Real Bible Study

Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

Posted on August 16, 2024 by Jerry

[Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible Part 5: Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?]

The author in his Opening Post expresses doubts that Matthew is the author of the Gospel of Matthew, if I understand him correctly. He expressly states that none of the claimed Gospel authors were practicing Jews.

I have stated regarding Matthew:

“Matthew, who most certainly was Jewish, held a job as a tax collector that of course was not well-favored by Jews of his day. Nevertheless, Matthew answered the call to follow Jesus. Reading his account carefully, he obviously had connections that provided additional witness to the facts surrounding the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Matthew’s Gospel has been recognized as having been written for the benefit of a largely Jewish audience, as seen, for example, by Matthew’s more frequent use of the expression “kingdom of heaven” rather than “kingdom of God.” Matthew gives us the account of the prophetic Olivet Discourse in its fulness, as does Luke in his Gospel.”

Note carefully this sentence from my statement about Matthew:

“Reading his account carefully, he obviously had connections that provided additional witness to the facts surrounding the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

These “connections” are evident to very careful readers of the New Testament. Most readers will miss these connections for they are stated in an incidental way and would hardly be noticed by the ordinary reader. These “connections” in the text of the New Testament have been called “undesigned coincidences” by scholars who have studied and sometimes listed them.

Here is an example based upon what is written in Matthew 14:1-2,

Mat 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,
Mat 14:2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

Note particularly how Matthew in his Gospel includes the statement:

“And said unto his servants.”

How did Matthew know this little fact?

Here is the parallel account in the Gospel of Luke, Luke 9:7-9,

Luk 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;
Luk 9:8 And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.
Luk 9:9 And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.

Note that in the Gospel of Luke, Luke reports “And Herod said,” but there is no mention of to whom Herod said this.

Similarly, the record in the Gospel of Mark, at Mark 6:14-16, Mark tells us:

Mar 6:14 And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
Mar 6:15 Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
Mar 6:16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

Mark, like Luke, does not provide the significant detail important to this undesigned coincidence which tells to whom Herod said these things, for in Mark 6:16 Mark only tells us “But when Herod heard thereof, he said” but does not report to whom Herod was speaking.

Matthew, therefore, did not copy his information from either the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke when he reported that Herod was speaking to his servants. It is evident from Matthew 14:1-2 that Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus from his servants.

We learn from the Gospel of Luke, in an apparently unconnected statement found there, what the connection was between Herod’s servants and the reports of the ministry and work of Jesus, when Luke reports (Luke 8:1-3):

Luk 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
Luk 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Luk 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Notice that Luke reports in Luke 8:3 that “Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward” supported Jesus financially in His ministry, and had a close connection with Herod, through whom Herod learned what Matthew reported in his Gospel.

No forger and no author years later in another place would have any basis to invent such obscure yet on the surface connections which demonstrate these accounts report real history, not fiction, and ultimately by their significant number show that Matthew had such connections by which he knew and reported these things as in this example of just one undesigned coincidence.

Just how does this information–one undesigned coincidence–contribute to the known fact that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew? Matthew includes information about things that happened at the time Jesus died on the cross, and things that happened when Jesus arose bodily from the grave and exited the tomb in the garden of Gethsemane “while the soldiers slept.” He knew these details because he had inside sources who communicated the information to him. Similarly, John in his Gospel had inside connections or relationships which enabled him to report details that would only be known to an insider. Otherwise, how could John have been able to enter and witness what was said to Jesus as well as have the authority to ask that Peter be allowed in (John 18:16). John was “known to the high priest.”

Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?

Posted on August 15, 2024 by Jerry

[Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible Part 4: Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?]

My Comment:

What follows is part of a continuing conversation I have been having with a person on the Internet who claims he does not believe the Gospel accounts in the New Testament represent eyewitness testimony. There are many who claim not to believe the Bible, and he is one of them.

All Christians need to be better prepared themselves, and need to better prepare their students and their children to have an answer for anyone who may ask the reason for their faith (1 Peter 3:15).

My reply to the Opening Post (8-15-24):

In the Opening Post you state that “Luke practically admits that he wasn’t an eyewitness” and you cite Luke 1:1-4.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

A more careful reading on your part would have focused on verse 2, “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;”

Luke directly states that he based his account on the testimony and record of those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

So, while it is true that Luke himself was not an eyewitness of the events he records in the Gospel of Luke, he based his account on the testimony of those who were.

Recall that you cited the following statement from an article for which you provided the link:

“We read :
We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.”

Yet you have cited a text from the Gospel of Luke and you have yourself attributed that text to Luke!

We know from what is stated in Luke and also stated in the Book of Acts that Luke is the author of both books.

Luke addressed both books to the same person, Theophilus:

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Notice that Acts 1:1 refers to “The former treatise,” which of course is the Gospel of Luke.

Luke was also the companion of Paul, as is evident from the “we” passages in the Book of Acts.

Compare Acts 16:1 which speaks of Paul, “Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus….” with Acts 16:10, “And after he had seen the vision, immediately WE endeavoured to go into Macedonia….”

This is the first of a number of “we” passages where Luke includes himself in the narrative because he was present and took part or otherwise witnessed first hand the events he records.

This is firm evidence that Luke is the author of both Luke and Acts.

There is yet more evidence that confirms the truth of the records found in the New Testament. There are what are called “undesigned coincidences” within and between these documents that report the ongoings of real-life activities and events. These reports contain information supplemental to each other. When taken together, these details fit exactly, even though contained in different documents written by different authors, or even the same author as Luke and Paul or Matthew and Luke. These coincidences are often about small details that would hardly be noticed by the casual reader, but they are there in the text. These undesigned coincidences, taken together as a whole, provide remarkable evidence of the truth and authenticity of the New Testament documents that could not have been fabricated or placed in the record on purpose. I plan to provide an example of an undesigned coincidence in my next comment about who wrote the Gospels.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity | Tagged Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible Part 4: Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?, Undesigned Coincidences evidence of truth and authenticity of NT record, Who wrote the Gospel of Luke? | Leave a comment

Who Wrote the Gospel of Mark?

Posted on August 14, 2024 by Jerry

[Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible Part 3: Who wrote the Gospel of Mark]

My Comment:

It is important that all Christians, children, young people, and adults learn the evidence that demonstrates that the Bible is true.

When I was in elementary school, perhaps the fourth or fifth grade, I had an outstanding and memorable Sunday school teacher, Mr. Lion. When the class was to graduate to the next grade level, Mr. Lion gave me a most interesting book titled “Mr. Lion.” That was an important learning experience for me. The book, or rather large booklet, with its light blue cover and a line drawing of the face of a lion on its cover, had some most interesting content. It told how to tell the difference between a crocodile and an alligator. It told how some insect species are co-dependent for their continued existence on an entirely different species. It may have been about a wasp that laid its eggs in a spider or some other insect. I no longer remember the exact details for I read that booklet in the 1940s and no longer have it. It did teach me things, whether on purpose or not, that ever after have protected my thinking against the mistaken claims of evolutionary biology.

My experience lets me know that we can help even children to learn facts about science and even Bible doctrine that will guard their hearts and minds against mistaken worldviews and objections to the truth of the Bible.

Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

I made the following claim in my discussion about the historicity of the New Testament concerning Mark’s Gospel:

“Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark and includes an incident that took place when he was present as a young man at the arrest of Jesus where he narrowly escaped capture as he and the other disciples were granted leave by the request of Jesus to leave the scene promptly. To suggest Mark was not a disciple but only joined Peter later on ignores the history of Mark and his family and their continued connection with the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ both before and after His crucifixion and resurrection.”

The author of the Opening Post responded:

The young man running naked during the arrest of Jesus was not identified in the Bible. I don’t get it why person like you claiming to have study the Bible yet believe on unsound statement. Your belief that Mark was a disciple was purely conjecture at its best

Here is my reply:

My claim is based upon a careful study of the New Testament records.

Although it is true that none of the four Gospels directly name their author, each Gospel contains internal clues which identify the author.

The Gospel of Mark is no exception.

The account of the young man running naked with great alacrity as he returned to his home is a rather embarrassing thing to include in the Gospel of Mark. There seems to be no assignable reason to include this account unless it is true and depicts something that Mark himself experienced when quite young. The inner circle of disciples no doubt knew of Mark’s experience, so the inclusion of this event serves to authenticate Mark as the author. No later anonymous writer writing from another place long after this event took place would know of such an embarrassing story and certainly would have no reason to invent it.

The account relates that this unnamed young man had gone out into the night clothed only in his linen cloth (Mark 14:51). That the cloth was linen is an important clue. This was a very expensive bed cloth which points to the fact that Mark’s parents were wealthy.

His parents were wealthy and had their own house in Jerusalem, close to where these events (the arrest of Jesus) were taking place.

Hearing the commotion, Mark evidently got out of bed and ventured out wrapped only in his linen bed sheet. He was very nearly caught in the act.

No name is given because authors frequently when writing of themselves do not give their name, as is true of John in his Gospel.

Mark’s parent’s house in Jerusalem is mentioned again in the New Testament in Luke’s account of the beginnings of the New Testament church in Acts 12:12,

Act 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

They were praying for the safe release of Peter from prison. Note that the house was large enough to accommodate the many who were gathered within, attesting to the fact that Mark’s parents were wealthy. Mark’s parents were intimately connected with the ministry of Jesus and the beginning of the New Testament church. Mark was related to Barnabas, for example, and takes an important part, serving as the person in charge of the Scriptures (Acts 13:5).

Posted in Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity | Tagged It is important to teach children important Bible facts, Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible Part 3: Who wrote the Gospel of Mark, Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? | Leave a comment

Who wrote the Gospel of John?

Posted on August 12, 2024 by Jerry

[Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible Part 2: Who wrote the Gospel of John]

My Comment:

The Bible teaches us that every Bible believing Christian must be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks a question about their faith.

The general evidence is that very few even Bible believing Christians are prepared to obey this command of Scripture found in 1 Peter 3:15.

These things need to be taught to every Christian, including children and young people.

Failure to teach Christians old and young is one central reason why the majority of even Bible believing Christians no longer actually believe in the Biblical and Christian worldview but have accepted a worldview from the surrounding culture that is utterly contrary to the Bible.

Failure to teach these things to our children may lead to their spiritual downfall later in life when they encounter first-hand viewpoints that contradict what they were taught at home and in church to believe.

Please read carefully all I have presented below as I focus on the proof that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John and not, as claimed by some, another writer in another place at a later time.

OP response to me (8-6-24):

Does your own scholars are also lacking understanding when they wrote about authorship of John’s Gospel?

We read :

We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/…/gospel-of-john…/

My Reply to OP (8-7-24):

Those are not my scholars! Consider that in terms of the historical evidence we have, the four Gospels as we now have them have never been attributed to anyone else.

Consider also that when these written documents were first received they were received in the Christian community of believers who knew at the time who their authors were. The early church did not receive anonymous writings and were very meticulous to reject forgeries claiming to be apostolic writings as we see even in the New Testament where someone wrote an epistle in Paul’s name as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:2.

These claimed doubts about the authorship of the New Testament documents seem to have arisen only in more recent history, doubts inspired by unbiblical worldviews and philosophies in the last two centuries or so.

I plan to share with you evidence that counts because based on facts as contained in the documents themselves and known cultural factors of that time which shed helpful light on these questions.

OP Reply to me (8-9-24):

saying “those are not my scholars“ wont solve the problem. Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the issue remains- Gospel of John is anonymous author and therefore unreliable

My Reply to OP (8-9-24):

You are welcome to follow unbelieving scholars all you want. I do not accept their presuppositions or their conclusions. There are scholars in this field whose work I have read with whom I do agree. Archeologists are not known to be well educated experts with regard to matters of textual criticism.

You have presented no answer to the reasoning I have provided regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John.

Furthermore, you seem to have a predisposed opposition to the view you know I hold.

If the Gospel of John is, as you claim, written by an anonymous author, what evidence do you have to show that the Gospel of John was only much later attributed to John the Apostle and disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ?

If the Gospel of John were in fact written by an anonymous author outside of the land of Israel perhaps many years after the alleged facts presented in the Gospel of John, how did that unknown author manage to know and seamlessly work into his account such matters as the location of Jacob’s Well? And especially, how did he know about the pool of Bethesda and know that it had five porches? The correctness of John’s record of five porches has been established by modern archeological findings.

There is humor and irony used by John as recorded in John 7:52 at the expense of both Sadducees and Pharisees, proving, like most Bible readers, that in their case they did not know the geography and history of their own country as recorded in their own Bible.

Joh 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

And like most Bible readers even yet, what John wrote in irony is missed by most readers, proving that they do not know the Bible as completely as they think they do.

This powerful and unanswerable evidence demonstrates that the Gospel of John was written by John who lived in that culture and who was an eye witness to the facts he writes of. The Gospel of John could not have been written by someone who came along at a later time and different place who could not have assembled such a document filled with many such accurate details reflecting both the culture and the geography surrounding what happened.

OP reply to me (8-8-24):

Jerome Smith genuine impartial scholars were guided by reason, empirical evidence and not by blind faith or theogical reason.

My Reply to OP (8-9-24):

I have presented you with factual information based on the contents of the Gospel of John itself. I asserted that the details contained in the Gospel of John, details pertaining to the culture of that time period and the physical details of features in the land of Israel which have been lately confirmed by archaeology, could not have been dreamed up by an unknown author in another place and time.

I have asserted the historical fact that all four Gospels have always been attributed to the authors whose names they now bear.

Neither you nor anyone else have ever produced actual evidence to the contrary that refutes this fact.

Therefore, case closed. I am right. Your position is based upon mere speculation and hypothesis. Talk about “blind faith or theological reason”–that is all you are able to present against my evidence.

Any scholar who disbelieves what is stated in the text of the four Gospels is hardly “impartial.”

The Gospel of John in particular concludes with the sworn testimony of its author and those who received this document:

Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Who is this disciple? Careful readers who know how to compare Scripture with Scripture know that the answer to this question is supplied by both the immediate, near, and remote contexts:

(1) The immediate context:

Joh 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Who is the disciple that leaned on the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper? This is answered by consulting the near context.

(2) The near context:

The specific disciple “whom Jesus loved” is identified as John in the near context of John 20:2.

John 20:2
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
King James Version

In context, Peter and John both ran to the tomb, and John, being younger, ran faster and reached the tomb first and looked but did not go in, but waited politely to let Peter enter first:

John 20:4-8

Joh 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
Joh 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
Joh 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

(3) More Remote Contexts:

While still on the cross, Jesus asked John, the disciple He loved, to care for Mary:

Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Joh 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Most significantly, at the Last Supper, it is John who is asked by Peter to ask Jesus who it is that was to betray Jesus:

Joh 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Joh 13:22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Joh 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
Joh 13:25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Joh 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

Notice John 13:23. Careful readers notice that John loves to suppress his own name. The words “whom Jesus loved” (Greek, agapao) is a reference to John, who never names himself. It cannot be a reference to Lazarus, for Lazarus was not one of the Twelve, whom Jesus also loved. But note that the word “love” in direct reference to Lazarus (John 11:3, 5) is the different Greek word for love, “phileo.” John as the disciple who wrote these things identifies himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved in John 21:7, 20, 24 and John 19:26 which I cited above.

I have taken you directly to the text. What is written supports my view that the Gospel of John was written by John the disciple of Jesus whom Jesus loved. An anonymous writer writing long after these events in another place and time would not have any reason to suppress the name “John” the way the original actual author John did. John’s immediate audience, the original recipients of his Gospel, knew very well who wrote this Gospel or it would never have been received in the first place.

Posted in Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity | Tagged Evidence about who wrote the Gospel of John, The internal evidence that identifies the author of the Gospel of John, We must teach children and young people how to defend their faith, Who wrote the Gospel of John? | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #864, Revelation 3:12

Posted on July 21, 2024 by Jerry

7-21-24 Daily Bible Nugget 864 Revelation 3v12

The Nugget:

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

The Question:

Johnnie Mack states the following in his Opening Post:

I’ve been trying to get a straight answer and can’t from my trinitarian friends who have the incredible ability to determine WHICH words of Jesus are him “speaking from his humanity” and which are him speaking from his divinity.

I’ve asked a couple of trinity buddies to explain to me the methodology they use to determine that

Every

Single

Evidence

From the Bible

From Jesus’s words

That disproves the deity of Jesus

Are

All

Somehow

To be dismissed as

Him speaking from his humanity.

For me, it seems like verses the trinity adherent doesn’t like are labeled in such a way as to justify the deity of Jesus, rather than an objective repeatable methodology.

So please please please… someone for the love of Pete, don’t dodge this question and answer by WHAT METHODOLOGY are you using to say:

Rev 3:12 (for example) is not a proof against the deity of Jesus because it’s just Jesus speaking from his humanity? HOW did you determine that if not by sheer bias?

Facebook

My Answer:

Johnnie Mack, I have explained these issues in the notes I have supplied in my digital Bible study resource available for the e-Sword Bible study software, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury (UCRT). See the notes given at Revelation 3:12 and also at John 20:17.

You ask:

“The question I’m asking is and will ask you, in Rev 3:12, is Jesus speaking from his humanity? If so, by what metric did you determine that WITHOUT a Trinitarian bias?”

Your very question shows that you may have misread the Bible and so misframe your question. Consider the fact that Jesus speaks of “my God” and “your God” but never “our God.”

Trace the Bible theme and promise for the expression “your God” from its inception in its provision in the Abrahamic Covenant at Genesis 17:7, 8 for additional insight by consulting the cross references given there in the UCRT.

The Evidence:

My notes on Revelation 3:12
My notes on John 20:17
My notes on Genesis 17:7, 8

The notes:

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 3:12

overcometh. Gr. nikaō (S# G3528, Luk 11:22). Rev 3:5, See on +Rev 2:7; +Rev 2:10; +Rev 2:17; +Rev 2:26; *Rev 12:11; Rev 17:14, Psa 125:1, Gal 6:9, Eph 3:17, 1Ti 4:8, 1Jn 2:13, 14; 1Jn 4:4; 1Jn 5:4.

I will make. 1Sa 17:25.

pillar. Rev 10:1, *1Ki 7:15; *1Ki 7:21, 2Ch 3:17, Pro 9:1, Song 3:10, Isa 22:23, Jer 1:18, Eze 40:49, Mat 19:28, Gal 2:9, 1Ti 3:15, 1Pe 2:5.

the temple. or, sanctuary. Rev 7:15; Rev 11:1, 2; Rev 11:19; Rev 14:15; Rev 14:17; Rev 15:5, 6; Rev 15:8; Rev 16:1; Rev 16:17; %Rev 21:22, Ezr 9:8, *Psa 23:6; Psa 45:15; Psa 61:4; *Psa 65:4; *Psa 92:13, Eze 41:1, +Mat 23:16, Luk 2:37, *1Co 3:9; *1Co 3:16; *1Co 3:17, *>Eph 2:19, 20, 21, 22, *1Pe 2:5.

of my God. Joh 14:2.

no more out. or, never more at all go out (see JFB). FS158, +Mat 5:18. Rev 1:6; Rev 22:15, =1Ch 23:25; =1Ch 23:26, *Psa 23:6; Psa 27:4, Isa 22:23, Mat 25:10, Joh 8:35, %Heb 13:14.

I will write. *Rev 2:17; %Rev 13:16; Rev 14:1; *Rev 22:4, Exo 28:36.

upon him the name. Permanent communion with God is further expressed in terms of the widespread ethnic belief that to be ignorant of a god’s name meant inability to worship him, whereas to know that name implied the power of entering into fellowship with him (EGT). Rev 7:3; Rev 9:4; Rev 14:1; %Rev 17:5; Rev 22:4, Exo 28:30; Exo 28:36, 37, 38, +*Num 6:27, Isa 43:7; Isa 56:5, Jer 23:6, %Mar 12:16, +Joh 1:12; Joh 14:13.

of my God. The expression “my God” describes Christ’s close relationship with God the Father on a level distinct from the relationship of other humans to God, for Christ never uses the expression “our God” of Himself (as if our relationship to God were exactly the same as His to God). This is in recognition of two natures in Christ: He possesses a human nature (Php 2:7), and in this human nature He can speak of “My God”; He also possessed a divine nature at the same time and still does (Php 2:6; Col 2:9). Therefore the interpretation of the Watchtower Society of John 20:17 given so as to teach Jesus is not God and that Jehovah is greater than Jesus, and even that Jesus is not Jehovah is false (1Pe 2:3 note). Rev 3:2, +Joh 20:17.

and the name. As one of its citizens (JFB). >Eze 48:35, Php 3:20.

of the city. *Rev 21:2; *Rev 21:3; *Rev 21:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; Rev 22:19, Psa 48:8; Psa 87:3, 4, 5, 6, Isa 33:20; Isa 56:5; Isa 60:14, Eze 48:35, Mat 4:5, *Gal 4:26; *Gal 4:27, Php 3:20, Heb 11:8, 9, 10; Heb 11:16; Heb 11:39, 40; *Heb 12:22; Heb 13:14.

new. Gr. kainos (S# G2537, Mar 2:22 note). Not the old Jerusalem, once called “the holy city,” but having forfeited the name. Greek, “nea,” would express that it had recently come into existence; but Greek, “kaine,” that which is new and different, superseding the worn-out old Jerusalem and its polity (JFB).

Jerusalem. **Rev 21:2; **Rev 21:3; Rev 21:10, Psa 48:1, 2; Psa 48:8, 9, Eze 48:35, %Joh 1:19 g.

cometh down. Rev 21:2; Rev 21:10.

out of heaven. Gr. ouranos (S# G3772). Occurs 52 times in Revelation, always in the singular, save Rev 12:12 (CB). Isa 11:9, +*Mat 6:9, Luk 6:23, Php 3:20, 21, +*1Pe 1:4 note.

my God. +Joh 20:17.

my new name. See Rev 14:1; Rev 22:4; Isa 62:2; Isa 65:15. Contrast the name branded on the worshippers of the beast, Rev 13:16; Rev 14:11; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:4 (CB). +Rev 2:17; Rev 7:3; Rev 9:4; %Rev 13:16; %Rev 13:17; *Rev 14:1; %Rev 17:5; Rev 19:12; Rev 19:16; Rev 20:4; *Rev 22:4, Gen 32:27, 28, Exo 28:36, 37, 38, Jdg 13:18, Psa 72:17, >Isa 62:2; >Isa 65:15, Eze 48:35, Mat 1:21; Mat 1:23; Mat 11:27, %Joh 5:43; Joh 17:6, Act 11:26, 1Co 2:12; 1Co 13:12, Eph 3:15, Php 2:9, 1Jn 3:2.

MY NOTES FROM THE UCRT FOR JOHN 20:17:

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 20:17

Touch. Present imperative, used to prohibit action in progress. FS108B15, Idiom F/S 827, “To touch” is used for detention, or for diverting from any purpose. Note: Or rather, “embrace me not,” or “cling not to me,” mē mou aptou, “Spend no more time with me now in joyful gratulations: for I am not yet immediately going to ascend to my Father—you will have several opportunities of seeing me again; but go and tell my disciples that I shall depart to my Father and your Father.” %Joh 20:27, 2Ki 4:29; 2Ki 7:9, Song 3:4, Mat 8:3; Mat 8:15; Mat 9:20, 21; Mat 9:29; *Mat 28:7; **Mat 28:9; *Mat 28:10, Luk 10:4; **Luk 24:39, 2Co 5:16, **1Jn 1:1.

for. This gives the reason for the prohibition. He afterwards allowed the women to hold Him by the feet (Mat 28:9). On this day, the morrow after the Sabbath, the high priest would be waving the sheaf of the firstfruits before the Lord (Lev 23:10, 11 note); while He, the firstfruits from the dead (1Co 15:23), would be fulfilling the type by presenting Himself before the Father (CB). The “for” may refer (1) to the whole sentence which follows, or (2) only to the first clause. In the first case the imminent, though not realized, Ascension of the Lord would be regarded as forbidding the old forms of earthly intercourse. In the second case the Ascension would be presented as the beginning and condition of a new union. The latter seems to be unquestionably the true view, and falls in with the moral circumstances of the incident (Westcott).

I am. FS96C1, +Gen 4:1.

not yet. Joh 2:4.

ascended. Luk 24:51, Act 1:2, *Heb 4:14; *Heb 4:15, 1Pe 3:22.

my Father. The most ancient authorities omit the pronoun my, reading the Father (Westcott). The difference of the paternal relation of the One Father to Christ and Christians is indicated in a very remarkable manner, where the unity of the Person is shewn by the one article common to the two clauses, and the distinctness of the relations by the repetition of the title [Father] with the proper personal pronoun (Westcott on 1Jn 1:2). Joh 2:16.

my brethren. Joh 21:23, Psa 22:22, Eze 34:31, *Mat 12:49; +*Mat 12:50; *Mat 25:40; *+Mat 28:10, *Mar 3:34, +*Luk 8:21, Rom 8:29, *Heb 2:11, 12, 13.

I ascend. FS96C7, +Mat 26:24. *Joh 13:1; *Joh 13:3; +*Joh 14:1, 2, 3; +*Joh 14:6; +*Joh 14:12; +**Joh 14:28; *Joh 16:28; Joh 17:5; Joh 17:11; Joh 17:25, Psa 16:6; Psa 24:3; *Psa 68:18; Psa 89:26, +Mar 16:19, *Luk 24:49, 50, 51, Act 1:2, *Eph 1:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; *Eph 4:8, 9, 10, 1Ti 3:16, 1Pe 1:3; 1Pe 3:22.

unto. Joh 7:33; Joh 14:12; Joh 14:28; Joh 16:5; Joh 16:10; Joh 16:28.

my Father. Joh 2:16; +Joh 5:17; Joh 14:19, 20; Joh 15:15; Joh 17:11; Joh 18:11, Isa 42:1, Mat 3:17, Mar 14:36, *Rom 8:29; *+Rom 15:6, 2Co 1:3; 2Co 11:31, Eph 1:3, 4, 5; Eph 3:14, 15; Eph 4:6, Heb 2:11, 1Jn 1:3, Rev 1:6.

your Father. *Joh 1:12, 13, 14, =Num 18:2, Mat 5:16; Mat 5:45; Mat 5:48; Mat 6:1; Mat 6:4; Mat 6:6; Mat 6:8; +*Mat 6:9; Mat 6:14, 15; Mat 6:18; Mat 6:26; Mat 6:32, Luk 12:30, Rom 1:7; *Rom 8:14, 15, 16, 17, 1Co 1:3, *2Co 6:18, Gal 1:4; *Gal 3:26; Gal 4:6, 7 note. Eph 1:2, Col 1:12, 1Th 3:11, *+1Jn 3:1; *+1Jn 3:2, *Rev 21:7.

my God. *Psa 22:10; Psa 31:14; Psa 45:7; Psa 63:1, Mic 5:4, Zec 11:4, Mat 27:46, %1Co 3:23; 1Co 8:6, *Eph 1:17, +*Heb 1:8; +*Heb 1:9, 2Pe 1:17, Rev 3:12.

your God. +Gen 17:7; +Gen 17:8, Psa 43:4; *Psa 48:14; Psa 103:13, *Isa 41:10, *Jer 31:1; *Jer 31:33; Jer 32:38, Eze 36:28; Eze 37:27, Dan 6:22, Hos 9:17, *Zec 13:7, 8, 9, 1Co 8:6, Eph 1:3, Php 4:19, *Heb 8:10; +*Heb 11:16, *Rev 21:3.

MY NOTES FOR GENESIS 17:8

Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

their God. Abrahamic Covenant provision

(20), God to be a God to Abraham’s seed as “their God” (Gen 12:2 note). +*Gen 17:7, Exo_6:7; Exo 20:2; **Exo 29:45, **+Lev 26:12; Lev 26:45, Deut 4:37; *Deut 14:2; *Deut 26:18; *Deut 29:13, +**2Sa 7:24, Psa 47:9, *Jer 11:4; Jer 24:7; **Jer 30:22; Jer 31:1; Jer 31:32, 33, Eze 11:20; Eze 14:11; Eze 34:24; Eze 34:31; Eze 36:28; Eze 37:23; Eze 48:35, Hos 2:23; Hos 8:2, Joe 2:17, *Zec 8:8; Zec 10:6; Zec 13:9, Mat 19:14, +*Mar 12:26, *Joh 20:17, Act 2:39; +*Act 3:19, 20, 21; Act 13:17, Rom 3:29, **2Co 6:16, *Heb 8:10; +*Heb 11:16, **Rev 21:3.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Apologetics--Christian, Bible Promises, Bible Prophecy, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged Daily Bible Nugget #864 Revelation 3:12, Genesis 17:8 with full cross references, John 20:17 with full cross references, My answer to Johnnie Mack's question, Revelation 3:12 with full cross references, When the wrong question is asked answer the correct question | 8 Comments

Daily Bible Nugget #863, Acts 1:6

Posted on July 11, 2024 by Jerry

The Nugget:

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

My Comment:

How this verse is understood is a critical indicator of the correctness of one’s system of Bible prophecy.

Many interpreters get this verse wrong.

Not just wrong, but backwards!

Any Bible readers or interpreters who think this verse shows how wrong the Apostles were who asked this question are themselves the ones who are mistaken.

Those who suppose that the Apostles were mistaken in their belief that a literal earthly kingdom is to be restored to the nation of Israel likely misunderstand the promises Israel has been given as declared in the Old Testament.

Notice that the question itself centers upon the issue of the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not the fact that the kingdom will be restored again to Israel. The disciples asked “wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

It is not possible to correctly suppose that the Apostles were mistaken about the nature of the kingdom of God.

Jesus had just spent forty days after His resurrection with the Apostles “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Within the Gospel record itself we have the statement of Jesus that it was given to His disciples to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven in contrast to what Jesus said of the understanding of the general audience to whom such understanding was not given:

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

The expression “kingdom of heaven” is frequently Matthew’s terminology for “the kingdom of God.”

Jesus had already spoken of Abraham’s personal presence in the coming kingdom of heaven at Matthew 8:11.

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Why is this important?

The issue is significant in our day. This directly relates to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant promises given to Israel.

The promises to Abraham are directly stated in the New Testament at Acts 7:5 to have never been fulfilled:

Act 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (KJV)

Act 7:5 He gave him no property in it, not even a foot of land, and yet He promised to give it to him and his descendants after him, as a permanent possession, although he had no child at that time. (Williams NT)

The point is, that the promise was made personally to Abraham that he would himself inherit the promised land, but Abraham himself never personally possessed the land God promised to him. It is for this reason that God, who cannot lie, must resurrect Abraham and bring him personally into the promised land in order for the Abrahamic Covenant to be fulfilled.

Therefore, the Land Promise made to Abraham has never yet been fulfilled.

The Land Promise forms a most significant part of the Abrahamic Covenant and is mentioned in the following passages in Genesis which contain the enumerated provisions of this Covenant:

(8) The land of Canaan given to Abraham’s seed, Gen 12:7;

Genesis 12:7
7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
King James Version

(9) Abraham personally and his seed are to inherit the land as promised, the land of Canaan or Palestine, Gen 13:15;

Genesis 13:15
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
King James Version

(10) The land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed forever, Gen 13:15;

(17) The Abrahamic Covenant declared an everlasting or perpetual covenant, Gen 17:7;

Genesis 17:7
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
King James Version

(19) All the land of Canaan to be an “everlasting possession,” Gen 17:8;

Genesis 17:8
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
King James Version

The ultimate extent of the Land Promise is specified in Genesis 15:18.

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

How long is the promise to Abraham good for? The Bible plainly declares the promise is forever at 2 Chronicles 20:7.

2 Chronicles 20:7
7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?
King James Version

Another passage of Scripture which confirms the permanence of the Land Promise is found in Leviticus 26:42.

Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

Granted that Leviticus 26:42 is preceded by some conditions for Israel to be fully restored to its land and restored to God’s favor as specified by the all-important “If” stated in Leviticus 26:40 and Leviticus 26:41.

Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

God has been patiently waiting for Israel to come to repentance. The Bible specifies when or under what circumstances this will take place. In the meantime, Israel is now in the land in unbelief, just as was prophesied in Zephaniah 2:1 and context.

Posted in Bible Promises, Bible Prophecy, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly | Tagged Daily Bible Nugget #863 Acts 1:6, How you understand Acts 1:6 is a good test of how well you understand Bible prophecy, The Land Promise documented and explained | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #862, John 14:3

Posted on June 29, 2024 by Jerry

The Nugget:

Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

From Ken Sagely’s Facebook Post:

THE LORD’S COMING

JOHN 14.3

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

ACTS 1.11

Which also said, ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

1 THESSALONIANS 4.16-17

For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

TITUS 2.13-14

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ:

Who gave himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 JOHN 2.28

And now, little children, abide in him that, when he shall appear, we may confidence, and not be ashamed before him at His Coming

PHILIPPIANS 3.20

For our citizenship is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

COME THOU FOUNT OF EVERY BLESSING

Come Thou Fount of every blessing
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace,

Steams of mercy. never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above:
Praise His name I’m fixed upon it
Name of God’s redeeming love.

PSALM 117.1-2

O PRAISE the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. For His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever: Praise ye the LORD

My Comment:

I am most thankful for the work of my long-time friend, Ken Sagely, who prepared the above material. He shares the Scriptures daily on Facebook. Thank you Ken for granting me permission to repost some of your encouraging work here.

Dig deeper by searching the Scriptures using the following cross references for John 14:3 as given in The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

John 14:3
And if. FS184C, +Mat 4:9.

I. FS159, +Eze 36:23, The repetition of the pronouns “I” and “you” emphasizes the fact that nothing is to come between the Lord and the hearts of His people, so that His promised return may be the object ever before them (F/S 263).

I go. Joh 10:4; Joh 13:36; Joh 16:7, Luk 5:35, Act 7:55, Heb 6:20.

prepare. Gr. hetoimazō (S# G2090, Phm 1:22). Exo 23:20, Lev 16:16, +*Mat 25:34, Luk 22:8, Heb 9:23, **Rev 21:2.

a place. +*Joh 14:2, Psa 15:1.

I will. Joh 14:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; Joh 14:28. *Joh 12:26; *Joh 17:24, **Isa 64:4, Mat 25:32, 33, 34, +*Act 1:11; Act 7:59, 60, Rom 8:17, 2Co 5:6, 7, 8, *Php 1:23, **1Th 4:16, 17, 2Th 1:12; 2Th 2:1, *2Ti 2:12, *Heb 9:28, **1Jn 3:2; **1Jn 3:3, Rev 3:21; Rev 21:22, 23; Rev 22:3, 4, 5.

come again. +*Mat 24:3; +*Mat 24:30; Mat 25:34; Mat 26:64, Luk 9:52 g. +*Act 1:11, 1Co 11:26; 1Co 15:23, +*Php 1:26; Php 3:20, 21, 1Th 4:14, **2Th 2:1, **Tit 2:13, Heb 9:28, **1Jn 3:2, +*Rev 1:7; Rev 2:25.

receive you. *Psa 49:15; Psa 73:24, +*Ecc 3:21, Song 1:4, Zec 8:8, Mat 25:21, *1Co 15:51, 2Co 5:1, *Php 3:20; *Php 3:21, **1Th 4:13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

unto myself. Joh 14:18; Joh 14:28. Joh 21:22, 23, Psa 45:15; Psa 84:7.

that where. %Joh 7:34; +Joh 12:26; **Joh 17:24, Psa 132:13 14, Song 6:2, +**Luk 23:43 note. *2Co 5:8, **1Th 4:13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 2Th 2:14.

there ye may be. *Joh 17:24, Gen 45:10, Psa 101:6; +*Psa 140:13, +*Mat 19:28; +*Mat 26:29, *Luk 12:32, Eph 2:6, **Col 3:4, **1Th 4:17, +*2Th 2:1; +*2Th 2:2, *Rev 3:21.

Posted in Bible Promises, Bible Prophecy, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Ken Sagely contributions | Tagged Daily Bible Nugget #862 John 14:3, John 14:3 cross reference Bible study, Ken Sagely contributions, Second Coming Promised John 14:3 | 3 Comments

How to resolve differing Bible interpretations Part 6

Posted on June 28, 2024 by Jerry

The Text:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Act 2:38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, (YLT, Young’s Literal Translation)

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, “You must repent — and, as an expression of it, let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ — that you may have your sins forgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, (Williams NT)

The Challenge:

Acts 2:38 (Pentecostals vs. Baptists): “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.” Pentecostals emphasize baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, whereas Baptists emphasize baptism as a symbol of professing faith.

My Response:

Both the Pentecostals and the Baptists (though to a far less degree) are mistaken about the meaning of Acts 2:38 if they emphasize what is claimed in The Challenge.

Differences of opinion as to the correct meaning of Acts 2:38 can be resolved by a careful appeal to the grammar involved in this text, an example of my Rule of Interpretation 10. Interpret a passage according to the grammar of the original language text, Hebrew or Greek.

You may not agree with my analysis. My analysis steps on many toes! Don’t let your feelings be hurt. Read to learn, not criticize based on what you think you know already. If you disagree, leave a comment!

Our witness for Christ is greatly hampered if we are not teaching the truth about what the Bible teaches. When you do real Bible study, be prepared to learn something new. The challenge above was presented to me by a well-informed Muslim who may know more about what the Bible teaches than many Christians do. This is an example of doing careful apologetics (1 Peter 3:15) and defending the faith “once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). If you don’t like these kinds of discussions, that is a good sign that you need to grow in your faith (2 Peter 3:18) and progress beyond the first stages of your Christian life (Hebrews 5:11, 12, 13) by taking time to understand the Bible more accurately.

My Evidence:

I have provided evidence that properly explains Acts 2:38 in both my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and my digital expansion of that resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, from which the following information is taken:

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said. Act 1:13, Mar 1:17.

Repent. The English text does not adequately convey the grammar of this verse. When the grammar is understood, the verse no longer can be used to support any view of baptismal regeneration or baptismal remission of sin.

A. The underlying Greek grammar

The phrase “every one of you” is mistakenly understood to be the subject of the verbs “repent” and “be baptized,” with the phrase “for the remission of sins” modifying this alleged compound predicate.

There are three clauses in this verse:

(1) Ye: understood subject, second person, plural number. repent: verb, aorist tense, active voice, imperative mood, second person, plural number.

(2) every one of you: subject, third person, singular number. be baptized: verb, aorist tense, passive voice, imperative mood, third person, singular number. for the remission of sins. modifying phrase, expressing the ground or basis of the baptism commanded (if understood of ritual water baptism), or the result (if understood of real baptism) of the baptism received.

(3) ye. subject, second person, plural number. shall receive. verb, future tense, indicative mood, passive voice, second person, plural number. the gift of the Holy Ghost. direct object of the verb.

Note particularly in the above analysis that the first and third clauses agree with each other in that both are in the second person and plural number for their subject and verb.

The second clause does not agree in person and number of its subject and verb with the preceding or following clause.

This makes it impossible to make “every one of you,” which is third person singular, the subject of both “repent” (second person plural) and “be baptized” (third person singular), for subjects and verbs must agree in person and number. A. T. Robertson observes that this change in person and number “marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve” (Word Pictures, vol. 3, p. 34).

Peter thus commanded all in his audience to repent. Upon repentance, each individual was then to be baptized on the basis that the specific individual’s sin had been remitted upon their placing faith upon the name of Jesus Christ. Since the first and third clauses agree in person and number, the thought is that reception of the Holy Spirit is the consequence of faith upon the name of Christ, not ritual water baptism. +*Act 3:19; *Act 5:31; Act 8:22; Act 8:37; *Act 17:30; *Act 20:21; Act 26:18; Act 26:20, +*Psa 51:3, 4, 5, Isa 59:20, Hos 12:6, *Mat 3:2; *Mat 3:6; *Mat 3:8; *Mat 3:9; *Mat 3:11; *Mat 4:17; Mat 7:13; Mat 9:13; *Mat 21:28, 29, 30, 31, 32, Mar 1:5; Mar 1:15; Mar 6:12, Luk 1:77; Luk 3:3; Luk 5:32; Luk 6:42; +*Luk 13:3; +*Luk 13:5; *Luk 15:1-32; Luk 17:3, 4; *Luk 24:47, 2Co 7:10, +*2Ti 2:25, Heb 6:1, 2, **1Jn 1:9.

and. The force of this conjunction is neglected or misunderstood by some interpreters. The word “and” marks the gracious relation of cause and effect, as in the grammatical parallel at Act 3:19, “Repent and be converted.” The Holy Spirit who gives repentance does, therewith, confer baptism for the remission of sins (J. W. Dale, Christic Baptism, p. 142). This of itself proves that the reference is to real, not ritual water, baptism.

be baptized. The traditional understanding of this command is that it refers to ritual water baptism. An alternate view is that this is a reference to real baptism by the Holy Spirit.

The correctness of the alternative view is established by the fact that

(1) water is not mentioned in the context.

(2) The baptism is not “into water” but, literally, upon the name of Jesus Christ.

(3) Believing upon Jesus Christ is the ground upon which remission of sins is received.

(4) Ritual water baptism is never in Scripture said to secure for us the remission of sins, only real baptism possesses such efficacy.

(5) This real baptism takes the penitent sinner out of a state of guilt and places him into (eis) a new state of remission. This placement is permanent, and can hardly be symbolized by a momentary dipping in water, for the relationship established is permanent (Col 2:12 note).

(6) Only real baptism by the Holy Spirit can produce the change in condition always marked by the term “baptize” (1Co 10:2 note) when the subject is spiritual baptism. Act 2:41, *Act 8:12; *Act 8:36, 37, 38; Act 9:18; +Act 13:24; *Act 16:15; *Act 16:31, 32, 33, 34; +*Act 22:16, +*Mat 3:11 note. *Mat 28:19 note. *+Mar 16:16, +*Joh 3:5; Joh 7:39, Gal 3:27, 28, Tit 3:5, +*Heb 10:22, *1Pe 3:21; *1Pe 3:22.

in. Gr. epi, lit. upon. With the dative case, as here, epi means “upon (ground, reason)” (Professor Harrison, Greek Prepositions, p. 266, cited by J. W. Dale, Christic Baptism, p. 138).

Eric Sauer states “Under the influence of a psalm and a prophecy which speak of the Messianic ’cornerstone’ and ’foundation’ (Psa 118:22, Isa 28:16), Christ is described as the foundation of our life of faith ’upon’ (Gr. epi) Whom we believe (1Pe 2:6, Rom 10:11)” (From Eternity to Eternity, p. 46).

Dale gives some additional instructive examples.

(1) From the apocryphal book of Judith (Jdt 12:7), epi occurs in conjunction with the verb baptize in the expression “baptized herself upon the fountain.” The preposition expresses that upon which Judith rested when she baptized herself. Every “fountain” has “a lip,” an edge, on which one can stand and be baptized (+*Dan 12:5 mg).

(2) Clement of Alexandria (I. 1352) says: “It is a custom of the Jews to be baptized upon (Gr. epi) a couch.” The preposition points out that upon which the Jew rested when he received baptism; he rested upon a couch.

(3) Mat 3:13. Jesus came from Galilee toward, more literally, upon, the Jordan, meaning that when he reached it he rested upon it (every river, like every fountain, has “a lip,” an edge, a bank, upon which one can stand) to be baptized (+*Dan 12:5 mg; Mat 3:13 note).

“These examples present a physical basis on which the baptized rested. The case under consideration (Act 2:38) exhibits the moral basis upon which the soul must rest in receiving the baptism into the remission of sins” (Christic Baptism, p. 145). Dale explains “the soul to be baptized out of guilt into the remission of sins must rest, not upon repentance (as any meritorious or ultimate ground), but must rest upon that NAME, ’which is the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved,’ Jesus Christ,” and “every penitent sinner, resting upon Jesus Christ, as an atoning Redeemer, shall thereby be baptized into the remission of sins” (p. 145). Luk 24:47 Act 16:31 g. 1Co 3:11.

B. Why the Trinitarian formula is not stated here:

the name. The question often arises, why is not the Trinitarian formula of baptism given in Mat 28:19 utilized by the apostles in the book of Acts?

Of several answers which have been proposed, the best sees this shortened expression as the figure of speech FS171S11, Synecdoche of the Part, whereby a part is put for the whole, a shortened expression for the fuller expression.

It seems to be that the apostles indeed did use the full formula, but simply referred to the act of baptism by the shorter phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Act 2:38), “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Act 8:16; Act 19:5), or even shorter, “in the name of the Lord” (Act 10:48), in common with the wider practice of that day of being baptized “in the name” of one’s spiritual teacher, as John’s disciples were (Act 19:3), just as John, as well as Jesus, taught his disciples to pray, Luk 11:1, evidently in a distinct manner. Thus the expression pertains more to this distinctiveness than to the precise formula employed.

“As Waterland well puts it, ’The meaning is that the apostles baptized into the faith and religion of Christ, in that method and according to that form which our Lord Himself had prescribed’” (cited in Thomas Walker, Commentary on Acts, p. 54. The citation is from Daniel Waterland, Works, vol. 2, Sermon viii, “Christ’s Divinity Proved from the Form of Baptism,” p. 173).

Waterland continues, “The Apostles administered Christ’s, not John’s baptism; that baptism which Christ had appointed; St. Luke expresses it briefly by baptizing ‘in the name of Christ;’ not because it ran in his name only, but because it was instituted by his authority. Thus the practice of the Apostles is reconciled with the commission given them” (p. 173).

Other answers which have been proposed are less satisfactory. Some suggest that the Trinitarian formula was never used, but this would appear to place the disciples in direct disobedience to what our Lord commanded. To escape this difficulty, some (often in the name of “right division” of Scripture: 2Ti 2:15, 1Th 4:2 note) would refer the practice of baptism within narrow dispensational limits—the time of the establishment of Jewish Christian churches in the early part of Acts—suspending the validity of baptism for the church age (a view refuted at Mat 28:19 note), reserving it to the millennial kingdom, a view totally out of harmony with the general practice of Bible believing Christians throughout church history.

This view depends upon artificially dividing Scripture (1Th 4:2 note. 2Ti 2:15 note) in a manner unauthorized by its own content, by principles undiscoverable by the proverbial independent Bible reader on a desert island with no denominational “helps” to guide him, a quite sound rule for determining whether a teaching is truly Biblical (+*Isa 8:20 note. Act 17:11).

Such a view contradicts the Bible doctrine of the perpetuity of the ordinance establishing ritual baptism (Mat 28:19 note).

Still further astray is the “Jesus only” viewpoint, which suggests there is one God, “Jesus,” who is the Father and the Holy Spirit, into whose single name we are to be baptized. While maintaining the deity of Christ, this view is faulty by denying the existence of three distinct persons in the Godhead. Attempting to prove Jesus and the Father are one and the same person, some misapply such Scripture as Joh 10:30; Joh 14:7; Joh 14:9, for Christ’s own appeal to the Father as a witness distinct from Himself is fatal to this view (Joh 5:36, 37, 38). Act 3:6; Act 3:16; Act 4:10; **Act 4:12; Act 4:17, 18; Act 4:30; *Act 8:12; *+Act 8:16; Act 10:48; *Act 19:4; *Act 19:5, Gen 12:8, +**Mat 28:19, Rom 6:3, 1Co 1:13, 14, 15, 16, 17, Gal 3:27.

C. Multiple meanings of the preposition “for”

for. Gr. eis. Some would make this expression equivalent to the expression in Mat 26:28, where the same words “for the remission of sins” are found.

This assumes that the preposition “for” (Gr. eis) possesses the same meaning wherever it occurs.

(1) Here eis expresses either the “ground or basis” for the baptism, namely, the remission of sins consequent upon repentance and believing upon the name of Christ, or far better, the result of the real (not ritual) baptism attending true repentance and faith upon Christ.

(2) In Mat 26:28, eis expresses the aim or purpose of the death of Christ. When eis expresses purpose (as Mat 26:28), grammarians term this the telic use of eis.

Key Point:

J. W. Dale asserts “The telic use of eis with baptidzō (baptize) may, very confidently, be declared to have no existence, whether in the Scriptures or out of the Scriptures” (Christic Baptism, p. 144).

In other words, Dale asserts that the preposition eis is never used to express purpose in conjunction with the verb “baptize” in either Classical or Biblical (Koine) Greek.

Dale cites a passage from Clement of Alexandria (II. 1212), “they baptize out of (ek) chastity into (eis) fornication,” commenting “Who would think of translating this phrase, “They baptize out of temperance unto, for, in order to, fornication’?” (Christic Baptism, p. 144).

Dale asserts “it is impossible for eis to reach over baptized and receive a telic character from Repent exclusively” (p. 139). Thus the grammar forbids the notion that repentance is “in order to the remission of your sins.”

D. Neither Truth nor the Meaning of “for” is decided by a majority vote!

The preposition eis in this verse (Act 2:38) is one of the most debated prepositions in all the Word of God. But merely compiling long lists of scholars who translate or explain this preposition in a particular manner to defend the mistaken assertion that eis can only mean “unto” (or “in order to,” “with a view to,” “to the end that,” “for,” etc.) is not sound linguistic practice.

A list of scholars is no more valid than the validity of logic and evidence which they marshal to support their position (2Sa 5:23 note): the honor of the names cited or their number have no bearing on the strength of their case.

The scholars cited do not necessarily affirm that this must be the rendering here, particularly if they are not discussing the doctrinal implications which such a translation supports.

The preposition eis may mean “because of,” as at Mat 12:41, It may also mean “as a sign or profession of,” as at +*Mat 3:11 note. Mat 28:19, 1Co 1:13; 1Co 10:2.

Notice that in the last four passages cited, the preposition eis occurs in the same grammatical construction and with reference to the same subject, baptism. The preposition eis may be understood here to mean “the ground or basis of” (as in Mat 10:41; *Mat 12:41. See related notes at Mat 26:28 note. +*Mar 1:4 note), or it may legitimately be understood to indicate the result of believing upon the name of Jesus Christ. Each of these alternatives is certainly to be preferred to the view that we are baptized in order to receive remission of sins, a viewpoint contrary to the rest of the Word of God, and incompatible with Greek grammar, for eis never possesses a telic sense (expressing purpose, as when rendered “for”) in conjunction with the verb baptize.

E. Some individual Hebrew or Greek words cannot properly always be translated by the same English word at every occurrence

It is a fallacy, if not absurdity, to hold that a word in Greek or Hebrew must in every occurrence be translated by the same English word, or to suggest that at every occurrence of a word it always possesses exactly the same meaning. A reference to the classifications of the words “soul” and “spirit” (+Mat 2:20 note. +Mat 8:16 note) will demonstrate that single words may have numerous and quite different meanings.

This holds true for every part of speech. When translating from one language to another no word in one language possesses precisely the same range of meaning, connotation, and denotation as a single usually equivalent word of the other language, neither does it function with precisely the same or equivalent idioms (+*Act 8:39 note. Act 10:11 note. 1Jn 2:19 note).

This text (Acts 2:38) is a favorite of those who teach the mistaken doctrine of baptismal regeneration (along with Mar 16:16, Joh 3:5, Act 22:16, Gal 3:27, 1Pe 3:21).

Lewis Sperry Chafer’s remark regarding the tendency to build a whole system of belief upon one text applies equally well to those who build such a system upon several chosen texts of Scripture: “A certain type of mind seems able to construct all its confidence on an erroneous interpretation of one passage and to be uninfluenced by the overwhelming body of Scripture which contradicts that interpretation” (Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 380). %Mat 26:28 note. +Mar 1:4 note. Luk 3:3.

remission of sins. +Act 10:43; Act 13:38; Act 26:18, Lev 23:27, Luk 1:77; +Luk 7:48, Joh 20:23 note. Rom 6:3, 4; *Rom 10:9, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 10:18.

and ye shall receive. Act 2:16, 17, 18, Act 8:15, 16, 17; *Act 10:44; *Act 10:45, Isa 32:15; Isa 44:3, 4; Isa 59:21, +*Eze 36:25, 26, 27; Eze 39:29, +*Joe 2:28; +*Joe 2:29, +*Zec 12:10, Joh 20:22, **Gal 3:2; **Gal 3:14.

the gift. or, free gift. Gr. dōrea. Always used of divine gifts. The word dōron is always used of man’s gifts, except in Eph 2:8 (CB). Act 5:32; Act 8:15; Act 8:20; Act 10:45; Act 11:17, *Joh 4:10; +Joh 7:39, Heb 6:4.

Ghost. Gr. pneuma, +Mat 3:16, Act 2:33, Act 19:2, Eph 1:13.

Acts 2:38 (Pentecostals vs. Baptists): “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.” Pentecostals emphasize baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, whereas Baptists emphasize baptism as a symbol of professing faith.

Posted in Apologetics--Christian, Bible Study Tools, Doctrinal Discussions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged Church of Christ mistaken about Acts 2:38, Does Acts 2:38 teach baptismal regeneration by water baptism, Does Acts 2:38 teach baptismal remission of sins?, Does Acts 2:38 teach water baptism is required for salvation?, Eric Sauer cited on meaning of epi or upon, How to resolve differing Bible interpretations Part 6, James W. Dale on grammar of Acts 2:38, Lewis Sperry Chafer on basing belief on one Bible text, Multiple meanings of the preposition "for" (eis), Preposition eis never used to express purpose in connection with baptism, Rule of Interpretation 10 applied to understanding Acts 2:38 correctly, Why the Trinitarian formula for baptism is not used in Acts 2:38 | Leave a comment

The Atonement of Christ

Posted on June 23, 2024 by Jerry

The Text:

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (KJV)

1Jn 2:2 And He is Himself the atoning sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours alone, but also for the whole world. (Williams NT)

1Jn 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. (NET Bible)

1Jn 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. (WEB, World English Bible)

1Jn 2:2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world besides. (TCNT, Twentieth Century NT)

1Jn 2:2 He is the offering for our sins; and not for ours only, but for all the world. (BBE, Bible in Basic English)

1 John 2:2 And He, Himself, is Atonement concerning our sins; but not concerning ours only, but also concerning the world as a whole. (LNT, Lavender New Testament)

My Comment:

I have been studying the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ for many years. I am still studying this most important doctrine.

Penal substitution atonement is not biblically accurate and is not the teaching of the Bible.

I have discussed this subject thoroughly on my Real Bible Study website. Use the search feature and enter the term “atonement” to see some of what I have written there.

As far as I understand the subject as of now, I believe the Bible teaches the priestly-sacrificial Atonement of Christ. He is both the priest and the offering as emphatically stated in 1 John 2:1-2.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (KJV)

1Jn 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. (WEB, World English Bible)

Translations which employ the term “propitiation” are mistaken. Like Loew and Nida remark in their lexicon (40.12), God is already on our side and does not require propitiation.

There is an apparent contradiction between what is written in Romans 2:13 compared to what is stated in Romans 3:20.

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (KJV)

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The apparent contradiction is resolved when we take into account what was true under the Law in contrast to what is true under Christ.

I did not come up with these insights on my own. I learned much from my scholar friend, Dr. Malcolm Lavender, who solicited my help in editing his writings on the subject and preparing his Lavender’s New Testament.

I have placed many of Dr. Lavender’s notes by permission in my digital Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, which is an expanded version of my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.

Posted in Doctrinal Discussions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly | Tagged 1 John 2:2, Does Romans 2:13 contradict Romans 3:20, Lavender New Testament cited, Propitiation wrong term for Atonement, The Atonement of Christ | Leave a comment

Real Bible Study

Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?

Who Wrote the Gospel of Mark?

Who wrote the Gospel of John?

Read more carefully before you criticize the Bible!

Daily Bible Nugget #864, Revelation 3:12

Daily Bible Nugget #863, Acts 1:6

Daily Bible Nugget #862, John 14:3

How to resolve differing Bible interpretations Part 6

The Atonement of Christ

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives