oh my G**,” because the Apostle was surprised at Christ’s resurrection appearance.  However, Christ would not have commended the Apostle for taking God’s name in vain.  One of the Apostles taking God’s name in vain is the climactic confession of the whole Gospel of John?  That “explanation” is ridiculous.

 

2.) Thomas was not really speaking to Christ when the Bible says Thomas “answered and said unto him.”  But that also is to read into the Bible what it does not say, rather than drawing from the text what it does say.  The “him” in 20:28 refers to Christ in 20:27.  That is simply what the grammar requires.  Thomas “answered” and “said unto” Christ, “him” of 20:28 who had appeared to Thomas.  It cannot possibly be speaking about God the Father.

 

One Watchtower elder told me that only the “the Lord of me” was addressed to Christ while “the God of me” was addressed to the Father.  However, looking at all the NT verses where the construction of John 20:28 appears, in all 61 instances, the same person gets the whole address (Matthew 11:4; 12:39, 48; 15:3, 23, 28; 16:17; 17:11; 19:4, 27; 21:21, 24, 27; 25:26, 37, 44; 26:33; Mark 6:37; 7:28; 9:12, 38; 11:14, 29; 12:17, 34; 14:48; Luke 1:19, 35; 3:11; 4:8; 7:22; 8:50; 10:41; 11:45; 13:8, 15; 17:20; 20:34; 24:18; John 2:19; 3:10; 4:10; 5:11, 19; 6:26; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 33, 48; 9:20, 27, 30, 34; 10:25, 33; 12:34; 14:23; 18:5; 20:28).  So this attempt to evade what sure looks like the plain sense of John 20:28 also fails badly. Thomas called Christ both “the Lord of me” and “the God of me.” Thomas answered and said to Jesus, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”

 

Because this text is so difficult for the Watchtower to explain away, they attempt to conceal from their members that Christ is called “the God” in John 20:28 (as He is in Hebrews 1:8).  The Watchtower hopes that their “Jesus is a god, but not the God” explanation for John 1:1 works and that nobody notices that Christ is called “the God of me” in John 20:28.  That is why this fact is very helpful and something worth pressing a Watchtower witness on.

 

The original audience who got the Gospel of John would have concluded that Thomas was “the Lord” and “the God” of Thomas, and that those who similarly believed were blessed (20:29).  The Apostle Thomas was blessed when he confessed Jesus to be “the Lord of me and the God of me,” and I am blessed to make the same confession, 20:29.  If members of the Watchtower repent, they also can make the same confession and receive eternal life through repentant faith alone in the one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who is in all three Persons possessed of the glorious Name “Jehovah.” (Matthew 28:19).

 

You can learn more about the blessed truth of the Trinity by clicking here.

 

I discuss John 20:28 in the videos on the Trinity in the series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study here.

TDR

What Does God Say Is Cured By the New Covenant? The Blame Game

People have their favorite verses in the Bible, beloved ones they commit to memory.  They know them well.  Every verse, every word of the Bible is important, but there are key passages in it.  If you think of Jeremiah, certain texts stand out.  One of those is Jeremiah 31:31-34, the classic location for the new covenant.

I read Jeremiah again recently in my Bible reading.  Something else stood out.  If you google, “new covenant,” the first paragraph of the first link, which is the Wikipedia article, reads:

The New Covenant (Hebrew ברית חדשה‎ berit hadashah; Greek διαθήκη καινή diatheke kaine) is a biblical interpretation originally derived from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament in Christian Bible).

To provide a definition of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34 appears as the only reference in the first sentence.  Here are those verses:

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Many years ago now, when I was in graduate school, I traveled and stayed with a family, whose wife and mother was Jewish.  In giving her testimony of salvation, she said she received Christ from reading Jeremiah 31:31-34.  It impacted her to that degree.
A faithful reader can explain the whole Bible accurately using the various biblical covenants, including this new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34.  The covenants are a system of interpretation of scripture, a grid through which to see it all.
A diligent Bible student can divide scripture into two well-known covenants, the old and the new, more well known as the Old and New Testaments.  I refer to the new covenant as a corollary to the old covenant.  God promises blessing to those obedient to His law, which cannot occur without a transformation of an individual heart.  Then God fulfills the blessing promised in the old covenant through His new covenant.
It’s easy to see Jeremiah 31:31-34 as its own isolated segment and stop considering the verses right before and after.  The new covenant cures something.  It cures a lot, when one considers that it represents salvation from all our sins.  However, what does Jeremiah mention in the verses immediately preceding the new covenant?  Let’s look at those in verses 28-30 of Jeremiah 31.

28 And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD. 29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Verse 28 makes mention of the curse on Israel under the old covenant. God plucked up, broke down, threw down, destroyed, and afflicted.  Like God did the cursing, in the future God will build and plant instead.
What in part has occurred that would lead to this building and planting, versus the old plucking, breaking, throwing down, destruction, and affliction?  Individuals would stop making excuses for themselves.  They would stop playing the blame game.  This is directly related to their cursing in contrast to blessing.
As soon as man fell in the Garden, he started blaming someone else (Genesis 3).  This is not the path of restoration to and with God.  Since it is what occurs so early in the Bible, one could say it is typical of lost mankind.
In future days God will watch over His people to build and plant.  They are days when a people will no more say, “The fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  It’s not a day of some kind of national punishment, where people pay for what someone else has done.
The whole nation of Israel went into captivity, including the godly people.  Jeremiah himself suffered despite his godliness, something that his amaneuensis Baruch complained about in Jeremiah 45.  Why should Jeremiah and he suffer for what others did wrong?  They did not cause this predicament.
Representative of the behavior the new covenant would cure is an adult child blaming his parents for how he now lives.  This is a common excuse backed by modern psychiatry, essentially Freudians and behavioral psychiatrists who see man as an animal.  Future blessing will come to those God cures of the blame game.
Of all the practices God could mention before such a pivotal passage for all history, God puts his finger on this following point.  ‘My parents ate sour grapes, and that’s why my teeth are set on edge.’  It’s a figure of speech, and it represents an important reason why people do not get back on the path of blessing, the way of righteousness.  People will never receive the new heart, a changed one, that results in the blessing of God, when they blame other people for how they live.
In that future day from the perspective Jeremiah, everyone will die for his own iniquity.  When Israel fought Ai, many Israelites died because of the sin of Achan.  When a church today goes to the Lord’s Table, the unrepentant sin of a church member kills only him, not the whole church.  Everyone dies for his own iniquity.
Personal responsibility is the message of Ezekiel 18, the soul that sinneth, it shall die.  No excuse will work when someone stands before God.  The one who eats the sour grapes, his own teeth are set on edge.  God punishes him for his own sin, not his parents.  He takes responsibility for his own sin, not his parents.  It is injustice for someone to pay for what someone else did wrong.
Irresponsible, sinful behavior, essentially someone walking after his own lust, scoffing authority, like one sees in 2 Peter, this does not characterize someone under the new covenant, someone who has received a new heart.  We’re in the new covenant era.
If you do you, a common postmodern refrain, you’ll pay for it alone.  You do what you do because of you.  You also can escape you.  God offers the power to be what He wants you to be.  Because God gives a new heart through His saving grace, you can do Him instead of you.  You’re not doing you any more.  Now you’re doing Him.  The New Covenant will do that.

Baptism & Salvation Debate Page, Douglas Jacoby

I have created a page for resources on the Douglas Jacoby-Thomas Ross debate on baptism.  Both parts of the debate video, as well as links to the places where the debate is live on Rumble and on YouTube, the blog posts where the speakers answered questions from the audience that were not discussed in the debate proper, and further resources, are all on this page.  I would, therefore, recommend that you visit this page in the future and make it your point of reference if you share the debate with others.

 

Click Here For the Page on the Douglas Jacoby / Thomas Ross Debate, “We Are Born Again Before Baptism” (part 1) and “We Are Born Again In Baptism” (part 2)

 

Baptism Salvation Debate Douglas Jacoby Thomas Ross

TDR

Postmodern “Grace”

The author of Hebrews in 12:15-17 warns:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

C. H. Spurgeon wrote concerning the failing of the grace of God:

Under the means of grace, there are many who do “fall short of the grace of God.” They get something that they think is like grace, but it is not the true grace of God, and they ultimately fall from it, and perish. . . . [I]n church fellowship we ought to be very watchful lest the church as a whole should fail through lack of the true grace of God, and especially lest any root of bitterness springing up among us should trouble us, and thereby many be defiled. We must remember that though we are saved by grace, yet grace does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action. Though salvation depends upon the merits of Christ, yet those who receive those merits receive with them a faith that produces holiness.

Spurgeon explains that this “failing” is “falling short,” and then “falling short” is not getting “the true grace of God” but “something that they think is like grace.”  He says the true grace of God “does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action.”   The placebo for the true grace of God does not produce holiness.

The true grace of God saves us.  Most people want salvation, but they also don’t want the holiness true grace produces.  Hebrews uses Esau as an example.  He allowed his fleshly desire to keep him from true grace, replacing it with something short of it.  God’s grace produces holiness.

Root of Bitterness

Through the years, I’ve read many different opinions about the “root of bitterness.”  In the context, it causes a failing of the grace of God.  Some say that the root of bitterness is an apostate in the church, like Esau, who then brings about further apostasy from others.  Others say that it is sin, which is bitter and defiling.  Rick Renner writes:

“It” pictures a person who is continually troubled, harassed, and annoyed by thoughts of how someone else wronged him. The offended person is now so troubled that he is almost emotionally immobilized. Instead of moving on in life, he gets stuck in the muck of that experience, where he wallows day after day in the memories of what happened to him. If that person doesn’t quickly get a grip on himself, he will eventually fulfill the next part of the verse.

Tozer explained it the same way:

The sad and depressing bitter soul will compile a list of slights at which it takes offense and will watch over itself like a mother bear over her cubs. And the figure is apt, for the resentful heart is always surly and suspicious like a she-bear!

Perhaps the preceding verse, verse 14, gives a clue:

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

Esau lacked peace between he and his father, Isaac, and his brother, Jacob.  So many especially today allow the slights, real and otherwise, and even actual sins against them to keep them from the grace of God.  They also often use these temporal affronts to justify their lusts, incongruous with the true grace of God.  It ultimately reflects on their view of God and His goodness to them.

Postmodern Grace

Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God.  I’m titling what I believe is the most common contemporary replacement for true grace, “postmodern grace” (Jesus Loves Me with postmodern lyrics).  It isn’t the grace of God, because it is short of the grace of God.

Postmodern truth is your truth.  Postmodern grace is your grace.  It doesn’t follow peace, because it allows a grudge and resentment to keep it from that.  It doesn’t follow holiness, because it sells holiness for temporal, carnal appetites, like the morsel of Esau.  Adherents though count this as the grace of God.  They remain bitter with those who reject their failing of the grace of God.  The bitterness fuels further rejection of true grace, accompanied, like Esau, by tears of grudge-filled resentment.

Postmodern grace isn’t about pleasing God, but about pleasing self.  Postmodern grace self-identifies as grace, which is in fact moral relativism.  It doesn’t follow after holiness, but after its own lust.

Is the Trinity Practical? by Ryan McGraw

Some time ago I reviewed on this blog Ryan McGraw’s fine book Knowing the Trinity: Practical Thoughts for Daily Life.

I recommend the book highly; too many Christians think that the Trinity is just a doctrine that one holds that has no impact on his life, when, in fact, the Trinity is at the heart of all of the believer’s relationship with God and is thus at the core of the Christian’s new birth, sanctification, glorification, and eternal heavenly fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If Dr. McGraw’s book (easy to read and not especially long) book is more than one wants to read, however, he has also written a short and helpful pamphlet called “Is the Trinity Practical?” which one can read quickly in just a few minutes, and which distills the truth in his longer book (which itself was a distillation of John Owen’s Christian classic Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a great treasure which I discuss in my Trinitarianism class here for several lectures.)

I purchased a number of copies of “Is the Trinity Practical?” to share with others.  While the links in this post are to Amazon as Amazon affiliate links (if you get things on Amazon, please consider using Amazon Smile as discussed here), where you can also see what other people have thought of the book in the relevant book review section at Amazon, the cheapest place that I found to get copies of McGraw’s pamphlet, at least as of writing this post, was with Reformation Heritage Books, which, at the time of my writing this, had a nice sale on McGraw’s pamphlet.

I believe McGraw’s pamphlet could be very helpful for practically all church members.  Perhaps you should consider getting some copies and sharing them with others in your congregation?  The only warning I would make is that as an orthodox Presbyterian with Puritan leanings McGraw uses the word “sacrament” a few times instead of the better Biblical term “ordinance.” for baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  But his Trinitarianism is completely orthodox, and other than the word “sacrament” there is nothing that points to Presbyterian ecclesiology in his pamphlet.  Dr. McGraw is to be commended for summarizing in short compass what far too many who have even graduated from Bible colleges do not know in our theologically loose day–that the Trinity is central to everything in the Christian life, and is therefore most eminently practical.

TDR

 

The Meaning of “Done” and the Work of Christ

I didn’t hear language until recently both in preaching and in reading of the existence of only two religions, one “do” and the other “done.”  This nice turn of phrase might help someone who thinks salvation is by works.  A popular leader in “new revivalism,” comparable to the label “new Calvinism,” wrote a book titled, “Done.”

In a sense, depending upon the explanation, the “done” versus “do” aphorism is true.  With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous.  What I read, very often it is.  Many who emphasize “done” and not “do” are wrong, mainly in their watery, pliable definition of “done.”  The ambiguity provides for doctrinal perversion.

It makes good preaching to turn to the words of Jesus, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive), the work of salvation done by Christ on the cross.  With the popularity of a new and false view of sanctification, many Christian leaders now say that since salvation is done, when you sin, just preach the gospel to yourself, so you won’t feel burdened down by the guilt.  Tetelestai is perfect passive (not to get super Greeky with you), not the aorist tense, completed action.  With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing.  Jesus works, but His work doesn’t stop working.

Paul wrote in Philippians 2:13, “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”  He’s not done working in you.  “It is finished,” but the results are ongoing.  How do you know your salvation is done?  Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew7:21).  “He that doeth.”  That’s not “done;” that’s “do,” “doeth.”  For the one who is really “done,” he will “do.”  When someone isn’t doing, then his salvation isn’t done.

The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived.   Some of the “done” people say, Jesus lives it, and you just claim what He did as if it was you.  Some reading this may say that you’re not believing that.  You are when you lump sanctification with justification.  How you know you’re saved is that He keeps saving you.  Evidence.  It shows up.  God provides measurables.

Partly why Jesus’ righteousness doesn’t show up in the the “done ones” is that they did not repent, unless a deconstructed, dumbed down repentance.  They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did.  They repented of depending on self.  This is the so-called repentance of the Pharisees that diminishes righteousness, what Paul called, ‘establishing your own righteousness and not submitting unto the righteousness of God’ (Romans 10:1-4).

Salvation is “done,” don’t get me wrong.  What does “done” mean?  When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature (2 Cor 5:17).  Sin doesn’t dominate him any more (Roman 6:14).  The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life.  The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one (1 John 1:1,2, 5:11), what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

Very often, modern purveyors of “done” mean, even if for only practical purposes, their salvation is all set regardless if they practice sin as a lifestyle.  Any hint that a life is going to change and salvation means “do” and not “done.”  As a consequence of this false view, he becomes cemented in sinning, because he sin with no repercussions.

The apparent, albeit wrong, alternative to “done” says receive salvation through Christ’s death after trying to be a good person and living a righteous life.  A biblical alternative is that salvation isn’t done until the believer is glorified, and when his salvation is truly done, Christ indwells Him and continues saving him.  When God doesn’t indwell someone and transform him, he can only still “do,” except in a dangerous way, fooled in thinking the Lord saved him, when He hasn’t.

John 3:36, the Second “Believeth” (Apeitheo), and English Translation of the Bible

The King James Version (KJV) of John 3:36 reads:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The English Standard Version (ESV) reads:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

When you read the two, you see a few differences, one major one that may or may not affect or change doctrine, that being “he that believeth not the Son” versus “whoever does not obey the Son.”  Which is the better translation or right?  Or are they both right?
When you read the English of the KJV, you might think that the first “believeth” and the second “believeth” are the same Greek words translated into the same English word.  That makes sense.  However, they are not the same Greek words.  The first “believeth” translates pisteuo and the second, “believeth not,” translates apeitheo.  For that reason, the ESV and the NASV translate it “does not obey” and the NIV translates it “rejects.”
Can apeitheo be translated “believeth not”?  Why would the KJV translators not translate apeitheo differently than pisteuo?  How much does this translational difference matter?
In a very, very long post in which he mocks those who use the King James only, Mark Ward treats the difference very seriously, like a good reason to change the King James translation.  You can know with great certainty that the King James translators knew that these were two different words in John 3:36.  They, however, still translated them the same, “believeth.”
The modern version translators also sometimes translate apeitheo with “believe” and not “obey.”  The next example of its usage is Acts 14:2 and all the modern versions translate it “unbelieving,” “disbelieve,” and “refused to believe,” the same as the KJV, “unbelieving.”  They do not translate, “not obey” or “disobey.”   The very next usage is Acts 19:9.  The ESV translates the imperfect, “continued in unbelief,” the NIV, “refused to believe,” the KJV, “believed not,” and the NASV alone, “disobedient.”
In Romans 2:8, like all the modern versions, the KJV translates it, “do not obey.”  I give you this last example because, it shows that the KJV translators knew they could translate apeitheo, “do not obey,” rather than, “believeth not.”  In 1 Peter 3:1, the KJV and the modern versions translate apeitheo, “obey not,” but the NIV translates it, “believe not.”
Here’s what Friberg Lexicon, a modern lexicon, says apeitheo means:

(1) in relation to God disobey, be disobedient (RO 11.30); (2) of the most severe form of disobedience, in relation to the gospel message disbelieve, refuse to believe, be an unbeliever.

Thayer writes in his lexicon:

not to allow oneself to be persuaded; not to comply with; a. to refuse or withhold belief

The typical or normal Greek word translated “obey” in the New Testament is hupakouo.  akouo is normally translated, “to hear,” but with the addition of the prefix hupo, it means “to obey.”  Forms of that word are translated 21 times in the New Testament.  It is the word used in Ephesians 6:1, “Children, obey your parents.”  It is always translated, “obey.”
The Greek word peitho without the “a” prefix of apeitheo is translated “persuaded” in Matthew 27:20, the first usage in the New Testament, and the KJV and the modern versions all translate it, “persuaded.”  If persuasion is negated, it would be “not persuaded.”  If someone is persuaded, he believes.  In Matthew 27:43, all the versions translate peitho, “trusts.”  “Persuaded,” “convinced,” and “trusted” are normal understanding of peitho.  You can see this in the translation in all the versions in its 55 usages in the New Testament.
When apeitheo appears in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word is translated a majority of the times “rebelled” or “rebellious” (Dt 1:26, 9:7, 23, 24, 21:20; Josh 1:18; Ps 68:18; Is 1:23, 36:5, 50:5, 63:10, 65:2; Ez 3:27), which is compatible with “unbelief.”
In the near context of John 3:36, John the Baptist preaches the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, so they’ll follow Jesus and not John.  In verse 28, John says, “I am not the Christ.”  The gospel of John testifies that Jesus is the Christ.  Why?  So that people will believe that Jesus is the Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30-31).  “The Christ” is the Messiah, a Kingly figure.  John’s disciples needed to believe in Jesus Christ, that is, submit to Him, follow Him, or obey Him as the Christ.  This is the same as believing in Jesus Christ and not being rebellious against Christ.  Louw-Nida Lexicon, another modern lexicon, says concerning apeitheo:  “unwillingness or refusal to comply with the demands of some authority.”  This is not the same as “not obey.”  It is a description of unbelief, especially referring to Jesus as Messiah, the Christ, in the context.
Jesus gives testimony or witness as to why He is the Messiah.  John argues for this. He wants people to be persuaded by the testimony or witness of Jesus and his own testimony or witness.  The greatest reason is that someone is granted everlasting life if he believes or is persuaded by the evidence or testimony or witness.  In the near context, apeitheo means, “believeth not.”  It is an example of a good translation.
The greater context of John presents the plan of salvation, the gospel.  In the context of the gospel, apeitheo means, “believeth not.”  Lexicons make note of this.  Those not persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by the evidence and the testimony were not believing He was the Son, Who had come from heaven.  The Son points back to many Old Testament Messianic allusions, including Genesis 3:16, Genesis 12:1-3, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 9:6.
When preaching, I believe it is good to let people know that the second “believeth” of John 3:36 is a different Greek word.  It expands on the understanding of the English word “believeth,” which is more than intellectual, but also volitional.  Someone cannot remain rebellious against the Son, not be submitting himself to the Son, the Christ, and have everlasting life.
If the translators had translated apeitheo, “obeyeth not,” that would have resulted in a lot more necessary explaining.  Today, it would be regularly used to argue for works salvation by those who teach that.  They would say, “You’re saved by obeying the Son. So, if you don’t obey Him, you won’t have eternal life.”  On the other hand, “believing” is not in contradiction to “obeying.”  Unsaved people are said to “obey not the gospel of God” (1 Pet 4:17), and “obey not” translated apeitheo.
I was thinking about translators translating two different Greek words with the same English word in the same verse.  One came to mind, James 1:17:  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.”  The two words translated “gift” are two different Greek words, dosis and dorema.  They have two different nuances of meaning.  The ESV translates it identically to the KJV.  The NIV doesn’t even translate the first “gift, so it’s translation is “every good and perfect gift,” as if there weren’t even two words used.  The NASV seems to take in the difference, “every good thing given and every perfect gift.”
The difference between the two Greek words is that dosis puts an emphasis on the giving of the thing and dorema on the thing given.  The use of both words elevates the praise to the giving and gifts of and from God the Father.  The NASV tries to show that difference, but I think very few people would catch the difference in the mere reading.  There are two different adjectives used too, “good” and “perfect.”  I know that this occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, two different Greek words translated with the same English word.  I believe someone should rely on the original language understanding to define them.  It’s very difficult for the meaning to show up in an English word.  This will happen.
Ward strains so much to argue for modern versions from John 3:36, that I’m concerned he could pull or tear a muscle.  It’s not worth 9 pages and over 4,500 words, like he uses.  Let us rejoice that by the grace and providence of God the King James translators knew what they were doing in John 3:36 for the evangelism and then edification of English speaking people.  May you be edified by reading this post in contrast to the fear and unbelief caused by that of Ward.

Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined

I have had the privilege of preaching a series on the Sabbath and its relationship to the Lord’s Day.  Topics covered include the Sabbath as Israel’s sign of creation and redemption; the way the Sabbath points forward to redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ; Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, Puritan, and dispensational Baptist views of the Sabbath; the question of whether churches in the New Testament era need to meet for worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord’s Day; and a careful study of the heresies, not just on the Sabbath, but on the doctrines of Scripture, God, Trinitarianism, Christ, salvation, last things, and many other areas of Seventh-Day Adventism, as explained in “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends.”

To listen to the sermons and/or watch the preaching, please:

 

Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath

 

and feel free to add a comment, “like” the videos, and/or subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel if you have not already do so.

 

There is probably one more message on the Sabbath coming, so feel free to check back. You can’t end a series with six messages instead of seven anyway, can you?

 

TDR

Justification In Job, pt. 2

Part One

Justification by faith is both an Old Testament and a New Testament doctrine.  It reads like a major theme in the book of Job, the oldest Old Testament book.  Job’s friends speak to him about justification and Job answers about justification.  Is Job justified?

A related aspect to justification is a common Old Testament Hebrew word, mishpot, translated “judgment.”  Forms of mishpot occur 23 times in Job.  “Judgment” and “righteousness” both have been assessed as the theme of the entire Bible.  I can’t disagree with either assessment.  Over ten years ago I read a book by James Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology, which proposed judgment as the subject of all of scripture.  Men are judged by God as to whether they are righteous.  He judges a man righteous, who is justified.  Men also judge other men as to their justification, which is what Job’s friends were doing.

Judgment, mishpot, by God is based upon His righteous nature and standard or law.  A popular recent, contemporary concept is “authenticity” or “authentic.”  Job was authentic, and the normal or plain understanding of authentic has been based upon an objective standard, so outside of one’s own self.  Self-authenticity is a kind of oxymoron.  Just because you’re consistent with your own understanding of who you are doesn’t make you authentic.  Naugahyde couldn’t be said to be authentic.  Leather is.  And one can judge leather by an objective standard.  It was at one time the outer layer or skin of an animal.

Was Job justified?  Was he an authentic righteous man?  He, his friends, and finally God have this discussion.  Satan said he wasn’t.  God said he was.  So what is it?

One of Job’s friends, Zophar, starts his speech in chapter 11, asking and using the ninth of twenty-eight usages of a form of the Hebrew verb form tsadek (v. 2):

Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?

Zophar insinuates overt loquaciousness of Job, implying Job’s justification of himself with his words.  Zophar is suggesting that rather than the words of Job justifying him, it be the consequences of his actions.  In other words, someone facing the hardship of Job couldn’t be righteous.  In weighing Job’s talk against the gravity of his situation, Zophar infers that the latter condemns him.  However, Job’s guilt or righteousness could not be judged by the circumstances of his life.  Job has been arguing against the false conclusion that his trials evidenced unrighteousness.

In a second chapter of Job’s answer to Zophar in Job 13:18, he says:

Behold now, I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified.

Matthew Henry asserts that Job could say, “I shall be justified,” not because of his works, but because he knew that his “Redeemer liveth” (19:25).  Job knew himself to be sincere in his faith in God, to lay hold on the justifying righteousness of his Redeemer, not a justifying righteousness in his own works.
Job had ordered his cause, that is, he had looked thoroughly over all that was occurring, and he says, “I know.”  Certainty of justification comes from faith in the Lord, not in self.  Paul commanded (2 Cor 13:5), examine yourself whether ye be in the faith.  The trials of life necessitate reviewing our lives for the assurances of salvation.  Job did.
Later, Eliphaz confronts Job in 15:12-16:

12 Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at, 13 That thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth? 14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (tsadek)? 15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

In general, his words ring true.  “What is man, . . . which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (tsadek)?”  This conflict exists.  In his natural state, no man is just, and yet Job is righteous.  A man drinks iniquity like water, so how could he be justified before God?  Only by faith.  God can make an unclean thing into a clean thing.
Eliphaz then asks Job (22:3):

Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous (tsadek)? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?

It’s a rhetorical question with the implied negative answer, which is false.  God does take pleasure in Job’s righteousness, which the first verse of Job (1:1) states.  God has no pleasure in self-righteousness, but Job was a righteous man on account of God.  Even Job’s friends knew he was righteous.
Bildad asks Job in 25:4-6:

4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Job was not justifying himself before God.  Job knew that he was not justified by His own righteousness but by the imputed righteousness of God.  Isaac Watts asks in his hymn, At the Cross, in the first stanza:
Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
And did my Sov’reign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
Surely, Watts thought of Bildad’s words and Job would have been familiar with a necessary sacrifice for his own sins, resulting in a gracious provision of righteousness.
Job answers in 27:5-6, using tsadek twice, once translated “justify” and the other “righteousness”:

5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. 6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.

Satan would tempt a righteous man to doubt.  Paul said, put on the helmet of salvation (Eph 6:17), for one because Satan wants men struggling in their minds in their spiritual warfare.  Job would not be swayed against the knowledge of salvation.  He was putting on his helmet.  He would hold fast, which is a standing in grace.  Job would not justify his accusers by accrediting their denunciations of him.  He does so in the same spirit that Paul later writes in Romans 8:33:

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

In his defense in 29:14, Job says:

I put on righteousness (tsadek), and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.

Paul later writes in Ephesians 4:24, “Put on the new man.”  This isn’t salvation language.  This the breastplate of righteousness of Ephesians 6.  Saving, justifying righteousness, no one puts that on.  Sanctifying righteousness, someone must put on.  That’s the righteousness that people see in your life, that Job put on.
When Job talked about how he lived a righteous life in Job 31, he requested (verse 6):

Let me be weighed in an even (tsadek) balance, that God may know mine integrity.

Rather than the unjust scales of his friends, Job wanted God to judge his righteousness by his own.  He trusted God’s judgment.  It’s easy for any of us to put our thumb on the scale in our judgment of others, but God is just in his dealings.
After Job’s long speech of the previous chapters, Job 32:2 says of Elihu:

Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified (tsadek) himself rather than God.

Elihu thought Job to put greater efforts to justify himself than He did God, that is, Job should have been exalting God’s rightful judgment of him rather than his own righteousness.  This is the first speech of Elihu and he, as a younger man, had waited through all of the speeches of both Job and his friends to bring his own observations of this matter of Job.  Elihu spends more time confronting Job’s friends, but he accuses Job of putting less energy into defending God as he did himself.  This criticism of Elihu is worth consideration.
Elihu does not call Job an unjust man.  He speaks of this one violation, that Job was unjust in this one action of his defense.  He continues this in the next chapter (33), especially observing verses 12 and 32, which contain the word, tsadek:

12 Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. . . . . 32 If thou hast any thing to say, answer me: speak, for I desire to justify thee.

In this one thing, Elihu says Job was not just, the action of Job in the repeated contention of his own innocence without the accompanying advocacy of God.  Elihu does not speak to condemn Job, but to justify him.  Righteous men struggle against sin too (cf. Romans 7:18-25).
As Elihu continues in chapter 34, as best he could he recounts Job’s words in verse 5:

For Job hath said, I am righteous (tsadek): and God hath taken away my judgment.

His representation of Job is that Job contends for his own righteousness and accuses God to have taken away his ability to defend himself.  Even though he was just, God wasn’t vindicating Job with His treatment of him, a false charge.
In Job 35:2 and 7, Elihu uses tsadek again toward Job:

2 Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness (tsadek) is more than God’s?  . . . . 7 If thou be righteous (tsadek), what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?

Elihu is asking Job whether by Job’s defending himself more than God, he was not guilty of saying that his righteousness is more than God’s?  If Job was really righteous, which is not Elihu saying that Job isn’t, what was Job giving God compared to what Job had received from God?  It’s a good argument.  Shouldn’t a righteous man, which Job was, be defending God more than himself?
In Job 36:3, Elihu continues with Job:

I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness (tsadek) to my Maker.

Elihu compares himself with Job.  Rather than ascribe righteousness to himself, he does that to God, his Maker.  It is more of the same line of criticism of Job by Elihu.
Elihu differed with Job’s other friends in their judgment (mishpot) of Job.  Elihu uses this word nine times in his speech between Job 34-36.  I commiserate with Job at least in his experience of judgment.  The Apostle Paul was judged by false teachers and defended himself (2 Corinthians and Galatians). Job defended himself too, but it is fair for anyone who is judged to consider how much defending he does in comparison to how much his exaltation of God.
The last usage of tsadek in Job is in Job 40:8, as is the last usage of mishpot, judgment, dovetailing the two.

Wilt thou also disannul my judgment (mishpot)? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous (tsadek)?

Of all of the uses of tsadek, this is the only used by God Himself, and He is speaking to Job.  God expresses His concern for Job’s communication of unjust treatment of himself by God.  Rather than attempting to clear his self, He should defend God.  Whatever God is doing, it is right.  God has something to say about how Job has been talking about all he’s gone through.
Despite all that Job said, in the end God came down on his side against that of his friends.  Job 42:7 says,

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Job said some things wrong, but God judges him in general as saying what was right, that is, Job was righteous.  The friends were wrong about that.  The word “right” in this verse means “the truth,” that Job was telling the truth and they weren’t.  Verse 9 says that God accepted Job and not Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.  He leaves out Elihu.
Job was justified before God, not because of his works, but because of the righteousness that was imputed to him by faith.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives