Category: Apologetics

Posted on

Does Acts 2:38 Teach That You Must Be Baptized to Be Saved?

Acts 2

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

(Acts 2:37-41, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Over the last month or so, I’ve made a number of posts regarding baptism. The reason for this is that early in June of 2026, I had an online interaction with a Mormon who, in his attempt to argue for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that baptism was necessary for salvation. He posted a number of verse references as evidence for his position and I have been responding to the verses he mentioned as they turn up in my daily Bible reading.

Note: there are a number of mainline Christian denominations that also hold this view that baptism is essential for salvation, the most notable being the Church of Christ.

A few days ago, I read Acts 2, which includes what I would consider to be the cornerstone verse that is used by those who consider baptism to be essential for salvation (a doctrine known as “baptismal regeneration”).

The context for this passage is as follows:

In Acts 1, Jesus tells his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait, because in a few days they would all be baptized with the Holy Spirit. I expound on this passage more in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?”

In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends upon the Jerusalem believers and the church is officially born.

The event causes a stir and a lot of locals are wondering what is happening as they can see the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of these disciples. This provides an opportunity for Peter to preach the first gospel sermon to the many onlookers.

Our passage above picks up right at the conclusion of Peter’s sermon, which prompts a response from the audience, to which Peter gives the aforementioned Acts 2:38 directive.

On the surface,  Acts 2:38 appears to indeed teach that baptism is necessary in order to be granted forgiveness for sins. However, it’s important to understand that this verse was originally written in Greek. The Greek word “for” in this verse is “eis“, which can have two different meanings.

The first meaning this word can have is “in order that”. The verse would then be understood to mean that we should each repent and be baptized “in order that” we could experience forgiveness.

The second and equally valid meaning for the word “eis” is “because of“. This changes the entire meaning of the verse. The verse then teaches that each of us should repent and be baptized “because” we have forgiveness of sins.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Those who believe that baptism is essential for salvation (including the Mormon church) arbitrarily select the first meaning for the word “for“. There is nothing in the original Greek grammar or syntax that indicates that is the correct meaning. Therefore, the second meaning is equally valid. In fact, there are many examples in the New Testament that demonstrate the second meaning of the word “eis“.

For example, in Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist says

I baptize you with water for repentance.

Does this mean that he is baptizing them so that they will repent, or because they had repented? It is obvious that the second meaning is the correct interpretation.

Another example from Matthew 12:41 says:

they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.

Does this mean that they repented so that Jonah would preach, or because Jonah had preached? The answer is obviously because Jonah had preached.

How about a modern example?

We’ve all seen posters that say “Wanted for Murder!” Do these posters indicate that they are looking for the individual so that he (or she) will commit murder? Or is it better to say that they are looking for the individual on the poster because he (or she) has committed murder? Obviously, the second meaning is the understood interpretation.

In the examples we’ve seen, the interpretation seems pretty obvious and straightforward, but in Acts 2:38, the meaning of the word “for” is not as obvious. How then do we determine the real meaning? Which definition should we give it? Is it “so that” or “because”?

Rather than arbitrarily picking the meaning, as those who subscribe to baptismal regeneration do, good Bible study technique tells us that the meaning of a passage is always determined by the context. If the immediate context doesn’t help in determining the meaning of the verse, then the broader context should be used to make the determination.

In other words, if the meaning of the passage is unclear or in doubt, we should interpret its meaning in the light of passages that are clear and not in doubt.

With that in mind let’s analyze Acts 2:38. There is nothing in the immediate context of the verse that tells us which meaning we should ascribe to the word “for“. However, if we look at the broader context, we do get some help.

In Acts 3:19, Peter gives another invitation to salvation. In this invitation he says,

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord”.

In this sermon, Peter makes no mention of baptism. Forgiveness of sins is dependent only on turning to God. If Peter does not require baptism for salvation in Acts 3:19, then he must not require it in Acts 2:38 either. Otherwise, we would have a contradiction of Scripture, which would be a clear indication of interpretive error.

In Acts 10, Peter is sharing with some Gentiles how a person is saved. In this sermon Peter says:

“that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

In Acts 13, Paul is preaching about Christ. He says in verses 38-39,

Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Also, in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer directly asks Paul,

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Paul and Silas replied,

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.

All of these verses demonstrate that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. If baptism were indeed required for salvation, as those who hold to baptismal regeneration attest, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned in each of these examples?

Therefore, this indicates that the better interpretation of Acts 2:38 is “Repent and be baptized because you have forgiveness of sins.”

A List of Relevant Posts Regarding Baptism

 

As I’ve demonstrated in many of my other blog posts on this topic (see links to posts above), this interpretation not only fits our understanding of the meaning of baptism, but it fits perfectly with other passages that speak to how a person is saved and when and how a person receives the Holy Spirit.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

The word “for” is a preposition that can indicate causality (in order that) or result (because of). What are some examples you can think of where the word “for” is used in each way?

If the word “for” can have either meaning, why do you think some groups like the Mormons and the Church of Christ insist on their interpretation? What might be some possible motivations?

If you believe that this verse does indeed teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, how do you explain the omission of baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation in all of the other documented gospel sermons in the New Testament?

If baptism ISN’T necessary for salvation as the author of this blog suggests, then what is its purpose? Why do we see it practiced in the New Testament?

 

Photo by BBC Creative on Unsplash

Posted on

Did Paul Predict an Apostasy in Which the Church Would be Completely Lost?

2 Thessalonians 2

1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-13, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Not long ago, I was engaged in an online conversation with a Mormon who was explaining the necessity and legitimacy of the Mormon church.

You can read about the larger context that prompted this discussion in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?”

If you’re not familiar with Mormonism, you should know that it is not just another of the many Christian denominations that exist. It is something entirely different from the traditional Christianity that is represented by the many mainline Christian denominations and traditions.

Mormonism was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who, according to his testimony, was confused by the many different Christian denominations in place at the time. He sought to determine which one was right so he could know which one he should follow.

Joseph Smith claims that he received a revelation directly from God the Father and Jesus, in which he was told that NONE of the denominations were correct and that he should not follow any of them.

Supposedly, Joseph Smith was later directed by an angel to some buried golden plates, which were subsequently translated into “The Book of Mormon”.  Not long after, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism) was formed as the re-establishment of the true church that had allegedly been lost ever since the original apostles died off.

Interestingly, Mormonism today seeks to be known as “Christian” even though all of the Christian denominations of today were apparently labeled by Jesus himself as wrong.

Naturally, most Christians today do not think that they’re wrong, nor do they believe that they have fallen off the path, as Joseph Smith maintains that Jesus told him.

Hence, there is genuine debate regarding the origins of Mormonism and the truthfulness of its claims.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

A key argument that Mormons make to support their claim that Jesus visited Joseph Smith is the assertion that the original New Testament church fell into apostasy and the original church teachings and church authority were lost….for nearly 1800 years!

This passage in 2 Thessalonians is often used as one proof text to assert that Paul himself predicted that the church would fall into apostasy.

If the church indeed fell into apostasy and it can be demonstrated that even the apostles knew this would happen, then the idea that Jesus would appear at some point to someone to re-establish the true church seems at least plausible, if not inevitable.

Unfortunately, there are quite a number of problems with the Mormon teaching on this passage as it relates to their view of a universal and cataclysmic apostasy of the church.

First of all, how does one reconcile the Mormon view that the church fell into apostasy and was lost with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16, in which he said that he would establish his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it? Jesus taught that nothing could ultimately eliminate his church. Yet Mormons teach that the gates of hell could prevail against Christ’s church and indeed DID prevail….for nearly 1800 years!

Secondly, if the church DID fall into apostasy and was completely lost (which we assert is not possible according to Jesus), why would Jesus wait 1800 years to re-establish His church? That’s an awfully long time with a lot of lost people who ultimately had no hope, given the complete absence of the church.

Third, Mormons make the interpretive error of eisegesis (reading their preferred interpretation into the text) when they assume that passages which warn of false teachers and ideologies are evidence of a universal apostasy in which the church would be lost. While Jesus and the apostles often warned of false teachers and frequently pointed to our sinful tendencies to pursue worldly desires at the expense of following Christ and obeying His Great Commission, there are NO passages where Jesus or any of his apostles predict that the universal church and its teachings would be completely lost.

Finally, this passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 is offered up as one of several primary passages that speak to this alleged apostasy. According to Mormon teaching, Jesus, Paul and others all KNEW that the church would fall into apostasy and spoke openly about it.

The problem for Mormons is that this passage says nothing about the church being lost, nor does it even hint that there would be a universal apostasy shortly after the apostles left the scene. In short, this passage doesn’t teach what Mormons say it teaches.

It’s clear from the very first verse of this chapter that Paul is speaking about the 2nd coming of Christ. Paul had taught the Thessalonians about this subject on many occasions, as he states in verse 5.

The Thessalonians were confused about the timing of the 2nd coming and were anxious because of false reports coming from would-be prophets and random itinerant preachers who claimed that the day of the Lord had already occurred.

The Thessalonians were worried that perhaps they had missed the big day and had been left behind. Paul assures them that the “day of the Lord”, which refers to the 2nd coming of Christ, had NOT happened yet and would not happen until certain visible and identifiable events had taken place.

Paul lists these events, including the “man of lawlessness” entering the temple and calling himself god.

This event clearly has not happened yet and when it does happen, it will not lead to an apostasy of the church as Mormons claim, but it will lead to the 2nd coming of Christ as is clear from verse 1.

Since it’s clear from the text that the events Paul is talking about are STILL future events, this passage cannot be legitimately offered up as evidence that the church was lost shortly after the apostles died off and therefore needed to be restored nearly 1800 years later.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the church of the New Testament was ever lost. Sure, there have been many within the church who have been led to follow a path of false teachings. That has always been the case. Even in the time of the apostles we see that there were many false teachers and many false teachings. We even see devout disciples who are led astray. But none of this proves that the church as a whole was fully and fundamentally lost.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the New Testament church’s teachings and structure resembled anything remotely mirroring the current Mormon church.

The New Testament documents are fairly well preserved and we can trace the traditions and the teachings of not only the apostles but the early church fathers. Historically, we can trace theological heresies as well as denominational splinter groups. We can compare all of it with the teachings of the New Testament to determine what is accurate and what is not.

Mormonism wants you to believe that Jesus told Joseph Smith that all the Christian denominations were wrong and that Mormonism is right.

The problem is that we cannot verify that Joseph Smith ever had a real encounter with Jesus, but we can evaluate Mormon teachings to those of Jesus and the New Testament apostles. By that metric, Mormonism fails because it teaches a gospel message that is in stark contrast to that which we know was taught by Jesus and his disciples.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Mormons claim that this passage teaches a universal apostasy of the church shortly after the apostles died off. Based on the plain reading of the text, do you agree that this is what Paul is teaching? Why or why not?

Mormons say that church authority and structure were lost when the church fell into apostasy. Yet Jesus taught that the gates of hell could not prevail against His church. How does one ultimately determine which view is correct? What standards or protocols do you think are needed to evaluate the veracity of each sides’ claims?

We have a record of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of many of His disciples. We call this the New Testament. Do you think the New Testament has been accurately preserved? In other words, do you believe that the New Testament is an accurate reflection of the account of Jesus’ life and ministry as well as an accurate account of the New Testament church and its teachings? What are the reasons for the position you hold?

If the church did fall into apostasy and was completely lost as Mormons claim, when and where did the “man of lawlessness” event take place? To what is Paul referring to?

Paul says that “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work”? What is Paul referring to? What does that mean? Paul also says that “the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.” Who do you think is the one who now holds back the secret power of lawlessness?

 

Image created by Grok

Posted on

Should People Take the Mormon “Challenge”?

Galatians 1

6I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who in his love and mercy called you to share the eternal life he gives through Christ. You are already following a different way 7that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ.

8Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.

10Obviously, I’m not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant. (Galatians 1:6-10, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, Mormonism has been a huge topic on social media the last few days. The main topic of discussion and debate has been centered around the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians.

For context, the Department of Defense recently posted a memo regarding new abbreviated codes to identify the many different religious backgrounds that might be represented among the troops.

According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the previous list of religious options was out of control, with over 200 different options. The goal was to simplify the number of codes and options, making it easier for chaplains to do their job of ministering to the troops.

The problem was that the new list had a number of different Christian denominations listed, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian” but the Mormon Church was not listed as Christian. Instead, it was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint.”

This set off a firestorm among many Mormon influencers and regular Mormon Joes who were offended that the U.S. government apparently didn’t consider Mormons to be Christian.

Chief among those speaking out online were Utah Senator Mike Lee (@basedMikeLee on X), who took every opportunity to post his thoughts and objections to this “egregious error” inflicted on Latter Day Saints.

This incident sparked a lot of online conversations about whether or not Mormons are Christians.

Mormons, of course, believe they ARE Christians, while evangelicals have argued that Mormons are NOT Christians because, despite the fact that Jesus Christ is in their name, they do not hold to the traditional Christian doctrinal views on Jesus, God, the Church, salvation, or the Scriptures.

The online discussion afforded many Mormons, including Senator Lee, the opportunity to inform and proselytize others regarding the Mormon faith.

In one of his posts, Senator Lee offered up what I’m calling the “Mormon challenge”:

This is the Mormon “trump” card so to speak. “Just read the Book of Mormon in it’s entirety”, they say, “and ask God humbly and with sincerity if it’s true.” This challenge is often offered as a gauntlet that is laid down for those who portend to be truth-seekers.

“What do you have to lose”, Mormons ask. The sentiment is, “Don’t be a chicken!”

Millions of Mormons attest that Mormonism is indeed true based on this challenge.

Should Christians accept this challenge?

The answer is a resounding NO.

There are two reasons why Christians should not take this challenge and neither of them have to do with being scared of the outcome.

The first reason you should not take this challenge is because it’s not falsifiable. The challenge is actually like the old “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition, which means that the challenge is designed to “prove” Mormonism is true regardless of the results of your humble and sincere prayer.

Think about it: if you pray and you say that you felt nothing or you didn’t get any firm and obvious confirmation from your prayer, the Mormon can just say that you were obviously not sincere enough, or humble enough or something similar.

Yet if you say that you DID feel something, that emotional response, regardless of how small or incomprehensible, is offered as proof that Mormonism is true.

In other words, the challenge simply appeals to an emotional response as evidence of veracity.

This leads to the second reason one should NOT take this challenge, which is that it’s unbiblical.

Nowhere in Scripture are people encouraged to evaluate truth claims by appealing to an emotional response.

Instead, we are exhorted to test a message against the clear revelation that has already been given by God.

Acts 17 is a good example of this. I have written about this passage in another blog post, “Fact-Checking and Misinformation in the New Testament” in which the Bereans were commended for testing Paul’s message against the Scriptures.

A second clear example of testing a message is in the Galatians passage listed above, in which Paul tells his audience that any “gospel” message that is not in alignment or in agreement with the gospel message he had already preached to them was to be rejected. Paul tells the Galatians that the person giving this false message is to be cursed.

We know exactly what the message was that Paul originally preached to the Galatians because he writes his letter to the Galatians to reinforce the original message and to correct their subsequent misunderstanding brought about by false teachers. The gospel message Paul preached was a message of justification by faith in Christ alone, apart from any works.

Since we already know that the Mormon message is different than Paul’s message on many different levels doctrinally, there is no need to “pray on it.” In fact, reading the Book of Mormon and praying on it could be considered disobedience to Paul’s admonition to outright reject so-called gospel messages that are different from what he taught the Galatians.

The debate about whether Mormons are Christian or not, while interesting, is in many ways irrelevant. The truth is that anyone can identify themselves as a Christian. Yet, it’s not as important what you call yourself as what you believe.

Mormons say they are Christians because they follow Jesus Christ. But so do Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Liberal Christians and even Progressive Christians. Even Muslims will tell you that they respect and revere Jesus as a prophet.

All these groups, along with Latter Day Saints, have wildly different theological views on God, Jesus, salvation and the nature of the church, and yet, they all consider themselves “Christian”.

Are they Christian? The only way we can really know is to evaluate their beliefs in relation to what the Bible teaches.

With that in mind, I propose an alternate challenge to those who consider themselves Mormons…a challenge that is actually biblical. The challenge is to read the Bible cover to cover. Then compare the teachings of Mormonism with the teachings of the Bible, and specifically, compare the Mormon message with the gospel message taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

Then tell me – does Mormonism line up with the already revealed and accepted teachings of Jesus and the apostles?

So Mike Lee (and other Mormons)….will you accept the challenge?

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What is your definition of a Christian? According to the Bible and the gospel, how does one become a Christian?

What was the essence of the salvation message taught by Jesus and His disciples? What is the essence of the Mormon message regarding how a person is saved?

What is the traditional Christian teaching on the nature of Jesus? How do Mormons view the nature of Jesus? Are these two views the same? How do they differ?

Do you think it matters what a person believes about Jesus in order to be saved? Or is it simply enough to say you believe in Jesus? 

 

photo by Dave Lowe

Posted on

Will Christians Really Experience a Bodily Resurrection?

1 Corinthians 15

12But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.

20But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again. (1 Corinthians 15:12-20, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the cornerstone doctrines that sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

The resurrection is vitally important because without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. What we think of as Christianity just becomes another religion where its followers seek to adhere to the advice and admonitions of a self-proclaimed guru.

Quite simply, the resurrection proves that Jesus is God, which is significant because only God could provide complete atonement for the sins of mankind. if you want to understand the theological ramifications of the resurrection, I explain more of the logical reasoning behind this idea in my post “He is Risen…Why Does it Matter?”

In this section of his letter to the Corinthians, Paul is responding to an apparent misunderstanding about the resurrection that was circulating within the church.

It seems that many in the church could not wrap their mind around the idea that they would experience a bodily resurrection. This aligns with prevalent Greek understanding at that time, in which the body was seen as a prison or a shell for the soul. Greek philosophy had a concept of the immortality of the soul but not so much for the body.

In this passage, Paul addresses the faulty thinking that denied a future bodily resurrection. His argument is as follows:

    • If there is no such thing as a resurrection, then obviously, Christ was not resurrected (verse 13)
    • If Christ hasn’t been raised (resurrected) then our preaching is in vain (wasted) and as a result, your faith is in vain because it is predicated on the message we preached (verse 14)
    • In addition, we are then false witnesses because we preached the resurrection of Jesus whom God did not raise (verse 15)
    • Hence, If Christ hasn’t been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still in your sins; they have not been paid for (verse 17)
    • Furthermore, those who have died then have perished (verse 18)
    • Therefore, if the hope of Christ is for this life only, we should be pitied (verse 19)

Paul then ends the argument in verse 20, saying:

But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again. [emphasis added]

In short, without a resurrection, there can be no salvation and as a result, this life is all there is. That makes life ultimately meaningless and Christianity is just a nihilistic ideology with lipstick.

The resurrection is not only the cornerstone of the Christian faith, proving that Jesus is God and therefore His death completely atones for the sins of mankind, but the resurrection also signifies that those who believe in Christ will ALSO experience a bodily resurrection, just as Jesus did.

So if you like your body, the good news is that you will have an even better model in eternity. And if you DON’T like your body for whatever reason, you can rest assured that your resurrected body will be an upgrade, free from defects, flaws and imperfections.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

What has been your concept of life after death? In other words, what do you imagine heaven to be like for you and others who are there?

How does the concept of having a resurrected body align or contradict your thinking about heaven and eternal life?

How confident are you in the resurrection of Jesus? What are some reasons that cause you to doubt whether it is actually true?

If Jesus was not resurrected, how do you explain the crucifixion? What was it’s purpose? What did it accomplish?

 

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Posted on

Why Do Jews Reject Jesus as Their Messiah?

Isaiah 53

1Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:1-12, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

I saw a post on X.com recently where an influential user listed what he considered the most significant in human history.

Who would you put at the top of that list?

Regardless of your religious views, I think it’s hard to argue against Jesus being the most important figure in all of human history. Incidentally, this user listed Genghis Khan first. Jesus was second on his list.

Jesus and his teachings have literally changed the world. And yet, the Jewish people, his own people, largely reject him. Why is that?

If you happened to be an Israelite living in first century Palestine, you eagerly expected and longed for the Messiah.

The nation of Israel was hundreds of years past its glory days, when it was an independent and respected nation. Now, it was merely one of the many provinces that were subject to Roman rule.

The prophets had foretold of a Messiah, who would one day come and deliver his people and restore the nation to its former glory. At least that was the hope.

Unfortunately, the biblical version of the Messiah did not match the expectations of most Jewish people, who were hoping for a political and military leader who would drive out the Romans, just as the many judges had driven out their oppressors in the early years of their nation’s formation.

This passage in Isaiah 53 gives a much different picture and description of the Messiah compared to the peoples’ expectations.

According to Isaiah, the coming Messiah would not be a person who would stand out. There was nothing physical about the Messiah that would draw people to him. He would be decidedly “normal”.

While the people were expecting a William Wallace type military hero to rally the troops and drive out their Gentile occupiers, this passage shows that the Messiah’s mission would be much different.

Yes, the Messiah would deliver his people; he just wouldn’t deliver them from the enemy they were thinking he would.

Verse 6 lays out the issue – we ALL have gone astray. As a result, the purpose of the Messiah would be to take the iniquity of people upon Himself.

Verse 10 is key because it explicitly states that the Messiah would be a guilt offering. Every Israelite knew that they had to make regular offerings at the temple in order to make atonement for sin. This verse indicates that it’s the Messiah himself whose life would be a guilt offering for the people.

There are a number of verses in this passage that explicitly point to Jesus.

Verse 5 provides one of the clearest references to Jesus’ brutal execution when it says that he was “pierced” for our transgressions. In John’s description of Jesus’ death, we learn that the Roman soldiers were eager to hasten the death of their victims because of the impending Sabbath (see John 19:31-34). It was common to break the legs of those being crucified, rendering it impossible for them to push themselves up to expand their lungs and breathe. Hence, the breaking of the legs brought a swift end to the slow tortures of crucifixion as the victim would immediately die of asphyxiation.

In the case of Jesus. the centurion realized that Jesus was already dead so there was no need to break his legs. Instead, he decided to take his spear and pierce Jesus’ side.

Verse 9 indicates that the Messiah would be assigned a grave for the wicked and the rich. In Jesus’ case, his body was set to be dumped in a pit with other common criminals. But instead, a rich person, Joseph of Arimathea, petitioned Pilate for the body of Jesus, whom he buried in a tomb that he had recently purchased.

Other prophecies in this passage are also fulfilled by Jesus. Verse 7 indicates that the Messiah would be silent when confronted by his accusers. All of the gospel accounts indicate that Jesus, when pressed by Pilate and the authorities, did not defend himself, but chose to willingly give himself up in order to go to the cross to be crucified.

To this day, the Jewish people largely reject Jesus as their Messiah, despite the fact that he fulfills all of the prophecies about the coming Messiah. In fact, there are a number of prophecies concerning the Messiah that only Jesus could have fulfilled.

If you don’t understand the mission of the Messiah, you will reject him.

The Jewish people reject Jesus as their Messiah because he doesn’t fit their hope and expectation of what the Messiah’s purpose would be. Instead of delivering his people from their political oppressors and restoring the glory of their nation, the Messiah’s purpose was first and foremost, to deliver people from the penalty of sin.

Non-Jews reject Jesus simply because they fail to see their need for a Savior. In this case, you may see Jesus as a significant figure in human history, but not as significant as someone like Genghis Khan who wielded tremendous political and military power to conquer the entire known world.

We would all do well to heed the words of Isaiah 53:6:

6We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What is your understanding of the purpose of the Messiah?

In what ways do you see Jesus matching the description that prophets like Isaiah gave of the coming Messiah?

Who do you know that rejects Jesus as their Messiah and Savior? What are their reasons for rejecting Jesus ?

Why do you think Jewish people, by and large, still reject Jesus, despite clear passages like Isaiah 53 that show Jesus to be a “Suffering Servant” instead of a military conqueror?

 

Photo by MBVisign: https://www.pexels.com/photo/genghis-khan-statue-in-close-up-photography-6466768/

Posted on

What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?

Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

In the first chapter of Colossians, Paul pens one of the greatest treatises on the divine nature of Christ in all of Scripture. And yet, some have used this very section to promote a false understanding of Jesus.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious group that was birthed in the late 1870’s when Charles Taze Russell, who had been highly influenced by Adventist teachings, determined that certain Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity and divinity of Christ, were not supported by Scripture.

I’ve written a number of posts regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their view that Jesus is not God, including the following posts:

The bottom line with Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they don’t believe in the trinity. Therefore, they don’t believe that Jesus is God. They teach a doctrine that is known as Arianism (see post here), which teaches that Jesus is a created being who does not possess a divine nature.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are highly committed to their understanding of Jesus as a created being, and they believe that this passage, in Colossians 1, serves as strong evidence in support of their view.

Specifically, this passage twice describes Jesus as being “firstborn”. The thinking goes that if Jesus was born, then he must be created. If he was created then he clearly isn’t God. If he isn’t God, then he’s just a man. Hence, the view that Jesus is a created being without a divine nature must be the correct view.

That logic might sound correct on the surface, but there is one small problem, as our good friend Inigo Montoya will explain:

The problem is that we interpret the word “firstborn” based on our modern understanding. Naturally, we see the word “born” and assume that it refers to a birth. We assume therefore that the passage is saying that Jesus was “born”, just as all people are naturally born.

But that’s not at all what the passage is saying.

To understand this passage, we need to understand a little bit about the culture of the Ancient Near East, particularly how the family heirs were treated.

In the Ancient Near East culture, it was customary for the oldest son to receive a double portion of any inheritance. The oldest son enjoyed this benefit because of his status as the highest in rank of all the sons. So, if you had two sons, your assets would be divided into 3 parts. The oldest son would get 2 shares and the youngest son would get one share.

The oldest son was therefore the pre-eminent, or favored son. The oldest son was the highest in rank – usually.

However, there are a number of Biblical examples where this was not the case.

Take Jacob and Esau for example. Esau was the oldest son but God favored Jacob, who received Isaac’s blessing over Esau.

Jacob’s sons are another example. Jacob had 12 sons. Reuben was the oldest and therefore, was considered the pre-eminent son, eligible for the double portion.

However, Reuben forfeited his rank and the blessing associated with the oldest son when he slept with one of his father’s wives. As a result, Jacob made Joseph the pre-eminent son, even though he was NOT born first. In fact, he was the eleventh born! (see 1 Chronicles 5:1)

When you see a list of the tribes of Israel (Jacob’s new name), you never see Joseph listed. Why is that? It’s because Joseph was given two shares. Joseph’s shares are represented by his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

The Greek word that is translated “firstborn” is the word “prototokos”. While the word is translated as “firstborn”, it doesn’t mean that Jesus was created. If Paul wanted to communicate that Jesus was the first-created, he would have used a different word, “protoktisos”, which literally means “first-created.”

How do we know that Paul is not trying to communicate that Jesus was “born” if he indeed uses this word which translates to “firstborn”?

It’s clear from the context that Paul is not using the word in the way the Jehovahs Witnesses assert.

In the first instance of the word, Paul says that Jesus is “the firstborn over all creation.” If Paul were communicating that Jesus was “born” then he’s also saying that “creation” is the parent. That doesn’t make sense. If Paul was communicating that Jesus was literally born, shouldn’t the passage say that Jesus was the “firstborn of God”?

In the second instance of the word “firstborn”, Paul states that Jesus is firstborn from among the dead. Again, this language doesn’t make sense if Jesus is actually born. How can Jesus be parented by creation and also by “the dead”?

This passage makes complete sense if we understand that the word “firstborn” carries the meaning of pre-eminence or rank, just as the firstborn child of any ancient near eastern family held pre-eminent status over his siblings due to his higher rank.

In this case, Paul says in verse 15 that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation. Why? Paul gives the answer in the very next verse. It’s because Jesus is the CREATOR. Jesus is pre-eminent (firstborn) over creation because he is the author of ALL of creation.

In the same way, Jesus is pre-eminent over death precisely because he has demonstrated supremacy over death by rising from the dead.

So in the end, this passage doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Instead, this passage teaches the exact opposite. Jesus is the uncreated creator of all things in whom the fullness of deity dwells and through whom all things are reconciled by His shed blood on the cross.

Jesus is indeed firstborn. He has demonstrated supremacy over creation and death precisely because He is GOD!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Genesis 41:51-52 says, “Joseph named his firstborn Manasseh…. 52The second son he named Ephraim”. Yet in Jeremiah 31:9 it says, “Ephraim is my firstborn son”. How can Ephraim be the second son in the Genesis passage but the firstborn in Jeremiah? How do you explain this apparent contradiction?

If Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend, what do you think are the implications in terms of Jesus’ ability to save humanity? In other words, how can a savior who is not divine atone for the sins of the world?

What are some personal examples you can think of where the first born son (or daughter) did not enjoy the favored status you might expect?

What are some other qualities of Jesus that you learn from this short passage in Colossians? What else can we say about Jesus from these verses?

 

Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”

Posted on

Does Proverbs 8 Prove that Jesus is a Created Being?

Proverbs 8

1Listen as wisdom calls out! Hear as understanding raises her voice! 2She stands on the hilltop and at the crossroads. 3At the entrance to the city, at the city gates, she cries aloud, 4“I call to you, to all of you! I am raising my voice to all people. 5How naive you are! Let me give you common sense. O foolish ones, let me give you understanding. 6Listen to me! For I have excellent things to tell you. Everything I say is right, 7for I speak the truth and hate every kind of deception. 8My advice is wholesome and good. There is nothing crooked or twisted in it. 9My words are plain to anyone with understanding, clear to those who want to learn.

10“Choose my instruction rather than silver, and knowledge over pure gold. 11For wisdom is far more valuable than rubies. Nothing you desire can be compared with it.

12“I, Wisdom, live together with good judgment. I know where to discover knowledge and discernment. 13All who fear the LORD will hate evil. That is why I hate pride, arrogance, corruption, and perverted speech. 14Good advice and success belong to me. Insight and strength are mine. 15Because of me, kings reign, and rulers make just laws. 16Rulers lead with my help, and nobles make righteous judgments.

17“I love all who love me. Those who search for me will surely find me. 18Unending riches, honor, wealth, and justice are mine to distribute. 19My gifts are better than the purest gold, my wages better than sterling silver! 20I walk in righteousness, in paths of justice. 21Those who love me inherit wealth, for I fill their treasuries.

22“The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else. 23I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began. 24I was born before the oceans were created, before the springs bubbled forth their waters. 25Before the mountains and the hills were formed, I was born—26before he had made the earth and fields and the first handfuls of soil.

27“I was there when he established the heavens, when he drew the horizon on the oceans. 28I was there when he set the clouds above, when he established the deep fountains of the earth. 29I was there when he set the limits of the seas, so they would not spread beyond their boundaries. And when he marked off the earth’s foundations, 30I was the architect at his side. I was his constant delight, rejoicing always in his presence. 31And how happy I was with what he created—his wide world and all the human family!

32“And so, my children, listen to me, for happy are all who follow my ways. 33Listen to my counsel and be wise. Don’t ignore it.

34“Happy are those who listen to me, watching for me daily at my gates, waiting for me outside my home! 35For whoever finds me finds life and wins approval from the LORD. 36But those who miss me have injured themselves. All who hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:1-36, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

When I was a high school senior, I took AP English. At one point we were studying poetry and we read a famous poem by Robert Frost, entitled, “The Road Not Taken”. The poem starts with the line:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

and ends with the oft-quoted phrase:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

 

Our teacher asked the class what we thought the poem was about. A few people in the class who had a somewhat religious background, including myself, thought the poem was a metaphor for heaven and hell. After all, if you’re going to talk about two roads that diverge, you cannot get any more divergent than heaven and hell.

I remember our teacher graciously telling us that we were overthinking the poem. There was nothing in the poem that mentioned heaven or hell and the context of the poem was not about eternal destiny. There was really nothing about the poem that would indicate that it was religious in nature.

To my surprise, I learned that the plain meaning was usually the correct meaning, unless there was some compelling reason to believe that the writer was speaking metaphorically or allegorically.

In our case, the poem was simply about two different choices, both of which were appealing in their own way. Which one should I choose? How do you choose? The author is simply writing about the conflict that arises when we have to choose between two paths. That’s it.

What can happen though is that some people will naturally want to import their own views and perspectives into the poem. In my case, being a person who went to church and Sunday school and who had heard a lot about the two different life choices of heaven and hell, I saw “two paths” and immediately concluded “heaven and hell” without really thinking about whether that was what the author was really writing about.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses make a similar error in their understanding and explanation of Proverbs 8.

If you’ve ever had a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness, you likely know that they do not believe that Jesus is God. Instead, they teach that Jesus is a created being. They believe that Jesus is God’s first created being, which makes him extra special, but in the end, he’s still a created being like you and me.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses theological viewpoints on Jesus are rooted in an ancient heresy known as Arianism. I wrote about their views in my blog post “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy” in which I discuss their views of the opening verses of John’s gospel.

When talking to a Jehovah’s Witness regarding their view that Jesus was a created being, they have a number of biblical “proof-texts” to support their theological stance. One of those passages is Proverbs 8.

According to the Jehovah’s Witness, Proverbs 8 provides ironclad evidence that the Bible teaches that Jesus is NOT God.

Verses 22-31, in particular, demonstrate that Jesus is created. The Jehovah’s Witness argument is that Jesus is speaking about how he was formed “before he created anything else.” Jesus was there at God’s side when He created everything.

To the Jehovah’s Witness, this fits perfectly with their view that Jesus was the first created “thing” and then God created everything else through Jesus.

There is only one problem with this reasoning – the subject of this passage is wisdom not Jesus.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their haste to project their theological view of Jesus into any text that might have words or phrases that trigger their theological bias, have erred in much the same way I, and others in my high school English class, so quickly attributed a wrong context to Robert Frost’s famous poem.

Solomon, the author of Proverbs, is using a literary device known as personification to explain and highlight the importance of wisdom.

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Wisdom is really Jesus. Actually, when you really look at this passage, you realize that the text cannot be referring to Jesus. Here are a couple of reasons why:

First, wisdom in this passage is identified as a female, whereas Jesus is male.

Secondly, if wisdom is an actual person, then “good judgment” must also be a person because wisdom lives with good judgment according to verse 12. If wisdom is really Jesus, then who is this “good judgment” character?

Lastly, if you know anything about the broader context of Proverbs, it is a collection of sayings and instruction regarding wise living. This is made clear at the very outset of the book:

The purpose of these proverbs is to teach people wisdom and discipline, and to help them understand wise sayings. 3Through these proverbs, people will receive instruction in discipline, good conduct, and doing what is right, just, and fair. 4These proverbs will make the simpleminded clever. They will give knowledge and purpose to young people. (Proverbs 1:1-4, NLT – emphasis added)

Additionally, in this particular section of the book, Wisdom is personified as a female instructor. Proverbs 9 continues with this personified motif as Wisdom is contrasted with Folly, both of whom are given female personalities.

So if this passage isn’t speaking about Jesus, what is the point being made?

The point of this passage is summarized at the end, in verses 32-36, which state:

32“And so, my children, listen to me, for happy are all who follow my ways. 33Listen to my counsel and be wise. Don’t ignore it.

34“Happy are those who listen to me, watching for me daily at my gates, waiting for me outside my home! 35For whoever finds me finds life and wins approval from the LORD. 36But those who miss me have injured themselves. All who hate me love death.”

In short, the reader is encouraged to “listen to my counsel and be wise.”

In the end, the Jehovah’s Witnesses commit an error we call eisegesis, which occurs when one imports their own viewpoint or bias into the interpretation of the text. Good Bible interpretation will instead interpret the passage based on the plain meaning and the context while resisting the urge to make the passage say what the reader wants or hopes that it will say.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

The error of eisegesis, where one interprets a text in such a way that it fits with their pre-conceived views, is not just a problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses. People everywhere commit this error. What are some views you have that you are more apt to try to find the text to support? In other words, what are some ways you have, or are tempted to commit this error of eisegesis?

Why do you think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are so committed to their view that Jesus is a created being?

What are some of the benefits of wisdom according to this passage?

What do you think are some good Bible study habits and techniques that will help you to interpret passages correctly, without importing your personal views into the interpretation of the passage?

 

Photo by James Wheeler: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-pathway-surrounded-by-fir-trees-1578750/

 

Posted on

Can You Make the Bible an Idol?

Psalm 119

16I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

20My soul is consumed with longing for your laws at all times.

24Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors.

40How I long for your precepts! Preserve my life in your righteousness.

43Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws.

47for I delight in your commands because I love them.

48I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees.

70Their hearts are callous and unfeeling, but I delight in your law.

72The law from your mouth is more precious to me than thousands of pieces of silver and gold.

77Let your compassion come to me that I may live, for your law is my delight.

92If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.

97Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.

103How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

111Your statutes are my heritage forever; they are the joy of my heart.

113I hate double-minded men, but I love your law.

119All the wicked of the earth you discard like dross; therefore I love your statutes.

120My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws.

127Because I love your commands more than gold, more than pure gold,

129Your statutes are wonderful; therefore I obey them.

140Your promises have been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves them.

143Trouble and distress have come upon me, but your commands are my delight.

159See how I love your precepts; preserve my life, O LORD, according to your love.

163I hate and abhor falsehood but I love your law.

165Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble.

167I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly.

174I long for your salvation, O LORD, and your law is my delight.

(Psalm 119 – selected verses, NLT)

NOTE: Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the entire Bible. I’ve included selected verses that reflect the content of this blog post

The Daily DAVEotional

A while back, I read a social media post from a person with a sizable following in which he exhorted people, “Don’t make the Bible an idol.”

My first thought was, “what does that even mean?”

Is it possible to make the Bible an idol? What would that even look like?

I immediately thought about this Psalm (119), which is the longest chapter in the entire Bible and is an extended discourse on the wonders and virtues of God’s word. I’ve written about this Psalm before in my post “The Endless Virtues of God’s Word.”

It’s well worth your time to read the entire Psalm but due to the sheer length of the text, I’ve only included selected verses that highlight the devotion, awe and love that the psalmist has for God’s word.

If ever someone might be accused of worshiping God’s Word and making it an idol, it would be the author of Psalm 119. Notice some of the language he uses to express his feelings about God’s laws, statutes and precepts.

Words like delight, love, long, hope, consumed, sweet, joy, precious and awe are all used to describe how the psalmist feels about God’s laws.

There is clearly a reverence and respect and a deep LOVE for God’s word. But does that equate to idol worship?

To answer that question, we need to understand what idol worship is.

I wrote in a previous blog post, “A Discourse on the Foolishness of Idols” that an idol can be thought of as a substitutionary object of trust. Instead of trusting in God as your deliverer, your provider, your protector, your source of life, your savior, etc, you transfer that trust to something or someone else.

But you can also think of an idol as anything that takes priority or precedence in your heart over God.

So how about this Psalmist? Is he guilty of idol worship? Is it possible to elevate the Bible to a position over God in our lives?

I suppose that if I were to worship the physical book of the Bible as if it were a deity itself, I could be accused of idol worship. But I don’t think that is what’s happening with the psalmist.

The word of the Lord – his law, precepts, ordinances and statutes – are all merely an extension of God Himself. They are not God, but they are a revelation of the character of the true God.

When the psalmist says he loves God’s law, and he delights in His word, he’s making a statement about God’s character. He’s acknowledging that God’s word is a source of revelation about God’s nature and in it, God has provided wisdom and instruction for righteous living.

God’s word tells us who He is and how we’re to live. The psalmist simply acknowledges these facts. Moreover, he’s speaking directly to God when he makes these statements. Therefore, the praise and adoration is directed toward God and not some inanimate scroll.

Think of it this way – let’s say you read a book that you really loved. Then one day you meet the author at a book signing. While you’re at the table, you go on and on about how much you loved the book. You share that the character development, plot lines and context were all relatable and engrossing. Do you think the author will be offended because you praised his/her work and not the author directly? No, the book is an extension of them and it is obvious to all that your praise is directed toward the author.

That is exactly what is happening in this psalm. The psalmist is simply recognizing that God’s laws and statutes are righteous and life-giving.

So why would this online social media influencer bark out that we should not make the Bible an idol? Why is this even a concern?

My desire to answer this question led me down an online rabbit hole. This particular influencer, and others who also warn that we should not make the Bible an idol, belongs to a strain of religious faith that is known as Progressive Christianity.

Progressive Christianity uses the word “Christianity” but it is hardly Christian. While they utilize the same language and reference the same characters as traditional Christianity, they redefine the meaning of words, concepts and even characters in order to suit their own theological preferences.

Progressive Christians occupy a broad spectrum of beliefs but there are some things that tend to be common among most who identify as being a part of this camp.

Perhaps the hallmark value of Progressive Christianity is their view that God is always evolving. Hence, there is an emphasis on searching and questioning, while those claiming to know truth may be labeled as unenlightened or immature.

Progressive Christianity tends to be very ecumenical, embracing all faith religions and ideologies as equally valid and helpful. Loving others means you shouldn’t offend others by telling them that their beliefs might be wrong. Hence, Jesus has been recast from His role as exclusive Savior of the world to that of a moral teacher whose example we’re to follow.

Standing in contrast to Progressive Christianity is orthodox Christianity, which teaches that God can be known because He has revealed Himself to us through His word and through the person of Jesus.

In addition, orthodox Christianity teaches that God is NOT evolving. He has laid out for us in His word what His standards are for living and because God doesn’t change, the standards and statutes set forth in His word apply to us today.

Perhaps you are starting to see the problem. If God doesn’t change, then that means His moral code and His rules for righteous living are not optional and must be obeyed today.

The Progressive Christian attempts to get around this by doubling down on the assertion that God IS evolving while adding the caveat that the Bible is not written by God.

Their claim is that the Bible we have is simply a record of writings by fallible men; they are NOT God’s spoken words. While the Bible may be helpful and inspiring, it is only a tool that you may choose to use; it is NOT authoritative for our lives. If the Bible lacks authority, then it logically follows that I don’t have to abide by all of its restrictive and antiquated rules and regulations.

This is where the rubber meets the road. For the evangelical (orthodox) believer, the Bible is authoritative, for it reveals God’s very nature to us and it contains His laws, statutes, precepts and ordinances for righteous living. This is what the psalmist was extolling in Psalm 119.

The Progressive Christian denies that God is the author of Scripture and so for anyone who believes in the authority of Scripture, they are told by the Progressive Christian, “Don’t make the Bible an idol.”

So you see that this whole argument is based on a completely different foundational view of God’s nature and how he reveals Himself to mankind. The Progressive Christian denies that the Bible is an authoritative tome that accurately reflects God’s nature and provides rules and guidance for living. To them, there are many other ways God may communicate to us apart from the Bible, including other faith traditions.

This denigration of the authority of Scripture allows the Progressive Christian to decide for himself which of the statutes in the Bible are valid for today and which ones aren’t. Conveniently, this allows the Progressive Christian to formulate a view of God that matches their preferences and proclivities exactly, which, strangely, is exactly the definition of forming an idol.

Amazingly, we’ve come full circle. The Progressive Christian tells us not to make the Bible an idol because doing so limits God and restricts our view of Him to how He is portrayed in Scripture.

Meanwhile, the Progressive Christian untethers themselves from the shackles of Biblical revelation of God as an immutable template for representing who God is, opting instead for the freedom to develop an image of God that is highly influenced by their own experiences and preferences.

Ironically, that sounds like idol worship to me.

To learn more about Progressive Christianity and what they believe, watch this 12 minute video from apologist Alisa Childers

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What is your view of the Bible? Do you see it as God’s word or a collection of writings written by fallible men?

What is the source of your information about God? How can you know if your view of God is accurate to who God really is rather than just an image you developed about Him that suits your preferences?

Do you think that the commands of the Bible are valid for people today or are they optional? What are the reasons for your position?

What has been your experience with Progressive Christianity? Do you think Progressive Christianity is compatible with traditional, orthodox Christianity? Why or why not?

Why do you think people opt for a Progressive version of Christianity instead of traditional, orthodox Christianity? What do you think are some of the main reasons and driving forces?

 

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Posted on

Was it Genocide or Punishment?

Deuteronomy 18

9“When you arrive in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be very careful not to imitate the detestable customs of the nations living there. 10For example, never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering. And do not let your people practice fortune-telling or sorcery, or allow them to interpret omens, or engage in witchcraft, 11or cast spells, or function as mediums or psychics, or call forth the spirits of the dead. 12Anyone who does these things is an object of horror and disgust to the LORD. It is because the other nations have done these things that the LORD your God will drive them out ahead of you. 13You must be blameless before the LORD your God. 14The people you are about to displace consult with sorcerers and fortune-tellers, but the LORD your God forbids you to do such things. (Deuteronomy 18:9-14, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

I heard a speaker once ask the question, “if you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

The idea behind the question is that a lot of people who claim to be Christians don’t live like it.

I think there’s a similar question being asked within our culture about the God of the Old Testament. Is there enough evidence to prove He is God? I think the real question people are asking is, “does the God of the Old Testament measure up to my idea of God?”

For many, the answer is no, mostly because people cannot reconcile their view that God is all-loving with the commands in the Old Testament for the Israelites to wipe out the people dwelling in the land of Canaan.

I wrote about this topic recently in my post “Is the Old Testament God a Bloodthirsty, Genocidal Psychopath?” in which I argue that one of the main reasons people have difficulty with the God of the Old Testament is that they have a faulty or incomplete view of His nature. Sure God is loving. But that is not His only attribute. He’s also holy and righteous and just and infinitely good (to name just a few).

As a result, His command for the Israelites to expel the Canaanites from the land was not genocide, but divine punishment.

This passage in Deuteronomy is one of many that gives just a glimpse into the reprehensible atrocities and “detestable customs” of the Canaanites.

To say the Canaanites were wicked would be an understatement. But of course, that also depends on your definition and understanding of what is “wicked”. And that is part of the problem. Wickedness in our culture is so pervasive that we have a hard time indicting the Canaanites without indicting ourselves too.

The Canaanites not only practiced human sacrifice, with children no less, but they also engaged in sorcery, witchcraft and fortune-telling. Many of these practices have been so mainstreamed within our culture that we look at Canaanite culture as normal and innocent. Hence, we see God as the bad guy.

Sexually, the Canaanites practiced every sort of perversion you can imagine, including incest, bestiality, rape, and of course, homosexuality. But again, in a culture where anything goes sexually, our response is “what’s the big deal?”

This is the point Clay Jones makes in his well-researched article, “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites” which can be found at his website: ClayJones.net. Jones utilizes extra-biblical texts from the ancient world to dive deeper into the Canaanites’ pagan practices. What he finds is much more disturbing than even the biblical texts portray.

Scripture is clear. God’s command to the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites from the land was not a whimsical command given to appease some genocidal proclivities. The Canaanites were wicked and their customs so depraved that justice was required. The Israelites were simply God’s tool for meting out that justice.

But make no mistake, God warned the Israelites that they too would be subject to the same just punishment as the Canaanites if they followed their customs.

This passage thus served not as a justification for God’s impending justice but a prophetic warning.

Reflection

What is. your view of God? How would you describe God’s character?

How would you define wickedness? 

In what ways do you see our current culture mirroring or following some of the ancient Canaanite practices which God says were detestable?

How do you explain God’s command for the Israelites to expel the Canaanites to those who question His character? 

 

Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA: https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-wooden-gavel-on-brown-wooden-table-6077326/

Posted on

What is Your Definition of Truth?

John 14

1“Don’t be troubled. You trust God, now trust in me. 2There are many rooms in my Father’s home, and I am going to prepare a place for you. If this were not so, I would tell you plainly. 3When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. 4And you know where I am going and how to get there.”

5“No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We haven’t any idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

(John 14:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

What is truth?

I think the best way of defining truth is “that which corresponds to reality.”

We live in a time and culture where many people are not too concerned with truth, especially as it relates to religious beliefs.

The predominant view regarding religion today is that of pluralism, the idea that there is no ONE right view or true religion. Most people think that whatever works best for you is good for you. If you think about it, this totally fits our postmodern culture.

Postmodernism is a reaction or a rejection to the philosophy of modernism, which is also known as naturalism. While naturalism emphasized logic and repeated observation and experience to arrive at truth (seen most notably in modern science and the scientific method), postmodernism emphasizes one’s own experience as the basis for truth.

Hence, for most people, there is not ONE truth, but there can be many truths, because truth is whatever your experience tells you it is.

Enter Jesus in John 14. Jesus is interacting with his disciples shortly before he is arrested and crucified. In preparing his disciples for what they will soon encounter with his death, resurrection and ascension, he tells them that he’s going to prepare a place for them. He also tells them that they know the way to get to where he’s going.

The disciples are confused. “We don’t know where you’re going….so how could we know how to get there?”

In typical fashion, the disciples are perplexed because Jesus is talking about a spiritual reality while the disciples are thinking only about the physical reality they’re currently in.

Jesus’ response to his disciples is profound and has far-reaching implications. He says:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”

Jesus uses three separate terms to describe himself:

I am the way – Jesus defines himself as THE way, not “a” way. In our diverse world of religious pluralism, Jesus does not describe himself as one alternative path among many. Jesus is not an option that suits some people while Buddha, Mohammad or Confucius might be more preferable for others. Jesus is not a preference. Jesus is THE option.

I am the truth – Jesus says that he is THE truth. If truth is that which corresponds to reality, then Jesus is saying that he is the ultimate reality. His life and His words accurately depict what is real. What this means is that Jesus’ words are not mere suggestions to consider. Instead, they are the basis of reality for everyone, not just those people who prefer Jesus over some other religious leader or humanistic ideology.

I am the life – Jesus also describes himself as THE LIFE. Jesus is not just a way to experience a better life as if he is a self-help guru. He is the source of all life itself. John says this about Jesus in the introductory words of his gospel:

He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. 4Life itself was in him, and this life gives light to everyone. (John 1:3-4, NLT)

Perhaps you have heard the analogy that getting to God is like a trek to the top of a mountain. While God is at the top, there are many routes that one might traverse in order to get to the top and reach God.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

This analogy adequately illustrates what many believe today. God is whatever or however you might define him and your path to getting to him is whatever path you might choose to take.

Jesus stands in stark contrast to this way of thinking. God is not whatever or whomever you might want him to be. Making God out to be whoever you might prefer him to be is what the Bible calls idol worship and it’s an egregious sin. Israel’s engagement in idol worship is a main theme in the Old Testament and was the primary reason for their punishment and exile at the hands of foregien powers. (See my blog posts “Are You an Idol Worshiper” and “A Discourse on the Foolishness of Idols”).

Jesus says that if you want to get to God the Father, you MUST go through Him. Contrary to what our modern day religious pluralism says, Jesus IS the only way. Jesus can make that claim because He’s the only one who has made a valid payment for sin. No other religious leader or ideology even offers a solution to the problem of sin before a holy God. Jesus is the only one who does, and therefore, His claims are exclusive.

Christianity does not fit well in today’s religious pluralistic culture because it makes exclusive claims about God and salvation. Jesus himself claimed to be the ONLY way to God and this view was supported by his disciples and the New Testament writings (see my blog post “Is Christianity an Exclusive Religion?“)

We live in a pluralistic society and as a result, we’re tolerant of others and their views and beliefs. However, tolerance is not truth. Tolerance says that we respect the rights of others to hold views and beliefs that are different than ours. It doesn’t mean that we agree that their views are right. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Jesus is truth. His words are truth. He is the only one who has paid the price for sin and therefore, He indeed is the only way to get to God.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

How would you define truth?

What is your response to those who say all religions are basically the same? How would you go about distinguishing Christianity from other religions and ideologies?

How do you respond to those who object to Christianity’s exclusive claims? 

Do you think that Christianity is intolerant because it teaches that there is only ONE way to reach God? Why or why not? How do you define tolerance?

 

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash