Truth On Tough Texts
ISSUE 36 - July
2008
Reader Questions
(2)
Selected Texts
AS MENTIONED BACK IN OUR JANUARY
2007 issue (#30), we receive many
questions from readers and decided to dedicate an entire
issue of TOTT
periodically to answer such
questions. This is our second installment, and we pray
these questions and answers will be of blessing and help
to many. Our thanks to each one of you who wrote, and we
hope that this will generate questions from others.
What is the
Meaning Of Mathew 7:6?
Q: I thank you
greatly for your response to my last question on three
days and three nights [see TOTT
#30]. My question this time is on
Matthew 7:6. I have read this verse many times and am in
question about it. I know this is a book written with
Jewish readers in mind, but I am confused as to what
they would have understood. It almost seems to me to be
out of place. (DP)
A: I am very
thankful for this question. It addresses a
verse that is much needed in our day: Give not that
which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn again and rend you.
This verse is not at
all “out of place.” On the contrary, it comes on the
heels of a crucial passage on “judgment” and
“discernment.” As mentioned way back in TOTT #10 in our series “Where Has Our Discernment
Gone?” (#8–10), many today read verse 1—“Judge not, that
ye be not judged”—and then immediately cry, “See there,
Jesus says we are not supposed to be critical of anyone;
we should not criticize what they believe or say.” That,
of course, is always the cry of tolerance: “Just leave
me alone; don’t judge what I say; don’t ask any
questions; just let things be.”
But that is clearly
not what Jesus is saying when you take the time to read
the context,
verses 2–5. He says, in effect, we are not to
judge and discern hypocritically or judge
someone’s motives and attitudes, which have
nothing to do with what someone teaches. They
might have the purest motive and sweetest attitude, but
that is never the issue; the issue is what they
teach. Each of us is tempted to hold others to a
higher standard than we hold ourselves, which is
hypocrisy, so we must first make sure of our own life,
make sure our standard is consistent, and then
discern actions. In fact, that is exactly what Jesus
says: “First, get the log out of your own eye and
then you can remove the
splinter that’s in your
brother’s eye.” Our Lord did not say, “Leave the
splinter where it is.” He said, “Deal with the error in
your life first and then address the error in your
brother.”
Now we come to verse 6,
which clearly shows once again that Jesus did not forbid
every kind of judgment (or discernment). He instructs
His disciples here that when they discern certain people
to be either dogs or swine, they should not cast before
them things that are holy (pearls). In that day dogs
were not the sweet, lovable pets we have in our homes
today, rather most of them were wild, savage scavengers.
Pigs also were wild, vicious scavengers and were the
quintessential picture of filth and uncleanness. Jesus’
Jewish listeners (and readers), then, would have
immediately understood His meaning. As unthinkable as it
would be to cast anything of value to such animals—for
they would just trample them into the filth—it is
equally unimaginable that we would continue to share the
Gospel or other holy truths with people who do nothing
but mock, malign, and molest such spiritual riches.
People do enough of this without our giving them more
opportunity and even an open forum.
This was, in fact,
precisely the reason our Lord began to speak in
parables. Read Matthew 13:10–15, 34, noting that Jesus
deliberately chose to hide certain truths from
unbelievers, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah
6:9–10.
There will,
therefore, be times when you will witness to someone who
reacts with abject scorn, from whom we should turn away
and “shake off the dust of [our] feet” (Matt. 10:5–15).
In his wonderful single-volume commentary, The
Believer’s Bible Commentary,
William MacDonald writes:
When we meet vicious
people who treat divine truths with utter contempt and
respond to our preaching of the claims of Christ with
abuse and violence, we are not obligated to continue to
share the gospel with them. To press the matter only
brings increased condemnation to the offenders. Needless
to say, it requires spiritual perception to discern
these people. Perhaps that is why the next verses take
up the subject of prayer, by which we can ask for
wisdom.[i]
If I may, I would
dare apply this principle to an increasingly common
practice today that is really quite appalling. More and
more we see evangelicals (some calling themselves
“Christian Apologists”) holding discussions and debates
with atheists, evolutionists, Muslims, and every other
apostate and enemy of Christ under the sun. While we
most certainly do not doubt the pure motives and
evangelistic zeal of such “apologists,” what else can we
call this except “casting pearls before swine”? While
Paul could have stood toe-to-toe with the Greek
philosophers in Corinth and debated them right out of
the forum, that is not what he did; rather he
simply preached the Gospel (I Cor. 2:1–5). It is not our
well-argued points or our refutation of the other
person’s position that wins anyone to Christ, rather
God’s power that does the work. It is “the gospel of
Christ” itself that is “the
power of God unto salvation” (Rom.
1:16).
What does
Proverbs 8:22–31 Mean?
Q: Proverbs 8:22–31
has frustrated me so much, and no one has been able to
give me a direct answer. What does this mean? Is this
talking about Christ, and if so, does this means He was
a created being? I believe in the always existent Triune
Godhead. (WL)
A: Well, I will
certainly try to give you a “direct answer,” and I do
pray it will help alleviate your frustration.
While this passage
has been interpreted as representing a picture of
Christ, there is really no justification for doing so.
The context is about the eternal character of
wisdom, and there is no merit
to the idea that it is Messianic. Yes, Christ is the
Word (Jn. 1:1, 14), He is the revelation of God’s wisdom
(1 Cor. 1:24), and He possesses all wisdom and knowledge
(Col. 2:3), but this passage is not prophetic.
One glaring reason that it
is not a reference to Christ is that we are forced to
conclude that He was brought forth, that is, created.
Such an idea, of course is apostasy, for He “was in the
beginning with God. All things were made by him; and
without him was not any thing made that was made. In him
was life; and the life was the light of men” (Jn.
1:2–4). Another reason is if Christ is “wisdom” here, to
be consistent every other reference to wisdom in
Proverbs would also have to refer to Him, an odd idea to
say the least.
The view that this
is a reference to Christ is actually not at all new. The
Targum—oral Aramaic paraphrases (not translations) of
the Old Testament made from the 2nd Century
to about the 7th Century AD—makes this wisdom
a living entity by translating the passage: “God created
me in the beginning of his creatures.” As Commentator
Adam Clarke observes, “This is as absurd and heretical
as some modern glosses on the same passage.” This is
also how the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old
Testament—handles the passage, which is what Arius—a
4th Century parish priest in Alexandria—used
to teach his apostate doctrine that Jesus was not
coequal with God but was a created being. Arianism has
been taught in numerous forms ever since, one of the
most recent variations being the 2003 book, The Da
Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
What we see here, then, is
wisdom as a personification of God’s own attribute of
wisdom. “The passage shows,” writes Charles Ryrie, “that
wisdom is older than creation and is fundamental to it
(v. 23), that it assisted in creation as a master
workman (v. 30), and that it rejoiced in creation (vv.
30–31).”[ii] This leads to a related
question.
What Does
Colossians 1:15 Mean ?
Q: I need some clarification on Colossians 1:15.
What does it mean in this context to be the firstborn of
all creation? (WL)
A: At first glance,
this verse is, indeed, troublesome: [Christ] is the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature. Is this saying that Christ was a created
being? If so, then God also gave Christ the power of
creation, as verse 16 goes on to say: “by him were all
things created.” Such an idea, of course, is fraught
with problems. This would also mean that verses that
ascribe worship to Christ (Jn. 13:13; Heb. 1:6; I cor.
1:2; etc.) are false and teach an apostate idea, for
only God can receive worship (Matt. 4:10; etc.), not
something that God created.
So what about that
word firstborn? This word is used in three distinct ways
in Scripture. In the literal sense, it speaks of
physical birth, as when Mary “brought forth her
firstborn son” (Lk. 2:7). In the figurative
sense, it is used to refer to a distinctive place that
something has, as when God called Israel His “son, even
my firstborn” (Ex. 4:22). Finally, it is also used to
denote superior or supremacy, as when God said He
would make David His “firstborn, higher than the kings
of the earth” (Ps. 89:27).
It is, therefore,
in that last sense that Paul asserts that Christ, as the
eternal Son, holds the position of supremacy in relation
to all creation. He was before all things (v.
17), He created all things (v. 16), and He
sustains all things (v.
17).
Should We
Pray to Jesus?
Q: How would you respond (or would you respond) to
those who address prayers to Jesus instead of God the
Father when praying aloud? (BM)
A: In case other
readers need clarification, the biblical method for
prayer is: pray to the Father through the
Son in the power of the Holy
Spirit.
First,
Scripture is clear that we are to pray to the
Father; He is the Object.
This is the guideline in “The Model Prayer” (Matt.
6:9–13). After saying, “After this manner [or, “in this
way”] therefore pray ye,” the first principle Jesus
states is: “Father, Who art in heaven. Hallowed be Thy
name.” This is foundational.
The Beloved J. Vernon
McGee insightfully observes, “Someone may ask whether we
can’t pray to Jesus. I think you can if you wish to, but
why do you rob yourself of an intercessor? Jesus is up
there at God’s right hand for you, praying for you. That
is the reason that we should pray to the Father in the
name of Jesus.[iii]
Third, The
Holy Spirit then is the Interpreter. Romans 8:26–27 explains: “Likewise the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not
what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit
itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which
cannot be uttered [or, “dismayed sighs that cannot be
expressed in words”]. And he that searcheth the hearts
knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he
maketh intercession for the saints according to the will
of God.” It is the Holy Spirit Who gives us the power to
pray. He takes our prayers to the Father; He interprets
them because we do not know all there is to know about
prayer. How could we possibly approach God without the
Holy Spirit to interpret?
What are the
Origins of “Pope”
Q:
What are the origins and meaning of
“Pope.” (BM)
A: The word
“pope” itself is from the Latin papa, which
in-turn is from the Greek pappas, “father.” It refers, of course, to the leader
of the Roman Catholic “church.” While the Pope is
referred to as “Holy Father,” the Lord Jesus expressly
forbade His disciples from calling any man “father” in
the spiritual sense: “Call no man your father upon the
earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”
(Matt. 23:9).
The entire shaky
foundation for this title is based upon only two texts
of Scripture, according the Catholic
Encyclopedia. The first is
Matthew 16:16–19. For 1500 years Rome has taught, “Here
then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the
Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him,
and that this Church will be built on Peter.” It goes on
to say, “The word for Peter and for rock in the original
Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident
that the various attempts to explain the term ‘rock’ as
having reference not to Peter himself but to something
else are misinterpretations.”
[v]
This teaching,
however, is not faithful to the Greek text. The
words behind “Peter” and “rock” in the Greek are most
certainly not the same. In Classical Greek,
petra (“rock”) refers to a large rock, such as a
boulder, cliff, bedrock, or even a mountain chain. It
(with petros, “Peter,” a smaller stone that a man
can throw) is, of course, where we get English words
such as petrify (turning
organic matter into rock) and petroleum (oil
that comes from the earth or even from rock, as in the
case of oil shale). It also carries the figurative
meaning, as Homer used it in his
Odyssey, of firmness and
immovability of character. Aeschylus and Euripides also
used it to denote hardheartedness.
Using
a play on words, then, our Lord is plainly saying that
He will build His church, not on Peter
(Petros, a throwable stone), as Catholicism
teaches, but on Himself, Who is the large rock, the
bedrock, the foundation stone, the “cornerstone,” (Eph.
2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4–8; cf. I Cor. 3:11). Jesus then adds
that it is because of that foundation that nothing will
ever “prevail against” (katischuo, “overcome, overpower, vanquish”)
His church, not “Peter’s
church.”
The
other text on which the “Papacy” (the name for the
Pope’s office) is built is John
21:15–17, and this teaching is even more absurd than that
on the Matthew passage. It insists that the Greek
poimaino, “feed” in verse 16,
which also means “rule,” fulfills the promise Jesus made
to Peter in the Matthew passage. Such a conclusion is
transparent conjecture, concocted to prop up a feeble
theory. There is not a single word in this passage that
states, or even implies, Peter’s supremacy, rather that
he, like all other pastors, will teach and lead God’s
people (cf. Acts. 20:28; Eph. 4:11–12;
etc.).
As mentioned earlier,
Rome’s teaching has existed for 1500 years. So what
about before that time? A fact Rome tries to downplay is
that the Papacy did not even exist until 590, when
Gregory I (590–604) was the first bishop to be appointed
“supreme bishop.” In order then to defend the idea of
“apostolic succession”—the tracing of the Papacy back to
Peter—Rome went back through history picking certain
bishops and dubbing them as links in the chain back to
the supposed “first pope.” That list, which has been
revised several times and is currently at 63
bishops,[vi] is questionable at
best. A quick glance at the first ten, for example,
confirms that very little is known about them, and
several of those that follow are not even clearly
defined figures of history.
To say, therefore, that
the Roman Catholic papacy can be traced back through
history to Peter is one of the most patently ridiculous,
blatantly dishonest, and appallingly unscholarly
statements to be made in the history of the world. Does
that surprise us? Not in the least. Roman Catholicism is
the most evil perversion of Christianity Satan could
devise. It is pagan, wicked, and deceptive. It is a
works-oriented system that perverts the work of Christ
in many blasphemous ways (the Papacy being one) and was
the reason the Protestant Reformation was necessary. How
sad it is that many “evangelicals” today are trying to
undo it.[vii]
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
William
MacDonald, Believer’s Bible
Commentary (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995),
p.1228.
[iii] J.
Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible
(comment on Jn. 16:23–24).
[iv] R.
C. Sproul, The Purpose of God: An
Exposition of Ephesians (Christian Focus
Publications, 1994), p. 153.
[v] Catholic
Encyclopedia.
You can read the entire article at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.
[vi] Ibid,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm.
[vii] The
reader might want to listen to The Five
Solas of the Reformation series on our
website, available there in MP3
media.
